Child support claim rankles sperm donor to lesbian couple

[Turtle]

There is no such thing as same-sex parents. For every child, there is one father and one mother.

I really, really wanted to use that argument once (since "parent" is from the Latin parēns, and 12th century Old French parere, which means to bring forth, breed) but political correctness has, in very recent years, managed to get inserted into the lexicon of definitions for "parent", that of "a person acting as a father or mother; a guardian or protector", which is just retarded liberal crap.

 

[aristotle]

The consequences of these liberal re-education camps on television will produce generations of confused children wherein 50% do not know fundamental truth about relationships. The 50% who have been taught truth will be too intimidated to speak up. It's a very dangerous game to start redefining the basic building block of society. The family.

Barack Obama's cheerful celebration of homosexual marriages being performed in the White House reminds us of Caligula's nomination of his horse into the Roman Senate.

 

[mjmsprt40]

Maybe in your head, Pollyanna, but in real life, not true. There are gazillions of kids with only one parent, and a lot who have no clue who the missing parent [usually the dad] is, and many who think they know, but were lied to for whatever reason.
There are also plenty of kids with two parents of the same sex, and if you took the time to educate yourself, you might be surprised to find that they are as happy and well adjusted as any other kid.
Welcome to this century.

Bold underlined: Behold the miracle! Gazillions of kids with only one parent!! I know that it happened in scripture, we have the story of the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus, but if Cheri is right then virgin birth must be a regular thing and not miraculous at all.

Now, for those of us on this planet and subject to its laws: Biologically there's very little chance indeed that if you were born, you didn't have a father and a mother. They may not be together now, but somewhere, some way it happened. Maybe the whole conception took place in a petri dish, but as long as it requires a sperm and an egg there's a mother and a father

 

[Pilgrim]

Lo
When you re-read the article for a 3rd time, take off your gay haters cap and try to read the facts.

There is a big difference between the facts and your interpretations. You obviously can't tell the difference.

 

[cheri1122]

After reviewing the OP and the post from Turtle a 2d time, this situation looks even more absurd. As usual, the gay/lesbian/transgender/bisexual community seems to make demands for whatever legal and social accommodations that appeal to them at the moment. In this case a lesbian couple wants the same rights as traditional married parents, but without the responsibilities. Their love affair comes to an end, so the mother turns to the child's actual father for support since neither she nor her former "partner" can support themselves, let alone a child.

You need to read it again. and maybe a 4th and 5th time, because you totally missed the point: the mother didn't ask for support from the donor, [in fact, she signed a release of his responsibility in exchange for the sperm donation].
The state is demanding the donor pay for the support, because that's what the law requires. The law that excuses sperm donors only if the donation is made through a physician - as if that makes any difference whatsoever.

Wonder what the chances are for this poor kid to grow up to be a mentally screwed up teenager and adult? Notice how this situation provides a perfect example of homosexual social dysfunction as described in the Regnerus study mentioned in my previous post.

The thoroughly discredited study, that is.

Here's an idea: maybe the biological father and his wife should go to court and counter-sue for custody of the child so she might have a chance to grow up in a normal household. Give the biological mother visitation rights so she can continue that relationship. Maybe the father and the court should make the child's welfare their primary consideration instead of going overboard to placate the G/L/T community.

"Grow up in a normal household"? That's a pretty big assumption, innit? Not even taking into account the fact that the donor clearly didn't and doesn't want the child - what if the donor's wife resents the child? How lovely and happy would her childhood be then?
The problem isn't the 'social dysfunction' of homosexuals [which exists entirely in some people's heads], it's the failure of the state of Kansas [among others] to keep it's regulations updated to reflect the reality of parenthood in the age of artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, sperm & egg donation, etc.
Oh, and the child's best welfare is best served by making both parents who chose to have the child [including the absent one] contribute financially, and the parent/s who want the child to have/retain custody. That leaves Mr Sperm Donor out.

 

[cheri1122]

Bold underlined: Behold the miracle! Gazillions of kids with only one parent!! I know that it happened in scripture, we have the story of the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus, but if Cheri is right then virgin birth must be a regular thing and not miraculous at all.

Now, for those of us on this planet and subject to its laws: Biologically there's very little chance indeed that if you were born, you didn't have a father and a mother. They may not be together now, but somewhere, some way it happened. Maybe the whole conception took place in a petri dish, but as long as it requires a sperm and an egg there's a mother and a father

And as long as one of those parties is absent from the child's life [whatever the reason], that child has only one parent.

 

[Pilgrim]

"Grow up in a normal household"? That's a pretty big assumption, innit? Not even taking into account the fact that the donor clearly didn't and doesn't want the child - what if the donor's wife resents the child? How lovely and happy would her childhood be then?
The problem isn't the 'social dysfunction' of homosexuals [which exists entirely in some people's heads], it's the failure of the state of Kansas [among others] to keep it's regulations updated to reflect the reality of parenthood in the age of artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, sperm & egg donation, etc.
Oh, and the child's best welfare is best served by making both parents who chose to have the child [including the absent one] contribute financially, and the parent/s who want the child to have/retain custody. That leaves Mr Sperm Donor out.

Your position is an argument based on several unfounded assumptions:
1. You don't know whether or not the donor and his wife want the child. If they should it would be the better of the two situations.
2. You don't know what the donor's household is like
3. You assume same sex parenting is normal and healthy for raising children - it isn't. The normalization of homosexuality "which exists entirely in some people's heads" is a false premise that's been promoted by Hollywood, academic elites and the liberal media for quite a few years.

This is a no-win situation that started when two homosexual women thought for a while they wanted to have a baby, probably in an attempt to save a floundering relationship. It's convenient to blame the donor for donating his juice on Craigslist, but consider the fact there must have been a reason the female couple didn't go through normal channels to procure a sperm donation. The press is probably omitting or misrepresenting some things in this story - but the bottom line is the kid suffers the consequences of decisions made by wacko adults.

 

[cheri1122]

No, you are wrong. The woman that was impregnated with a 'turkey baster, was not the same as every other pregnant woman. She, somewhere on her genetic code, is carrying a recessive gene that does not does not further the survival of the species, which by it's nature is a dead end.

Let me get this straight: you're saying that homosexuality is genetic?
Wow - you should inform the scientific world of your breakthrough, cause they haven't discovered it themselves, and they've sure been looking. With electron microscopes. DNA analysis, nuclear imaging, etc, even, and they haven't found it - but you have, huh?
Wow.


I contend that mankind, mainly do to technology is becoming weaker as a species. I was not speaking of the extremes that Hitler went too, although, we are not all that much different here than his ideas. As to whether or not the German people liked it or not, I can't speak. I was not there and it was not anything that I ever studied.

 

[cheri1122]

Exactly - except the lives of the parents were probably in the cr*pper already and the unfortunate 3 yr-old is has virtually no hope for a decent future. I realize it's unrealistic, but some people should not be allowed to reproduce.

and you accuse me of making "unfounded assumptions"?!
I think it's safe to assume that if the donor and his wife wanted the child, they'd have said so - they haven't. Ergo, they don't want the child.
You [and those who refer to the gay couple wanting a 'pet' which is a pretty ****ed offensive assumption, as well as unfounded] are making quite a few assumptions of your own, which aren't justified by anything written in the articles.
I happen to know a few gay people, and they are just the same as hetero people: some are excellent parents, others, not so much. And the differences have nothing to do with their sexual orientation.

 

[Turtle]

I happen to know a few gay people, too, and not one of them is the same as as hetero people. They're all hardwired differently than heterosexuals, and because of that they see most issues differently, including thinking homosexuality is normal. It's not. The very hard-wiring that drives the desire to reproduce is not and cannot be present in homosexuals, because they are not sexually attracted to someone they can procreate with, so their desire to procreate is politically motivated far more than it is biologically motivated. The fact that homosexuality exists in natural is quite natural, and it's normal that it exists, but homosexuality in and of itself is not normal, otherwise they could procreate on their own.

 

[RLENT]

Exactly - except the lives of the parents were probably in the cr*pper already and the unfortunate 3 yr-old is has virtually no hope for a decent future. I realize it's unrealistic, but some people should not be allowed to reproduce.

I think that's pretty much just what ol' Adolph Schicklgruber had in mind ...

Seeing you express similar thoughts and desires is ... not something I find entirely surprising ...

 

[davekc]

I think that's pretty much just what ol' Adolph Schicklgruber had in mind ...

Seeing you express similar thoughts and desires is ... not something I find entirely surprising ...

What I found surpising was one post from Monger on a gay/lesbian thread.

 

[piattteam]

I haven't read all of the postings here, so don't know if I am repeating something or not.
My ONLY problem is, if YOU can't afford to raise YOUR kid(s)- DON'T HAVE ANY!!!!
My hard earned money should NOT go to ANYONE to help them raise THEIR child(ren)!!!!!

 

[davekc]

I haven't read all of the postings here, so don't know if I am repeating something or not.
My ONLY problem is, if YOU can't afford to raise YOUR kid(s)- DON'T HAVE ANY!!!!
My hard earned money should NOT go to ANYONE to help them raise THEIR child(ren)!!!!!

Not any more. If you are working and not supporting those that keeping making the same mistakes over and over again, you are not doing your fair share.

 

[Turtle]

What I found surpising was one post from Monger on a gay/lesbian thread.

I think Amonger is a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

 

[AMonger]

As opposed to 6 or 8?

 

[AMonger]

I think that's pretty much just what ol' Adolph Schicklgruber had in mind ...

Seeing you express similar thoughts and desires is ... not something I find entirely surprising ...

They already can't reproduce. No one should be allowed to help them pretend.

 

[cheri1122]

I haven't read all of the postings here, so don't know if I am repeating something or not.
My ONLY problem is, if YOU can't afford to raise YOUR kid(s)- DON'T HAVE ANY!!!!
My hard earned money should NOT go to ANYONE to help them raise THEIR child(ren)!!!!!

I understand the resentment, but there's just a couple little problems:
First: no one can see the future. Circumstances change - death, illness, and [the biggest current issue] extended unemployment [or employment at low wages] can wipe out anyone's resources. It could have happened to any of us, too. [2 of the owners I once drove for have been totally bankrupted out by unexpected medical expenses in the last 2 years alone.]
Second: even in cases where the parents are/were incredibly unprepared for parenthood and the consequent expenses, [I know some of those people, too, sigh] are you ok with letting the kids go without enough to eat, decent clothing, a safe place to live, basic medical care?
I'm not.

 

[layoutshooter]

Here it is, I paid for MY children, other's kids are NOT my responsibility. I am FED up with covering part, or all, of the cost of raising OTHER PEOPLE's children. I should not have to subsidize OTHER PEOPLE's need? for day care. Their milk, eggs, as in WIC. Health care, housing. If I did it, so can they. They are going to use FORCE to MAKE us cover everyone one's expenses other than our own, MAYBE instead they should be using FORCE to MAKE THOSE parents live up to THEIR responsibilities.

 

[cheri1122]

Here it is, I paid for MY children, other's kids are NOT my responsibility. I am FED up with covering part, or all, of the cost of raising OTHER PEOPLE's children. I should not have to subsidize OTHER PEOPLE's need? for day care. Their milk, eggs, as in WIC. Health care, housing. If I did it, so can they. They are going to use FORCE to MAKE us cover everyone one's expenses other than our own, MAYBE instead they should be using FORCE to MAKE THOSE parents live up to THEIR responsibilities.

Can't take your own [oft given] advice and move?
'No one is forcing you to live here', right? Go live in a military dictatorship where you won't be expected to show compassion for those less 'able' than yourself.
If you're not willing to follow your own advice, then you should stop giving it.