Posted on 08/25/2004 9:50:08 AM PDT by PinnedAndRecessed
That's just it. By definition, a homosexual couple isn't capable of 'bringing children into the world.' This woman's partner-in-perversion didn't contribute anything genetically to the poor child; a sperm donor did.
Um, that's not biologically possible. At least not yet.
Emphasis on helped - obviously, one of them got artificially inseminated. But both wanted the kid.
Can you say "sex discrimination"?
Not in this case. There is a big difference between fathering a child and this.
Now if you're talking about fathers being forced to pay child support even after they are found not to be the fathers, I agree with you. The problem is that the men making these decisions don't agree with you.
Courts have interpreted the act of sex as being a contract to have children. How is what this cut & run lesbian did any different? It appears the court acknowledges they had an agreement, it's just that they refuse to enforce it.
She's different in that the child isn't biologically hers. OTOH, the sperm donor knowingly and deliberately did his part to conceive the child. How can you not see the difference?
Of course, I wouldn't object to making her pay child support, except that then you would have a legal case for making men who aren't the biological fathers pay child support, and there's too much of that already.
And that statement, if it is indeed the basis for the court's ruling, exposes the utter hypocrisy of their earlier ruling in favor of same-sex "marriages". The earlier ruling was based on the bizarre notion that gender isn't a significant enough factor for marriage laws to take notice of. And yet, biological relation, which is inherently based on gender (it's the whole reason for gender in the first place), is still given special notice.
If I agree to adopt a child with a partner, I'm legally obligated to support the child, even if we break up. There's no biological bond, and parenthood is not all about biology. Why can't you see that there's no difference?
In other words, if the judges involved support same-sex marriage, then they have some explaining to do.
Aside from the technical legal aspects of the case, the silver lining is that the child has slightly more hope of being normal, now that it's not going to be raised in "I have two mommies!" perversion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.