US sperm donor who helped lesbian couple fights child support bid

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Cherry0
 


That would be logic but we know the US government is the most illogical entity of all.




posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I do not object lesbians, I've got all their movies...

(I know this is on the edge... But if one is not allowed to make fun of a subject, it starts to get really scary...)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JarheadFidelis
reply to post by marbles87
 


No worries. I dont get offended very easily. I dont know how the system works but I think its wrong they would deny someone help for not knowing or not naming the father. Just seems a bit silly to me.


Maybe you were not addressing me HOWEVER, there are many things and beings that start with H.
(Hydrogen, HELium and Homosexuals eh?). Make sure you address the correct one before condemning ok?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr. D
 

You totally lost me. What are you referring to?



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by marbles87
reply to post by Cherry0
 


That would be logic but we know the US government is the most illogical entity of all.


Aye. I hear you on that. I find myself scratching my head (and pulling my hair out) more often than I should be when it comes to government "logic".



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JarheadFidelis
reply to post by Mr. D
 

You totally lost me. What are you referring to?


Don't let homosexuals fool you. Stick to your Oath, your guns and what you were trained for. Warriors will survive.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr. D
 


Nobody is fooling me. My belief is this man should not be held accountable for being a sperm donor. I think the state is setting a dangerous precedent. I'd like to see how far this goes.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JarheadFidelis
reply to post by Mr. D
 


Nobody is fooling me. My belief is this man should not be held accountable for being a sperm donor. I think the state is setting a dangerous precedent. I'd like to see how far this goes.


Then we are talking about the same thing, just going around in circles. (As they have planned). The LGBT community has corrupted modern society or are being used as a tool by others to bring down this country and the World. (Read the communist manifesto and you will begin to understand). Communist use Homosexuals to blackmail Homosexual politicians.(among other things). Stay vigilant as per your oath.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimish
Seeing that not everyone knows the law, I'm assuming the woman is taking advantage of the situation. There was a thread posted months ago about this and supposedly the two women were together and wanted a child and took the easy way out by finding a donor themselves. Then the women split, hence can't take care of the child on their own so they are looking for compensation.


This thread?

Was nothing to do with the women looking for compenastion. Was to do with the fertilization occurring before it was legal for homosexuals to be parents ergo because the child was born during that time the parent on the birth certificate has to be the man since the law at the time didn't support same sex parent arrangements.

The instance in the OP's post is very vague, and sounds like another instance of a similar problem. You shouldn't be concieving a child without knowing the laws in your country or state. Everyone involved was irresponsible.

The only part of this that is a homosexual issue is that for the last 100 years laws haven't supported homosexuals in this area and therefore the law is frankly weak in this area. Our heterosexual parenting laws have had 100's of years to form ... Homosexual parenting is less than 20 years old.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Good point. But reading the entire story and hearing the whole issue it seams as though a homosexual woman is taking advantage of what she can. Correct?

She want's to have a woman/woman relationship. Not a woman/man. Hence there is no man but, a child is involved so said woman goes after said man. Right? It should be woman/man. One woman should take responsibility as the man considering that the marriage is woman on woman so One should take place as traditional man and the "man" should pay support, otherwise it isn't marriage, it's a Unity. Right? After all, Marriage is specifically defined and has been for centuries as man and woman, we can't change the definition because of the PC police. She had a partner, same sex "man" and they chose to have a child together. For whatever reason they chose to split. "man" should be held responsible. If not than every child support case in the U.S. needs revised.

FYI, in almost every gay relationship their is a top and a bottom, or, man and woman.

Now, What say you?
edit on 2-1-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)
edit

Equal opportunity means equality for all. Not special privileges for special groups, religions, or races.
The Feminist movement has brought western society down, slowly but surely.
edit on 2-1-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Not necessarily.

But the article is lacking in details. Which his why Im going to say, he probably had sex with the mother.


right. because a lesbian couple would let a man sleep with them, instead of just, say....using a syringe? your assumption is faulty and uneducated.

i doubt you know many lesbians, or many couples for that matter.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
The laws in many states over step any pre existing agreements.
If you are the biological father then you lose. Child support laws are very backwards because they are purely based on popular opinion. The laws are wrong but its politically incorrect to fight them.
No law maker will even touch it!



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


EASY SEX !?!?!?!?

Have you seen a picture of the women?!?!

Nothing easy about that........



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 



Homosexual parenting is less than 20 years old


Isn't homosexual parenting unnatural?

Well biologically impossible with outside help at the very least.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by Pinke
 

Good point. But reading the entire story and hearing the whole issue it seams as though a homosexual woman is taking advantage of what she can. Correct?


I disagree.

It's the same as in the other thread ... a lot of people want to paint it out as a homosexual/agenda setting issue, when really it's a mechanical one. A homosexual person should be able to be honest to the state about a child's birth and the state should support the correct course of action.

Regardless of the woman's moral and ethical standards, the state should have a better stance on this issue to pursue the correct party so the child has the required support.


She want's to have a woman/woman relationship. Not a woman/man. Hence there is no man but, a child is involved so said woman goes after said man. Right?


The state goes after the man because that's the party attached to the birth certificate even if he didn't write his name on it. Regardless of the moral issues at stake, the state laws do not support the truth of the situation. They would have if the insemination was done correctly.

I still believe the parties were irresponsible not checking the laws in their state.


After all, Marriage is specifically defined and has been for centuries as man and woman


You opinion, which you're welcome to.


we can't change the definition because of the PC police.


A government should support its citizens. The citizens shouldn't live how the government tells them to.


the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against:
Source

In this instance we would be avoiding making laws to support same sex relationship arrangements to avoid offending people who have a cemented idea on what a family unit / married couple are.

The government should have laws to support all its citizens. In this instance, the law should recognize same sex couples with children because that's reality. People's opinion on relationships doesn't effect what is actually happening and laws need to be created on the basis of reality not on idealism.


For whatever reason they chose to split. "man" should be held responsible. If not than every child support case in the U.S. needs revised.


I believe the relationship should be legally recognized. Many states are making more and more steps in this direction and it is good for both the child and all involved. Technically speaking I don't believe it's a gender thing. (I know there are issues there but that's another topic)


FYI, in almost every gay relationship their is a top and a bottom, or, man and woman.


That's like saying there is always a slightly more dominant party in any relationship - friendship or otherwise. I don't think it's relevant.

Also the cultural meaning of 'top' and 'bottom' makes me believe those terms have no space in describing people in relationship involving children. No problems though, semantics. I don't really believe gender should come into supprot payments like I said, but that's another topic.


Equal opportunity means equality for all. Not special privileges for special groups, religions, or races.
The Feminist movement has brought western society down, slowly but surely.


I think one thing at a time. Feminism is a complicated topic, and I don't think this situation needs more agendas than it has already.

I personally don't believe there is anything 'special' about persons being held responsible for their actions and relationships.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by magma
Isn't homosexual parenting unnatural?

Well biologically impossible with outside help at the very least.


In the context of the discussion, I don't understand the question.

Family units and tribes have comprised of all kinds of demographics for thousands of years. Parenting desires and instincts are pretty natural to all genders/orientations, as is pining for a child etc ... In the days before we added laws to everything and started living 2.5 kids style I don't think things were as political as they are now.

Parents died? Tribe looks after you. Mother pregnant from the alpha male dork shirking his responsibilities? Tribe looks after you. Mother runs off to another tribe ... etc etc etc etc ...

Desire to parent and take care of children is natural across the board.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Well put, and I respect your points.

Enough from me


One foot is now farther down on one side of the fence.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Could the mother have received the sperm from an anonymous donor at a clinic? Or are there some qualification requirements for that?

If the mother could have received the sperm from an anonymous donor, would the state have provided assistance? If yes, they should. Would they have made the other partner in the relationship provide child support in that scenario? If yes, they should go after that person. The actual sperm donor is irrelevant in that scenario.

If the mother would not have "qualified" to receive sperm from an anonymous donor, then the "agreement" between them is valid only as long as the assistance of the state is not needed to raise the child. Once the mother requests the state for assistance to raise the child, the sperm donor has to cough up.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   
WOW the responses, some of them anyway are AMAZING to me,
what i took from this was that the state is pressing forward without
the behest of the two women who have the child, so many here seem
to not understand that concept or are convinced this does not happen,
let me explain how this works for you, in many states, the state itself
retains the right to charge someone, with or without the consent of
the victim, this is done for many reasons, many times its only used
in child support or cases of child abuse...... sometimes in cases
of spousal abuse as well.

Honestly i feel as if the state overstepped its bounds on this one,
there again if they would stop all the BS about allowing same sex
couples to marry or have civil unions then these two could have
simply adopted the child legally and this would be a non issue,
but oh no they are evil vile repulsive humans who deserve our
scorn, even when they try to do the right thing...... sheesh some people
want to hate with every fiber of their being, its so nice that religion
allows them to feel moral about it...... by the way its still immoral
no matter what your fiction book says.

oh and to answer some of the questions about why it was not
done in a clinic, its extremely expensive to have it done that way,
not to mention the cost of the pregnancy on top of that, its just
unrealistic to expect everyone to do it that way, that would be
similar to everyone even strait people being forced to do it that
way just so the legality was adhered to strictly....... strange way to look at it........
edit on 3-1-2013 by bloodreviara because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join