Arkansas Supreme Court Halts Birth Certificates For Same-Sex Partners

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

Apparently you don't know what "gay" is... You do know that women can be gay too, right?

Tell that to the LGBTQ... They're all gay, so why do they need a moniker to distinguish themselves?

I don't know what they prefer, so why don't you tell me who I can properly refer to as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer, that way none of them try to call me a homophobe or bigot for disagreeing with them. Can you do that for me?

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: kaylaluv

You missed the last part where it says "if their state allows it..."

It's not discrimination just because you disagree with it.

It's not discrimination if the state doesn't allow it regardless whether the man's partner is a male or a female. It IS discrimination if they allow it for the man's female partner, but not for the man's male partner.

a reply to: LSU0408

You may or may not be a bigot, but your education on gay rights and tolerance for gay causes is sorely lacking. You don't appear to be up to speed knowledge-wise on what you are talking about either.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: TheLotLizard

Sure, because a birth certificate is supposed to be for genealogy and disease prevention, not for ownership like a pink slip for a car.

I agree with this. I think ALL information should be available on the BC. They shouldn't be doing this for hetero's or gays, because it's a lie in both cases. Nevertheless, if they're going to do it in one case, the law says they can't discriminate, and not do it for the other.

I doubt anyone would have an issue with all that info being on there. Those two queers, or gays (whatever is the proper term for them) are gonna feel pretty bad the first time their kid gets a shot of penicillin and swells up and dies because they didn't know it was allergic. Or when they take it in for a doc appt and can't tell the doctors of any family illnesses that may be hereditary. But hey, who cares, right? At least their names are the only names on the BC.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I find it strange not all states perform the blood test. I know in some states you have to wait 3 days because of the blood test in others there is no wait. I suppose it is less of an issue now with a more diverse gene pool and a widely spread population.

WHAT??? Not all states perform blood tests? This is discrimination!!!

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

Apparently you don't know what "gay" is... You do know that women can be gay too, right?

Tell that to the LGBTQ... They're all gay, so why do they need a moniker to distinguish themselves?

Actually, no that isn't true. Transexuals or transgendered aren't necessarily gay. Bisexuals probably consider themselves as gay as they consider themselves straight. Seriously, open up a dictionary written within the last few years and not in the 1950's.

I don't know what they prefer, so why don't you tell me who I can properly refer to as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer, that way none of them try to call me a homophobe or bigot for disagreeing with them. Can you do that for me?

They'd prefer to be treated like completely straight people, but apparently asking such things is just TOO much to ask for, because you can't even be bothered to understand the entire situation before throwing out your opinion.

a reply to: LSU0408

You can get biological parents info on other documents kept on file if you choose to seek it. That's assuming that both biological parents are even known. Sometimes, the woman doesn't know who the father is. Life goes on.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
When someone is listed on a birth certificate they have financial obligations with laws on the books.
Does the same type laws apply to same sex couples?
Not sure if that has been ironed out yet..

Good question. And who keeps the kid when the couple splits? Betcha that can get real ugly.

So much ignorance and stupidity coming out on this issue.

Krazy, what the hell were you thinking posting this thread?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

They'd prefer to be treated like completely straight people, but apparently asking such things is just TOO much to ask for, because you can't even be bothered to understand the entire situation before throwing out your opinion.

What you said here, reminds me of a quote that appropriately applies:

“Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding. The highest form of knowledge… is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another’s world. It requires profound purpose larger than the self kind of understanding.” ― Bill Bullard

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Good. If the couple didn't spawn the child through sexual reproduction then their names shouldn't be on the birth certificate. How stupid would that be? There should definitely be another form for guardians of the child to sign.

Guardians? no, they will be the parents, not the guardians.

Ok? There should be another form for the adopting parents to sign. Lol.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
My own personal opinion about BCs is that they should list who the biological parents are, the mother that gave birth and the sperm donor, but only because to me a BC is suppose to be a document that shows who made you.

A "parent" can be anyone. Anyone can be a Dad or a Mom. You could have 2 moms or 2 dads...or more I guess.

But a BC can be very important to someone who was not raised by those that biologically made them.....who may have a history of health that will be important to the child later in life. There for it's important to know who the biological mother and father were.

For legal guardianship of a child, perhaps it would be better it there was a different document for that. One that simply lists who has legal guardianship of a child. It could be biological mom and dad, step parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents or yes, same sex couples.

That's what I say too. Use a different form for the parents that aren't biological but keep one that lists the biological parents.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

No, YOU aren't getting it. You are trying to make all these rationalizations about why this can't work for gay people when it has been pointed out over and over again that these concessions are already made for heterosexual couples. You are just grasping at straws, which is evident since you don't seem to know that lesbians exist.

They are made after the mother has the child lol. But ok. I'll let you think you won the argument. There should be a different piece of paper for the adopting parents.

a reply to: LSU0408

Maybe, but you'd have to apply that to heterosexual couples too then.

originally posted by: introvert
So much ignorance and stupidity coming out on this issue.

Krazy, what the hell were you thinking posting this thread?

I think I'm secretly a masochist.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

You may or may not be a bigot, but your education on gay rights and tolerance for gay causes is sorely lacking. You don't appear to be up to speed knowledge-wise on what you are talking about either.

If you think that this member's education on gay rights and tolerances are lacking.
I can just imagine what you think mine are.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Bluntone22
When someone is listed on a birth certificate they have financial obligations with laws on the books.
Does the same type laws apply to same sex couples?
Not sure if that has been ironed out yet..

Good question. And who keeps the kid when the couple splits? Betcha that can get real ugly.

I also remember a while back that a guy who supplied his sperm for a same-sex couple.When that couple
split up HE had to pay child support.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: introvert
So much ignorance and stupidity coming out on this issue.

Krazy, what the hell were you thinking posting this thread?

I think I'm secretly a masochist.

This is my all time favorite post you have ever written here.I have to give this one a star
and these

originally posted by: LSU0408

Which says nothing about a homosexual couple. That talks just about the mother having the child. I think the gay couple should fill out adoption papers or whatever it is that they have to do. Not a birth certificate though.

The point is that for heterosexual couples since the beginning of sperm banks the donor is never known and the husband's name is on the BC, also for adoptions an amended BC is done with the new parents listed and the real parents are not traceable. For Surrogate births the court will instruct the hospital to enter the Intended Parent's names on the birth certificate and not the real mother/father names.

So though your argument makes sense it really isn't how it is ever done, so I'm trying to understand how in this case it would be different.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: TheLotLizard

Sure, because a birth certificate is supposed to be for genealogy and disease prevention, not for ownership like a pink slip for a car.

I agree with this. I think ALL information should be available on the BC. They shouldn't be doing this for hetero's or gays, because it's a lie in both cases. Nevertheless, if they're going to do it in one case, the law says they can't discriminate, and not do it for the other.

I doubt anyone would have an issue with all that info being on there. Those two queers, or gays (whatever is the proper term for them) are gonna feel pretty bad the first time their kid gets a shot of penicillin and swells up and dies because they didn't know it was allergic. Or when they take it in for a doc appt and can't tell the doctors of any family illnesses that may be hereditary. But hey, who cares, right? At least their names are the only names on the BC.

I agree, but the issue is more than a gay issue. This same thing can happen in the case with a hetero couple, who went this route, and the adoptive father/mother is listed as biological, instead of the true biological parent. This is an issue across the board.
The OP is still correct, in that gays are being discriminated against for no logical reason, considering they do this with heteros without question. In my opinion, it is unthinkable that this is a practice at all, whether straight or gay.