Gay Marriage? NO Groundwork NO Deal!

[Syriusly]

3, Death of the parents
IF BOTH parents were to die in some accident do you give custody and support to the BLOOD grandparents OR the NON blood grandparents?

Marriage actually makes this easier to arrange- responsible parents legally designate who should have custody of their children if something happens to them.

Again already covered by existing law.

 

[Syriusly]

Eliminate "adoption" as a dynamic and "gay marriage" for males would die as an issue overnight.
.

Could we first eliminate heterosexuals from abandoning their children?

Every year there are 30,000 children abandoned by their heterosexual parents who are availible for adoption- 40% of them will wait 3 or more years to be adopted.

Glad to know that your solution to the problem is just to prevent gay men from adopting them.

 

[Syriusly]

The relationship of what you have posted to same sex marriage?

I don't care if same sex marries, marry anyone/thing you want. But look at the legal mess first and fix it BEFORE not after.
Okay?

What legal mess?

Custody and child support have always been based on blood parents. If allowed as is there would be two sets of rules for two groups and that is not justice.

No, there wouldn't be two sets of rules for two groups.

In a gay marriage ONE parent is NOT a blood parent. You give them the RIGHT to collect child support from a NON blood parent whats to stop a blood parent from DEMANDING money from a step parent?

First of all- there are already gay couples which have children. Marriage will just provide additional protections for the children and provide a legal framework for child support.

You handle it exactly in the same way with a 'straight' marriage where one parent is not a blood parent. There are two legal parents- the one that does not end up with custody generally is required to pay child support to the parent with custody.

 

[Syriusly]

That makes zero sense. One parent is either the biological parent or one or both parents adopt a kid. The couple breaks up. The parent that is not biological leaves and that's it.
If one parent has adopted the kid and the other did not and the couple breaks up then the parent that did not adopt the kid leaves and that's it. If both adopt the child and they split up then one pays child support.

Exactly the same.

No it is not the same because in MOST cases BOTH parents are blood parents. So your law of equality has made unequal legal standing.

In order to be just ALL parties must be equal right? So by your argument a blood parent COULD get money out of a step parent.
Because two sets of rules for two different people would be NO different then Jim Crow laws based on race.

No. They can't get money out of a step parent. Nice try.

How is one NON blood parent different the another? You HAVE to take into account peoples greed PLUS lawyers greed.

On a side note.......Be it we disagree I DO thank you for your civility and thought you put into your comments and questions.
And I for one respect that.
Fury

Thank you right back.

If you and your partner have a child and you split up then one of you will pay child support.

If your ex partner marries a person of the same sex then that person is the step parent. If your ex partner marries a person of the opposite sex then that person is the step parent. You didn't stop being a parent. No change.

Adoption is done by one or two individuals. It's a legal document that says that the individual or couple are now considered biological parents and a new birth certificate listing the adoptive parents as the biological parents is issued. Not on the birth certificate? Not paying child support.
No change.

But that is NOT the way the law even works today. Here is a 2 minute video of a man PROVEN not to be the blood parent and STILL is under order to pay support.

Those legal steps need to be nailed down and I think the group that wants the law should be doing the nailing NOT just anybody to foot the bill. NOT you or I or anybody. That I think is a fair request.

That is an issue regarding parentage laws and apply regardless of gay or straight marriage.
I am not going to watch the video but many state's have laws that presume that the husband in a marriage is the legal father of child even if he is not the biological father.

It works both ways though- that legal father may have to pay child support- but that legal father has all the rights of a father- the biological father generally has no legal relationship with the child.

As a father myself- I would be more concerned with legally maintaining my relationship with my child than whether I owed child support.

 

[Syriusly]

Thank you right back.

If you and your partner have a child and you split up then one of you will pay child support.

If your ex partner marries a person of the same sex then that person is the step parent. If your ex partner marries a person of the opposite sex then that person is the step parent. You didn't stop being a parent. No change.

Adoption is done by one or two individuals. It's a legal document that says that the individual or couple are now considered biological parents and a new birth certificate listing the adoptive parents as the biological parents is issued. Not on the birth certificate? Not paying child support.
No change.

But that is NOT the way the law even works today. Here is a 2 minute video of a man PROVEN not to be the blood parent and STILL is under order to pay support.

Those legal steps need to be nailed down and I think the group that wants the law should be doing the nailing NOT just anybody to foot the bill. NOT you or I or anybody. That I think is a fair request.

That is the way the law works today. It's up to that particular state and the court order can be changed. The paternity test will hold out. That's why they really are important.

How frequently has that occurred in that area?

If a person losses their home {he did} or their job it's one to many. The problem is you would be piling one failure on another.
Is it not better we learned from that and took care of those issues BEFORE it becomes a law suit?

Again. How frequently does that occur in this area?
One really good lawsuit will have these folks rethinking how they do this.

Given the general greed of people and lawyers it WILL expand. Like I said I don't care who or what a person marries. Given the KNOWN and PROVEN problems they need to address them first.

I do not see it as asking to much just a legal contract AGREED and upheld by ALL states like marriage. Right now it's just patchwork with NO base platform. They NEED to build the platform.

Just because one group built something flawed is no reason to allow ANOTHER group to build something flawed. Would theirs be better? Could be but they have none right now.

Then your argument is with marriage law- not with homosexuals getting married.

Telling homosexuals that they can't get married because you don't like how marriage law treats heterosexual couples just is illogical.

 

[Disir]

No it is not the same because in MOST cases BOTH parents are blood parents. So your law of equality has made unequal legal standing.

In order to be just ALL parties must be equal right? So by your argument a blood parent COULD get money out of a step parent.
Because two sets of rules for two different people would be NO different then Jim Crow laws based on race.

No. They can't get money out of a step parent. Nice try.

How is one NON blood parent different the another? You HAVE to take into account peoples greed PLUS lawyers greed.

On a side note.......Be it we disagree I DO thank you for your civility and thought you put into your comments and questions.
And I for one respect that.
Fury

Thank you right back.

If you and your partner have a child and you split up then one of you will pay child support.

If your ex partner marries a person of the same sex then that person is the step parent. If your ex partner marries a person of the opposite sex then that person is the step parent. You didn't stop being a parent. No change.

Adoption is done by one or two individuals. It's a legal document that says that the individual or couple are now considered biological parents and a new birth certificate listing the adoptive parents as the biological parents is issued. Not on the birth certificate? Not paying child support.
No change.

But that is NOT the way the law even works today. Here is a 2 minute video of a man PROVEN not to be the blood parent and STILL is under order to pay support.

Those legal steps need to be nailed down and I think the group that wants the law should be doing the nailing NOT just anybody to foot the bill. NOT you or I or anybody. That I think is a fair request.

That is an issue regarding parentage laws and apply regardless of gay or straight marriage.
I am not going to watch the video but many state's have laws that presume that the husband in a marriage is the legal father of child even if he is not the biological father.

It works both ways though- that legal father may have to pay child support- but that legal father has all the rights of a father- the biological father generally has no legal relationship with the child.

As a father myself- I would be more concerned with legally maintaining my relationship with my child than whether I owed child support.

So, it's ok with you that a man with no biological ties can be forced into paying child support?

 

[Syriusly]

He did not lose his house or his job.

I see it. He was in prison. It's a default and he had three years but could not find them, by the time that he did find them it was 2013. So the paternity test is new.
How many other states still use a default process?

The majority I am afraid. As you can see on the video she only had to list him on a document to start the nightmare.
THAT does need to be fixed. BUT it also points out there are other things that need to be nailed down by ANY group before just granting a change.

Yep. They need to stop that shit.
Injustice by Default - Reason.com

Okay so as you can see I am not rabid against it I simply do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. IF DNA can put you on death row then DNA should be able to get you out of child support, a system that is rife with lies and graft anyway..

If a

No. They can't get money out of a step parent. Nice try.

How is one NON blood parent different the another? You HAVE to take into account peoples greed PLUS lawyers greed.

On a side note.......Be it we disagree I DO thank you for your civility and thought you put into your comments and questions.
And I for one respect that.
Fury

Thank you right back.

If you and your partner have a child and you split up then one of you will pay child support.

If your ex partner marries a person of the same sex then that person is the step parent. If your ex partner marries a person of the opposite sex then that person is the step parent. You didn't stop being a parent. No change.

Adoption is done by one or two individuals. It's a legal document that says that the individual or couple are now considered biological parents and a new birth certificate listing the adoptive parents as the biological parents is issued. Not on the birth certificate? Not paying child support.
No change.

But that is NOT the way the law even works today. Here is a 2 minute video of a man PROVEN not to be the blood parent and STILL is under order to pay support.

Those legal steps need to be nailed down and I think the group that wants the law should be doing the nailing NOT just anybody to foot the bill. NOT you or I or anybody. That I think is a fair request.

That is an issue regarding parentage laws and apply regardless of gay or straight marriage.
I am not going to watch the video but many state's have laws that presume that the husband in a marriage is the legal father of child even if he is not the biological father.

It works both ways though- that legal father may have to pay child support- but that legal father has all the rights of a father- the biological father generally has no legal relationship with the child.

As a father myself- I would be more concerned with legally maintaining my relationship with my child than whether I owed child support.

So, it's ok with you that a man with no biological ties can be forced into paying child support?

Under certain circumstances- yes.

For example- husband and wife married for 5 years- wife gets pregnant, has a baby- Dad is delighted....5 years later finds out that wife had been having an affair and his little girl doesn't have his DNA. Parents divorce because of the infidelity.

The husband has been her actual legal parent for 5 years- the biological father should not have any legal claim to that little girl- and that is how it should be.

The flip side of child support is that the legal father is the actual legal father of the little girl- and can have the actual custody of his child.

No- the guy who screwed the wife should not be able to claim the little girl as his legal father.

But- in regards to the stories about guys falsely accused of being biological fathers by single mothers- of course that is wrong.

 

[Disir]

He did not lose his house or his job.

I see it. He was in prison. It's a default and he had three years but could not find them, by the time that he did find them it was 2013. So the paternity test is new.
How many other states still use a default process?

The majority I am afraid. As you can see on the video she only had to list him on a document to start the nightmare.
THAT does need to be fixed. BUT it also points out there are other things that need to be nailed down by ANY group before just granting a change.

Yep. They need to stop that shit.
Injustice by Default - Reason.com

Okay so as you can see I am not rabid against it I simply do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. IF DNA can put you on death row then DNA should be able to get you out of child support, a system that is rife with lies and graft anyway..

If a

How is one NON blood parent different the another? You HAVE to take into account peoples greed PLUS lawyers greed.

On a side note.......Be it we disagree I DO thank you for your civility and thought you put into your comments and questions.
And I for one respect that.
Fury

Thank you right back.

If you and your partner have a child and you split up then one of you will pay child support.

If your ex partner marries a person of the same sex then that person is the step parent. If your ex partner marries a person of the opposite sex then that person is the step parent. You didn't stop being a parent. No change.

Adoption is done by one or two individuals. It's a legal document that says that the individual or couple are now considered biological parents and a new birth certificate listing the adoptive parents as the biological parents is issued. Not on the birth certificate? Not paying child support.
No change.

But that is NOT the way the law even works today. Here is a 2 minute video of a man PROVEN not to be the blood parent and STILL is under order to pay support.

Those legal steps need to be nailed down and I think the group that wants the law should be doing the nailing NOT just anybody to foot the bill. NOT you or I or anybody. That I think is a fair request.

That is an issue regarding parentage laws and apply regardless of gay or straight marriage.
I am not going to watch the video but many state's have laws that presume that the husband in a marriage is the legal father of child even if he is not the biological father.

It works both ways though- that legal father may have to pay child support- but that legal father has all the rights of a father- the biological father generally has no legal relationship with the child.

As a father myself- I would be more concerned with legally maintaining my relationship with my child than whether I owed child support.

So, it's ok with you that a man with no biological ties can be forced into paying child support?

Under certain circumstances- yes.

For example- husband and wife married for 5 years- wife gets pregnant, has a baby- Dad is delighted....5 years later finds out that wife had been having an affair and his little girl doesn't have his DNA. Parents divorce because of the infidelity.

The husband has been her actual legal parent for 5 years- the biological father should not have any legal claim to that little girl- and that is how it should be.

The flip side of child support is that the legal father is the actual legal father of the little girl- and can have the actual custody of his child.

No- the guy who screwed the wife should not be able to claim the little girl as his legal father.

But- in regards to the stories about guys falsely accused of being biological fathers by single mothers- of course that is wrong.

You're making the assumption that the husband is going to want to have anything to do with the kid. Making someone pay for a child that is not his is flat out wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

He did not lose his house or his job.

I see it. He was in prison. It's a default and he had three years but could not find them, by the time that he did find them it was 2013. So the paternity test is new.
How many other states still use a default process?

The majority I am afraid. As you can see on the video she only had to list him on a document to start the nightmare.
THAT does need to be fixed. BUT it also points out there are other things that need to be nailed down by ANY group before just granting a change.

Yep. They need to stop that shit.
Injustice by Default - Reason.com

Okay so as you can see I am not rabid against it I simply do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. IF DNA can put you on death row then DNA should be able to get you out of child support, a system that is rife with lies and graft anyway..

If a

Thank you right back.

If you and your partner have a child and you split up then one of you will pay child support.

If your ex partner marries a person of the same sex then that person is the step parent. If your ex partner marries a person of the opposite sex then that person is the step parent. You didn't stop being a parent. No change.

Adoption is done by one or two individuals. It's a legal document that says that the individual or couple are now considered biological parents and a new birth certificate listing the adoptive parents as the biological parents is issued. Not on the birth certificate? Not paying child support.
No change.

But that is NOT the way the law even works today. Here is a 2 minute video of a man PROVEN not to be the blood parent and STILL is under order to pay support.

Those legal steps need to be nailed down and I think the group that wants the law should be doing the nailing NOT just anybody to foot the bill. NOT you or I or anybody. That I think is a fair request.

That is an issue regarding parentage laws and apply regardless of gay or straight marriage.
I am not going to watch the video but many state's have laws that presume that the husband in a marriage is the legal father of child even if he is not the biological father.

It works both ways though- that legal father may have to pay child support- but that legal father has all the rights of a father- the biological father generally has no legal relationship with the child.

As a father myself- I would be more concerned with legally maintaining my relationship with my child than whether I owed child support.

So, it's ok with you that a man with no biological ties can be forced into paying child support?

Under certain circumstances- yes.

For example- husband and wife married for 5 years- wife gets pregnant, has a baby- Dad is delighted....5 years later finds out that wife had been having an affair and his little girl doesn't have his DNA. Parents divorce because of the infidelity.

The husband has been her actual legal parent for 5 years- the biological father should not have any legal claim to that little girl- and that is how it should be.

The flip side of child support is that the legal father is the actual legal father of the little girl- and can have the actual custody of his child.

No- the guy who screwed the wife should not be able to claim the little girl as his legal father.

But- in regards to the stories about guys falsely accused of being biological fathers by single mothers- of course that is wrong.

You're making the assumption that the husband is going to want to have anything to do with the kid. Making someone pay for a child that is not his is flat out wrong.

Actually I am pointing out actual state law in many states.

But yes- I am pointing out that many- if not most 'dads' who raise a child from infancy consider themselves to the actual dad- regardless of biology. The wife's infidelity does not reflect on the child.

And yes- I am biased- as a Dad myself- I think that any 'Dad' who rejects a child he has been raising just because the child doesn't have his DNA is pretty worthless.

 

[Disir]

The majority I am afraid. As you can see on the video she only had to list him on a document to start the nightmare.
THAT does need to be fixed. BUT it also points out there are other things that need to be nailed down by ANY group before just granting a change.

Yep. They need to stop that shit.
Injustice by Default - Reason.com

Okay so as you can see I am not rabid against it I simply do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. IF DNA can put you on death row then DNA should be able to get you out of child support, a system that is rife with lies and graft anyway..

If a

But that is NOT the way the law even works today. Here is a 2 minute video of a man PROVEN not to be the blood parent and STILL is under order to pay support.

Those legal steps need to be nailed down and I think the group that wants the law should be doing the nailing NOT just anybody to foot the bill. NOT you or I or anybody. That I think is a fair request.

That is an issue regarding parentage laws and apply regardless of gay or straight marriage.
I am not going to watch the video but many state's have laws that presume that the husband in a marriage is the legal father of child even if he is not the biological father.

It works both ways though- that legal father may have to pay child support- but that legal father has all the rights of a father- the biological father generally has no legal relationship with the child.

As a father myself- I would be more concerned with legally maintaining my relationship with my child than whether I owed child support.

So, it's ok with you that a man with no biological ties can be forced into paying child support?

Under certain circumstances- yes.

For example- husband and wife married for 5 years- wife gets pregnant, has a baby- Dad is delighted....5 years later finds out that wife had been having an affair and his little girl doesn't have his DNA. Parents divorce because of the infidelity.

The husband has been her actual legal parent for 5 years- the biological father should not have any legal claim to that little girl- and that is how it should be.

The flip side of child support is that the legal father is the actual legal father of the little girl- and can have the actual custody of his child.

No- the guy who screwed the wife should not be able to claim the little girl as his legal father.

But- in regards to the stories about guys falsely accused of being biological fathers by single mothers- of course that is wrong.

You're making the assumption that the husband is going to want to have anything to do with the kid. Making someone pay for a child that is not his is flat out wrong.

Actually I am pointing out actual state law in many states.

But yes- I am pointing out that many- if not most 'dads' who raise a child from infancy consider themselves to the actual dad- regardless of biology. The wife's infidelity does not reflect on the child.

And yes- I am biased- as a Dad myself- I think that any 'Dad' who rejects a child he has been raising just because the child doesn't have his DNA is pretty worthless.

We've been talking about the law in those states. Nonetheless, it's wrong.

many- if not most 'dads is not solid. It won't cut it. It's emotional, rather wishful and simply is extortion of cash. Otherwise, a non bio-dad that wants to hand over cash could do so to his ex without a law forcing him to.A paternity test can have his name removed.

I bet you're a great dad. As a dad you know that there are a hundred instances where dad's are pretty worthless. But, that doesn't make these laws any ............right-er.

 

[Syriusly]

Yep. They need to stop that shit.
Injustice by Default - Reason.com

Okay so as you can see I am not rabid against it I simply do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. IF DNA can put you on death row then DNA should be able to get you out of child support, a system that is rife with lies and graft anyway..

If a

That is an issue regarding parentage laws and apply regardless of gay or straight marriage.
I am not going to watch the video but many state's have laws that presume that the husband in a marriage is the legal father of child even if he is not the biological father.

It works both ways though- that legal father may have to pay child support- but that legal father has all the rights of a father- the biological father generally has no legal relationship with the child.

As a father myself- I would be more concerned with legally maintaining my relationship with my child than whether I owed child support.

So, it's ok with you that a man with no biological ties can be forced into paying child support?

Under certain circumstances- yes.

For example- husband and wife married for 5 years- wife gets pregnant, has a baby- Dad is delighted....5 years later finds out that wife had been having an affair and his little girl doesn't have his DNA. Parents divorce because of the infidelity.

The husband has been her actual legal parent for 5 years- the biological father should not have any legal claim to that little girl- and that is how it should be.

The flip side of child support is that the legal father is the actual legal father of the little girl- and can have the actual custody of his child.

No- the guy who screwed the wife should not be able to claim the little girl as his legal father.

But- in regards to the stories about guys falsely accused of being biological fathers by single mothers- of course that is wrong.

You're making the assumption that the husband is going to want to have anything to do with the kid. Making someone pay for a child that is not his is flat out wrong.

Actually I am pointing out actual state law in many states.

But yes- I am pointing out that many- if not most 'dads' who raise a child from infancy consider themselves to the actual dad- regardless of biology. The wife's infidelity does not reflect on the child.

And yes- I am biased- as a Dad myself- I think that any 'Dad' who rejects a child he has been raising just because the child doesn't have his DNA is pretty worthless.

We've been talking about the law in those states. Nonetheless, it's wrong.

many- if not most 'dads is not solid. It won't cut it. It's emotional, rather wishful and simply is extortion of cash. Otherwise, a non bio-dad that wants to hand over cash could do so to his ex without a law forcing him to.A paternity test can have his name removed.

I bet you're a great dad. As a dad you know that there are a hundred instances where dad's are pretty worthless. But, that doesn't make these laws any ............right-er.

No- its not extortion.

It serves a very valid purpose- which is the care of the child of that marriage.

Without that law, if a man was able to prove he was the biological father after 10 years of that child being raised by another, that biological father could legally fight for custody of the child.

This presumption leaves the child with the only father he or she has ever known.

And if you don't like that law- don't get married - at least not in one of those states.

 

[Disir]

Okay so as you can see I am not rabid against it I simply do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. IF DNA can put you on death row then DNA should be able to get you out of child support, a system that is rife with lies and graft anyway..

If a

So, it's ok with you that a man with no biological ties can be forced into paying child support?

Under certain circumstances- yes.

For example- husband and wife married for 5 years- wife gets pregnant, has a baby- Dad is delighted....5 years later finds out that wife had been having an affair and his little girl doesn't have his DNA. Parents divorce because of the infidelity.

The husband has been her actual legal parent for 5 years- the biological father should not have any legal claim to that little girl- and that is how it should be.

The flip side of child support is that the legal father is the actual legal father of the little girl- and can have the actual custody of his child.

No- the guy who screwed the wife should not be able to claim the little girl as his legal father.

But- in regards to the stories about guys falsely accused of being biological fathers by single mothers- of course that is wrong.

You're making the assumption that the husband is going to want to have anything to do with the kid. Making someone pay for a child that is not his is flat out wrong.

Actually I am pointing out actual state law in many states.

But yes- I am pointing out that many- if not most 'dads' who raise a child from infancy consider themselves to the actual dad- regardless of biology. The wife's infidelity does not reflect on the child.

And yes- I am biased- as a Dad myself- I think that any 'Dad' who rejects a child he has been raising just because the child doesn't have his DNA is pretty worthless.

We've been talking about the law in those states. Nonetheless, it's wrong.

many- if not most 'dads is not solid. It won't cut it. It's emotional, rather wishful and simply is extortion of cash. Otherwise, a non bio-dad that wants to hand over cash could do so to his ex without a law forcing him to.A paternity test can have his name removed.

I bet you're a great dad. As a dad you know that there are a hundred instances where dad's are pretty worthless. But, that doesn't make these laws any ............right-er.

No- its not extortion.

It serves a very valid purpose- which is the care of the child of that marriage.

Without that law, if a man was able to prove he was the biological father after 10 years of that child being raised by another, that biological father could legally fight for custody of the child.

This presumption leaves the child with the only father he or she has ever known.

And if you don't like that law- don't get married - at least not in one of those states.

it's only not extortion if everybody thinks along those lines. The biological father in that scenario was not given the choice. The biological father just loses ten years?

Default dad laws need to change. States that refuse to acknowledge same sex marriage need to change. Forcing men that are not the bio father to pay for children that are not theirs must change. There is an entire thread of males stating that they don't want to deal with children that are not theirs.

This rights thing may appeal to some very tiny portion of males. The rest of it serves for Welfare to make their money back off of what was spent. That's it.

 

[DarkFury]

If a
Under certain circumstances- yes.

For example- husband and wife married for 5 years- wife gets pregnant, has a baby- Dad is delighted....5 years later finds out that wife had been having an affair and his little girl doesn't have his DNA. Parents divorce because of the infidelity.

The husband has been her actual legal parent for 5 years- the biological father should not have any legal claim to that little girl- and that is how it should be.

The flip side of child support is that the legal father is the actual legal father of the little girl- and can have the actual custody of his child.

No- the guy who screwed the wife should not be able to claim the little girl as his legal father.

But- in regards to the stories about guys falsely accused of being biological fathers by single mothers- of course that is wrong.

You're making the assumption that the husband is going to want to have anything to do with the kid. Making someone pay for a child that is not his is flat out wrong.

Actually I am pointing out actual state law in many states.

But yes- I am pointing out that many- if not most 'dads' who raise a child from infancy consider themselves to the actual dad- regardless of biology. The wife's infidelity does not reflect on the child.

And yes- I am biased- as a Dad myself- I think that any 'Dad' who rejects a child he has been raising just because the child doesn't have his DNA is pretty worthless.

We've been talking about the law in those states. Nonetheless, it's wrong.

many- if not most 'dads is not solid. It won't cut it. It's emotional, rather wishful and simply is extortion of cash. Otherwise, a non bio-dad that wants to hand over cash could do so to his ex without a law forcing him to.A paternity test can have his name removed.

I bet you're a great dad. As a dad you know that there are a hundred instances where dad's are pretty worthless. But, that doesn't make these laws any ............right-er.

No- its not extortion.

It serves a very valid purpose- which is the care of the child of that marriage.

Without that law, if a man was able to prove he was the biological father after 10 years of that child being raised by another, that biological father could legally fight for custody of the child.

This presumption leaves the child with the only father he or she has ever known.

And if you don't like that law- don't get married - at least not in one of those states.

it's only not extortion if everybody thinks along those lines. The biological father in that scenario was not given the choice. The biological father just loses ten years?

Default dad laws need to change. States that refuse to acknowledge same sex marriage need to change. Forcing men that are not the bio father to pay for children that are not theirs must change. There is an entire thread of males stating that they don't want to deal with children that are not theirs.

This rights thing may appeal to some very tiny portion of males. The rest of it serves for Welfare to make their money back off of what was spent. That's it.

Now that we both can see flaws in current law and practice can we not agree new and new practice should not be more UN-thought result?
These people are suffering from result, New law new guidelines could fix that.
But no one is doing the ground work to see that done. ALL parties are willing to sort it out afterward. You THINK people would learn.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Second most stupid comment of the days is from the racialist, Tom Sweetnam: "Eliminate "adoption" as a dynamic and "gay marriage" for males would die as an issue overnight." That is stupid as his racialism.

 

[Disir]

You're making the assumption that the husband is going to want to have anything to do with the kid. Making someone pay for a child that is not his is flat out wrong.

Actually I am pointing out actual state law in many states.

But yes- I am pointing out that many- if not most 'dads' who raise a child from infancy consider themselves to the actual dad- regardless of biology. The wife's infidelity does not reflect on the child.

And yes- I am biased- as a Dad myself- I think that any 'Dad' who rejects a child he has been raising just because the child doesn't have his DNA is pretty worthless.

We've been talking about the law in those states. Nonetheless, it's wrong.

many- if not most 'dads is not solid. It won't cut it. It's emotional, rather wishful and simply is extortion of cash. Otherwise, a non bio-dad that wants to hand over cash could do so to his ex without a law forcing him to.A paternity test can have his name removed.

I bet you're a great dad. As a dad you know that there are a hundred instances where dad's are pretty worthless. But, that doesn't make these laws any ............right-er.

No- its not extortion.

It serves a very valid purpose- which is the care of the child of that marriage.

Without that law, if a man was able to prove he was the biological father after 10 years of that child being raised by another, that biological father could legally fight for custody of the child.

This presumption leaves the child with the only father he or she has ever known.

And if you don't like that law- don't get married - at least not in one of those states.

it's only not extortion if everybody thinks along those lines. The biological father in that scenario was not given the choice. The biological father just loses ten years?

Default dad laws need to change. States that refuse to acknowledge same sex marriage need to change. Forcing men that are not the bio father to pay for children that are not theirs must change. There is an entire thread of males stating that they don't want to deal with children that are not theirs.

This rights thing may appeal to some very tiny portion of males. The rest of it serves for Welfare to make their money back off of what was spent. That's it.

Now that we both can see flaws in current law and practice can we not agree new and new practice should not be more UN-thought result?
These people are suffering from result, New law new guidelines could fix that.
But no one is doing the ground work to see that done. ALL parties are willing to sort it out afterward. You THINK people would learn.

Gay Marriage NO Groundwork NO Deal Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[JakeStarkey]

Darkfury, the legal aspect will be addressed IAW with legal procedure, not your silly demands.

We have a decade of legal gay marriage in the USA. there is plenty of procedure when SCOTUS ruling is released in June.

 

[DarkFury]

Darkfury, the legal aspect will be addressed IAW with legal procedure, not your silly demands.

We have a decade of legal gay marriage in the USA. there is plenty of procedure when SCOTUS ruling is released in June.

Asking it to written legal and with thought is a silly demand?
Idiot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you are the idiot whom you describe, because we have the procedures and experience to address the issue. As we are a federal governance, the fifty states will address the issue each in their own way in accordance with marriage equality. No great problem.

 

[DarkFury]

Yes, you are the idiot whom you describe, because we have the procedures and experience to address the issue. As we are a federal governance, the fifty states will address the issue each in their own way in accordance with marriage equality. No great problem.

THAT still requires some universal platform or base. There is none and THAT needs to be done first.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you are the idiot whom you describe, because we have the procedures and experience to address the issue. As we are a federal governance, the fifty states will address the issue each in their own way in accordance with marriage equality. No great problem.

THAT still requires some universal platform or base. There is none and THAT needs to be done first.

Look up 'federalism' because you last post demonstrates you are suffering a willful disconnect with political and legal reality.