Homosexual marriage II

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

So, what'd ya think of the great and glorious ruling of the Massachusetts Court in the case above. I mean the Court was all high and mighty and perfect in its ruling about gay "marriage" so it must be all high and mighty and perfect in this ruling too, right? Equality often means things people don't want it to mean and this is a perfect case in point. Notice that male fathers were attempting to support the "dispossessed" because that would help them in the battle against biology. Didn't work. A true case of judicial equality applied equally.

I've never been a big fan of biology automatically giving anyone more of a right to a child. Some biological parents are great and some are awful.

As far as the case goes, this is the real important part:

The court also said the woman, who toiled long hours as codirector of a nonprofit organization, did not spend enough time caring for the child to establish her parental rights while the biological mother tended to most of the caretaking.

I wonder how the court would have ruled if it was the biological mother who was always working and the non-biological one who brought the child up.

[Count Comfect]

They'd have joint custody, that's how it would have been treated.

Some biological parents are bad, but they do have an interest in their own offspring; that's why, unless they're proven incompetent, the courts will (and, frankly, IMO, should) give them preference.

[Nurvingiel]

That is so sexist! And ridiculous! Just because someone works a lot, they're a bad mother?

I plan on working full time. My future husband plans on being a stay-at-home dad. If we ever split the sheets, would custody of our future children go to him?

Except, that it is also not acceptable in our ridiculous society for fathers to stay at home with the kids.

[Count Comfect]

The issue is not that someone simply "works a lot." The issue is that the person in this case evidently worked so much that the court found that she did not actually establish a serious (bilateral) emotional link with the child. This happens in plenty of unmarried breakups across the country; the only reason it really comes up this time is that the couple happens to be homosexual.

And note that if you had kids with your "future husband" you'd both get custody as you'd both be biological parents. And also, if you were in fact husband & wife with the kids, that would also go into the decision, which was not true in the case Inked raised.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

The issue is not that someone simply "works a lot." The issue is that the person in this case evidently worked so much that the court found that she did not actually establish a serious (bilateral) emotional link with the child. This happens in plenty of unmarried breakups across the country; the only reason it really comes up this time is that the couple happens to be homosexual.

And note that if you had kids with your "future husband" you'd both get custody as you'd both be biological parents. And also, if you were in fact husband & wife with the kids, that would also go into the decision, which was not true in the case Inked raised.

Well, you'd both get custody if both parents were deemed fit to raise kids. If the court is presented with evidence that, say, the mother is a junkie or the father is a drug-dealing abuse-monger, then the cort will take the child away and put him or her into a state-run foster home, and the foster parents can be lesbian couples or gay couples, it doesn't matter. Just recently, there was a case here in LA where a long-term devotted lesbian couple (read: married) fostered a little two-year old girl whose biological parents were both proven utterly and viciously incompetent; the little girl was gettingf all kinds of amazing love and raising from this couple who adored her as if she were theirs. Almost two years later, the biological couple decides to try and get her back, which they did, and you know what hapened to this little girl less than 2 months after she'd been returned to her biological parents? Beaten to DEATH, beaten to death. Yeah, so who loved her more capably, the biological parents who beat her to death or the lesbian couple who gave her unconditional and healthy love and raising?

[Count Comfect]

The key point here lies in what you say about "which they did." Clearly, the court that returned the child to people like them failed. That doesn't mean the idea isn't sound, just that it can be misapplied.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

The issue is not that someone simply "works a lot." The issue is that the person in this case evidently worked so much that the court found that she did not actually establish a serious (bilateral) emotional link with the child. This happens in plenty of unmarried breakups across the country; the only reason it really comes up this time is that the couple happens to be homosexual.

I bet the judge would disagree. I think it is more to do with how the law recognises her relationship to her ex-partner's biological child. They weren't married, and the child is not biologically hers, therefore she has no claim in law, no matter how much of a relationship she had with the child.

It seems that the plaintiff wanted to get around this by arguing that there was an effective contract between her and her ex. The court seems to have gone for saying "no there wasn't" rather than "that's irrelevant", but would probably have done the latter if she had been around more.

Let's say I was living with my hetero partner, who was pregnant with someone else's child when we started our relationship. We split up when the child is 3 years old. Even if I had stayed at home and looked after it whilst the mother went out to work, I would have no rights in law (here in the UK anyway).

One would hope that we would be adult enough to be able to work something out between us, as it does children no good to "lose" parental relationships at any point in their lives, but especially when they are young.

However, as we know, this is often not the case, and it does children even less good to be caught between warring factions. The fact that the ex-couple had not come to such an arrangement shows that it is probably inappropriate (assuming that mediation had been attempted).

This happens lots of times with straight couples. This case is just an extreme example of it (in that the lesbian couple in question made a decision to have a family together). If anything, the case shows yet another aspect of the importance of allowing homosexuals to marry (i.e. have relationships which are recognised in law) and the absurdity of denying it to them.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

That is so sexist! And ridiculous! Just because someone works a lot, they're a bad mother?

I plan on working full time. My future husband plans on being a stay-at-home dad. If we ever split the sheets, would custody of our future children go to him?

Except, that it is also not acceptable in our ridiculous society for fathers to stay at home with the kids.

I don't think the sex of the parent has anything to do with it. But I do think that in any situation where one parent cares for a child a lot more than another parent they have a lot stronger case for maintaining custody if a split does happen. Assuming that the one who cares for the child is not abusive or neglectful.

There is too much emphasis on biology.

Think of it this way. If a couple adopts a baby and raises it for twelve years, then the biological mother comes along and wants custody, should she get it? I don't think so.

Your true "parent" is the one who brings you up, not the one who gave birth to you.

[Count Comfect]

Gaffer: To quote the article Inked originally posted:

What counts in the court system are birth certificates, marriage licenses, adoption papers, or proof that you share equally in the nurturing of the youngsters.

Here in the US at least, that last clause has meaning too... you can prove that you are a de facto parent by having raised the child. Although she didn't prove it, in that case.

[The Gaffer]

Okey dokey. I wonder if many dads would be able to demonstrate "equal nurturing" in the absence of paperwork. I know I couldn't...

However, I think the point is still valid that, if anything, this case shows the need for formal gay marriages.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I don't think the sex of the parent has anything to do with it. But I do think that in any situation where one parent cares for a child a lot more than another parent they have a lot stronger case for maintaining custody if a split does happen. Assuming that the one who cares for the child is not abusive or neglectful.

There is too much emphasis on biology.

Think of it this way. If a couple adopts a baby and raises it for twelve years, then the biological mother comes along and wants custody, should she get it? I don't think so.

Your true "parent" is the one who brings you up, not the one who gave birth to you.

It seemed to me that the woman who worked a lot was deemed unfit, but I didn't take into account that she wasn't the biological mother and the laws around that.

I agree with the Gaffer, this does outline the need for gay marriage.

[inked]

Speaking of "too much emphasis on biology," now there's this:

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/17141.html

(Ooohh, it's from Earthtimes! It must be true, mustn't it?!)

And, if it is, http://exodus.blogs.com/liveoutloud/...nge_possi.html

Comments?

Finally, if it's not choice and it's not biology, just what is it?

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by inked

Speaking of "too much emphasis on biology," now there's this:

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/17141.html

(Ooohh, it's from Earthtimes! It must be true, mustn't it?!)

And, if it is, http://exodus.blogs.com/liveoutloud/...nge_possi.html

Comments?

Finally, if it's not choice and it's not biology, just what is it?

What is it? Well, what is love anyway?

The article isn't really well-written. I'd take the quote "They are afraid the efforts could lead to extinction of homosexuality in humans." with a pinch of salt since it sounds plain silly. Sadly, medical studies are very often presented quite poorly by journalists (there are dedicated and competent sports journalists but there are seldom knowledgeable journalists with insight in medicine to cover such news). Facts are easily distorted.

For instance when the article says "Oregon State University have been able to identify the processes that influence their sexual orientation" it immediately feels like an oversimplification. Sexuality and sexual behaviour are complex and it's highly unlikely the researchers have found the processes but rather some processes.
The researcher's statement that "sexuality has been an under-studied subject because of political concerns" isn't entirely true. I don't know about Oregon but studies are definitely made and "under-studied" might be the wrong word to use.

The blogger wonders why would [the gay activists] oppose research which ... would seem to prove that homosexuality is biological, at least in animals?" I don't think this is the case at all. This study however, according to the article, "is confined to reducing or eliminating gay sheep" and that's what they are opposing.
One has to ask what is the underlying reason for ths study. Is it only because farmers are financially affected when one in ten rams are gay? Or could it be that there is an underlying notion that homosexuality - be it in sheep or humans - is wrong and should therefore be tested for a cure? I should think the gay activists believe the latter. And to protest against the belief that homosexuality is wrong is exactly what gay activists do. This is why they oppose this study but the blogger doesn't see this.

The blogger talks about how "nobody wants to be gay" and that "people would be leaving the gay lifestyle in droves" if there was a "gay remedy". He can believe that all he wants, there are many who would say the opposite - especially those who know people who are into the so-called gay lifestyle. Like, I don' think churches would empty and the pope resign if it was proved beyond any doubt that God doesn't exist. Christians would want to remain Christians.


The blogger has read somewhat dubious article with his homophobic lenses on.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

What is it? Well, what is love anyway?

The article isn't really well-written. I'd take the quote "They are afraid the efforts could lead to extinction of homosexuality in humans." with a pinch of salt since it sounds plain silly. Sadly, medical studies are very often presented quite poorly by journalists (there are dedicated and competent sports journalists but there are seldom knowledgeable journalists with insight in medicine to cover such news). Facts are easily distorted.

If you think that's the case here, look at the media's treatment of ecclesiastical topics. They generally have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. I don't mean that I necessarily disapprove of the light they put it in, but they usually have journalists who are very, very ignorant of what's going on.

Which is so totally on topic.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Speaking of "too much emphasis on biology," now there's this:

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/17141.html

(Ooohh, it's from Earthtimes! It must be true, mustn't it?!)

And, if it is, http://exodus.blogs.com/liveoutloud/...nge_possi.html

Comments?

Finally, if it's not choice and it's not biology, just what is it?

It doesn't matter whether it's biology, choice or both. That is, unless you think there is something wrong with being gay.

What's heterosexuality, biology or choice?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

The blogger talks about how "nobody wants to be gay" and that "people would be leaving the gay lifestyle in droves" if there was a "gay remedy".

Some don't want homosexual instincts, while others have no problem with those instincts that they have. I've heard accounts from both perspectives.

He can believe that all he wants, there are many who would say the opposite - especially those who know people who are into the so-called gay lifestyle. Like, I don' think churches would empty and the pope resign if it was proved beyond any doubt that God doesn't exist. Christians would want to remain Christians.

I wouldn't. I would hate the universe and hate Christianity, and far above all of that, I would loath Jesus with all my being for betraying me. I would become a very, very, very bitter atheist, and possibly even a cruel one, if it was proven beyond any doubt that God did not exist.

If I discovered that there was no God, I wouldn't commit suicide. I would probably go to drugs and start cutting myself, though.

An interactive God is who I live my life based on. I love him. We have conversations with one another, back and forth. He speaks to me, and he also answers my prayers. The fabric of my reality depends wholly upon him. If he were ever absolutely disproven, I would be ripped to shreds.

I also would know that everything is meaningless and the human race is doomed to disappear from existence and memory. Nothing would end up being left. Random chance rules and moral values are mere social constructions for the meaningless "good" of society, which really should take second place in my life to what I feel is "good" for me. There would be no wrong. No bad. I could kill someone and it wouldn't matter, except for me because society might punish me. But then if I'm only matter, I don't matter . So that too is just irrelevant to anything. It's no wonder that one major atheistic philosopher said that the most profound question for humans to consider is whether or not we should commit suicide.


Don't let any of this convince you that it isn't safe to debate with me . If you defeat me in every issue we could debate here, you still wouldn't make me believe God was disproven. For one, it's impossible to prove a negative, and for two, personal experience of communing with an interactive God rules out his not existing, for me.

[Lizra]

Oh my Lief! That is so dramatic! 50 years has taught me this.......you wake up, you do some work, you go to bed.....someday you die and you don't have to bother anymore..... enjoy it as best you can.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

If you think that's the case here, look at the media's treatment of ecclesiastical topics. They generally have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. I don't mean that I necessarily disapprove of the light they put it in, but they usually have journalists who are very, very ignorant of what's going on.

Very likely.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Some don't want homosexual instincts, while others have no problem with those instincts that they have. I've heard accounts from both perspectives.

Yes, both sides exist. To say that nobody wants to be gay, like the blogger did, is ignorant.

Originally Posted by Lief

I would hate and loathe, be bitter and cruel, do drugs and cut myself, be ripped to shreds (but at least not commit suicide) if it was proved that God did not exist

Wow Lief! Thank God it's impossible to prove a negative then, just as you said. We'd hate to see you go through all of the above

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Oh my Lief! That is so dramatic! 50 years has taught me this.......you wake up, you do some work, you go to bed.....someday you die and you don't have to bother anymore..... enjoy it as best you can.

I take a great deal of pleasure out of life . It's extraordinarily beautiful. And I can very well understand other people just living through life and enjoying it as best they can, as you recommend. I would be undone by God being disproven because I'd be on God-withdrawal. I guess that it is impossible for me to conceive of anything worse than God being disproven.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Thank God it's impossible to prove a negative then, just as you said.

Hmm. I guess you're right. But if it was possible to prove a negative, it would also be possible to prove a positive. Which would be kind of cool . . . Though obviously God doesn't want to do it that way, because that would leave no room for faith. *Sighs.*

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Yes, both sides exist. To say that nobody wants to be gay, like the blogger did, is ignorant.

Agreed.

That blogger looks like he comes from the Exodus International Organization. If that's the case, then he probably is in contact with loads of homosexuals who do want to change their sexual orientation. That's the kind of people that would go to Exodus International. So the blogger would only be hearing from one side of the homosexual community- the side that wants to change. That probably accounts for his views on the matter.

[Insidious Rex]

So the anti gay marriage folk are now admitting that homosexuality occurs in nature (and is therefore NATURAL)? My what a radical shift from the ITS JUST AN IMMORAL LIFE STYLE CHOICE! rantings...

Although I remain dubious as far as the science behind whats written there. It seems way too simplistic. I would like to see the meat of the study. What it is specifically that determines if a sheep is "gay" or not. I mean if its just a matter of tweaking some hormones I would think this would have been well known long ago.