"Children are ordinarily entitled to a relationship with their mothers and fathers" That's not at all true. Children ordinarily HAVE a relationship with their mothers and fathers, but they have not right to demand it or even know that they don't have it. Adoption was NEVER contingent on the wishes of the child and the child could never assert even a right to make their parents justify an adoption. Although an adoption could be stopped if it was not in the best interest of the child this did not mean there he/she had a right to a relationship with their parents. In fact children could be taken away from their parents against their will. The fact that adoption was unusual did not maan that it was ordinarily against the rights of the child, only that most people didn't do it.
Same sex marriage doesn't say anything about whether the children have a relationship with their biological parents. A gay couple could for instance use a close friend as a surrogate mother with the agreement that she would be known to the child and have a relationship with him/her. A straight couple on the other hand could use the eggs and the womb of a surrogate mother and never tell the child.
"... for no reason other than that the adults want to do it" which is the same reason for every adoption except those where the state takes away someone's kids.
"you have a system that tracks biology pretty closely" Citation needed. In fact of course presumption of paternity often doesn't match with biology. If the goal is to give the child a relationship with both biological parents then presumption of paternity is a failure. It only gives that right when the father is the mother's husband and actively stymies attempts by the biological father to have a relationship with the child, particularly when genetic testing is restrited.
"But in 95% of cases, this system [presumption of paternity] is tracking biology" And this is good enough for an alleged "right"? Would it be OK if 95% of defendents got adequate legal council? Or a trial at all?
"In 100% of cases this is false, she is not the other parent of that child". So what? What is important is legal parentage not biological parentage. in close to 100% of cases where an adopted child's mother is not known to the adopting mother her husband is not the biological father.
"There is another parent somewhere, he has been safely escorted off the stage and kept off the stage by the legal system." Yes generally because _that's where he wants to be_. Have you never heard of sperm donors? A sperm donor is off the stage because he never wanted to be on it. And that's the case whether the mother is married to a man or a woman.
Oh you have heard of sperm donors and yet you don't recognise that it's sperm donation, not the new marriage laws that keep a child from having a relationship with their biological father.
"We could go through the studies" about whether children need a mother and a father. But you don't. You just make the claim and then support it by appealing to incredulity. Yes the poor areas of Cleveland have a lot of people who need two parents. Where is your evidence that they need a father?
"Fathers will be marginalized from the family" because only lesbians want kids, apparently. Why would a minority of women having kids with two mummys have any significant effect on the status of fathers? All it will show is that two parents are important, which we already knew from the single mother stats. Treating mothers and fathers as interchangable doesn't change the status of fathers at all. It's not like lots of women are going to go out and say "I'll have a baby with a guy, dump him and then get myself a wife.". That lesbian's children will have no men in their life doesn't mean that fathers will be denigrated any more than gay men's children having no mothers mean they will be.
If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.
"Children are ordinarily entitled to a relationship with their mothers and fathers"
ReplyDeleteThat's not at all true. Children ordinarily HAVE a relationship with their mothers and fathers, but they have not right to demand it or even know that they don't have it. Adoption was NEVER contingent on the wishes of the child and the child could never assert even a right to make their parents justify an adoption. Although an adoption could be stopped if it was not in the best interest of the child this did not mean there he/she had a right to a relationship with their parents. In fact children could be taken away from their parents against their will. The fact that adoption was unusual did not maan that it was ordinarily against the rights of the child, only that most people didn't do it.
Same sex marriage doesn't say anything about whether the children have a relationship with their biological parents. A gay couple could for instance use a close friend as a surrogate mother with the agreement that she would be known to the child and have a relationship with him/her. A straight couple on the other hand could use the eggs and the womb of a surrogate mother and never tell the child.
"... for no reason other than that the adults want to do it" which is the same reason for every adoption except those where the state takes away someone's kids.
"you have a system that tracks biology pretty closely"
Citation needed. In fact of course presumption of paternity often doesn't match with biology. If the goal is to give the child a relationship with both biological parents then presumption of paternity is a failure. It only gives that right when the father is the mother's husband and actively stymies attempts by the biological father to have a relationship with the child, particularly when genetic testing is restrited.
"But in 95% of cases, this system [presumption of paternity] is tracking biology"
And this is good enough for an alleged "right"? Would it be OK if 95% of defendents got adequate legal council? Or a trial at all?
"In 100% of cases this is false, she is not the other parent of that child".
So what? What is important is legal parentage not biological parentage. in close to 100% of cases where an adopted child's mother is not known to the adopting mother her husband is not the biological father.
"There is another parent somewhere, he has been safely escorted off the stage and kept off the stage by the legal system."
ReplyDeleteYes generally because _that's where he wants to be_. Have you never heard of sperm donors? A sperm donor is off the stage because he never wanted to be on it. And that's the case whether the mother is married to a man or a woman.
Oh you have heard of sperm donors and yet you don't recognise that it's sperm donation, not the new marriage laws that keep a child from having a relationship with their biological father.
"We could go through the studies" about whether children need a mother and a father. But you don't. You just make the claim and then support it by appealing to incredulity. Yes the poor areas of Cleveland have a lot of people who need two parents. Where is your evidence that they need a father?
"Fathers will be marginalized from the family" because only lesbians want kids, apparently. Why would a minority of women having kids with two mummys have any significant effect on the status of fathers? All it will show is that two parents are important, which we already knew from the single mother stats. Treating mothers and fathers as interchangable doesn't change the status of fathers at all. It's not like lots of women are going to go out and say "I'll have a baby with a guy, dump him and then get myself a wife.". That lesbian's children will have no men in their life doesn't mean that fathers will be denigrated any more than gay men's children having no mothers mean they will be.