Lesbian Custody Battle!!

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
So this is a very liberal interpretation of a controversial court matter, the first in History in which a married lesbian couple went into a custody battle over the custody of the biological child of one parent in the state of NY. Even though one was the biological parent, custody was granted to the non-biological parent because the judge thought that she was a better parent? My question is, who gave this judge the authority to steal away your own child from you, because it wasn't god and I can only wonder where the father was and how he must feel about all of this.



This is the clear and present danger of legal gay marriage. Agree with it or not, it is the children who will ultimately suffer.

Gays have always had the right to marry, just not man marrying another man or women and women. Marriage is a union between man and women and this is exactly why, not to mention anatomy and basic principles of birthing a child.

The gay marriage agenda is an full fledged assault on families and children as if the family didn't already face enough personal threats from the state. Who ultimately suffers, the parent but more importantly the child who is still developing and can develop serious psychological problems, possible mental and physical abuse that will follow them for the rest of their lives.

This is the problem with civil rights activists, once they get their way, they tread all over the rights and liberties of others.

Don't tread on me!




posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
How is this different than any other custody battle? The child is probably traumatized either way.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Hushabye
 


Well this child has now lost both of its biological parents.

Totally different ball game now!



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


You mean gay people arent perfect either?!?!?


Ive never heard of straight people getting divorced... this proves it to me,,,

my father beat me,, and harassed me,,,, I wish i had two lesbian moms,,


but ^^^ it was no problem to deal with,,, because heterosexual,, traditional marriage parents are perfect,,



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
edit on 4-10-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


SO you think that divorce among same sex couples is somehow different than with straight couples?

You're kidding right? Do you honestly think that kids are more negatively effected by their gay parents being divorced than straight ones?

A broken home is a broken home my friend.

Sorry, but your attempt at smearing the gay community for something that occurs, regardless of whether or not gay marriage is legal or not, is pretty poor.

This isn't a 'gay rights issue', this is a family custody issue and a family court issue. The fact that they are gay has nothing to do with it.

At all.

~Tenth



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
So, quite obviously, the father wasn't in the picture and probably was nothing more than a bottle of sperm so the OP's point about that is moot in this story, according to what I can tell. The child was legally adopted by the woman, so if the father was ever in the picture, he surrendered his rights.

A custody battle is no less harmful to a child no matter what gender the parents are. If biological mother in this case was just a bad mom, unfit for custody, does it matter what gender the other parent is? Are you saying that the biological mother is automatically the better parent in this case simply because she was the one who gave birth?



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I understand straight couples divorce and often times custody goes to the mom, because the states judges in regards to this are elected not by people but what is called "merit selection"

Personally if you are gay I have no problem with that, but no this is not about sexuality. This is about the state trampling on more and more of your god given rights as stated in the constitution.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused
 


Most fathers don't just surrender their rights. The state surrenders their rights for them. Unless they have thousands of dollars for legal fees, lawyers and lots of spare time, they didn't have any rights to begin with.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I understand straight couples divorce and often times custody goes to the mom, because the states judges in regards to this are elected not by people but what is called "merit selection"


That's because the family court system is very entrenched in making sure mothers are the preffered party. The courts are VERY Misandrist against men in these situations.


Personally if you are gay I have no problem with that, but no this is not about sexuality. This is about the state trampling on more and more of your god given rights as stated in the constitution.


How?

I don't see anything in your OP that would point to the state trampling on more of the rights? I Mean technically speaking if you have legal gay marriage then you just provided MORE rights. Sure the government can trample on them, just like any other citizen.

Is your argument: " Gays are better off because they don't have these rights, so the government can't take them away, or trample on them?"

I'm just confused.

~Tenth
edit on 10/4/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

So who should look out for the rights of the child? Should a biological parent's 'rights' to raise the child, even if they're ill equipped to the point of being abusive, trump the rights of the child to be raised by the one most suited to the task?

You know, sometimes courts take children out of a home consisting of both biological parents to be put in foster care. No lesbians involved.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Well in regards to the constitution. All are created equal as endowed by their creator.

Marriage is simply an institution that was designed by those principals to protect families.

There will be no gay marriage custody battles in which both parties are the biological parents, because it is impossible.

If you live in a state where both parents are stripped of their rights to their children in favor of the state and you live in a state where gay marriage is legal. It is quite likely that the state will allow gay parents to adopt your children and there will be nothing that you can say or do about it.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


The state as I can tell is incompetent for making such decisions and they make lots of accusations, but never investigate unless one party (the non custodial parent) fights back and fights back hard. Otherwise they are just accusations that get swept under the rug.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


Unless you have evidence of the biological father being a part of the child's life in this case, then his rights are irrelevant at this point.

But you didn't answer the question. Do you believe the biological mother in this case should automatically be awarded custody simply because she gave birth to the child?



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused
 


Yes, unless there are extreme cases of abuse and neglect that can be proved.

As an individual, I do not have any rights to another persons child. So why should they make an exception in this case.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


So in instances where the custody of the child is to be determined, what do you suggest? Put the two people wanting custody in a pit and let them fight for it?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


I suggest that both of their cases at least be heard by jurors and not some corrupt judge with an agenda.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 



Well in regards to the constitution. All are created equal as endowed by their creator.

Marriage is simply an institution that was designed by those principals to protect families.


No it wasn't. Marriage is a social construct that was designed by the church to encourage propagation of the species. The original definition of marriage was for that purpose.

Those definitions have changed. The family unit is hardly traditional, nor linked to those original principals.


There will be no gay marriage custody battles in which both parties are the biological parents, because it is impossible.


What?

I'm a gay married man, I have 4 children. 3 adopted, the first is my biological daughter. How is it that I am not her father?

You must have meant something different tham what is quote above, otherwise, well again I'm confused. If you think that there no gay people capable of having children, you're wrong.


If you live in a state where both parents are stripped of their rights to their children in favor of the state and you live in a state where gay marriage is legal. It is quite likely that the state will allow gay parents to adopt your children and there will be nothing that you can say or do about it.


So what is your point? How is a loving home different from another? Why is it important to have straight parents? Is there any science to back up claims that straight is better at raising children? I've been looking for decades, haven't found any.

Again, your argument is because fundementally you think that homosexuals should not be allowed to raise children, or get married.

That's the only argument you've made thus far. To re-iterate my original statement, that's poor logic.

~Tenth
edit on 10/4/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


A child is not a thing. Not someone's possession that they have rights to. Just because you can physically make a baby doesn't mean you are fit to be that child's parent. In this case, the adopted paret was found to be the better parent.

I wasn't there, you weren't there, you don't know what investigations were done. From my knowledge of working for family court attorneys in two different states, a guardian ad litem is appointed to the case to act on the child's behalf and they make the recommendation to the judge and the judge will base their decison on the results of the guardian's report.

This isn't a gay issue, this is a custody issue and the best interests of the child are what are at stake, not constitutional rights.
edit on 4-10-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Let me correct myself. Yes has been around longer than the constitution, the word I missed was in "accordance" to. Its based on the same principals.

Ok so your gay and you have legally adopted. I have no problem with that, as long as the biological parents were ok with putting their kids up for adoption. That is legally surrendering your right as a parent as opposed to the state deciding for you.





top topics
 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join