LESBIANS: What Will They Think of Next?

[aris2chat]

This happened some years back with a lesbian couple in Vermont. They had a child together and one of the women decided she no longer wanted to be lesbian, took the child and moved to Virginia. I don't know what the final outcome was, but the battle raged back and forth between the Vermont and Virginia court systems overruling each other for quite some time. It was a mess.

"They had a child together".

Impossible.

OK - I'll reword. By whatever means they chose, they acquired a child that they were raising together.

Couple that gives birth still break up for many reasons and someone has to get the kids, in part or whole

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

This happened some years back with a lesbian couple in Vermont. They had a child together and one of the women decided she no longer wanted to be lesbian, took the child and moved to Virginia. I don't know what the final outcome was, but the battle raged back and forth between the Vermont and Virginia court systems overruling each other for quite some time. It was a mess.

"They had a child together".

Impossible.

OK - I'll reword. By whatever means they chose, they acquired a child that they were raising together.

Couple that gives birth still break up for many reasons and someone has to get the kids, in part or whole

It's a convoluted way of thinking to suggest that the failure of normal marriages somehow justifies creating something designed to fail. Even a broken family in which a child has a mother and a father is superior to a gay "marriage" that deliberately deprives them of one or the other.

 

[Trump.Stamped]

A married lesbian couple broke up in Canada recently. Suddenly one of them took 'their' children and went on the lam, left the country. What's funny is that she is quoted as saying, "‘At some point the system needs to look at the straight facts and see that (the child) is better off with me."

One needs to look at the straight facts, is it? Seems to me that if she'd looked at the straight facts from the start, she wouldn't be in this predicament.

Lesbian mother from South Tyneside left her wife and 'abducted' their daughter | Daily Mail Online

Whatever. The one on the right is definitely a dude

 

[Silhouette]

It's a convoluted way of thinking to suggest that the failure of normal marriages somehow justifies creating something designed to fail. Even a broken family in which a child has a mother and a father is superior to a gay "marriage" that deliberately deprives them of one or the other.

It's amazing to me even in the "opposed" camps how few people are willing to talk about this horrendous mistake in law in Obergefell with respect to the benefits of marriage children enjoy(ed) up until 2015...for over a thousand years. "Hey kids! Obergefell means marriage can now deprive you of either a mother or father for life"...

...silence... *crickets*

 

[aris2chat]

This happened some years back with a lesbian couple in Vermont. They had a child together and one of the women decided she no longer wanted to be lesbian, took the child and moved to Virginia. I don't know what the final outcome was, but the battle raged back and forth between the Vermont and Virginia court systems overruling each other for quite some time. It was a mess.

"They had a child together".

Impossible.

OK - I'll reword. By whatever means they chose, they acquired a child that they were raising together.

Couple that gives birth still break up for many reasons and someone has to get the kids, in part or whole

It's a convoluted way of thinking to suggest that the failure of normal marriages somehow justifies creating something designed to fail. Even a broken family in which a child has a mother and a father is superior to a gay "marriage" that deliberately deprives them of one or the other.

Many of those children would disagree. Love is what is important not the sex of a parent.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Suddenly one of them took 'their' children and went on the lam, left the country.

To a foreign dyke? Or a Guadalajara river dyke... Hold it back.

 

[GLASNOST]

If I were on the jury I would vote that the birth mother gets the kids, in either case, in a Lesbo divorce.

If it were my decision I would first look at the possibility of the father getting sole custody of the (his) child. The fugitive mother is now a wanted criminal (simply by defying court order to return with the child) by kidnapping. Presumably, the father has had ample time to regret the separation from his child, but we don't really know. No matter how you look at it the mother is willing to ignore 'politically correct' laws on more than one level, some of which she's taken advantage of from the very beginning. It's like exercising your right to own a hand gun and then blaming the law for you committing homicide with it.

 

[GLASNOST]

Straight, gay, step, adopted................what ever the family make up, sex is only a small part of a relationship. Sex is not the "whole" relationship.

I'm not so sure that a gay (male) relationship would fall into this line of thinking. 2 X testosterone must be a powerful incentive, but we get your point.

 

[GLASNOST]

It's amazing to me even in the "opposed" camps how few people are willing to talk about this horrendous mistake in law in Obergefell with respect to the benefits of marriage children enjoy(ed) up until 2015...for over a thousand years. "Hey kids! Obergefell means marriage can now deprive you of either a mother or father for life"...

...silence... *crickets*

I am in the same frame of mind. We talk about 'dead beat' fathers who lose contact with their children after a divorce, and how those 'shame-shame' fathers have deprived children of a parent. The reasons why this is bad are many and well-documented. But parallel to wise understanding we now deprive children right from birth with sperm donations, test-tube babies, homosexual child-adoption, etc. Isn't this a double standard of political correctness at the cost of the child's best? On one hand we criticize the 'loss' of a father on behalf of the child, but on the other hand we guarantee it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If I were on the jury I would vote that the birth mother gets the kids, in either case, in a Lesbo divorce.

If it were my decision I would first look at the possibility of the father getting sole custody of the (his) child. The fugitive mother is now a wanted criminal (simply by defying court order to return with the child) by kidnapping. Presumably, the father has had ample time to regret the separation from his child, but we don't really know. No matter how you look at it the mother is willing to ignore 'politically correct' laws on more than one level, some of which she's taken advantage of from the very beginning. It's like exercising your right to own a hand gun and then blaming the law for you committing homicide with it.

It's the one thing that gimps the lesbian "two moms" fantasy, that biologically the child has a father, however much they may want that inconvenient truth to go away.

They want him out of the picture to preserve the image that they alone spawned the child into existence and are his or her only parents.

The father is a nagging reminder of the natural order they profane. His very presence and proximity puts the lie to their delusional social apparatus; reminding them of the crime they perpetrated on an innocent child. They do everything in their power to banish him forever and as these things become more common, we will come to find they're even willing to murder him.

 

[Nia88]

Laws need to be updated. If this was a heterosexual couple this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Conservative65]

This happened some years back with a lesbian couple in Vermont. They had a child together and one of the women decided she no longer wanted to be lesbian, took the child and moved to Virginia. I don't know what the final outcome was, but the battle raged back and forth between the Vermont and Virginia court systems overruling each other for quite some time. It was a mess.

"They had a child together".

Impossible.

OK - I'll reword. By whatever means they chose, they acquired a child that they were raising together.

Couple that gives birth still break up for many reasons and someone has to get the kids, in part or whole

It's a convoluted way of thinking to suggest that the failure of normal marriages somehow justifies creating something designed to fail. Even a broken family in which a child has a mother and a father is superior to a gay "marriage" that deliberately deprives them of one or the other.

Many of those children would disagree. Love is what is important not the sex of a parent.

This happened some years back with a lesbian couple in Vermont. They had a child together and one of the women decided she no longer wanted to be lesbian, took the child and moved to Virginia. I don't know what the final outcome was, but the battle raged back and forth between the Vermont and Virginia court systems overruling each other for quite some time. It was a mess.

"They had a child together".

Impossible.

OK - I'll reword. By whatever means they chose, they acquired a child that they were raising together.

Couple that gives birth still break up for many reasons and someone has to get the kids, in part or whole

Difference is regardless of which parent the child goes with, it's a biological parent.

 

[GLASNOST]

Laws need to be updated......

"Updating" might be the problem. Maybe one or two laws need to be stricken instead.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

"They had a child together".

Impossible.

OK - I'll reword. By whatever means they chose, they acquired a child that they were raising together.

Couple that gives birth still break up for many reasons and someone has to get the kids, in part or whole

It's a convoluted way of thinking to suggest that the failure of normal marriages somehow justifies creating something designed to fail. Even a broken family in which a child has a mother and a father is superior to a gay "marriage" that deliberately deprives them of one or the other.

Many of those children would disagree. Love is what is important not the sex of a parent.

This happened some years back with a lesbian couple in Vermont. They had a child together and one of the women decided she no longer wanted to be lesbian, took the child and moved to Virginia. I don't know what the final outcome was, but the battle raged back and forth between the Vermont and Virginia court systems overruling each other for quite some time. It was a mess.

"They had a child together".

Impossible.

OK - I'll reword. By whatever means they chose, they acquired a child that they were raising together.

Couple that gives birth still break up for many reasons and someone has to get the kids, in part or whole

Difference is regardless of which parent the child goes with, it's a biological parent.

Are you a birther, a mind reader or the IRS? Were you a witness to the birth, serious question?

 

[Iceweasel]

This happened some years back with a lesbian couple in Vermont. They had a child together and one of the women decided she no longer wanted to be lesbian, took the child and moved to Virginia. I don't know what the final outcome was, but the battle raged back and forth between the Vermont and Virginia court systems overruling each other for quite some time. It was a mess.

"They had a child together".

Impossible.

OK - I'll reword. By whatever means they chose, they acquired a child that they were raising together.

Couple that gives birth still break up for many reasons and someone has to get the kids, in part or whole

It's a convoluted way of thinking to suggest that the failure of normal marriages somehow justifies creating something designed to fail. Even a broken family in which a child has a mother and a father is superior to a gay "marriage" that deliberately deprives them of one or the other.

Many of those children would disagree. Love is what is important not the sex of a parent.

Children don't have perspective and no one suggested they would be better off in an uncaring home. The pro-gay side always misrepresents their opposition. Because they have to.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

"They had a child together".

Impossible.

OK - I'll reword. By whatever means they chose, they acquired a child that they were raising together.

Couple that gives birth still break up for many reasons and someone has to get the kids, in part or whole

It's a convoluted way of thinking to suggest that the failure of normal marriages somehow justifies creating something designed to fail. Even a broken family in which a child has a mother and a father is superior to a gay "marriage" that deliberately deprives them of one or the other.

Many of those children would disagree. Love is what is important not the sex of a parent.

Children don't have perspective and no one suggested they would be better off in an uncaring home. The pro-gay side always misrepresents their opposition. Because they have to.

Are you against adoption? People like you are exactly why there are so many abortions every year. If the red tape that comes with adoption were eliminated, women would have their children, instead of aborting them. They would know there IS a place ready to go for their child.

 

[Iceweasel]

OK - I'll reword. By whatever means they chose, they acquired a child that they were raising together.

Couple that gives birth still break up for many reasons and someone has to get the kids, in part or whole

It's a convoluted way of thinking to suggest that the failure of normal marriages somehow justifies creating something designed to fail. Even a broken family in which a child has a mother and a father is superior to a gay "marriage" that deliberately deprives them of one or the other.

Many of those children would disagree. Love is what is important not the sex of a parent.

Children don't have perspective and no one suggested they would be better off in an uncaring home. The pro-gay side always misrepresents their opposition. Because they have to.

Are you against adoption? People like you are exactly why there are so many abortions every year. If the red tape that comes with adoption were eliminated, women would have their children, instead of aborting them. They would know there IS a place ready to go for their child.

Liar. People like me don't make babies and kill them for convenience sake. I've know many waiting for years to adopt, some got tired of waiting and got foreign babies.

However, I said no one suggested kids be raised in unwanted homes so I have no clue what made you burble up.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Couple that gives birth still break up for many reasons and someone has to get the kids, in part or whole

It's a convoluted way of thinking to suggest that the failure of normal marriages somehow justifies creating something designed to fail. Even a broken family in which a child has a mother and a father is superior to a gay "marriage" that deliberately deprives them of one or the other.

Many of those children would disagree. Love is what is important not the sex of a parent.

Children don't have perspective and no one suggested they would be better off in an uncaring home. The pro-gay side always misrepresents their opposition. Because they have to.

Are you against adoption? People like you are exactly why there are so many abortions every year. If the red tape that comes with adoption were eliminated, women would have their children, instead of aborting them. They would know there IS a place ready to go for their child.

Liar. People like me don't make babies and kill them for convenience sake. I've know many waiting for years to adopt, some got tired of waiting and got foreign babies.

However, I said no one suggested kids be raised in unwanted homes so I have no clue what made you burble up.

You sound like a clueless dyke.

Do dykes ever have babies.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's a convoluted way of thinking to suggest that the failure of normal marriages somehow justifies creating something designed to fail. Even a broken family in which a child has a mother and a father is superior to a gay "marriage" that deliberately deprives them of one or the other.

Many of those children would disagree. Love is what is important not the sex of a parent.

Children don't have perspective and no one suggested they would be better off in an uncaring home. The pro-gay side always misrepresents their opposition. Because they have to.

Are you against adoption? People like you are exactly why there are so many abortions every year. If the red tape that comes with adoption were eliminated, women would have their children, instead of aborting them. They would know there IS a place ready to go for their child.

Liar. People like me don't make babies and kill them for convenience sake. I've know many waiting for years to adopt, some got tired of waiting and got foreign babies.

However, I said no one suggested kids be raised in unwanted homes so I have no clue what made you burble up.

You sound like a clueless dyke.

Do dykes ever have babies.

Are you on drugs?

 

[Dragonlady]

What is very funny is that the runaway lesbian says that she should keep child because she gave birth to it. But according to the courts the other lesbian has equal rights to the child by law. Now the runaway claims that's all "politically correct" talk and shouldn't be respected. But for Christ's sake, her marriage to another woman and the child being legally both of theirs' is all due to politically correct laws on same sex marriages in the first place! In other words, if not for politically correct laws she would never have been allowed to marry another woman anyway!

I think true adoptions and blended families are exceptionally rare. Nobody loves a kid that didn't come from their loins and when the shit hits the fan, everyone retreats to biological relations only. Everything else is a fantasy

As someone who was adopted and who has taken in children not of my loins, you're full of shit.