Being gay doesn't pay.

[dread]

Lesbian demands control over Christian's daughter

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61657


This hearing will determine whether a lesbian woman who is Lisa Miller's former partner will share custody of Isabella, Lisa's daughter," wrote Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America. "The woman is neither an adoptive parent nor is she biologically related to Isabella. In fact, she's a total stranger to the little girl.
Isabella, who is now 6 years old, hadn't seen this woman since she was 17 months old.
The two women were living in Virginia in 2000 when they went to Vermont to get a "civil union." Miller later gave birth to a girl through artificial insemination, but the child was not adopted by Jenkins.

 

[Larkinn]

Actually gays generally have significantly higher incomes than straights. But yes, the state discriminates against gays and their children. We've known this for a while. Nice source, btw. No bias at all.

 

[dread]

All sources have thier own bias. So what!

And how the hell is this case discriminating AGAINST gays?

Seems like a person who has NO association with a child gets EVERYTHING spoon fed to her INCLUDING a state that has NO jurisdiction in the matter. If you had studied family law to any length you would have known that the state the child resides in has the rights over the child NOT some state that a couple were in to get a quickie civil union.


Then there is the fact that there are parental rights abuses going on as well in this case.

 

[Larkinn]

All sources have thier own bias. So what!

LMFAO...some sources have significantly more bias than others.

And how the hell is this case discriminating AGAINST gays?

If a married couple had a child in vitro and the mother took it away, would you say the father had NO rights to the kids?

Obviously not.

Seems like a person who has NO association with a child gets EVERYTHING spoon fed to her INCLUDING a state that has NO jurisdiction in the matter.

Spoon fed to her? She gets access to her child, and thats it and the state is fighting to take that away.

If you had studied family law to any length you would have known that the state the child resides in has the rights over the child NOT some state that a couple were in to get a quickie civil union.

This has to do what with any argument I made? Nothing. Thanks.

Then there is the fact that there are parental rights abuses going on as well in this case.

Is she a parent or not? Make up your mind. And the abuses are alleged abuses. Whether there are actually abuses is up to a court to decide

 

[dread]

LMFAO...some sources have significantly more bias than others.





If a married couple had a child in vitro and the mother took it away, would you say the father had NO rights to the kids?

Obviously not.



Spoon fed to her? She gets access to her child, and thats it and the state is fighting to take that away.



This has to do what with any argument I made? Nothing. Thanks.



Is she a parent or not? Make up your mind. And the abuses are alleged abuses. Whether there are actually abuses is up to a court to decide

No the lesbian IS NOT a mother. Because she NEVER adopted the child. So she has NO rights to claim it as hers. Also Vermont has no right to claim the child because the child never resided in that state. So from the story it is the lesbian who is getting whatever she wants. And family law has EVERYTHING to do with your argument. You are claiming that the poor widdle lesbian is getting bent over and THAT simply isnt the case.


Again so what if some articles have bias. Thats the nature of the beast. Everyone has an angle. Get over it.

Wait...On second thought you wont get over it because the article is not pumping your homosexual agenda.

 

[Larkinn]

No the lesbian IS NOT a mother. Because she NEVER adopted the child. So she has NO rights to claim it as hers.

Does the non-related husband of a woman when she bears a child have to adopt the child?

No?

Hence the term discrimination. Thanks.

Also Vermont has no right to claim the child because the child never resided in that state.

Vermont has no claim to the child, but it DOES have a claim to the relationship and the status of it.

So from the story it is the lesbian who is getting whatever she wants.

Not quite, no.

And family law has EVERYTHING to do with your argument.

Again, not quite, no.

You are claiming that the poor widdle lesbian is getting bent over and THAT simply isnt the case.

Yes again....

Again so what if some articles have bias. Thats the nature of the beast. Everyone has an angle. Get over it.

And everyone hurts other peoples sometimes. But there is a difference between calling them a fuckwit and going after them with a chainsaw. Get the different now, genius?

Wait...On second thought you wont get over it because the article is not pumping your homosexual agenda.

And you won't recognize the bias because you are pumping your homophobic agenda.

By the way, congrats on skipping over that minor part where I proved the discrimination. Real subtle of you.

 

[dread]

Jesus Christ you live in a dream world dont you...
You didnt EVEN read the fuckin article.

The article SAYS that Vermont gave the lesbian rights to the child. How the FUCK is THAT discrimination? How the fuck can a stae give something to someone when they have NO jurisdiction over it?

You proved NOTHING fucktart.


And YES a father has to adopt a child when he isnt the biological father of the child or his has no claim to it. Otherwise he has to have spent many years with the child to claim it as his. Otherwise the male gets no consideration.


AND AGAIN...YES the State of Vermont NEVER took to into account the Parental rights of the Christian female because they trampled all over them by giving partial custody to the lesbian.

Maybe you need to check out Troxell vs. Granville....


But you probably wont because researching isnt in your bag of tricks.

 

[Shogun]

so.. the FORMER GAY PARTNER is the mother and the child was concieved during marriage?

wow.


talk about hiding behind nomenclature for the sake of child custody. Dread, you DO realize that the MOTHER was also a fan of the furburger, yes? That this "mother" is more than likely just a label being waved in order to purposfully attract shallow automatic support from those who are against anything gay?


devious.

 

[Larkinn]

Jesus Christ you live in a dream world dont you...
You didnt EVEN read the fuckin article.

Right...I just made up the facts that I pulled from it.

The article SAYS that Vermont gave the lesbian rights to the child. How the FUCK is THAT discrimination? How the fuck can a stae give something to someone when they have NO jurisdiction over it?

Is Vermont the only state involved here? No. Could it possibly be that when I was talking about discrimination I was referring to another state? Maybe just possibly?

And obviously they DO have jurisdiction over it. Enough for the Vermont Supreme Court to claim it, and Virginia lower courts to give it.

You proved NOTHING fucktart.

Right.

[quote
And YES a father has to adopt a child when he isnt the biological father of the child or his has no claim to it.
[/quote]

Umm, sorry, but no. Most state automatically assume that if a man and woman are married and have a child the man is the father, no matter WHAT the circumstances are.

And you wanted to tell me about family law?

Otherwise he has to have spent many years with the child to claim it as his. Otherwise the male gets no consideration.

Incorrect.

AND AGAIN...YES the State of Vermont NEVER took to into account the Parental rights of the Christian female because they trampled all over them by giving partial custody to the lesbian.

LMAO...its amazing to see you not realize the bias from the article and then stating it here.

Tell me...why is there an automatic preference for the Christian over the lesbian? Why is the lesbian not getting her rights trampled over? Ah, right, because unlike a man she can't get married so you feel free to discriminate against her. Right.

Maybe you need to check out Troxell vs. Granville....

Which is relevant how?

But you probably wont because researching isnt in your bag of tricks.

I'm not going to do your research for you, no. But do feel free to explain how that case is the same as the case here.

 

[TopGunna]

Wow, I'm not sure what to make of this. I'm by no means an expert on child custody law, but I would imagine that a different set of rules are necessary in heterosexual parents cases vs. homosexual parents cases.

In a heterosexual marriage, both parents have the biological link to the child - in a homosexual union, only one member can be a biological parent. I would think that should be the trump card in child custody cases.

Suppose a widow and a widower (each with their own children) get married, each then becomes a step-parent to the others children. If that marriage end in divorce, how is custody determined then?

Like I said, I don't know how the law is written... but it seems reasonable that the biological parent in such a situation should have custody of the child, regardless of lifestyle choice.

 

[midcan5]

Such is life and so it goes. Helping to raise a child can create quite an attachment whether gay or straight, as parents because of divorce or whatnot can have that same attachment as the biological parent. This is another reason why gay marriage should be recognized for legal purposes.

 

[manifold]

Actually gays generally have significantly higher incomes than straights.

Is that a fact?

Are you counting only identified gays in your statistical analysis or are you making allowances for the faux-hetero, truckstop knob gobbling set?

 

[jillian]

Is that a fact?

Are you counting only identified gays in your statistical analysis or are you making allowances for the faux-hetero, truckstop knob gobbling set?

Actually, as a demographic group, gays do generally have high incomes.

http://gaycityusa.blogspot.com/2006/12/wealthy-gays-travel-more-spend-more.html

 

[manifold]

Actually, as a demographic group, gays do generally have high incomes.

http://gaycityusa.blogspot.com/2006/12/wealthy-gays-travel-more-spend-more.html

I guess you missed my point.

 

[jillian]

I guess you missed my point.

I did. Sorry. Just went back and looked ...and the answer is, no that doesn't include the others. In fact, there was just a Pew study about that, I think.

Unless of course you were kidding in your question...in which case, I'll be leaving quietly now...

 

[Shogun]

is a blog called Gay City USA really a viable source?

 

[manifold]

I did. Sorry. Just went back and looked ...and the answer is, no that doesn't include the others. In fact, there was just a Pew study about that, I think.

Unless of course you were kidding in your question...in which case, I'll be leaving quietly now...

As with many of my posts, I was trying to add a touch of humor to an otherwise legitimate point. Basically, I don't ascribe a whole lot of credibility to this sort of study regarding gays vs. regulars since many that get lumped in with the regulars are in fact, gay. And it's just a hypothesis, but I also think that the more affluent a gay person, the more likely they are to come out of the closet. The blue collar set tend to be less forgiving about that sort of thing.

 

[jillian]

As with many of my posts, I was trying to add a touch of humor to an otherwise legitimate point. Basically, I don't ascribe a whole lot of credibility to this sort of study regarding gays vs. regulars since many that get lumped in with the regulars are in fact, gay. And it's just a hypothesis, but I also think that the more affluent a gay person, the more likely they are to come out of the closet. The blue collar set tend to be less forgiving about that sort of thing.

It also might be that people are more successful when they come out because living in hiding has to really mess you up.

Or might be that blue collar types hide more for the reason you said.

 

[manifold]

It also might be that people are more successful when they come out because living in hiding has to really mess you up.

Or might be that blue collar types hide more for the reason you said.

That makes some sense too.

Bottom line is there are a lot of reasons why studies like that could be skewed and ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[dread]

is a blog called Gay City USA really a viable source?

IMO I dont think so. It is a blog that was citing Comunity Marketing Inc. who did a study on how Lesbians and Gays spend their money as well as their wealth. Funny thing about those surveys...You dont have to be really present to do them nor is there any proof to back up said claims. How do we know that the people who claim they are gay really ARE gay. I remember a travel site that was doing a sale on travel for gays only. Now how many people would claim to be gay if they could get one of those "fantabulous" deals that the travel site was offering I dont know.....


And as far as your other post.... Perhaps it is/was devious of the christian group to attack the lesbian based on their religious beliefs but then the lesbian was doing the EXACT same thing by filing for sole custody of the child based on the ex lesbos Christians beliefs that were supposedly making her go mad.


My whole point to the thread was be careful about getting into gay relationships because if you decide to get out and you have kids it gets messy.


The kid is going to have a suck ass life now that all this fighting is going on.