Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: tonymctones on March 04, 2012, 07:25:06 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/same-sex-custody-battle-could-change-florida-law-141246936.html
3 was right on about the amusement that will come about by this absurd behavior and its normalization.
"The women, now in their 30s and known in court papers only by their initials, were both law enforcement officers in Florida. One partner donated an egg that was fertilized and implanted in the other.
But the Brevard County couple separated two years later, and the birth mother eventually left Florida with the child without telling her former lover. The woman who donated the egg and calls herself the biological mother finally tracked them down in Australia with the help of a private detective."
so who is the mother?
-
my 2 moms
-
Im telling you, we can start a reality show and make millions onthis.
-
my 2 moms
whats your opinion 240 whos the mom?
the woman who donated the egg or the woman who carried the child?
-
Has that ever happened with a married homosexual couple who couldnt have children on their own?
-
uh... if this is a homosexual issue, why does this same thing happen with straight married couples? There's been cases where the egg donar changed their mind and wanted custody. You could ask the same question, who's the mother. So how's this a homosexual marriage issue?
And if you call this case folly, JUST LOOK AT THIS LOL...
In the most recent and extraordinary surrogacy case to date, a California Appellate Court was faced with the challenge of balancing the parental rights and interests of six different parties to a surrogacy contract. In Jaycee B. v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. App. 4th 718 (1996) ("Jaycee B."), a husband and wife (the "Intended Parents") executed a surrogacy contract in Orange County, California with a woman (the "gestational surrogate") and the Surrogate's husband involving the fertilization of an egg from an anonymous egg donor, with the sperm of an anonymous sperm donor.
One month before the expected birth of the child, the Intended Parents separated and petitioned for divorce. The child was born and the hospital released the child to the Intended Mother based upon the reproductive contract. The Intended Mother then sought child support payments from the Intended Father. The Intended Father convinced the trial court that support payments could not be ordered because the court had not established that the baby was the "child of the marriage" pursuant to California Family Code Section 2010. The Appellate Court disagreed and found that it was enough that the Intended Mother had made a sufficient showing that the Intended Father would be declared the child's legal father by a court at some future date and therefore ordered the family law court to determine an appropriate child support order (expected Spring, 1997).
The Appellate Court in Jaycee B. relied upon the reasoning of Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. App. 4th 84 (1993), the California Supreme Court case that was the first to uphold the legality of a gestational surrogacy contract. The Johnson court ruled that, under the California Uniform Parentage Act, both the intended mother and the birth (gestational) mother could establish parentage. The intended father was also rendered as a potential parent, simply by entering into the surrogacy agreement. The Court explained, "John admits he signed the surrogacy agreement, which for all practical purposes caused Jaycee's conception every bit as much as if he had caused her birth the old fashioned way." http://www.surrogacy.com/legals/article/liegg.html
-
I wonder if someone like 3333 predicted this folly when heterosexual marriage was established. :D
-
I wonder if someone like 3333 predicted this folly when heterosexual marriage was established. :D
as if crazy shit doesn't happen in regular marriages... LOL, this thread is funny.
-
as if crazy shit doesn't happen in regular marriages... LOL, this thread is funny.
why add more shit when we have enough already?
-
why add more shit when we have enough already?
LOL, that's your reasoning? That homosexual marriage comes with problems and there are already enough problems with hetrosexual marriages? LOL, that's a priceless observation!!!! You crack me up.
-
uh... if this is a homosexual issue, why does this same thing happen with straight married couples? There's been cases where the egg donar changed their mind and wanted custody. You could ask the same question, who's the mother. So how's this a homosexual marriage issue?
And if you call this case folly, JUST LOOK AT THIS LOL...
In the most recent and extraordinary surrogacy case to date, a California Appellate Court was faced with the challenge of balancing the parental rights and interests of six different parties to a surrogacy contract. In Jaycee B. v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. App. 4th 718 (1996) ("Jaycee B."), a husband and wife (the "Intended Parents") executed a surrogacy contract in Orange County, California with a woman (the "gestational surrogate") and the Surrogate's husband involving the fertilization of an egg from an anonymous egg donor, with the sperm of an anonymous sperm donor.
One month before the expected birth of the child, the Intended Parents separated and petitioned for divorce. The child was born and the hospital released the child to the Intended Mother based upon the reproductive contract. The Intended Mother then sought child support payments from the Intended Father. The Intended Father convinced the trial court that support payments could not be ordered because the court had not established that the baby was the "child of the marriage" pursuant to California Family Code Section 2010. The Appellate Court disagreed and found that it was enough that the Intended Mother had made a sufficient showing that the Intended Father would be declared the child's legal father by a court at some future date and therefore ordered the family law court to determine an appropriate child support order (expected Spring, 1997).
The Appellate Court in Jaycee B. relied upon the reasoning of Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. App. 4th 84 (1993), the California Supreme Court case that was the first to uphold the legality of a gestational surrogacy contract. The Johnson court ruled that, under the California Uniform Parentage Act, both the intended mother and the birth (gestational) mother could establish parentage. The intended father was also rendered as a potential parent, simply by entering into the surrogacy agreement. The Court explained, "John admits he signed the surrogacy agreement, which for all practical purposes caused Jaycee's conception every bit as much as if he had caused her birth the old fashioned way." http://www.surrogacy.com/legals/article/liegg.html
LOL you dont see the difference?
one is the product of a moronic court decision, the other a product of moronic behavior...
-
LOL, that's your reasoning? That homosexual marriage comes with problems and there are already enough problems with hetrosexual marriages? LOL, that's a priceless observation!!!! You crack me up.
Exactly. Especially when the problem is the EXACT same in each case.
-
failed thread posted ;D
-
http://news.yahoo.com/same-sex-custody-battle-could-change-florida-law-141246936.html
3 was right on about the amusement that will come about by this absurd behavior and its normalization.
Wow. Another poorly-reasoned gay thread started by tonymctones. What. a. shock. ::)
How does this article highlight "the folly of gay marriage" when most of the women in the article weren't married? In fact, the reason the childhood arrangements were so complicated was precisely because they weren't legally allowed to marry. The only couple that was married ran into problems because the mother fled to a state that didn't recognize gay marriage , and even then the judge sided with her ex. Then she simply decided to ignore the judge, apparently.
Surrogacy is a legally complicated issue, regardless of the sexual orientation of those involved.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/same-sex-custody-battle-could-change-florida-law-141246936.html
3 was right on about the amusement that will come about by this absurd behavior and its normalization.
"The women, now in their 30s and known in court papers only by their initials, were both law enforcement officers in Florida. One partner donated an egg that was fertilized and implanted in the other.
But the Brevard County couple separated two years later, and the birth mother eventually left Florida with the child without telling her former lover. The woman who donated the egg and calls herself the biological mother finally tracked them down in Australia with the help of a private detective."
so who is the mother?
Simple...both of them.
-
failed thread posted ;D
Hahahaa
Material is thin for them nowdays.
-
right now their grasping at every stupid thing on the internet :D :D :D :D
-
And if they can't find it.... photoshop it.
LOL!!!
-
imo (not taking into account whatever is in the CUPA) the egg donating lesbian would be the mother and the surrogate in either case would not be considered a parent.
-
LOL you dont see the difference?
one is the product of a moronic court decision, the other a product of moronic behavior...
So without the court decision those two mothers would have never had a conflict?
-
LOL you dont see the difference?
one is the product of a moronic court decision, the other a product of moronic behavior...
LOLOLOL.... panic response as silly as 3333's
The hetro couple went though a more complex senerio involving more people and they decided to seperate before the baby was born!!! If the case you're pointing out is "folly" What the fuck do you call what this hetro couple did? Simple point, it's silly to pull up this case you point out as a folly of homosexual marriage when the same happens in normal marriages.
-
"Goodness gracious" someone is going to have to try again.
-
tony, i can tell youre not yet married. cause you wouldn't have to ask my opinion, if you were married.
i think both women were wrong. to get married. i think all ppl who get married are damn fools lol. :D
"you're willing to bet half your shit you'll never f**k anyone else again!"
so really, anyone with a ring is already a complete dumbass. THis story is just redundant. ;D
-
Wow. Another poorly-reasoned gay thread started by tonymctones. What. a. shock. ::)
How does this article highlight "the folly of gay marriage" when most of the women in the article weren't married? In fact, the reason the childhood arrangements were so complicated was precisely because they weren't legally allowed to marry. The only couple that was married ran into problems because the mother fled to a state that didn't recognize gay marriage , and even then the judge sided with her ex. Then she simply decided to ignore the judge, apparently.
Surrogacy is a legally complicated issue, regardless of the sexual orientation of those involved.
it makes it more complicated seeing as courts generally side with the MOTHER!!!
so which one is the mother?
-
LOLOLOL.... panic response as silly as 3333's
The hetro couple went though a more complex senerio involving more people and they decided to seperate before the baby was born!!! If the case you're pointing out is "folly" What the fuck do you call what this hetro couple did? Simple point, it's silly to pull up this case you point out as a folly of homosexual marriage when the same happens in normal marriages.
LOL that post was at about 5:30am while getting ready for work hoss...
again one is a situation made complicated by the court...the other is complicated by the situation...
I think we could all come to a general concensus on the mother of the hetero couples baby correct?
whos the mother in the homo couple?
-
tony, i can tell youre not yet married. cause you wouldn't have to ask my opinion, if you were married.
i think both women were wrong. to get married. i think all ppl who get married are damn fools lol. :D
"you're willing to bet half your shit you'll never f**k anyone else again!"
so really, anyone with a ring is already a complete dumbass. THis story is just redundant. ;D
hahah I like the way you put that
-
Hugo doesn't have a job-- therefore all of his posts are perfect. Hugo's posts are always typo free and logically coherent. ::)
-
LOL that post was at about 5:30am while getting ready for work hoss...
again one is a situation made complicated by the court...the other is complicated by the situation...
I think we could all come to a general concensus on the mother of the hetero couples baby correct?
whos the mother in the homo couple?
The same person who would be the mother in the hetero couple with a surrogate... The mom who gave the egg is usually considered the actual "mom".
-
Hugo doesn't have a job-- therefore all of his posts are perfect. Hugo's posts are always typo free and logically coherent. ::)
WTF are you babbling about ::) I called tony's response a panic response because of his lame ass attempt at excusing the behavior of the hetro couple because the courts became involved ::) That's just a desperate attempt to justify a bad thread. The courts didn't arrage the whole pregnancy or decide they should get divorced before the baby was even born after going though a very complex situation in order to have a kid. That's nuts before the court even became involved in sorting shit out.
Nobody said anything about anyone's spelling jackass.
-
WTF are you babbling about ::) I called tony's response a panic response because of his lame ass attempt at excusing the behavior of the hetro couple because the courts became involved ::) That's just a desperate attempt to justify a bad thread. The courts didn't arrage the whole pregnancy or decide they should get divorced before the baby was even born after going though a very complex situation in order to have a kid. That's nuts before the court even became involved in sorting shit out.
Nobody said anything about anyone's spelling jackass.
Has anyone ever bashed your grill with a barbell plate?
-
The same person who would be the mother in the hetero couple with a surrogate... The mom who gave the egg is usually considered the actual "mom".
Yes but in the hetero couple there is only one female in the relationship. Seeing as courts generally tend to side with the mother do you not see how having two moms causes a problem?
-
Yes but in the hetero couple there is only one female in the relationship. Seeing as courts generally tend to side with the mother do you not see how having two moms causes a problem?
No... In the hetero surrogate scenario there are 2 women... One who caries the egg and one who produced it.
The courts generally side with the mom who produced the egg.
I see no difference here.
-
No... In the hetero surrogate scenario there are 2 women... One who caries the egg and one who produced it.
The courts generally side with the mom who produced the egg.
I see no difference here.
In terms of divorce where the two women are married are they both not mothers?
Which in does the court side with?
In terms of hetero surrogacy once the surrogate gives birth she steps away. In this instance he surrogate is also one of the mothers in the relationship.
You really think that's the same LMFAO
-
In terms of divorce where the two women are married are they both not mothers?
Which in does the court side with?
In terms of hetero surrogacy once the surrogate gives birth she steps away. In this instance he surrogate is also one of the mothers in the relationship.
You really think that's the same LMFAO
I do think it's the same actually.
Who cares if they are both called "mom" or "dad".
The bottom line is they usually go with the woman that is genetically matched to the child.
That's pretty much how it goes.
-
Tony is the only person in history that would be willing to argue 2+2 does not equal 4. You will agree the 2 is actually just an underlined 7 if you stand far enough away so you must admit 2+2=14.
-
Tony is the only person in history that would be willing to argue 2+2 does not equal 4. You will agree the 2 is actually just an underlined 7 if you stand far enough away so you must admit 2+2=14.
LMAO!!
-
:)
LMAO!!
You seem very emotionally attached to this issue.
-
:)
You seem very emotionally attached to this issue.
Is it pissing you off Barney Frank is getting married soon? Are you weeping over that shirtless pic of him you keep on your hard drive?
Kind of sad knowing a fat old fag like Barney can get married and you are still sitting around with an imaginary girlfriend in your middle age years.
-
I do think it's the same actually.
Who cares if they are both called "mom" or "dad".
The bottom line is they usually go with the woman that is genetically matched to the child.
That's pretty much how it goes.
NOOOO, they generally go with the woman in the relationship...it just so happens that b/c a normal relationship consists of one man and one woman that generally that one woman is the genetic giver for half...
If a woman who is infertile has an impreganted egg placed in her uturus, she will be the mother even if she isnt the genetic giver....B/C SHES THE FEMALE!!!
the mom in other words...
I do follow your logic however even though its not the same as a hetero couple and I think that would be a sufficient declaration.
-
NOOOO, they generally go with the woman in the relationship...it just so happens that b/c a normal relationship consists of one man and one woman that generally that one woman is the genetic giver for half...
If a woman who is infertile has an impreganted egg placed in her uturus, she will be the mother even if she isnt the genetic giver....B/C SHES THE FEMALE!!!
the mom in other words...
I do follow your logic however even though its not the same as a hetero couple and I think that would be a sufficient declaration.
I see what you're saying, but there have been instances where the non-genetic surrogate has come forward and wanted to be the mom and the courts sided with the genetic mother.
That's all I'm saying in this case.
-
For all practical purposes all you have to show is that this type of senerio is not unique to homosexual marriage and it's not whatsoever. This issue is what Tony calls an example of "folly" in homosexual marriage. Focus on that fact alone. That is the case he presented! TU, don't get caught up in Tony's red herrings. Tony loses this thread unless you let it get diverted.
-
How can something more common in heterosexual marriages be a "folly" in homosexual marriages? By that standard, one would have to argue that divorce in homosexual marriage is a folly too.