A Simple Question For Those Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

[Syriusly]

Likewise, people who use children bound in contracts to make either fathers or mothers legally-irrelevant to them are acting a nefarious agenda.

So all of those sperm donors are acting on a nefarious agenda?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Likewise, people who use children bound in contracts to make either fathers or mothers legally-irrelevant to them are acting a nefarious agenda.

You're a freakin' broken record!! That's all that you have!! ?? Pathetic!! I was right about the response that I predicted. YOU are finished here! Anyone with a brain can see what you are.

You sound a little edgy and heated here ^^ ...defensive. Need to talk about it?

I win!!

 

[Boss]

I see nothing in your scenario which would REQUIRE marriage between the two women for CPS or courts to rule in favor of what is best for the children. It's two different issues but you are attempting to connect them together for purposes of promoting a specific policy.

There is certainly legal precedent for non-parents being awarded custody of children following the unexpected death of a sole custodian. Your fictional scenario would have been much more thought-provoking had you introduced caring, loving and closely connected maternal grandparents who were willing to raise the children. In such a situation, we have to weigh the options of relatives vs. partner and the intrinsic nature of disrupting the living arrangement of the children. That could be a compelling argument and one that would be difficult to determine without careful evaluation of the particular case circumstances. But at least that would be a compelling scenario. What you've presented is not.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I see nothing in your scenario which would REQUIRE marriage between the two women for CPS or courts to rule in favor of what is best for the children. It's two different issues but you are attempting to connect them together for purposes of promoting a specific policy.

There is certainly legal precedent for non-parents being awarded custody of children following the unexpected death of a sole custodian. Your fictional scenario would have been much more thought-provoking had you introduced caring, loving and closely connected maternal grandparents who were willing to raise the children. In such a situation, we have to weigh the options of relatives vs. partner and the intrinsic nature of disrupting the living arrangement of the children. That could be a compelling argument and one that would be difficult to determine without careful evaluation of the particular case circumstances. But at least that would be a compelling scenario. What you've presented is not.

I addressed the issue of grand parents and other relatives. There were none. At the time and in the place of the story, marriage could well have been the difference in whether or not the kids got to stay with the only person who they know and are bonded to. Accept that or not. It is a case for same sex marriage.

 

[Boss]

I addressed the issue of grand parents and other relatives. There were none. At the time and in the place of the story, marriage could well have been the difference in whether or not the kids got to stay with the only person who they know and are bonded to. Accept that or not. It is a case for same sex marriage.

Again, it's NOT a case for any such thing! There is no reason for "marriage" as some artificial criteria regarding what is best for the children and there is adequate case law to support custodianship to a non-parent in these circumstances. You imagining there is some false criteria doesn't create one... SORRY!

I didn't say that you didn't address the grands. I said that your argument would be more compelling with loving and caring grandparents who wanted to raise the children. At least in that scenario we would be compelled to consider and weigh which option would be for the overall better benefit of the children and their future. In YOUR scenario, there is only one option that is optimal.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I addressed the issue of grand parents and other relatives. There were none. At the time and in the place of the story, marriage could well have been the difference in whether or not the kids got to stay with the only person who they know and are bonded to. Accept that or not. It is a case for same sex marriage.

Again, it's NOT a case for any such thing! There is no reason for "marriage" as some artificial criteria regarding what is best for the children and there is adequate case law to support custodianship to a non-parent in these circumstances. You imagining there is some false criteria doesn't create one... SORRY!

I didn't say that you didn't address the grands. I said that your argument would be more compelling with loving and caring grandparents who wanted to raise the children. At least in that scenario we would be compelled to consider and weigh which option would be for the overall better benefit of the children and their future. In YOUR scenario, there is only one option that is optimal.

Ah yes, I think I remember now. You are opposed to marriage altogether, right?? I'm not going to re-litigate it again now. In the real world, these people who I spoke of could have benefited by marriage. Period

 

[Boss]

I addressed the issue of grand parents and other relatives. There were none. At the time and in the place of the story, marriage could well have been the difference in whether or not the kids got to stay with the only person who they know and are bonded to. Accept that or not. It is a case for same sex marriage.

Again, it's NOT a case for any such thing! There is no reason for "marriage" as some artificial criteria regarding what is best for the children and there is adequate case law to support custodianship to a non-parent in these circumstances. You imagining there is some false criteria doesn't create one... SORRY!

I didn't say that you didn't address the grands. I said that your argument would be more compelling with loving and caring grandparents who wanted to raise the children. At least in that scenario we would be compelled to consider and weigh which option would be for the overall better benefit of the children and their future. In YOUR scenario, there is only one option that is optimal.

Ah yes, I think I remember now. You are opposed to marriage altogether, right?? I'm not going to re-litigate it again now. In the real world, these people who I spoke of could have benefited by marriage. Period

Well my position regarding marriage has nothing to do with your argument or whether your point is valid or not. Your arguments have to stand on their own merit, regardless of my personal viewpoints and you've simply failed to support your argument. No, there would be no reason for "marriage" in your scenario and there is adequate case law to support that. In fact, I personally know of a similar situation within my own family.

I have a niece who is currently being raised by her godmother who is not related. She is the legal guardian appointed by the court and she won legal guardianship over the grandparents who fought for custody when her mother died. The court found the child had a closer relationship with the godmother and it would be in her best interest to be raised by her as opposed to the grandparents. The courts generally rule on the sole basis of what is best for the children on a case by case basis. So your argument that "marriage" is some sort of prerequisite is nonsense.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I addressed the issue of grand parents and other relatives. There were none. At the time and in the place of the story, marriage could well have been the difference in whether or not the kids got to stay with the only person who they know and are bonded to. Accept that or not. It is a case for same sex marriage.

Again, it's NOT a case for any such thing! There is no reason for "marriage" as some artificial criteria regarding what is best for the children and there is adequate case law to support custodianship to a non-parent in these circumstances. You imagining there is some false criteria doesn't create one... SORRY!

I didn't say that you didn't address the grands. I said that your argument would be more compelling with loving and caring grandparents who wanted to raise the children. At least in that scenario we would be compelled to consider and weigh which option would be for the overall better benefit of the children and their future. In YOUR scenario, there is only one option that is optimal.

Ah yes, I think I remember now. You are opposed to marriage altogether, right?? I'm not going to re-litigate it again now. In the real world, these people who I spoke of could have benefited by marriage. Period

Well my position regarding marriage has nothing to do with your argument or whether your point is valid or not. Your arguments have to stand on their own merit, regardless of my personal viewpoints and you've simply failed to support your argument. No, there would be no reason for "marriage" in your scenario and there is adequate case law to support that. In fact, I personally know of a similar situation within my own family.

I have a niece who is currently being raised by her godmother who is not related. She is the legal guardian appointed by the court and she won legal guardianship over the grandparents who fought for custody when her mother died. The court found the child had a closer relationship with the godmother and it would be in her best interest to be raised by her as opposed to the grandparents. The courts generally rule on the sole basis of what is best for the children on a case by case basis. So your argument that "marriage" is some sort of prerequisite is nonsense.

Well, good for them, but it does not mean that it would play out that way in all cases. Courts and CPS people are fickle and have their biases. Also, in my story- and yes it is a "story" there is no one who is really interested in or connected to the kids, and that is plausible. I know because I worked in CPS for a lot of years and have experience dealing with the court system.

In addition, children benefit from having married guardians, even in the absence of a tragedy.

 

[Boss]

Well, good for them, but it does not mean that it would play out that way in all cases. Courts and CPS people are fickle and have their biases. Also, in my story- and yes it is a "story" there is no one who is really interested in or connected to the kids, and that is plausible. I know because I worked in CPS for a lot of years and have experience dealing with the court system.

In addition, children benefit from having married guardians, even in the absence of a tragedy.

Nothing plays out a given way "in all cases." Courts and CPS have ONE primary consideration... what is best for the child. That supersedes everything else. In some cases, it even supersedes parenthood and certainly supersedes marriage. There are situations where even a biological parent may be denied guardianship if the court finds they are not fit to raise the child and another better option is available. If you honestly worked with CPS, you know this is a legal and ethical fact and it's shocking you would even attempt to argue against it.

In your fake scenario, the court would most likely award custody to the partner who was raising the child or children, unless a compelling argument could be made that they were unfit. Marriage would have ZERO to do with that. Again, it is shocking to me that you want to establish some kind of guarantee of guardianship based on same-sex marriage rather than consideration of what is best for the child. There is NO legal precedent for this whatsoever and your continued implications to the contrary are absolutely appalling and indecent.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Well, good for them, but it does not mean that it would play out that way in all cases. Courts and CPS people are fickle and have their biases. Also, in my story- and yes it is a "story" there is no one who is really interested in or connected to the kids, and that is plausible. I know because I worked in CPS for a lot of years and have experience dealing with the court system.

In addition, children benefit from having married guardians, even in the absence of a tragedy.

Nothing plays out a given way "in all cases." Courts and CPS have ONE primary consideration... what is best for the child. That supersedes everything else. In some cases, it even supersedes parenthood and certainly supersedes marriage. There are situations where even a biological parent may be denied guardianship if the court finds they are not fit to raise the child and another better option is available. If you honestly worked with CPS, you know this is a legal and ethical fact and it's shocking you would even attempt to argue against it.

In your fake scenario, the court would most likely award custody to the partner who was raising the child or children, unless a compelling argument could be made that they were unfit. Marriage would have ZERO to do with that. Again, it is shocking to me that you want to establish some kind of guarantee of guardianship based on same-sex marriage rather than consideration of what is best for the child. There is NO legal precedent for this whatsoever and your continued implications to the contrary are absolutely appalling and indecent.

So sorry that you're shocked.

 

[Silhouette]

What Boss said

Hey Boss, what's your opinion on two adults having a contract involving kids that banishes those children from either a mother or father for life?

 

[rightwinger]

I have a simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post. But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.

The setting: A time and place where same sex marriage is not possible and only married couples can adopt .

The people: Kathy is a 29 year old divorced woman with two year old twins- a boy named Brandon and a girl named Britany . After the birth of the children, the husband , Jack, became abusive and angry which resulted in Kathy filing for divorce. Jack, over the last year and a half has had minimal contact with the children by his choice, and has had to be hauled into court several time for not paying child support

Kathy has always felt that she was more attracted to women than men but has supppressed those feelings because of taboos and social pressures, and wanting to avoid disapproval of friends and family . However, public opinion and social norms are changing and she is ready to embrace her feelings, be who she really is, and come out as a Lesbian.

Soon after her divorce, Kathy meets Angela, a Lesbian and they hit it off. The children like her and she is crazy about them. Within 6 months Angela moves in with Kathy in the home that Kathy owns exclusivly as a result of the divorce settlement. In time, it becomes clear that the children are bonding with Angela and she is very involved witgh them

A few years go by, the children are now in school and doing well. They are clearly well adjusted and have many friends. Then the unthinkable happens. Kathy is killed in an auto accident. Social Services at the hospital notifies Child Protective Services (CPS) that there are children living with an unrelated person who is not their legal guardian and investigates. The first thing that they do is to contact the father who has moved some distance away and is with another woman. They find out that the woman does not want kids and the father's interest is tempid at best. They consider charging him with abandonment but determine that placing the children with him might be putting them at risk of abuse or neglect because of the attiudes of the father and his girlfriend.

The next step is for CPS is to explore relatives on both sided of the family who might be able and willing to take the children but Kathy had not been close with any of them some austricized her for living with a woman. None are interested in taking in the children.

Meanwhile, Angela and the children are understanably devistated by the loss of Kathy . Compounding the grief is childrens fear that they will be taken away from Angela and sent off to live with people who they don't know, and away from their friends and school. And of course Angela is fearful of loosing the children.

To be sure CPS could reccomend to the court that Angela be given custody but there is no guarantee that they will, or that the court would follow that reccomendation. And, if a relitive later came forward and asked to be considered as the guardian, or if the father objected, Angela could loose custody at any time. It is also plausable that CPS would reccomend placement into foster care. Remember, Angela has no rights!!

Now one might say that children have rights, and these children are old enough- now 7- so express their wishes. However, that does not mean that their rights and wishes will be respected by the legal system and the adults who have power over them. The court might order a best interest analysis which would include a lengthy process of evaluating the degree of bonding between Angela and the children . But even if resolved in their favor, they will have already suffered unnecessary trauma and will bear those scars for the rest of their lives.

Of course, all of this could have been avoided if Kathy and Angela could have been married so that Angela could adopt the children as a second parent.

So now, my question is : Can anyone say that the best interest of Brandon and Britany were served in a system where Kathy and Angela COULD NOT GET MARRIED? Yes or No and why

To me, Jack is the key

Unless he has given up his parental rights, He gets to decide what happens to the children

 

[Syriusly]

What Boss said

Hey Boss, what's your opinion on two adults having a contract involving kids that banishes those children from either a mother or father for life?

By a 2:1 ratio Americans believe in legal same gender marriage
(of course this is not a real scientific poll- but since Silhouette likes to pretend her polls here are- and then pretends that they say something other than what they say- here it is

 

[Syriusly]

Well, good for them, but it does not mean that it would play out that way in all cases. Courts and CPS people are fickle and have their biases. Also, in my story- and yes it is a "story" there is no one who is really interested in or connected to the kids, and that is plausible. I know because I worked in CPS for a lot of years and have experience dealing with the court system.

In addition, children benefit from having married guardians, even in the absence of a tragedy.

Nothing plays out a given way "in all cases." Courts and CPS have ONE primary consideration... what is best for the child. That supersedes everything else. In some cases, it even supersedes parenthood and certainly supersedes marriage..

And if the best parent or parents for the child are gay- then that is what the courts and the CPS should decide.

And if the best parent or parents arent' gay- then that is what the courts and the CPS should decide.

Really the sexual orientation is rather irrelevant unless it is linked to other irresponsibility

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Really the sexual orientation is rather irrelevant unless it is linked to other irresponsibility

It should be irrelevant , but there are no guarantees.

 

[Syriusly]

Really the sexual orientation is rather irrelevant unless it is linked to other irresponsibility

It should be irrelevant , but there are no guarantees.

Most of all of should be irrelevant

 

[Peach]

I have a simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post. But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.

The setting: A time and place where same sex marriage is not possible and only married couples can adopt .

The people: Kathy is a 29 year old divorced woman with two year old twins- a boy named Brandon and a girl named Britany . After the birth of the children, the husband , Jack, became abusive and angry which resulted in Kathy filing for divorce. Jack, over the last year and a half has had minimal contact with the children by his choice, and has had to be hauled into court several time for not paying child support

Kathy has always felt that she was more attracted to women than men but has supppressed those feelings because of taboos and social pressures, and wanting to avoid disapproval of friends and family . However, public opinion and social norms are changing and she is ready to embrace her feelings, be who she really is, and come out as a Lesbian.

Soon after her divorce, Kathy meets Angela, a Lesbian and they hit it off. The children like her and she is crazy about them. Within 6 months Angela moves in with Kathy in the home that Kathy owns exclusivly as a result of the divorce settlement. In time, it becomes clear that the children are bonding with Angela and she is very involved witgh them

A few years go by, the children are now in school and doing well. They are clearly well adjusted and have many friends. Then the unthinkable happens. Kathy is killed in an auto accident. Social Services at the hospital notifies Child Protective Services (CPS) that there are children living with an unrelated person who is not their legal guardian and investigates. The first thing that they do is to contact the father who has moved some distance away and is with another woman. They find out that the woman does not want kids and the father's interest is tempid at best. They consider charging him with abandonment but determine that placing the children with him might be putting them at risk of abuse or neglect because of the attiudes of the father and his girlfriend.

The next step is for CPS is to explore relatives on both sided of the family who might be able and willing to take the children but Kathy had not been close with any of them some austricized her for living with a woman. None are interested in taking in the children.

Meanwhile, Angela and the children are understanably devistated by the loss of Kathy . Compounding the grief is childrens fear that they will be taken away from Angela and sent off to live with people who they don't know, and away from their friends and school. And of course Angela is fearful of loosing the children.

To be sure CPS could reccomend to the court that Angela be given custody but there is no guarantee that they will, or that the court would follow that reccomendation. And, if a relitive later came forward and asked to be considered as the guardian, or if the father objected, Angela could loose custody at any time. It is also plausable that CPS would reccomend placement into foster care. Remember, Angela has no rights!!

Now one might say that children have rights, and these children are old enough- now 7- so express their wishes. However, that does not mean that their rights and wishes will be respected by the legal system and the adults who have power over them. The court might order a best interest analysis which would include a lengthy process of evaluating the degree of bonding between Angela and the children . But even if resolved in their favor, they will have already suffered unnecessary trauma and will bear those scars for the rest of their lives.

Of course, all of this could have been avoided if Kathy and Angela could have been married so that Angela could adopt the children as a second parent.

So now, my question is : Can anyone say that the best interest of Brandon and Britany were served in a system where Kathy and Angela COULD NOT GET MARRIED? Yes or No and why

Yes, so they are legally bound, and Angela can raise Kathy's children. (If dad cared, where was he when Angela was alive?)

 

[Boss]

Really the sexual orientation is rather irrelevant unless it is linked to other irresponsibility

It should be irrelevant , but there are no guarantees.

The only guarantee should be what is best for the child. The existence or non existence of a "marriage" should have NOTHING to do with it whatsoever. For you to argue that SHOULD be a criteria demonstrates your complete lack of concern for the child. This is about you pushing a social agenda and exploiting children to do so. What a despicable and disgusting display of human garbage. Make your inane argument for gay marriage some other way, don't exploit children to do so, you low life piece of dog shit.

 

[Boss]

To me, Jack is the key

Unless he has given up his parental rights, He gets to decide what happens to the children

NO! Here is the key: What is in the best interest of the child! PERIOD, END OF DEBATE!

No one OWNS the children!

 

[Boss]

What Boss said

Hey Boss, what's your opinion on two adults having a contract involving kids that banishes those children from either a mother or father for life?

I don't understand the question. I don't believe ANY contract should ever trump what is the best possible option for the children. They are not material possessions!