Homosexual marriage II

[inked]

I hate to say I told you so (*not really*), but here it is:
gay women couple, two kids, and sue the sperm donor for child support after the gay ladies' relationship "fell apart"....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271116,00.html

So, now for all the pro-gay pundits and their reactions...........................

[Earniel]

Because, of course a heterosexual couple would never get into such a mess.

Hmm, Inked, I think you can do better than this poor example. This one doesn't really fly.

[Tessar]

I hate to say this, (okay, not really--I hate those straight people) but here you have it: An Illinois heterosexual woman is suing her ex (also straight) boyfriend/sperm donor.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113466.html


Now for all of those pro-hetero 'experts' to weigh in.........

Remind me why we let those straight people breed. Also, why anyone from Illinois gets to have children.

[Insidious Rex]

I agree! They are ruining the morality of our fine Paris Hilton worshiping society! Something needs to be done about these straight people! Lets ban them from marrying! Clearly they cant handle the responsibility!

[Rían]

I guess we need to add the sperm-donor version of a pre-nup contract

Pre-preg?

[inked]

I just thought it remarkable that the "family unit" which brought these children into the world was a lesbian couple (nevermind the biological ramifications I have often been told!) which would be able to provide "everything" a heterosexual family could provide. Yet, here we have the acknowledgement in law that such is, in fact, not the case. Which "lesbian parent" alleged to have been the "father" or "provider" is not clear, is it? So the court falls back into biology to make the "father" pay child support. Did the couple have the kids call him "Uncle Daddy" until they could grasp the concept of "father".

You gotta admit, this does a huge amount to undermine the "different but equal" notions of "family" that have been (*pardon the pun*) engendered by the gay agenda. Following this logic, the "children" of two male homosexual "parents" would be best off since both could biologically be forced to pay child support, and obviously lesbian "parents" fall under a special rule since they are female. (Oops, there goes the feminist claims to equality, I guess ... under the law, anyway, or child support law, anyway.)

Now, what if the male homosexual "parents" are not the biological "parent" of the child? Shouldn't the male sperm-donor parent and the female egg-donor parent have to pay child support as well? Are sperm the only one's with a duty to provide child support?

How about the woman who carried the pregnancy if different from the egg-donor? Shouldn't she have to pay child support as well? That way a kid could end up with 5 "parents" who have a duty to pay child support!

It's all so simple and clear, isn't it?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

This guy wasn't just a sperm donor, he was a dad. Other than that you know a turkey baster was on the premises, how does the situation differ from any other 'couple plus bio father' story? One of the women IS paying child support, anyway. Child support (if you haven't gotten the update since the Stone Age) is paid by non-custodial parents, not by fathers.

Here's my advice to men. If you don't want to pay child support, keep your sperm to yourself. You do have some control over that, kwim?

I'll bet he was having a fine old time. He impregnated a woman 27 years his junior, and got to be 'Papa' without having to change a diaper. @@ please.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Here's my advice to men. If you don't want to pay child support, keep your sperm to yourself. You do have some control over that, kwim?

So if a lesbian couple wants to have a child via the pregnancy route, which they CANNOT do without some MAN donating sperm, and they do NOT want a male "father" in the picture because they think the two of them are totally adequate and complete for the child, they're out of luck?

[Count Comfect]

The key issue in this case, as sisterandcousinandaunt says, is this bit of the article:
"

In his written opinion requiring Frampton to help pay for the child's support, Superior Court Judge John T.J. Kelly Jr. noted that Frampton spent thousands of dollars on the children, including purchases of toys and clothing.

The children knew he was their biological father, but Frampton opposed the effort to compel support from him."

He was acting as a third parent (yes, it's weird) which is why the court made its decision.

If you're lesbian and go to an anonymous sperm bank (they exist, you know),you have no problem. If you're a sperm donor, don't parent the child, and you have no problem. The only reason this arises is because the man was acting as a parent; and so, according to the law, BOTH he and the other woman have to pay child support.

[Rían]

I'd rather have sperm from someone I know than some anonymous donor. *shrug* But with lawsuits the way they are, I think that if I were a man, I'd certainly get some type of "pre-preg" thing signed. But of course, the courts can overturn it.

[brownjenkins]

As far as parenthood goes, I think the right of custody has everything to do with who does the work of actually bringing the child up. Biology alone should have zero effect on who gets a child.

As far as monetary responsibility, that would go to the two people who either choose to have the child, or who had one as a result of being careless.

But a simple sperm or egg donation shoudn't give any person the right of custody or the burden of monetary responsibility. That would be like suing the preacher who married you if you decide to get divorced.

Though, I'm sure someone has tried.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'd rather have sperm from someone I know than some anonymous donor. *shrug*

Rian, you probably haven't been solving this particular problem. But, if I recall correctly, sperm isn't hard to (pardon the expression) come by. If you can find a doctor who'll sell it to you (complete with big cryo tank) dandy. If you can't, well, there are other ways to get it. Lesbians are just as capable as other women as far as sperm acquisition goes. It ain't rocket science.

Therefore, fellas, I repeat, assume every swimmer might land you in family court. Women should be assuming every encounter might have them pee on a stick. That's how the system is rigged.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

As far as parenthood goes, I think the right of custody has everything to do with who does the work of actually bringing the child up. Biology alone should have zero effect on who gets a child.

So, do we need another thread to discuss bio-mothers and children in foster care? Because I'm not starting any more threads only to have a "greatest hits of 2002" show up and eat them. @@

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

So, do we need another thread to discuss bio-mothers and children in foster care? Because I'm not starting any more threads only to have a "greatest hits of 2002" show up and eat them. @@

I don't remember any specifically about biological parents vs. real parents.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

So, at what point does your parenthood lapse?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

If you can find a doctor who'll sell it to you (complete with big cryo tank) dandy.

And it's probably anonymous = big questions ...

If you can't, well, there are other ways to get it.

Then it's probably NOT anonymous = potential lawsuit.

Lesbians are just as capable as other women as far as sperm acquisition goes. It ain't rocket science.

So if men get lawsuit-shy, then they have to go with anonymous donors = big questions ...

Therefore, fellas, I repeat, assume every swimmer might land you in family court.

Again, kinda tough on a guy who just wants to help out a lesbian couple. I say, sign a pre-preg.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And it's probably anonymous = big questions ...

Then it's probably NOT anonymous = potential lawsuit.

So if men get lawsuit-shy, then they have to go with anonymous donors = big questions ...

Again, kinda tough on a guy who just wants to help out a lesbian couple. I say, sign a pre-preg.

Sperm banks are "anonymous", but they're not typically just "walk-in, here's your magazine." You shop for the kind of donor you want. You can specify (usually) height, IQ, ethnic background, family medical issues, vision, athletic or musical talent... you'll know a lot more about his potential as a genetic contributor than the average dating scenerio would give you.

"Known" donors may or may not be HIV screened, for example. They may sue for custody later. They may resent having grown kids look them up. (always a possibility). If they donate as young men and later have issues starting their 'own' families, they may suffer the kind of regret that goes with missing your children's childhood.

And really. Most women who can take their temperature in the morning can "hook-up" on any night of the week, if she wants to. Men just don't guard that stuff. If you think they're doing background checks on some gal who seems willing, you aren't dealing with the same species I am. And practicing safe sex? Uh, no.

I just don't think there's an overabundance of "guys who want to help out lesbian couples and should be signing a pre-pregnancy contract" over "Guys who pay almost no attention as to where that stuff winds up."

Biology definitely "favors", if you can call it that, women over men in the "get baby" race. Men, on the whole, need to negotiate more.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

http://www.xytex.com/patient/

http://www.cryobank.com/donorinfo.cfm?page=43

http://www.thespermbankofca.org/dcp.html

Some searchable goodies from sperm banks. There's more than one reason this is an expensive option.

[inked]

My, my, my. All this talk about biology when we were discussing "family". I take it from the learned discussions of sperm acquisition and banking and the legal ins-and-outs that there is a definite problem with lesbians not having sperm sui generis, as it were. Where are the equal-time discussions of egg banks for homosexual male couples?

Or is there biology, after all?

Brownjenkins, "As far as parenthood goes, I think the right of custody has everything to do with who does the work of actually bringing the child up. Biology alone should have zero effect on who gets a child."

The court, which ruled in this cased seemed to agree, but the appellate court did not.

No one has commented on the fact that the sperm donor died. Did you guys read the article? Dead men (or women, for that matter, death being a truly equal opportunity event) don't pay child support. Another biological factoid!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by inked

My, my, my. All this talk about biology when we were discussing "family". I take it from the learned discussions of sperm acquisition and banking and the legal ins-and-outs that there is a definite problem with lesbians not having sperm sui generis, as it were. Where are the equal-time discussions of egg banks for homosexual male couples?

Or is there biology, after all?

Brownjenkins, "As far as parenthood goes, I think the right of custody has everything to do with who does the work of actually bringing the child up. Biology alone should have zero effect on who gets a child."

The court, which ruled in this cased seemed to agree, but the appellate court did not.

No one has commented on the fact that the sperm donor died. Did you guys read the article? Dead men (or women, for that matter, death being a truly equal opportunity event) don't pay child support. Another biological factoid!

I'm really not understanding your point. According to your profile, it shouldn't be news to you that sperm and egg are used for reproduction. And couples, or larger or smaller groups identifying as "families" need both a sperm and an egg to effectively meet in order to have children.

Familes that don't have eggs that work for this make arrangements to get some, before or after fertilization. Families that don't have sperm do the same. This is true whatever the genders or sexual preferences of the adults involved.

So, it seems you're upset, but I'm not tracking why.