I've not been on this thread for a couple days, nor have I read any responses since I last visited.
Have we all settled in and are we all in agreement that same sex couples do not and cannot have children of their own? Are we clear on that?
Are we also clear that I never made any assertion whatsoever that same sex couples can form a child as a result of their union? Are we clear?
Good. Now. Maybe we won't have people repeating this obvious fact over and over as if, y'know, it actually means something.
Ok greg? Ok gae? Ok lew?
Now that we've spent a week establishing that same sex couples don't create children from their specific union, let's just get to the point of the matter:
Are same sex couples unfit to raise children, thus should be banned from adopting?
Answer yes or no.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My best friend's son-in-law was sexually molesting his 3 year old daughter. The son-in-law's attorney made use of my friend's homosexuality in court.you can denigrate the 'social stigma' argument as BS, but in the courtroom it does come into play, I've used it (not in the gay context but others) and I've had it used against me.
For whatever reason, bitch Silvia Sieve Hendon continued to allow the father unsupervised visits with the daughter. As it turns out, after many, many attempts and a drained bank account, my friend's side got the court to agree to a psychological profile of the little girl's father. The profile deemed him to be a dangerous, disturbed man.
<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ July 02, 2005 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Captain Whizbang ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is very difficult subject to discuss on this type of forum, BUT...I was questioning your statement about gay folks having "their own children".
I can rattle off the top of my head about 9 gay people who have either fathered children or borne children of their own. Most were married at one point in time and are now divorced and out as gay people.
These children are their own flesh and blood.
Truth be told, I know no gay people who have adopted.
The problem with the banning gay adoptions and the "all other things being equal" concept as provided by lew is how it creeps into families who are now broken and have a gay parent.
The concept directly implies that gay people and their relationships are inherently inferior and are not in the best interest of the child.
From personal experience, I have dated a father of one of these children and as a result have spent many a Saturday night at his house watching television waiting for the daughter to call and be picked up, sometimes because the mother was out somewhere else and didn't fulfill her obligation.
The mother lives with a boyfriend; she has been married twice. Her job history is sporadic and for a while lived off the award from a sexual harrassment lawsuit. Once her water was turned off for lack of payment. Now she lives off the boyfriend.
On school nights the daughter stays with the gay father because her mother's house is too noisy and her two sons from a previous marriage party and make too much noise.
The older son was put into jail for not paying child support. He lives in the basement and once stole money from my friend's 12 year old daughter.
The next oldest son is gay and has boyfriends spend the night, along with other friends.
Since they live a block away from each other, transfer of the child is carefree. But the difference in care of the child is miles apart.
Funny that in a custody battle the mother could go to court and successfully use the gay thing, even though she sucks as a parent, even though the father has always kept his sexuality a secret and refuses to have anyone stay the night as long as his daughter is present.
Best interest of the child, my ass.
<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ July 02, 2005 12:50 PM: Message edited by: Captain Whizbang ]</font>
Cap'n
In the situation you describe, I would bet that the determining factor is father vs mother and the mother almost ALWAYS wins. It has very little to do with the father's sexual orientation.
I know of a father who is trying to get custody of his 3 yr old daughter. Mom is a known crack user, the boyfriend has been jailed several times for violent crimes. The little girl has come to the father's house with bruises and was taken by the father to Children's Hospital to have it checked out and documented. On one occasion, there was evidence of minor trauma in her vaginal area. Not sure what it was from, but the little girl said that the boyfriend sometimes sleeps in her bed.
The little girl cries when she has to go back to her mom's house and has started asking her dad and stepmom, "Why do you make me go back to mom's house?" She clearly doesn't want to go...but there is NOTHING they can do about it. The mom is gonna win. She can abuse drugs, neglect and beat her children but by virtue of her chromosomes is a better parent in the eyes of the court.
In the best interest of the child, my ass! But the courts think it is.
Generally, I would have to agree that mothers are better single parents than fathers, but it is not 100%. Since mothers are usually better I am sure the court "guesses" the mother will be in all cases...as Lew says it is all a guess. The odds are definitely in favor of the mother.
So what can be done to change this? Persuing this avenue would help your friend more than persuing the gay angle. MHO
But as far as gay adoption, I totally support the child being awarded to the best fit parent or parents regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No. Not unfit, shouldn't be banned.Originally posted by Captain Whizbang:
Now that we've spent a week establishing that same sex couples don't create children from their specific union, let's just get to the point of the matter:
Are same sex couples unfit to raise children, thus should be banned from adopting?
Answer yes or no.
And I respectfully think that d_squared has dated information - in my recent experience (although I KNOW this is very judge-specific), the courts are bending over backward to be fair to the fathers in regards to parenting time.
Oh, I should have been clear. Parenting time is fair, each parent gets the girl for one week at a time. But this will not be possible once the girl is in school since the parents do not reside in the same county.
Dad wants to be the custodial parent and was advised by his lawyer that it will be almost impossible. Once the girl is in school, mom will likely get her all week and dad will only get her every other weekend. If he is lucky he will get her every weekend but probably not. So for the majority of the time, she will reside with her crackhead mother and violent boyfriend. At least now, the girl gets to spend half her time in a typical loving environment where children are cherished and not viewed as a burden.
D2, I'm curious. Where is all of this happening? It seems to me that a call to CPS would put an end it it.
Dad lives in Hamilton County, mom lives in Dart county...so the case is being heard there. Dad has already contacted the local police there and they are supposedly watching her, but nothing yet.
Perhaps she has cleaned her act up. But this is also a small town and leery of "city folk." Dad got a lawyer familiar with Dart Cty and those are the lawyer's words. The lawyer thinks they will defend/protect the mom from the big city lawyers. Since when was Hamilton Cty/Cincinnati considered a big city??? [img]smile.gif[/img]
Where in the world is Dart County?
I would think that if Dad really suspects abuse, a trip to a pediatrician would be in order. They have to report an suspected abuse to the authorities.
Where is Lew to enlighten us?
Cap'n, sorry for the thread hijack.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks