What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

It Turns Out That Sperm Come From Biological Males. Who Knew?

Silhouette

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
25,815
Reaction score
1,928
Points
265
Arizona Court of Appeals ruling possible setback for gay rights
Saying lawmakers wrote what they meant, the state Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the same-sex spouse of a woman who gave birth to a child is not entitled to a presumption she is a parent......In what could be a significant setback for gay rights, the court said the law on paternity “clearly and unambiguously provides that it applies solely to men.” And Judge Randall Howe, writing for the majority, said judges are powerless to change that, even in the face of the historic 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling which said gays are legally entitled to marry.

“Given their ordinary means, ‘man’ means ‘an adult male human being’ and ‘father’ means ‘the male parent of a child,’ ” Howe wrote. “Each of these words is gender-specific to males and not applicable to females.”

So sperm really do come from males and males really are necessary to make babies? You learn something new every day..

Another important wording to focus on is "Each of these words is gender-specific to males and not applicable to females", drawing a distinct legal line between the two gender classifications as to reproductive ability. Bet most folks didn't notice that tranny-smashing Trojan Horse..

So it seems that in Arizona, if you have a womb, ovaries and bear children, you are female. If you have testicles and sperm and can make babies in a female, you are a male. Again, who knew? :lmao:
 
Last edited:

Marion Morrison

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
58,863
Reaction score
16,775
Points
2,190
Arizona Court of Appeals ruling possible setback for gay rights
Saying lawmakers wrote what they meant, the state Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the same-sex spouse of a woman who gave birth to a child is not entitled to a presumption she is a parent......In what could be a significant setback for gay rights, the court said the law on paternity “clearly and unambiguously provides that it applies solely to men.” And Judge Randall Howe, writing for the majority, said judges are powerless to change that, even in the face of the historic 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling which said gays are legally entitled to marry.

“Given their ordinary means, ‘man’ means ‘an adult male human being’ and ‘father’ means ‘the male parent of a child,’ ” Howe wrote. “Each of these words is gender-specific to males and not applicable to females.”

So sperm really do come from males and males really are necessary to make babies? You learn something new every day..

Another important wording to focus on is "Each of these words is gender-specific to males and not applicable to females", drawing a distinct legal line between the two gender classifications as to reproductive ability. Bet most folks didn't notice that tranny-smashing Trojan Horse..

So it seems that in Arizona, if you have a womb, ovaries and bear children, you are female. If you have testicles and sperm and can make babies in a female, you are a male. Again, who knew? :lmao:

8th grade Biology students? :dunno:
 

EverCurious

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
11,221
Reaction score
1,844
Points
280
Location
Alaska
To the legal aspect, I suspect the "presumed parent" argument is going to fail because step parents rarely have any parental rights in divorce and custody unless they legally adopt the child.
 
OP
S

Silhouette

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
25,815
Reaction score
1,928
Points
265
To the legal aspect, I suspect the "presumed parent" argument is going to fail because step parents rarely have any parental rights in divorce and custody unless they legally adopt the child.
Correct. It was another lesbian coup to try to make fathers not-important in childrens' lives. Or rather, to immediately establish by legal-presumption that a man is cut away from a child born to a lesbian.
 
Last edited:

Silent Warrior

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
577
Points
170
Location
Midwest
males really are necessary to make babies

Actually, males are not necessary in some lower animals that are able to reproduce by parthenogenesis, although the progeny is always female. Doesn't seem to work naturally in humans though.
 
OP
S

Silhouette

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
25,815
Reaction score
1,928
Points
265
males really are necessary to make babies

Actually, males are not necessary in some lower animals that are able to reproduce by parthenogenesis, although the progeny is always female. Doesn't seem to work naturally in humans though.

Yes, this is a discussion about dioecious mammals. Specifically, homo sapiens. So that would be the relevance to how the law was interpreted in AZ.
 
OP
S

Silhouette

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
25,815
Reaction score
1,928
Points
265
It seems your homophobia is still quite acute dear...
No, my phobia is of fathers (or mothers who do womb child-trafficking for gay men) being cut out of childrens' lives. A legitimate fear actually.
 

EverCurious

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
11,221
Reaction score
1,844
Points
280
Location
Alaska
It seems your homophobia is still quite acute dear...
No, my phobia is of fathers (or mothers who do womb child-trafficking for gay men) being cut out of childrens' lives. A legitimate fear actually.

Well the ruling here seems to imply that women have less "paternal" rights than men and the/my "concern" with that really has nothing to do with gay folk.

That said I do agree that maternal/paternal rights are a legitimate fear, having spent some $60k just to get my step-son away from his abusive mother through custody court tells me that there is a serious bias and flaws in justice - and that's not even getting into how disgustingly biased child support enforcement is. We do need to work on these areas - nothing to do with LGBT though.
 
OP
S

Silhouette

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
25,815
Reaction score
1,928
Points
265
Well the ruling here seems to imply that women have less "paternal" rights than men and the/my "concern" with that really has nothing to do with gay folk.

That said I do agree that maternal/paternal rights are a legitimate fear, having spent some $60k just to get my step-son away from his abusive mother through custody court tells me that there is a serious bias and flaws in justice - and that's not even getting into how disgustingly biased child support enforcement is. We do need to work on these areas - nothing to do with LGBT though.

Two women getting married and one of them claiming to be the presumptive parent of the other's baby (made by sperm from a man) has everything to do with LGBT.
 

EverCurious

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
11,221
Reaction score
1,844
Points
280
Location
Alaska
My concern is about a father trying to claim his biological child having the same "chance" of getting custody as the mother, so no, nothing to do with LGBTs.

I don't have issue with gay folks raising kids, adopting kids, whatever. Aside from raising them to be gay from birth, or maybe raising them as entitled left wing nut bags.

Being bi and a member of the LGBT community, and having read many of your homophobic rants, I know you're full of misplaced hate for them; you're not converting anyone dear.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top