Gay/Lesbian Parents

[cappie]

Interesting article:

Mum v Mum: the new custody battle
By Adele Horin
September 7, 2005

Two Sydney women who had a long-term relationship have started a custody battle for a three-year-old boy conceived through donor insemination.

The non-biological mother claims she has been the psychological and emotional parent since the boy was born, and that he has spent more time with her in the years since the couple separated. The looming Family Court battle highlights a dilemma in lesbian relationships where both women may agree to have a child, and raise it together, but only one can give birth. Under NSW law the partner who does not bear the child has no legal rights as a parent.

Nici Clayhills, solicitor for the non-biological mother, said homosexuals had progressed since the 1970s from fighting for rights to recognise difference, to fighting to be accepted as normal.

"That involves wanting the mortgage, the dog, the child and the marriage," she said. "And it's extending to disputes in the Family Court."

Jenni Millbank, associate professor of law at the University of Sydney, said increasing numbers of lesbian couples were conceiving children through donor insemination. And the law needed to change to give the non-biological parent the same rights as men whose wives conceived through artificial insemination.

In the case involving the boy, the biological mother has filed an application in the Family Court for the boy to live with her full time and is prepared to give the other parent contact every second weekend. At present the estranged couple share the boy's care, and the non-biological mother intends to fight to retain the status quo.

The NSW Government is considering amendments to the Status of Children Act 1996 that would extend a "presumption of parenthood" to the female partner of a woman who has a child through artificial insemination. At present the act confers legal parental status only on heterosexuals while severing the parental rights of egg or sperm donors.

Under other proposed changes, the name of the non-biological lesbian parent could appear on the birth certificate. And the child could automatically inherit her property or superannuation at her death.

The non-biological parent would have authority in school



matters and medical care. Similar laws exist in Western Australia - where parents are listed on the birth certificate as parent 1 and parent 2 - the ACT and the Northern Territory, and the Victorian Law Reform Commission has recommended equivalent changes to the Bracks Government.

Natalie Ross, principal solicitor at Sydney's Inner City Legal Centre, said: "The amendments would reflect the intentions of two women to have a child together and to both be parents even though one is bearing the child."

In the Family Court, the non-biological lesbian parent has the same status as grandparents, foster parents or any person concerned with the care, welfare and development of a child, and has a right to make applications for contact or residence. The court's decision is based on what is in the child's best interests.

"Biological parents may have an advantage in times of disputes," Professor Millbank said.

"But there is no formal barrier to a co-parent getting residence or shared care now.

"However, if state laws were amended, a co-parent would not just be just some other woman who cares about the child. She would be a legal parent. It might make a difference in the way co-mothers are viewed in the Family Court process."

According to Professor Millbank, increasing numbers of lesbian couples have applied to the Family Court for parental orders by consent. These confer some parental authority on the non-biological parent in matters of medical treatment and schooling.

The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby had expected the Government to move soon on amending the legislation - and to make it restrospective.

However, a spokesman for the Attorney-General, Bob Debus, said the minister was away, and he did not know what progress had been made.

[Carrie]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 3 2005, 01:35 PM']Yes I would honestly.
[right][snapback]709614[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Saying [b]all[/b] children should be taken away from homosexual parents is too much of a sweeping statement for me.

Before making a statement like that, you need to consider a person's situation. Not everything is in black and white all the time.

As Iceprincess stated:
[quote]While I agree with everyone here who says that gender roles are important and children should have a mother and a father (one female parent and one male parent), I do think that there are the occasional rare exception where it might be necessary for a homosexual couple to adopt. Without going into all the sordid details (unless I have to) you may remember that our own dear Hyper (oh how I miss him) adopted his nephew and was raising little Pepin, and Jon's (and before someone goes off ranting about sin and evil and abomination, they were CELIBATE) daughter Ashley. They didn't adopt him for selfish reasons, no one else would take Pepin and raise him---though they wanted more children they wouldn't adopt more because of the Church's teaching, unless another scenario popped up like the one that gave them Pepin. Again, obviously not the ideal, but in some cases it may be the only choice.[/quote]

This is exactly what crossed my mind when reading this thread.

From what we knew of Hyper and his situation, Ashley and Pepin are much better off with him than with other family members.

Personally, I'd rather see a child with a parent like Hyper than with an abusive/neglectful heterosexual parent.

Ice, I miss Hyper too.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Sep 6 2005, 10:32 PM'][snip]  This is true even today in our high-tech society, even with in-vitro fertilization -- even with that, reproduction cannot occur without male and female gametes.

The burden of proof is on those who say that children [i]don't[/i] need the influence of both men and women in their upbringing.  If that's the case, then why does nature work differently?
[right][snapback]713984[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Now I don't support your point of view, but I would like to bring a correction to your post.

It is possible to create a female human being with two female gametes in the laboratory. It is not howver, possible to produce a male human being with two male gametes.

If you look at any television you would come accross fantasy or science ficiton programs (Star Trek) who explore the possibility of the future being populated entirely of woman for that simple reason.

Don't want to sound too technical, now back to the discussion:

[quote]Something so universal to the human experience cannot be dismissed as something arbitrarily set up by a particular society.[/quote]

I think this is well said Socrates, I entirely agree.

Also, to the 'animal' argument I would add that even if animals, through their 'brute passions' might betray their natural order, we as human beings, with our intelligence and enlightement from knowing God, should know better and control our 'brute passions', rather than give in to them and worse, trying to justify them as normal or becuase 'it is trivial and feels right'.

Having sex is not a requirement to living a fulfilled and happy life. To think otherwise is to belittle the importance of the human being as a whole.

Gay parents should not adopt - why? Simply because it presents homosexuality as acceptable and normal; that is why. Because the mere union poses as rightcheous something that is perverted and thus leads the children within the household towards perversion. This is the real issue here, not 'gender roles' or having 'male and female' figures in the household. Those are consequential to the real issue: promulgating perversions as normal, and a life of sin as acceptable.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Carrie' date='Sep 7 2005, 08:43 AM']Saying [b]all[/b] children should be taken away from homosexual parents is too much of a sweeping statement for me.

Before making a statement like that, you need to consider a person's situation.  Not everything is in black and white all the time.

As Iceprincess stated:
This is exactly what crossed my mind when reading this thread.

From what we knew of Hyper and his situation, Ashley and Pepin are much better off with him than with other family members.

Personally, I'd rather see a child with a parent like Hyper than with an abusive/neglectful heterosexual parent. 

Ice, I miss Hyper too.
[right][snapback]714240[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I also thought of Hyper when I read this thread. As an overarching principle, I'd say that it's best for a child to be raised by heterosexual parents. But there are definitely cases such as Hyper's where the best option for the particular child is not that.

I miss Hyper too ...

"My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard ..."

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Socrates']I do not consider sex "trivial." Sexual behavior has consequences, both for the individual and for society.
[/quote]

True, sex isn't trivial. I didn't mean to say otherwise. Bad sentence structure.

[quote name='Good Friday']What's the evidence that children need the influence of both genders in their upbringing? That's easy -- the evidence is that, no matter how hard we try to make it otherwise, children need both genders in order to be created[/quote]

Upbringing and creation are two different things.

Besides I havent seen anyone crying about the evils of single parenthood here. Following your logic, it should be worse than the same sex ones.

[quote name='Didacus']Also, to the 'animal' argument I would add that even if animals, through their 'brute passions' might betray their natural order, we as human beings, with our intelligence and enlightement from knowing God, should know better and control our 'brute passions', rather than give in to them and worse, trying to justify them as normal or becuase 'it is trivial and feels right'.[/quote]

How are feelings not part of our nature?

[Didacus]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Sep 7 2005, 10:34 AM'][snip]

How are feelings not part of our nature?
[right][snapback]714338[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Feelings and emotions are part of our nature, and I did not try to claim as much (you have a habit or extrapolating conclusions from other's posts I see, you've done so several times in this thread alone).

It is a question that our intelligence and wisdom should supersede any feelings and emotions we have. The reverse would be to have our 'brutes feelings' control our lives and decisions, rendering us the equal of animals, something i, and several others, are not willing to accept. If anyone is willing to accept it, they should move to the farm to be raised by farmers (now that would be interesting 'parenting').

Bacon and eggs, a day's work for the chicken, a lifetime comittement by the pig. quote from Cmom's thread... I like it!

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Semalsia']Besides I havent seen anyone crying about the evils of single parenthood here. Following your logic, it should be worse than the same sex ones.[/quote]
Single parents are just as obligated as same-sex parents to provide children with familial influences from both genders.

If you're not hearing an argument against single parenthood from people on this phorum, I suspect it's because you're not looking for one. I don't think people on this phorum would treat single parenthood much differently; they would treat is as less than the ideal, just as they treat same-sex parenthood. There would be a few exceptions to the rule, but not many.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Sep 7 2005, 04:30 PM'][quote name='Semalsia']Besides I havent seen anyone crying about the evils of single parenthood here. Following your logic, it should be worse than the same sex ones.[/quote]
Single parents are just as obligated as same-sex parents to provide children with familial influences from both genders.

If you're not hearing an argument against single parenthood from people on this phorum, I suspect it's because you're not looking for one. I don't think people on this phorum would treat single parenthood much differently; they would treat is as less than the ideal, just as they treat same-sex parenthood. There would be a few exceptions to the rule, but not many.
[right][snapback]714674[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Single-parent families are definitely not the ideal, though there may be circumstances in which this becomes inevitable.
For instance, if a woman becomes pregnant, and the father refuses to stay with the woman, and there is no other man to take care of the the child, it is better to have the child and raise it, than to abort it.
And if the father (or mother) leaves or dies, it is best that parent stay with the child/children.

However, there is an important difference between these situations and "same-sex parenthood." Two people of the same sex cannot conceive a child, so they must adopt one or "donate" or "receive" egg or sperm fgrom a member of the opposite sex through unnatural means.
"Same-sex parenthood" must be deliberately sought out, and never occurs naturally. Never do a "same-sex couple" just "wind up" with a baby.
And I would have the same objection to those who deliberately seek out "single parenthood." (As in a woman deciding to get pregnant with no intention of having the father stay with her and the child, so she can "raise the child herself.")

Wrong as many of the circumstances of single-parenting are, in many cases it is making the best of a bad situation from past wrongs, rather than something that is sought out for its own sake, as "same-sex parents" must always do. And "same-sex parenting" has the added malice of trying to "legitimize" homosexual "unions."

Edited September 8, 2005 by Socrates

[Semalsia]

Well let's put it this way:

Is it better for a homosexual to have a child (whether it be alone or with a partner) than not to? That's a new life into this world, right? And you have to admit, they'll do at least ok. Wouldn't it be a shame if it didn't have a chance to be born? Kind of like being aborted.

I can't see how you could say no. You have ten-page-long thread about whether postponing having a child by a year after getting married is a sin or not. Obviously you want children to be born as much as possible. So there are few problems, but do things really have to be perfect? It's not like they really can be, anyway. And it's not like other's will definately do any better.

What do you think?

[jmjtina]

The evil is that society has taught us that children shouldn't be born and the choice is up to the couple.

To say that "homosexual" partners should have a chance is not fixing the problem, but making it bigger and more dangerous to not only to society but destructive to the very roots of all families.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Sep 10 2005, 02:40 PM']Well let's put it this way:

Is it better for a homosexual to have a child (whether it be alone or with a partner) than not to? That's a new life into this world, right? And you have to admit, they'll do at least ok. Wouldn't it be a shame if it didn't have a chance to be born? Kind of like being aborted.

I can't see how you could say no. You have ten-page-long thread about whether postponing having a child by a year after getting married is a sin or not. Obviously you want children to be born as much as possible. So there are few problems, but do things really have to be perfect? It's not like they really can be, anyway. And it's not like other's will definately do any better.

What do you think?
[right][snapback]718302[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Semalsia, I realize you're not Catholic, and will probably disagree with what I say. However, it seems you are attempting to appeal to "Catholic" reasoning here, and you seem to seriously misunderstand Catholic teaching and thought.

First of all, as I've already pointed out, two people of the same sex cannot by themselves conceive a child. Neither can a person conceive a child by himself/herself. It takes a man and a woman to conceive a child. (Basic Biology 101). Therefore, any arguments about a homosexual couple being "prevented" from conceiving a child are absurd.

Secondly, the idea that we Catholics believe simply that as many children as possible should be brought into the world is false, and shows a complete misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.
In a nutshell, Catholics believe that children should be conceived only by the act of married lovemaking and that married lovemaking should always be open to the conception of children.

If we Catholics believed that children should be "born as much as possible" by any possible means, then we would say that people should have sex with many different partners in order to increase the chances of making the most babies, and that priests and religious should not take vows of celibacy, lest potential babies be prevented from coming into the world! The debates you refer to strictly concerned married couples, and you either distort or completely misunderstand what the debates were about.

Abortion is wrong because it kills an already existing human life. To compare "gays" not being allowed to "have children" (which they cannot do anyway through homosexual acts) to abortion is completely ridiculous! One cannot kill a child which does not exist! Neither is it contraceptive, since homosexual acitivity does not create children to begin with!

As Catholics, we oppose the conception of human life through any means other than sexual intercourse by married couples. This includes artificial insemination and the like (for anybody, "gay" or "straight") or cloning (if it ever happens).

Catholics beleive children are a gift from God, not something everybody has a "right" to by any means possible.

[Socrates]

bump for Semalsia

[infinitelord1]

i dont believe that gay parents is a good thing. The child needs affection from a man and a women. Lacking in either one of these could lead to an increase in homosexual populations. I think that is one of the causes of homosexuality........the lack of affection from the same sex parent.

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='track2004' date='Aug 31 2005, 05:37 PM'] From what I've heard, though not actually seen or read, gay parents are very aware that one gender is missing in the child's life and try to have a male or female (depending on the parents) adult involved in the child's life.  For instance a lesbian couple would have a uncle figure for the child.
[right][snapback]706753[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


That still doesnt make it okay at all...

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Sep 3 2005, 08:45 AM']And so far you have been able to say that we should reinforce the gender roles in parents, because that's a good way to reinforce those gender roles in the children. But you see, the gender roles are arbitrary and meaningless. And frankly, I see them only doing harm.
Would you then be in favor of taking all the children away from homosexual parents?

[quote name='picchick']Yes but why is it that they are more driven to the heterosexual lifestyle?

Some possible ideas (and yes it could be called "mean" or "harsh")

-they were made fun of for having two same sex parents.
-they don't want their kids to grow up in that enviroment
[/quote]

This kind of thinking assumes that they can freely, subconsciously or in any way [i]choose[/i] their sexual orientation, which goes against what we already know of the causes of homosexuality.

Actually it might be because of gay parents hiding the fact that their children are gay in the fear that others will think that homosexuality is hereditary.

Heterosexuals having more children than homosexuals on average might be a factor on this as well.
[right][snapback]709485[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
you can choose your sexual orientation. homosexuality is recognized as an issue. Nobody was certainly born that way.......and nobody is forced to feel a certain way. They just do.........mainly because of their childhood and what they were taught and what they belleved and felt. Children are in no position to make decisions about who they are. So the things that mold them at childhood have an effect (negative or positve) in adulthood. If they dont like how they feel later they can change it. Imagine somebody who had a rough childhood and this person grew up not even remembering the last time they were truelly happy............certainly a lot of these types of people feel helpless..........so what should we do? Ignore them and classify them as depressisists? And say there is nothing they can do to change the way they feel? Well, over the last hundred years or so psychology has grown and understanding of these types of things have grown as well. So we counsel them and help them. Homosexuality is still in the grey area. Now adays people are coming out saying that you dont have to live that way............do you believe them semalsia? I do. The group i go to is run by a very femine man.........who lived a homosexual lifestyle for like 10 years. A commoner who didnt really believe in god would write him off as qwerty if he met him. This man claims that god changed him and he offers help to those who like him at one time......are seeking freedom from the burden of homosexuality.

[track2004]

I'd like to say that though I can see why you are saying people aren't born gay, I kinda disagree with some of that. So we aren't born gay, but it's not like one day some people go, "... you know what, I think I'm going to be gay. It sounds fun." It isn't that overt. I found it's a realization of what (who) your mind actually thinks about. Though I'm sure things happen in people's lives that push them one way or another, I really do think people have a predisposition to it. Maybe it's a population control gene, I don't know (or care). The manner in which one lives life as a gay person is up to them, but the deeper homosexuality is really hard to just decide to up and have (though some have) or get rid of (though some have). Anyway I just know, from experience, that realizing I have SSA was a slow process and that a few things happened in the last 3 years that forced me to realize it and make a decision about it.

[Semalsia]

[quote]it seems you are attempting to appeal to "Catholic" reasoning here[/quote]

I was.

[quote] and you seem to seriously misunderstand Catholic teaching and thought.[/quote]

If you say so.

I understand that those are your views, but I can't agree with them. Can't say they are incorrect, since you are free to believe in anything you want. Can't seem to make sense of them either. You say something's bad and I think to myself "oh hey, wouldn't that be neat?". Now, does that make me evil in your eyes? If I'm not able to comprehend why something so good could be so bad. And I can't see why the method of conceiving would make a difference. A pregnancy is a pregnancy, why would your God mind?

I know squat about parenting. I don't really know what children need. I always thought loving them would be enough. And being there and setting an example... And I can't see why the parents' sex and gender would matter. You know, I remember reading some study that showed that there isn't any more harm done to the children of same sex parents than there is to the others', but I have no way of backing that up. And you'd say it's gay propaganda, anyway. I guess the harm you see is just a good thing for me.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='infinitelord1']I think that is one of the causes of homosexuality........the lack of affection from the same sex parent.

you can choose your sexual orientation.

Nobody was certainly born that way.

mainly because of their childhood
[/quote]

Of course, you have no way of backing that up. And you are ignoring all those many gays who had perfectly happy childhood.

[quote]who lived a homosexual lifestyle for like 10 years
[/quote]

He's still gay. He just doesn't have sex anymore.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Sep 12 2005, 07:30 PM']I was.
If you say so.

I understand that those are your views, but I can't agree with them. Can't say they are incorrect, since you are free to believe in anything you want. Can't seem to make sense of them either. You say something's bad and I think to myself "oh hey, wouldn't that be neat?". Now, does that make me evil in your eyes? If I'm not able to comprehend why something so good could be so bad. And I can't see why the method of conceiving would make a difference. A pregnancy is a pregnancy, why would your God mind?

I know squat about parenting. I don't really know what children need. I always thought loving them would be enough. And being there and setting an example... And I can't see why the parents' sex and gender would matter. You know, I remember reading some study that showed that there isn't any more harm done to the children of same sex parents than there is to the others', but I have no way of backing that up. And you'd say it's gay propaganda, anyway. I guess the harm you see is just a good thing for me.
[right][snapback]721169[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Have you really tried to follow what I and other Catholics here have been saying? If you want to debate a topic, it's best to look at what they're actually saying, rather than a skewed version of what they're saying. I've shown how the idea that we think simply as many babies should be born as possible is false, and that comparing "gays" not having children to abortion is absurd.

Basically, the Catholic view is that making babies should be the result of married love between a man and woman. Sex between a man and woman is the only natural way of conceiving a child. Any other way is unnatural. If God wanted us to reproduce assexually, He would've made us able to do so.
(And two people of the same sex cannot produce children, so stop pretending that it's all the same).

To use some more "extreme" examples, what would you think of human babies being a "consumer product"? (See the thread in open mic.) Do you think people should clone themselves (if that became scientifically feasible)? Or what about being able to buy do-it-yourself baby-making kits at the Walmart?

Maybe you'd think "oh hey, wouldn't that be neat?" but I sure don't see it that way. (Andf neither does the Church).

[Socrates]

[quote name='track2004' date='Sep 12 2005, 07:20 PM']I'd like to say that though I can see why you are saying people aren't born gay, I kinda disagree with some of that.  So we aren't born gay, but it's not like one day some people go, "... you know what, I think I'm going to be gay.  It sounds fun."  It isn't that overt.  I found it's a realization of what (who) your mind actually thinks about.  Though I'm sure things happen in people's lives that push them one way or another, I really do think people have a predisposition to it.  Maybe it's a population control gene, I don't know (or care).  The manner in which one lives life as a gay person is up to them, but the deeper homosexuality is really hard to just decide to up and have (though some have) or get rid of (though some have).  Anyway I just know, from experience, that realizing I have SSA was a slow process and that a few things happened in the last 3 years that forced me to realize it and make a decision about it.
[right][snapback]721165[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Nobody thinks people just willingly choose to be "gay." But, as you've pointed out, you've made a conscious decision to lead a certain life.

People's actions define who they are.
[quote]He's still gay. He just doesn't have sex anymore.[/quote]
The whole problem is, we are encouraging this "orientation" to define who a person is, rather than encouraging people to take responsibility for their lives and actions, and make moral choices.