US sperm donor who helped lesbian couple fights child support bid

reply to post by Pinke


I was responding to what you said abot homosexual parenting being less than 20 years old.

Homosexuals can not have children unless they have a 3rd party help them.

So in this case it is unnatural.

Pretty soon you will be able to go to a baby dispensing vending machine and get your baby for a quarter.

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by Pinke

 

Pretty soon you will be able to go to a baby dispensing vending machine and get your baby for a quarter.

If this ever happens I will hand craft a 7 inch David Hasselhoff figurine and consume it; the results will be uploaded to youtube.

If you're saying that putting people of the same gender in a room and waiting on a baby to come out is a fruitless exercise, we agree.

If you're stating that homosexual people are incapable of having parental instincts and desires, then we disagree. Homosexual parenting has happened millions of times throughout history. Lesbian reproductive systems haven't been inactive for the last 100, 000 years.

All that has occurred is that we've applied laws which don't account for or allow for things that have been happening since God pointed the starter's pistol and screamed go.

if it was the lesbian couple pushing directly for financial assistance from the donor, then i would vilify them, but it seems the state of kansas is trying to put the bill on someone else.

lets look at the logic behind their law concerning artificial insemination: if a doctor didn't do it, it wasn't artificial, therefore the agreement between the couple and the donor is void, because he's the father. complete fail.

courts (in theory) exist to not only enforce the law, but to pass judgement on individual cases that fall within grey areas where there is no specific law to follow. in this case, it would be very wrong to force the donor to pay. he can't be responsible to support the child monetarily when he has no legal or emotional ties to the child.

the state most likely thinks it can reduce it's spending by setting a precedent that donors are financially responsible for their biological children. this has nothing to do with who carried out the insemination.

reply to post by magma


1) incorrect there are many of us who suffered from growing up with same sex moms from the 50's! I won't go into my terrible upbringing but my "real" birth mother was not happy I was straight! I had no father image and only learned to be a man in the service which I would never recommend!!!!!!!!! I am 60 this year my monster er ah birth mom) was an officer in the DOB's back in very early 60's leaving me alone for her weekend at the girls club in SF!

2) and yes OP my life is totally unbalanced not having a father did not give me the tools needed to raise a son! Last conversation with birth selfish woman was when she said, "Its a pity you have 2 daughters n no son!" I said no not correct, I thank GOD each and every day n twice when I look at my girls! I did not want to ruin a boys life as I had no tools to raise him properly!

IMHO gay couple's children have a greater chance at being confused in their sexuality as most children seek "their" parents approval!

NOBODY has a right here to judge me UNLESS YOU WERE raised by sex sex couples in a small town!

Stars n Flag OP thanks for your level headed questions n sorry to sound as I do - I got married tiny town in UK both women were there and my BC stated Father Unknown! I cannot tell you the shame I felt when the Englander Registry man looked down his long nose at me seeing BC and then looked at my "parents" then back to me! For those who criticize me I can only hope you experience on a very important day the same humiliation for your further education!

You have the right to live your life BUT NOT TO RUIN someone else's IMHO!

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by FlySolo

 

He inseminated her by having sex with her.

Thus it's not really artificial. He would have probably needed a lawyer to draw up the contract relinquishing responsibility in this case.

I agree. He should pay out the nose. However due to his and these women's irresponsibility concerning this matter, the state should take the kid and those gals found unfit to be parents at all.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by FlySolo

 

He inseminated her by having sex with her.

Thus it's not really artificial. He would have probably needed a lawyer to draw up the contract relinquishing responsibility in this case.

I agree. He should pay out the nose. However due to his and these women's irresponsibility concerning this matter, the state should take the kid and those gals found unfit to be parents at all.

One of the women adopted the child so he shouldn't have to pay a dime. And what's the women's irresponsibility here? So it's her fault she became ill and couldn't work? So if you became ill and couldn't work you would have no problem with the government taking your kids because you're an unfit parent.

reply to post by buster2010


The women's irresponsibility was not going to a registered clinic and having legally binding paperwork drawn up for a proper legal sperm donation in that state. Ignorance of the law doesn't allow you to get away with skirting it. They should have known better and in this day and age, could have done proper Kansas law research on the internet in minutes time.

I'll make you a drivers license on my computer.. it will look feel smell real but can you use it to drive? Nope.

I'm surprised that no one in this thread has brought the fact that the couple had a grand total of.....drum roll....
EIGHT kids -

When he donated sperm to Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner in 2009, Marotta relinquished all parental rights, including financial responsibility to the child. When Bauer and Schreiner filed for state assistance this year, the state demanded the donor's name so it could collect child support for the now 3-year-old girl. Bauer and Schreiner broke up in 2010 but co-parent their eight children, who range in age from 3 months to 25 years.

Sounds to me like this couple is guilty of being just a tad bit irresponsible. Combined with a photo of them both I found on google images -



You can tell at the time of their marriage they were already overweight. Now, I know it's not politically correct to make fun of peoples weight and there are a multitude of reasons why someone is overweight - but I'm what I'm saying is, if you can't manage your own health (for whatever reason), what business do you have raising 8 kids?

I don't know their whole life story, so I'm not going to pretend I know how the other 8 kids were "aquired" but I just have to point out that I don't think we're seeing the whole picture here. What I will say is this couple definitely perpetuates a lot of stereotypes (and not just LGBT ones either).

Originally posted by marbles87
reply to post by FlySolo

 

The guy didn't have sex with the women they used another method of insemination use your imagination. The man was straight and married when he agreed to donate his seed. He only donated his seed he didn't have sex.

I think your post must have been meant for someone else. I'm in agreement with you.

reply to post by magma


Hey I thought the ultra rightwingers (Kansas) were against "big government" that intrudes in peoples' lives..... What the????

OH..... I forgot. They only are against those things that left wingers are for.

Silly me...

Just more proof to me that in general, women and our government consider men to be "sperm donors" and a paycheck.

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by Pinke

 

I was responding to what you said abot homosexual parenting being less than 20 years old.

Homosexuals can not have children unless they have a 3rd party help them.

So in this case it is unnatural.

Pretty soon you will be able to go to a baby dispensing vending machine and get your baby for a quarter.

There were no homosexuals involved in the conception of Jesus but a third party (God) certainly intervened in the natural order of things. Therefore Jesus' birth was "un-natural" too.

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by Pinke

 

I was responding to what you said abot homosexual parenting being less than 20 years old.

Homosexuals can not have children unless they have a 3rd party help them.

So in this case it is unnatural.

Pretty soon you will be able to go to a baby dispensing vending machine and get your baby for a quarter.

The State of Kansas is, no doubt, fully aware of the facts in this case. It is entirely possible that the mother has applied for financial assistance from the State. If this is the case then we can easily determine the reason for the State's position in the whole thing. They, the State, knows full well of the unusual circumstances but is in a dilemma. It would like to make a parent responsible for child support but cannot without going to court. This, then, is a test case. Kansas is trying to set a legal precedent. If they are successful then in the future they will need only refer to it when demanding parental support from others who have done the very same thing. OH sure the donor relinquished responsibility but this declaration is not recognized by the State. Therefore they sue. Their reason? My guess is that the mother, as I said, has applied for assistance. If this is the case then public money will be made available. Why should taxpayers pay when a perfectly good father is known? So.... they go to court to try to have their way. It is very understandable. This is the way it is in our society. Civil law cannot be trumped by some personal agreement when public funds are in the balance. First that agreement must survive a challenge in court.

If I am right they the whole thing makes sense to me.

1 question solves all of this .........whos name is on the birth certificate if its his / GAME SET MATCH & THE STATE WINS

reply to post by zeeon


It just adds more weight to the fact that there is a serious problem with the law or in this cae the bias towards these lesbians and the persecution of the donor

I think that is wrong, that he is being charged for child support when this man donated his sperm to help this lesbian family. Also he did not accept payment for donating his sperm, that was a cost of 50,000 dollers or more for his sperm. But he did it as a caring person. I belive the mother should just drop the whole case and leave this man alone.

Is the babies name Bertram?

second line.

Originally posted by IceHappy
reply to post by magma

 

NOBODY has a right here to judge me UNLESS YOU WERE raised by sex sex couples in a small town!

Technically, only a Judge has the legal right to act as Judge, and only a Jury has the legal right to render Judgement against you, should you be involved in a criminal or civil dispute(A Judge can truly Judge you if you go with a Judge trial and forego a Jury).

As for everyone else, they sure as heck can form an opinion on you or anything else for that matter. I don't know, this might be just my own observation, but when a person say's "don't Judge me", that is often the time you should(or should steer clear of them). We all face our own personnel demons, and the Lord knows how selfish narcissistic/psychopathic parents can be. But you are you, your own unique perspective point in space/time.

I have a sad feeling that the reason you didn't have a boy was because it would force you to face some things you don't want to face. In reality, children aren't that difficult. All you have to do is be there for them, keep your word and make sure they are doing all right. The only difference between boy's and girl's is perhaps hobbies to a degree(depending on the individual child). So with a boy you take them out hiking, fishing, but really you should see what they like, and what they mostly want is just to observe/hang out sometimes.