Canada, which has redefined marriage and therefore parenthood, is facing growing cases like this one:
A judge in this small northern Ontario town has ruled that allowing a biological father access to his 22-month-old son, who is being raised by his biological mother and her lesbian partner, is not in the best interests of the child because of “the risk of there being an adverse affect to the child.”
Citing arguments that introducing the child to his father would cause the boy confusion and insecurity, Justice Norman Karam of the Ontario Superior Court in Cochrane said, “Despite the child’s young age, it is impossible to know what disclosure of [the father’s] status as his parent might mean. All circumstances considered, the risk of there being an adverse affect to the child is too great to ignore.”
Justice Karam said he considered allowing access, but imposing limitations on what the child was told about his father, but decided that, “attempting to enforce such limitations would be virtually impossible.”
... Rene deBlois, the biological father of the boy, had requested interim access to his son in January, 2011 pending the outcome of the trial scheduled for October 22, 2012. That trial will look into the paternity rights muddle created when deBlois and the boy’s lesbian mother, Nicole Lavigne, entered into a home-made written agreement that deBlois, who had known Lavigne since childhood, would provide sperm so she could artificially inseminate herself, with the understanding that he agreed to relinquish his paternity rights.
According to a National Post report, part of deBlois and Lavigne’s agreement was that Lavigne would provide deBlois with a child of his own using his sperm following the birth of the first child. deBlois alleges that Lavigne reneged on her offer to carry a second child for him because it was not part of the written “Donor Agreement” that he signed.
In his application to the court for paternity rights, filed three months after his son Tyler’s birth in October, 2010, deBlois stated that he had been coerced into signing the Donor Agreement by Lavigne, who he described as a “bully” who forced him to sign “under duress.” -- LifeSiteNews
31 Comments
This already happens here in the US, of course, much more often than anyone realizes and much more often than the opposition would like us to know about.
While this story seems incredibly evil to the uninitiated reader it is, in reality, par for the course.
I personally know a man whose story is nearly identical to this one, right here in the good old US. He actually knew his child for 3 years before the militant lesbian mother ripped them apart from each other and legally got rid of him.
These scenarios, played out on a daily basis, are mindbogglingly insane and cruel to everyone involved, especially the child.
This sad state of affairs is certainly not unique to same sex parents. It seems to me the main lesson from this is to be very, very careful about what you sign, including ensuring that every single issue important to you is clearly addressed in the document you sign.
“...the risk of adverse affects...” I'm laughing so hard I can't finish the article. (Or am I crying?)
Won't it be a wonderful world for lawyers if the homosexualists succeed in rewriting the marriage laws?
Why, the imagination cannot begin to conceive of all the intricate questions which will require the most careful judicial scrutiny.........
This is, sadly, exactly what I've been talking about for weeks and months now, and which militant promoters of gay identity politics refuse to hear: if you are a married man (gay or straight) to the mother of your children, your paternity rights are protected. But if you are not married to the mother of your children, you HAVE NO GUARANTEE OF YOUR PATERNAL RIGHTS!!! You see, marriage isn't about "gay" or "straight;" it's about regulating procreation, without mandating procreation. The same protection applies to women (including those who consider themselves lesbian): if you are married to the father of your children, you can expect them to be legally bound to take full paternal responsiblity for the care of their child; otherwise, an unmarried woman must carry the burden alone. However, with so many women insisting they don't need their children's father to take responsibility (even though every child needs a good relationship with their own dad), fathers seem to be in an especially precarious position for paternity rights. Marriage is SO MUCH BIGGER than satisfying adult desires--it is the most child friendly institution we have. The government can't invent a program that can replace "mommy;" nor can it invent a program to replace "daddy," not even with the best of intentions.
Marriage=male+female
The total is greater than the sum of the parts.
Rick,
Yes, all social issues should be decided by law school graduates, because -- as everybody knows -- they're better people.. so superior.
Is the human being a combination of two sexes, or is a human being one individual of either sex?
We know a human being of either sex cannot procreate alone (regardless of so-called sexual orientation).
If we take as a thesis a human being is a couple, and not just individual persons, the couple being of opposite sex, we arrive at some troublesome legal insights because our USA traditions and laws, unlike other nations, oftentimes focus on the rights of 'individuals'.
But obviously, the rights of individuals will not guarantee the engendering of the next generation.
We obviously can do more, many more physical maneuvers and actions with two hands rather than one; and with two feet rather than one. Can you imagine if the individual human being went around having only one hand and one leg? How would we walk and run? We would have to hop, and maybe use hand and teeth to hold things, etc. With two hands and two feet with their own consciousness, one hand might want to go towards the left and the other towards the right. But that is only possible if we detach one (pretty painful). So, and individual survives only through cooperation and one-mindedness of the two hands.
How is a human being defined? Is a human defined as an individual? Or is it defined as male and female for completeness, with the inherent ability for the two sexes to separate up to a certain point. Separation of the two sexes for more than 100 years would destroy the experiment. This may be more than a silly philosophical self-engaging mental trip. It is rational, but impractical, to define the human being without regard to its sexual identity and biological counterpart.
Could it be the most fundamental definition of a human being is as a couple including the two sexes?
Obviously, the definition would not be complete if we describe only one sex as the human being, at least not over time.
The human being could also be defined as a social, portable, bi-pedal animal which lives and operates in friendships, either as a pair or more, and that definition would describe the social (tribal) aspect of the human being. But, as such, the human genus/species would not exist for long (>100 years).
To have a full definition of a human being we need to define in terms of biological pairs (or combinations of the two sexes) and also friendship combinations. But, of the two, the first (opposite sex combinations) is the most fundamental (we cannot have the second without the first, over time).
We cannot ignore the benefits of having two hands and/or two feet; and we cannot ignore the benefits of opposite-sex biological pairs. Defining a human being as a sole individual with certain legal rights, defines a legal unit which on its own cannot replicate, and is not as 'complete' in other ways. Therefore, the legal rights of 'associations' and in particular the most fundamental for posterity - the association of opposite-sex combinations - are natural outcomes of the nature of the human being (as a friendship, or as a biologically paired couple). Many of the problems we have in modern society are a result of seeing the human being as a sole individual - a being that is mortal and cannot replicate itself - but more importantly: a being that cannot experience the full sense of being human (like a hand without the opposite hand).
I thought of this because i read some Muslims used to punish some people, not by killing then, but (worse) cutting off a hand and a foot. What arose my curiosity is they would not cut off a hand AND a foot from the same side of the individual. In that way they kept them able to maneuver, but left them incomplete and lame for the rest of their lives, alive to remember how complete they once were (pretty cruel, but effective).
The human being is more fully described as a dual being. The rights of associations: friendship and marriage are essential legal treatments of the human being, but marriage is the most critical for posterity. Thinking in terms of individuals, an incomplete notion of the human being, will invariably lead to incomplete legal provisions and many problems.
We should not be surprised to find our legal structure provides for rights of individuals AND also rights of associations (friendship, marriage). Weird would be to focus only on the rights of individuals.
DOE: I liked your summary: 'marriage isn't about "gay" or "straight;" it's about regulating procreation, without mandating procreation.'
You said it all !
SS"m" extremists relegate fathers to nothing more than a sperm donor. Is that all a father is ?
Nice work Little Man.
It seems that you're trying to express in part what I call the “human species in its completed form”. We cannot say that a person is not a complete human-being in and of himself, for whether a man or a woman an individual is lacking nothing that makes of him a human being. But we can say that he is not a “completed human species”. Or what I call the “ONE human species” which is a synonym to “ the human species in its completed form” and a synonym to the word “marriage” (traditional marriage).
What you're working at is also on the lines of what Chairm and Robert George call a “comprehensive relationship”. (For most people the word comprehensive needs to be looked up in the dictionary to start to understand what is meant by this).
The “ONE human species” sounds quite awkward (and it will have to be given a proper name since the word marriage has been taken away from it). But it is at least helpful in conjure up in peoples' minds a mental picture of what is being identified. This is extremely important for children, and for adults who do not have the time to go into depth on the subject. The child is forced to ask himself, “what is a “ONE human species”? Or what is a “human species in its completed form”? In going toward a definition, it will become evident to the child that two human beings of the same sex cannot become the “human species in its completed form” (the “ONE-human-species”).
A “ONE-human-species” has all the organs and chromosomes of the human species as well as possibilities and complexities that are unique to it. What is also important to note is that for all of its possibilities and complexities to become possible, the man and woman who make it up must be committed to each other in order for the “completed human species” to come into existence. (It does not become completed if the two are not committed to each other. Or as DOE says, "the total is greater than the sum of the parts".)
Anyway, since they have stolen the word marriage from us, there is work to be done. And as evidenced here, a work in progress is not always pretty to watch.
P.S. Nice post DOE.
Just to clarify: My notion of completeness in the dual nature of the human being does not require monogamy, nor does it require long-term commitment.
I am not approaching it from a Biblical perspective (though my reasoning itself is compatible with it).
One doesn't have to be a Christian to realize a man is completed with a woman, and vice versa, and only when one is able to experience this (to the extent a long-term commitment allows) can one believe it.
Belief is at the center of all ideologies. There are no people of no faith. (or: All people have some sort of faith, though they might not like to admit it to themselves or say it.)
In Christian theology, the dual human being is 'incomplete' without God.
But to understand incompleteness, one has to experience completeness.
Jesus pointed to the original pair in Genesis, using the terms for 'male and female' human, not the terms man and woman. It doesn't happen more than 3 times in the entire Bible - the use of these terms.
Therefore, there's that kind of completeness also in polygamous associations (the dual nature of the human being).
Nevertheless, in polygamy there's also a high possibility of jealousy and can easily get super complicated, and i don't wish it on anyone.
Maybe a super rich person can have several partners. Whether legalized or not, some do have several partners.
Nevertheless, i don't see that polygamy is prohibited or excluded in the Christian Scriptures. Lots of marriages are entered into for convenience. More than would appear, and that's one reason divorce is so prevalent.
"Nevertheless, i don't see that polygamy is prohibited or excluded in the Christian Scriptures."
>> Now you do:
"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: [5] For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
[6] Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."
Thanks Rick, but i had already read that tangential passage of Scripture. Where's the prohibition for polygamy ? It says (in an ancient language) 'male and female', not 1 male and 1 female. Also, from the 10 commandments (#7) doesn't say, 'Thou shall not commit polygamy.'
Verse [6] you quoted could mean that a male and female human would leave their parent's (home) and come together in sexual union (one flesh), bringing the two families together too. But it doesn't say becoming 'one flesh' (the sexual act), cannot be repeated in series within marriage (polygamy), just that people should leave them alone in their privacy as married and deserving of their society's respect and moral support.
It also would be uncompassionate to leave many young women unable to marry, when for instance 1/2 of the men in a city were killed in a battle.
Jesus said (paraphrased) the 'law' (of his time) was written for the sake of man, not man created for the sake of the law, as for instance the commandment #4 about keeping the sabbath.
There's also the rule in Old Testament law that when a brother dies, his next brother would have the duty to marry the widow.
I welcome hermeneutical input into this question of Biblical polygamy. If we twist scripture to mean what we prefer, our opposition is going to point to us saying we don't even follow the Bible. Certainly, 1man+1woman and no more is the optimal situation. But in certain economies and times, we cannot judge other marriage structure when they are not prohibited. Same-wise, we cannot prohibit drinking fermented grape juice (wine), though for instance the Nazarites made special vows of purity, and let their hair grow. Aloha.
From the original blogpost referring to a news article:
"According to a National Post report, part of deBlois and Lavigne’s agreement was that Lavigne would provide deBlois with a child of his own using his sperm following the birth of the first child. deBlois alleges that Lavigne reneged on her offer to carry a second child for him because it was not part of the written “Donor Agreement” that he signed."
Neither the mother nor the father is in the right. Both have attempted to treat the other as a thing, a baby-making tool, and both have treated the prospect and the reality of children as a produce, something commodified, a thing, a tool for self-gratification.
When a man treats a woman in this way, as tool for self-gratificaction in terms of attaining a sexual outcome, society is often ready to call him on it. It is sexist. But apparently some would excuse it if there was a financial transaction or other deal or commodification of the exchange of 'services'.
When a woman treats a man in this way, as a checkbook for unwed children, society tends to support her for the sake of helping the child. Sometimes the father, even in such an unwed circumstance, is granted access to his child -- for the sake of helping the child. And this "helping" is not just material but also developmental and moral. And here if the responsiblity of parenthood is neglected, or is not consented to, the father is not given an escape clause.
But what would make this deal -- negotiated such that consent has become contested -- valid in any legal or moral sense?
Meanwhile, when people enter marriage and form the union of husband and wife, they consent -- and society joins their consent -- the the legal presumption that the sexual basis of this type of relationship provides that the husband will father the children born to he and his wife together. Co-parenting is the default of marriage precisely because of the two-sexed nature of human procreation; and because of the integrative reality of coital relations of husband and wife.
@Little Man #13:
This is an important issue, thanks for raising it.
LM: Thanks Rick, but i had already read that tangential passage of Scripture.
>> Tangential? It happens to be Our Lord, referring back to the very earliest truth about marriage in the Bible, *for the explicit purpose of correcting the Jews who had misunderstood it*".
LM: Where's the prohibition for polygamy ?
>> Notice the word "two".
LM: It says (in an ancient language) 'male and female', not 1 male and 1 female.
>> "and the *two* shall become *one flesh*".
I really cannot understand how God could have spoken in any more simple and clear a way.
LM: Also, from the 10 commandments (#7) doesn't say, 'Thou shall not commit polygamy.'
>> Irrelevant. Your original claim was to have never seen a prohibition against polygamy in Scripture.
Now you have.
LM: Verse [6] you quoted could mean that a male and female human would leave their parent's (home) and come together in sexual union (one flesh), bringing the two families together too. But it doesn't say becoming 'one flesh' (the sexual act),
>> The words "sexual act" do not appear in Scripture. The words "they two shall become one flesh" appear in Scripture. There is no suggestion or hint that they are only one flesh during sex.
LM: cannot be repeated in series within marriage (polygamy), just that people should leave them alone in their privacy as married and deserving of their society's respect and moral support.
>> *Two* shall become *one flesh*. The *cleave* to one another. This is not a one night stand here LM.
LM:
It also would be uncompassionate to leave many young women unable to marry, when for instance 1/2 of the men in a city were killed in a battle.
>> Umm, Little Man, the species has remarkably managed to overcome all such challenges, and we maintain a very nearly equal ratio of male to female today despsite wars of such ferocious killing efficiency as to leave the Israelites stunned by the puny inadequacies of their own.
Anyway, the important point here is that the Christian Scriptures, as well as the immemorial and universal practice of the Christian Churches East and West established directly by the Apostles themselves, directly and clearly prohibit polygamy.
Always have.
>>“...there being an adverse affect to the child.”
Agreed that the situation will result in an adverse affect to the child, but it will be due to his having two mommies.
>>Citing arguments that introducing the child to his father would cause the boy confusion...
And growing up with two mommies is not going to "cause the boy confusion"? Sorry, but anyone who believes it won't is simply in denial. Deny it all you want, but you know in your soul it's twisted.
>>“the risk of there being an adverse affect to the child.”
The adverse affect will be due to having two mommies.
>>Citing arguments that introducing the child to his father would cause the boy confusion and insecurity,
Oh, please. Permitting a child to be raised by two mommies is not going to "cause the boy confusion"? When he gets asked about it by other kids, it won't cause him "insecurity"? Sorry, but you're in denial. Deny it all you want, but you know in your soul the "two mommies"/"two daddies" situations are twisted and you're twisting the minds of the unfortunate children your subjecting to it in order to satisfy your own desires.
Chairm wrote,
>
> When a man treats a woman in this way, as tool for self-gratification in terms of attaining a sexual outcome, society is often ready to call him on it. It is sexist.<
Um, er, uh, yes! Please keep that word "tool" in there. Taking it out would make me a little uncomfortable. I was a college student once and, um, er, uh -- "tool", no, never. How terrible!
Personality, intelligence, charm, conversational ability -- that was all I ever cared about. Honest!
I always treated ladies like ladies, and "self-gratification in terms of attaining a sexual outcome," was *the last* thing on my mind. You do believe me, don't you?
Why are you looking at me like that?
Mmmm, I did love those complementary bodies, though, so lovely to look at and admire -- *from a distance! What??*
Dan wrote,
>
> Oh, please. Permitting a child to be raised by two mommies is not going to "cause the boy confusion"?
“Boys without male role models tend to be either overly super-macho, trying to see how many girls they can get, or wallflowers,” Stanton said. “They’re not necessarily more sexually virtuous than boys raised by heterosexual parents, but they haven’t developed emotionally and psychologically in the same ways. It’s not that they don’t want to go in the water — they’re not inclined to go anywhere near the water.”
http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/03/06/studies-children-raised-by-lesbians-not-problem-free/
Folks, this happens all the time with straight couples. When you sign over paternity rights, guess what, you sign over paternity rights. I could easily reword this story and make your guy looks like the bad guy trying to go after a lesbian couple for something he clearly did not legally agree to and they obviously have no proof of an agreement about.
Gay or straight does not matter. The law was upheld, the signatures were upheld, the choices of the mothers were upheld. He was a sperm donor, not an ex-husband, not a lover of any kind.
There is no reason for this article, as 90% of everything else here. Let me know when you'd like to discuss serious issues other than the LEGAL PARENTS of a child give the right to decide what is best for their family.
Whether he agreed to it or not, the reality is that this article jives with the sentiment that kids deserve a mom and a dad. It's a crying shame that this child has a father who wants him, and is denied that access through societal error that we've allowed to creep into our society. There's something not right here.
I agrre with you TC Matthews.
Still, let's keep in mind the deal they made which would have split-up not just mom and dad but also two siblings. The woman reneged on the deal such that the man did not get his child while now he wants his compensation in the child he had dealt away.
The deal stinks. The man and woman messed up before the child was even concieved. The wants of the adults superseded the principles of responsible procreation. They had set out to disunite motherhood and fatherhood ... for two children ... and now want to split one child.
The desire for children is one thing. The desire to seperate a child from either mom or dad, at the outset, is a truly awful basis for negotiating fatherhood or motherhood or childhood. This case illustrates that procreative justice demands that we speak and think on behalf of the party not yet at the table ... and while not at the table that child is voiceless and vulnerable ... and so commodification fills the void to turn that voiceless party into the product for which the deal is cast.
Intent and consent is insufficient. But both are part and parcel of the commitment to form the marital relationship of husband and wife. Marriage is the plan, the table around which all are represented, and the deal itself. That is marriage.
This case does express what you said. Tragically.
The opposition just shrugs. Big deal, they say. He shouldn't have signed the docs.
I guess it's too much to expect them to disagree with the entire practice of manufacturing babies with the premeditated intent to deprive them of their rightful parents.
Children are just pets, after all, created for the entertainment of adults.
T.C. is right. The child has a right to a relationship with his biological father. Half the child's biological family tree is being purposefully withheld from him. This is morally wrong. We should be grateful the father wants to take responsibility for his part in the procreation of his child--not punishing him. But this is what happens when marriage is divorced from procreation--parenting becomes a creature of the state, and something to be arbitrarily designated by a judge (also a fallible human being, as capable of misjudging as anyone else). So, so sad.
Barb Chamberlan: Hello. I was about to write a comment, just to develop a related topic about how people want the State (Governments) to give out marriage licenses for all kinds of reasons:
to sell US citizenship to an alien,
just because they love someone (same-sex or opposite-sex),
because they want to marry someone with lots of $,
because they want extra medical insurance,
because they want to adopt a child.
In this post, the issue is one in which the opposite-sex pair did not want to marry, but allegedly wanted to engender two children, one for each individual in the friendship. Well, the friendship is no more.
Another motive for marriage could be jealousy. If someone dislikes someone else, marrying his/her girlfriend could become a form of revenge.
It's amazing how marriage can be abused, even in the case of a perfectly valid civil marriage with State and Federal recognition.
As an extra, of course, is the twisting of ONE of the conditions for a marriage license, without twisting the others, so that same-sex couples can feel 'equal' to opposite-sex married couples, thereby losing the public purpose which created civil marriage in the first place.
Per your comment, i will have to add another motive for marriage: That people want to play house, and have children as pets. Yet, i don't think children make very good pets, because most of them become very intelligent. Still, there could be people who might think at first that having a child would give the wife some pleasant company. A dog is grown up in two years. But a child takes like 18 years, and goes through the teenage years with hormonal imbalances, etc. They make terrible pets
The marriage topic has so many ramifications. It's so fundamental, and so profound. It's a trip so many people want to take. Next would be the pairs that want to get their incestuous relationship recognized by the government.
This world that God designed to be into service of him is going to hell in a hand basket. Satan has tricked the majority of us and has us following our desires. We need to get back to the word and stop leaning to our own understanding. God destoryed a whole city because of this type of behavior which is learned and turned an woman who had feeling for them into a pillar of salt. If we forget where we came from we will be doomed to repeat it again, god bless all and god speed.
Rick: Your Biblical prohibition of polygamy seems to be based on one single Scriptural passage. Yes, you keep it simple, but also simplistic.
It is not a prohibition of polygamy to say (each) marriage a man could enter into (in the Old Testament theocracy) was constituted by only two people - a man leaving his father and mother, and cleaving to his wife.
Obviously, a man can leave his mother and father only once; but i think this passage is referring to the son not allowed to return to his parents (not like today, and unto their health insurance
). On the other hand, the wife could return to her parents. It doesn't say she had to leave her father and mother.
Now, you start with a quote of Jesus' quote of part or Genesis 1 and part of Genesis 2, put together, in which there's only 2 characters involved in a marriage. And those two characters for sure were not same-sex; and they were not Adam and Eve.
Of course, a union between two characters cannot possibly end up with 3 people in it. That is begging the question. You are using circular reasoning.
But you forget that in Old Testament times a man could marry one or more times without divorcing. And it was not vice versa for the woman.
Yes, each marriage involved 2 persons; and for the first marriage it involved the man leaving his father and mother to form his own home, never to return to mommy. But a man could go into one or more marriages, completely consistent with the passage you quoted.
We must stress the fact that he had to be able to AFFORD more than one marriage. Most people couldn't. Old Testament law didn't put up with sleazy husbands, as in today's USA, or catered to a woman's love fantasies. In fact, husbands had to BUY the wives - pay the alimony and child support IN ADVANCE. It wasn't just about love, or a grand wedding and a stupid wedding cake. No need for a lawyer, or marriage license either. The goal was to have the sexual act be approved only within marriage. Fornication and adultery were prohibited. The sexual act was only permitted within marriage, but a man could properly marry several times without prompting a divorce. There were advantages and disadvantages to that system.
Though the passage is not a prohibition of polygamy, what the passage is clearly ignoring, reasoning from a biological correspondence of the sexes (only two: male and female), is same-sex marriage.
King David was penalized for sending one of his generals to the battle front so he would die, in order to marry his widow, who was already pregnant with King David's child. Even someone so close to God's heart, figuratively speaking, turned out to be the lowest creep, and tried to keep it secret, and covered up 'nicely' as if he was doing a favor to Bathsheba. But even then, King David (in repentance) was able to keep his extra marriage to Bathsheba (with a miscarriage), though King David already had a number of wives (marriages).
Yet, it was because he already had so many wives, that taking the single wife of his general through abuse of his power as King, made the indirect murder so shameful. All of us cringe at the awful act, yet we have our own shameful acts. King David is never rebuked or punished for having more than one wife. The sin was adultery, covered up by indirect murder, disloyalty to a loyal 'general', vanity and greed. The sin was not polygamy.
Let me quote a scripture allowing polygamy, except for bishops (church overseers or leaders). It is dependent on the translation, but here it goes:
1 Timothy 3, verse 1 and 2:
This is a true saying: If a man is eager to be a church leader, he desires an excellent work. A church leader must be without fault; he must have only one wife, [have only one wife; or be married only once] be sober, self-controlled, and orderly;
How can someone aspiring to be a church leader be required to be a husband of only one wife (note the word 'only' in this case), if it was impossible for him, as a candidate, to have 2 or more?
Obviously, having one wife is optimal for a church leader, and therefore optimal for everyone; but it doesn't limit other people who do not aspire to be church leaders, bishops or overseers.
In the same chapter, bishops and deacons are not to be too indulging in wine. That is not to be read as prohibiting drinking wine (or fruit wine) in moderation. There's a parallel, i think, between polygamy and drinking wine in this passage. Paul really puts things, in think, in the proper perspective.
Not that i would support civil marriage allowing polygamy in the USA. The government can't even regulate single marriage well, so polygamy would be a total, total disaster for the courts. Polygamy had very strict rules in Old Testament (and New Testament) times. It wasn't the superficial love triangles of today.
The poor child is already in an adverse situtation... what would be the problem with the man having asscess to his child? It happens all the time in divorce and remarry situations... This gay couple is afraid the child would eventually opt out of thier "relationship" when he is old enough to think...
To argue similar cases occur with heterosexual couples confirms that as a society we need to preserve and protect the model of marriage and family that is the most established and secure. We do not need to strain the foundation of society further.
Deby: agreed - leave the topic of same-sex marriage to when we have a good economy. But wait.... that's why it is being pushed now through legislatures - because people are already hurting financially in a terrible, persistent, bad economy triggered by the IRaq war.
There's a public purpose for friendships (they can adopt children), but it cannot be equated to the public purpose of civil marriage. Just thought you would like to know that.
CJ is dead on. The concept of donating your sperm is not at all related to becoming a father. It is designed as a selfless act to enable another couple to have a child and a family. Turning around and demanding access to the child once it is born is a completely selfish act. Like giving someone a gift and then demanding the right to have access to this gift whenever you like.
Boys, if you want a child and a family, donating your sperm is not the way to go. Find a nice girl, marry her and her her pregnant... And if you feel the urge to donate your sperm, think carefully about what you are giving away. Once you give it away and sign the papers, you have made your choice. The child is not yours.