Birth Certificate Lawsuit

[indago]

From The Associated Press 17 December 2015:
------------------------------------------------------------------
A same-sex couple is suing North Carolina to force officials to put both women's names on their children's birth certificates. Melissa and Meredith Weiss filed a federal lawsuit Thursday saying their constitutional rights are being violated. The lawsuit says Melissa Weiss gave birth to both children after they wed in Canada in 2003. They say North Carolina only put her name on the certificates and hasn't added Meredith Weiss.
------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_BIRTH_CERTIFICATES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-17-18-02-00)

Maybe they can explain to the court how a child can be born of two lesbians...



https://thelastbastille.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/birth-certificate-of-everymans-liberty.png

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Every day more stupid lib shit proves that every slippery slope argument levied against those vermin had validity and truth back when cited.
Their MASSIVE stupidity, and DEEP darkness/depravity both are epic dangers to we normal, decent people!
Compounded by media and government corruption and/or force!-Tyr

[glockmail]

A birth certificate is supposed to reflect the genetic parents, and since the bull-dyke didn't contribute sperm to the equation, shouldn't be on the certificate. That is, unless she changes her name to Sample Tube 346729...

[Black Diamond]

A birth certificate is supposed to reflect the genetic parents, and since the bull-dyke didn't contribute sperm to the equation, shouldn't be on the certificate. That is, unless she changes her name to Sample Tube 346729...
She could go by turkey baster.

[Gunny]

From The Associated Press 17 December 2015:
------------------------------------------------------------------
A same-sex couple is suing North Carolina to force officials to put both women's names on their children's birth certificates. Melissa and Meredith Weiss filed a federal lawsuit Thursday saying their constitutional rights are being violated. The lawsuit says Melissa Weiss gave birth to both children after they wed in Canada in 2003. They say North Carolina only put her name on the certificates and hasn't added Meredith Weiss.
------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_BIRTH_CERTIFICATES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-17-18-02-00)

Maybe they can explain to the court how a child can be born of two lesbians...



https://thelastbastille.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/birth-certificate-of-everymans-liberty.png

Unless one of those she's is a he, they shouldn't be allowed to do it. When that kid grows up, it's going to want to know who its father is. Despite the faggot brainwashing childhood its going to get.

[Black Diamond]

Unless one of those she's is a he, they shouldn't be allowed to do it. When that kid grows up, it's going to want to know who its father is. Despite the faggot brainwashing childhood its going to get.

I am sure the courts will rule in favor of the dykes. It fits with the direction the nation is going.

[Gunny]

I am sure the courts will rule in favor of the dykes. It fits with the direction the nation is going.

Sadly, I think you're right.

[fj1200]

A birth certificate is supposed to reflect the genetic parents...

Who is on the birth certificate in an adoptive or sperm-donor scenario?

[indago]

Who is on the birth certificate in an adoptive or sperm-donor scenario?

Yes, and the married mother and father on the birth certificate, when the mother knows damn well the father is the next door neighbor guy.

[fj1200]

Yes, and the married mother and father on the birth certificate, when the mother knows damn well the father is the next door neighbor guy.

So you're saying that the birth certificate could in essence be a lie?

[Drummond]

Who is on the birth certificate in an adoptive or sperm-donor scenario?

More pro-Leftie pedantry, FJ ? Can't you - just for once - just OFFER us a brand of thinking that's Conservative, and Conservative-supporting, in nature ??

I don't know about your side of the Pond - possibly you do things differently - but over here, we have adoption records where adoptive parents are concerned. These records are entirely separate from birth records .. an entirely different register is involved.

Sperm donors aren't legally recognised as birth 'parents', for the purpose of birth certificate registration.

https://www.gov.uk/legal-rights-for-egg-and-sperm-donors

As for the basis for this entire thread ... I've never heard of such a thing being possible in British law, and I don't believe it is.

[fj1200]

...Leftie...

:blah: is all I hear from your imagination.

[Drummond]

:blah: is all I hear from your imagination.

You're a figment of my imagination ??????:eek::eek::eek:

If you're trying to imply that I have masochistic tendencies that are making me mentally ill ... I deny it !!:coffee:

[glockmail]

Who is on the birth certificate in an adoptive or sperm-donor scenario? The genetic parents.

[fj1200]

The genetic parents.

Not exclusively.


Biology and Birth Certificates: Our Right to Accuracy (https://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/blog/?p=618)

Most U.S. citizens raised by their biological parents never question whether the information on their birth certificates is accurate. With the evolution of adoption and alternate means of conceiving a child, “accurate” is an increasingly subjective term. Is the purpose of a birth certificate to portray a biological account of a person’s birth parents, or is it an account of one’s “legal” parents- ​the ones responsible for raising them​?
...

[Gunny]

Not exclusively.

Most don't have to question it. They have a MOM and DAD.

[fj1200]

Most don't have to question it. They have a MOM and DAD.

Most don't. But to say it's always a document of historical accuracy is not correct.

[Gunny]

Most don't. But to say it's always a document of historical accuracy is not correct.

That's exactly all it is. A document of historical accuracy. Who you call "Mom and Dad" isn't relevant to historical accuracy.

[fj1200]

That's exactly all it is. A document of historical accuracy. Who you call "Mom and Dad" isn't relevant to historical accuracy.

But it isn't. I agree that it should be but the fact is that it is not.

[Abbey Marie]

But it isn't. I agree that it should be but the fact is that it is not.

There will always be those who try to hide the truth, but I think it overwhelmingly is an accurate document.

Do you agree that it should be as accurate as possible, biologically-speaking?

[fj1200]

There will always be those who try to hide the truth, but I think it overwhelmingly is an accurate document.

Do you agree that it should be as accurate as possible, biologically-speaking?

Of course. It's a birth certificate.

[Gunny]

But it isn't. I agree that it should be but the fact is that it is not.

Where do you come off with THAT? Biological parents are a matter of historical accuracy. If this kid gets on Ancestry.c*m, just what name is it supposed to punch in? Historical accuracy and political correctness are two different things.

Need to get back to some common sense around this country. Mom + Mom does NOT = baby.

[fj1200]

Where do you come off with THAT? Biological parents are a matter of historical accuracy. If this kid gets on Ancestry.c*m, just what name is it supposed to punch in? Historical accuracy and political correctness are two different things.

Need to get back to some common sense around this country. Mom + Mom does NOT = baby.

A birth certificate can be modified in the case of adoption and there is nothing historical in the case of a sperm donor or the milk man. :eek: The only thing, generally, accurate is the mother.

[Gunny]

A birth certificate can be modified in the case of adoption and there is nothing historical in the case of a sperm donor or the milk man. :eek: The only thing, generally, accurate is the mother.

Nope. History is fact, not left-wing revisionist and not politically correct. It is analytically correct. Birth certificates should list the biological parents and stupid politics shouldn't be allowed to alter it.

[fj1200]

Nope. History is fact, not left-wing revisionist and not politically correct. It is analytically correct. Birth certificates should list the biological parents and stupid politics shouldn't be allowed to alter it.

I agree. It doesn't always.

[Gunny]

I agree. It doesn't always.

And I think it's wrong. I know who my actual father is and I know who my stepfather is. My stepfather has been more of a dad to me than that other dickhead ever was. Guess you could say I got an opinion on the topic. I STILL wanted to know where my family came from.

[indago]

And I think it's wrong. I know who my actual father is and I know who my stepfather is. My stepfather has been more of a dad to me than that other dickhead ever was. Guess you could say I got an opinion on the topic. I STILL wanted to know where my family came from.

And you wouldn't know if your birth certificate listed your Mom as your Mother, and her husband as your Father, while your Mom knew damn well that the next door neighbor guy was your REAL Father. Maybe on her deathbed she would finally utter the truth; maybe not.

[Gunny]

And you wouldn't know if your birth certificate listed your Mom as your Mother, and her husband as your Father, while your Mom knew damn well that the next door neighbor guy was your REAL Father. Maybe on her deathbed she would finally utter the truth; maybe not.

Are you a registered Democrat? You sound a LOT like Obama with your backwards assed arguments. My dad was military and we lived on base. Not to mention it's the same with them as what I was told about my kid ... you can't deny that one.

If it makes you feel any better I used to tell my little brother HE was adopted just to make him squeal. :)

[indago]

Are you a registered Democrat? You sound a LOT like Obama with your backwards assed arguments.

What's "backwards assed" about it?

[glockmail]

Not exclusively.

Fromm your link: "The DSR is the creation of Wendy and Ryan Kramer..."

So these two folks are the authority in your "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. :laugh:

[fj1200]

Fromm your link: "The DSR is the creation of Wendy and Ryan Kramer..."

So these two folks are the authority in your "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. :laugh:

Uh, no. It was merely an example of instances where the birth certificate is not what you claim. I guess you didn't bother to read that part. :dunno:

[Gunny]

This whole thing is a political scam. Birth and death are matters of biological and historical fact. Children of adoption/whatever this Frankenstein shit is have a Right to know who their biological parents are and I can think of several reasons why.

1. Medical inheritance? Might save their lives ne day if they know what they inherited.

2. These freaks say they're as good parents as anyone by starting off with lies? One, that homosexuality is normal. Two, that it isn't brainwashing the kid to think something that is unnatural is natural desensitizing them to the truth. Three, raising a child to believe one thing and then when they figure it out -- years of therapy. And not knowing who the actual father is.

And THIS crap is for the good of the child? I beg to differ.

[glockmail]

Uh, no. It was merely an example of instances where the birth certificate is not what you claim. I guess you didn't bother to read that part. :dunno:

I haven't claimed anything. With 57 states all with their own sets of laws, there's bound to be lots of stupidity out there. I merely stated my opinion on what it should be, and my logical reasoning.

[fj1200]

I haven't claimed anything. With 57 states all with their own sets of laws, there's bound to be lots of stupidity out there. I merely stated my opinion on what it should be, and my logical reasoning.

So we agree that it doesn't show the biological parents. Awesome.

[glockmail]

So we agree it should. More awesome.

That is, unless you have a logical argument for another standard.

[fj1200]

So we agree it should. More awesome.

That is, unless you have a logical argument for another standard.

As I said awhile ago. The question would probably be what is the proper document for committing the non-biological parent to the child until the age of majority? If that is a goal of society anyway.

[Abbey Marie]

As I said awhile ago. The question would probably be what is the proper document for committing the non-biological parent to the child until the age of majority? If that is a goal of society anyway.

Adoption papers

[Gunny]

As I said awhile ago. The question would probably be what is the proper document for committing the non-biological parent to the child until the age of majority? If that is a goal of society anyway.

Kind of a double standard, don't you think? On one hand, it's okay to cut the father out for political reasons. On the other, you can force the father to pay for a child he doesn't want for 18 years. Need to have ONE standard, not all this BS based on "I want". How many biological fathers paying child support do you think want their name off the birth certificate?

[fj1200]

Kind of a double standard, don't you think? On one hand, it's okay to cut the father out for political reasons. On the other, you can force the father to pay for a child he doesn't want for 18 years. Need to have ONE standard, not all this BS based on "I want". How many biological fathers paying child support do you think want their name off the birth certificate?

Not if the welfare of the child is optimal public policy and I would suggest that it is. In some, all?, states you can't just cut the father out unless a sperm bank is used for example; we had a thread about that awhile back. The couple in question wants a child and took legal and appropriate steps towards that goal so isn't it best for the child that two people are responsible for it?

[Abbey Marie]

If there is a donor, the child should have the right at a later date to know who it is. For medical reasons of course, but also because most people yearn to know who their other parent is. I understand that donors don't always want to be known, but it really is unfair to the child, IMO, to keep that info from him or her forever.

[fj1200]

If there is a donor, the child should have the right at a later date to know who it is. For medical reasons of course, but also because most people yearn to know who their other parent is. I understand that donors don't always want to be known, but it really is unfair to the child, IMO, to keep that info from him or her forever.

Aren't adoption records sealed for certain reasons? For certain amounts of time?

[Abbey Marie]

Aren't adoption records sealed for certain reasons? For certain amounts of time?

I am not knowledgeable in the area, but that is my impression. I was thinking more about sperm and egg donors. AFAIK, they remain permanently undisclosed?

[Gunny]

Not if the welfare of the child is optimal public policy and I would suggest that it is. In some, all?, states you can't just cut the father out unless a sperm bank is used for example; we had a thread about that awhile back. The couple in question wants a child and took legal and appropriate steps towards that goal so isn't it best for the child that two people are responsible for it?

If "optimal public policy " is a farce, and a double standard. That chikd's going to learn in our public school system what it takes to make a baby before age 10 nowadays, and if it can pass math class, it's going to know mom + mom doesn't = baby. Guess what the next best question that kid's going to ask?

If you want to know what's best for the child, " Well dear you're from an anonymous donor at the invitrio unit" is NOT the right answer. Oh what a tangled web we weave ....

[fj1200]

If "optimal public policy " is a farce, and a double standard. That chikd's going to learn in our public school system what it takes to make a baby before age 10 nowadays, and if it can pass math class, it's going to know mom + mom doesn't = baby. Guess what the next best question that kid's going to ask?

If you want to know what's best for the child, " Well dear you're from an anonymous donor at the invitrio unit" is NOT the right answer. Oh what a tangled web we weave ....

Not exactly the issue in question IMO. It's also not to far different than a black child being adopted by white parents and him or her figuring it out.

[Gunny]

Not exactly the issue in question IMO. It's also not to far different than a black child being adopted by white parents and him or her figuring it out.

It's a LONG stretch from being the same thing. Adopting a kid that has no parents for whatever reason is completely different than creating one and trying to erase its past to suit a political agenda. So who exactly is this in the best interest of? The child? Or the parents' politics? The child is the one that's going to pay for the deceit. And historical fact will pay for the revision.

[fj1200]

It's a LONG stretch from being the same thing. Adopting a kid that has no parents for whatever reason is completely different than creating one and trying to erase its past to suit a political agenda. So who exactly is this in the best interest of? The child? Or the parents' politics? The child is the one that's going to pay for the deceit. And historical fact will pay for the revision.

You're waaaaaay overstating things. The child won't pay and there isn't any deceit because as you point out who won't know.

[Gunny]

You're waaaaaay overstating things. The child won't pay and there isn't any deceit because as you point out who won't know.

The deceit you mean that's as obvious as the sky? "Gee, I got two mom's" How'd THAT faggot sh*t work out?" Next question: "So who's my father?" We just erased his butt. Therapy here we come for a screwed up kid finding out his whole life has been a scam.

[Abbey Marie]

If "optimal public policy " is a farce, and a double standard. That chikd's going to learn in our public school system what it takes to make a baby before age 10 nowadays, and if it can pass math class, it's going to know mom + mom doesn't = baby. Guess what the next best question that kid's going to ask?

If you want to know what's best for the child, " Well dear you're from an anonymous donor at the invitrio unit" is NOT the right answer. Oh what a tangled web we weave ....

I predict that eventually, the public schools will consider any discussion of mom + dad = baby, as insensitive to other types of families, and therefore disallowed.

[Black Diamond]

I predict that eventually, the public schools will consider any discussion of mom + dad = baby, as insensitive to other types of families, and therefore disallowed.

And this kind of stuff seems to be happening faster and faster.

[Gunny]

I predict that eventually, the public schools will consider any discussion of mom + dad = baby, as insensitive to other types of families, and therefore disallowed.

Guess we might as well burn our books the way this selectivity of knowledge is going.

[fj1200]

The deceit you mean that's as obvious as the sky? "Gee, I got two mom's" How'd THAT faggot sh*t work out?" Next question: "So who's my father?" We just erased his butt. Therapy here we come for a screwed up kid finding out his whole life has been a scam.

I'm going to guess that having a father listed was never part of the equation; It doesn't happen for sperm donors. Not sure how his life will be a scam, a birth certificate one way or the other won't change having two moms.

[Gunny]

I'm going to guess that having a father listed was never part of the equation; It doesn't happen for sperm donors. Not sure how his life will be a scam, a birth certificate one way or the other won't change having two moms.

You mean right up to the point where after being relentlessly teased in school he figures out having two mom's ain't exactly normal? Legality and REALITY are NOT the same.

[indago]

This whole thing is a political scam. Birth and death are matters of biological and historical fact. Children of adoption/whatever this Frankenstein shit is have a Right to know who their biological parents are and I can think of several reasons why.

1. Medical inheritance? Might save their lives ne day if they know what they inherited.

2. These freaks say they're as good parents as anyone by starting off with lies? One, that homosexuality is normal. Two, that it isn't brainwashing the kid to think something that is unnatural is natural desensitizing them to the truth. Three, raising a child to believe one thing and then when they figure it out -- years of therapy. And not knowing who the actual father is.

And THIS crap is for the good of the child? I beg to differ.

In actuality, then, considering modern technology, the DNA of the birthed could be collected, along with the DNA of the Mother, and then the DNA of the "Father", and that could be documented on the Birth Certificate for historical and medical reference and accuracy. If the DNA of the "Father", supposedly being the Husband of the Mother, does not match, then an investigation should proceed until the REAL Father is found and then DNA match should be listed on the Certificate.



.

[fj1200]

You mean right up to the point where after being relentlessly teased in school he figures out having two mom's ain't exactly normal? Legality and REALITY are NOT the same.

That will depend on where they live. I could hit a five iron from my front yard and hit at least four houses that have the same situation as those in the OP. What you describe will be less and less the norm.


In actuality, then, considering modern technology, the DNA of the birthed could be collected, along with the DNA of the Mother, and then the DNA of the "Father", and that could be documented on the Birth Certificate for historical and medical reference and accuracy. If the DNA of the "Father", supposedly being the Husband of the Mother, does not match, then an investigation should proceed until the REAL Father is found and then DNA match should be listed on the Certificate.

Big Brother lives.

[glockmail]

As I said awhile ago. The question would probably be what is the proper document for committing the non-biological parent to the child until the age of majority? If that is a goal of society anyway.

That would be something called a "certificate of adoption" or the like.

The birth certificate should document the genetic profile, for reasons stated by other here. Wouldn't you agree?

[fj1200]

That would be something called a "certificate of adoption" or the like.

The birth certificate should document the genetic profile, for reasons stated by other here. Wouldn't you agree?


Of course. It's a birth certificate.

:) There is no forcing a woman to reveal the information however.

[glockmail]

:) There is no forcing a woman to reveal the information however.

If she wants to lie on official documents and potentially threaten the health of her child, I take it you're good with that. How awesome.

[Gunny]

That will depend on where they live. I could hit a five iron from my front yard and hit at least four houses that have the same situation as those in the OP. What you describe will be less and less the norm.



Big Brother lives.

Can't disagree with you. They'll call it bullying and a hate crime because that's what wimps do. The fact is kids are cruel. And I think this latest idea of fining a kid for bullying is just another scam to make money for the state. They're fining the parents who are at work and have no idea what's going on.

Back on topic, altering historical data for political reasons is just more leftwingnut, revisionist history.

[fj1200]

If she wants to lie on official documents and potentially threaten the health of her child, I take it you're good with that. How awesome.

I don't believe in the coercive power of the state to force revelations that she may or may not know with almost zero risk to the health of her child. I take it you're good with that. How awesome.

[fj1200]

Can't disagree with you. They'll call it bullying and a hate crime because that's what wimps do. The fact is kids are cruel. And I think this latest idea of fining a kid for bullying is just another scam to make money for the state. They're fining the parents who are at work and have no idea what's going on.

Back on topic, altering historical data for political reasons is just more leftwingnut, revisionist history.

I made no comment on bullying. Also, there is no altering of historical data; a biological father wasn't listed that I could discern. Further confusing the issue is that one woman carried her own child and acted as surrogate for her partner.

[Gunny]

I made no comment on bullying. Also, there is no altering of historical data; a biological father wasn't listed that I could discern. Further confusing the issue is that one woman carried her own child and acted as surrogate for her partner.

I was responding to Glockmail.

[fj1200]

I was responding to Glockmail.

My B.

https://media.giphy.com/media/HyCxJErg9jTCU/giphy-facebook_s.jpg

[glockmail]

I don't believe in the coercive power of the state to force revelations that she may or may not know with almost zero risk to the health of her child. I take it you're good with that. How awesome.
Insisting on standards is "coercive"? You think medical history has almost no value?

[jimnyc]

My B.

https://media.giphy.com/media/HyCxJErg9jTCU/giphy-facebook_s.jpg

He just got busted for DUI. :)

[fj1200]

Insisting on standards is "coercive"? You think medical history has almost no value?

No, coercion is coercive. And no, the statement was "almost zero risk to health."

[glockmail]

No, coercion is coercive. And no, the statement was "almost zero risk to health."

You need to tell that to that to the medical profession, since they've been wasting their time all these years asking about their patient's family history, usually the very first thing they ask...

[Perianne]

You need to tell that to that to the medical profession, since they've been wasting their time all these years asking about their patient's family history, usually the very first thing they ask...

fj is a legend in his own mind. It is best to just smile and agree with him. lol

[indago]

fj is a legend in his own mind. It is best to just smile and agree with him. lol

http://i38.tinypic.com/232ohc.jpg

That'll be the day...

[indago]

Big Brother lives.

Why do you say that?

[fj1200]

You need to tell that to that to the medical profession, since they've been wasting their time all these years asking about their patient's family history, usually the very first thing they ask...

You're making a different argument. I didn't say it was a waste of time, I said that there was little risk. We've lived as a species for many moon without knowing our family history. I would guess that in the case of a sperm donor then the mother would know the family history of the person that they chose and the information is available whether it's on a birth certificate or not.


fj is a legend in his own mind. It is best to just smile and agree with him. lol

Because I'm awesome. :slap: Besides I know that you know I'm right when you don't respond to my truth laden posts. :)


Why do you say that?

If you're making demands of citizens based on state interest then you are for Big Brother.

[glockmail]

You're making a different argument. I didn't say it was a waste of time, I said that there was little risk. We've lived as a species for many moon without knowing our family history. I would guess that in the case of a sperm donor then the mother would know the family history of the person that they chose and the information is available whether it's on a birth certificate or not.

Again, if it's of little risk then why does the medical profession insist on asking about family history? You need to tell them about your expertise on this.

[Gunny]

Again, if it's of little risk then why does the medical profession insist on asking about family history? You need to tell them about your expertise on this.

If every male in my family dies of a heart attack, I'd like to know. They can do a lot more preventative maintenance now than they used to be able to. And they know what they're looking for.

[Perianne]

Because I'm awesome. :slap: Besides I know that you know I'm right when you don't respond to my truth laden posts. :)


Sometimes I do see your points.

[fj1200]

Again, if it's of little risk then why does the medical profession insist on asking about family history? You need to tell them about your expertise on this.

Because it's good information; Did I say otherwise? The question you're avoiding is how intrusive you want the State to be.

[fj1200]

Sometimes I do see your points.

There's hope. ;)

[Perianne]

Sometimes I do see your points.


There's hope. ;)

You won't admit it, but sometimes you see mine, too. :)

[indago]

If you're making demands of citizens based on state interest then you are for Big Brother.

You mean like with a driver license, and marriage license?



.

[fj1200]

You won't admit it, but sometimes you see mine, too. :)

Such as?


You mean like with a driver license, and marriage license?

No. Want to drive a car? Get a license. Want to get married and receive state benefits? Get a license. Want to shack up? No license required. Want to procreate? No license required.

[indago]

No. Want to drive a car? Get a license. Want to get married and receive state benefits? Get a license. Want to shack up? No license required. Want to procreate? No license required.

Want to have a baby? Certified!



.

[fj1200]

Want to have a baby? Certified!

Which is a different argument than you made two posts ago and completely different than a license.

[indago]

Which is a different argument than you made two posts ago and completely different than a license.

You have no argument. You just blurt out "Big Brother lives." Something put in place as an aid in family history and you go berserk.

[fj1200]

You have no argument. You just blurt out "Big Brother lives." Something put in place as an aid in family history and you go berserk.

Yeah, OK. :rolleyes: So is your argument now that it's an aid or that it's a historical document from which we should demand accuracy and track down DNA matches if not the "husband of the mother"?

[indago]

Yeah, OK. :rolleyes: So is your argument now that it's an aid or that it's a historical document from which we should demand accuracy and track down DNA matches if not the "husband of the mother"?

POSTED (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?53119-Birth-Certificate-Lawsuit&p=788142#post788142)

[glockmail]

Because it's good information; Did I say otherwise? The question you're avoiding is how intrusive you want the State to be.
You essentially did say otherwise, by insisting that a birth certificate contain the name of a "parent" that did not contribute genetically.

It's up to the birth mother to provide that information, if she's hyper-sensitive to find that intrusive, then she doesn't have to put the fathers name on it, and the kid will have an incomplete health history. But to add the name of a person who did not contribute genetically would possibly present incorrect health history, a far worse scenario. Wouldn't you agree?

[fj1200]

You essentially did say otherwise, by insisting that a birth certificate contain the name of a "parent" that did not contribute genetically.

It's up to the birth mother to provide that information, if she's hyper-sensitive to find that intrusive, then she doesn't have to put the fathers name on it, and the kid will have an incomplete health history. But to add the name of a person who did not contribute genetically would possibly present incorrect health history, a far worse scenario. Wouldn't you agree?

Where did I do that?

[glockmail]

Post 8.

[Gunny]

Where did I do that?

You have implied that it's optional. There's no historical fact in option. Political correctness on the behalf of retards should not trump medical awareness. I don't want Frankenstein starting from scratch. I want him to know what is inherent in my genetics from the go. Someone's aberrant behavior should not dictate THAT,

[fj1200]

Post 8.

Post 8 was a question. Try again.


You have implied that it's optional. There's no historical fact in option. Political correctness on the behalf of retards should not trump medical awareness. I don't want Frankenstein starting from scratch. I want him to know what is inherent in my genetics from the go. Someone's aberrant behavior should not dictate THAT,

No, I stated that the woman can't be forced to reveal it. Besides aberrant behavior has nothing to do with adoption and sperm banks.

[glockmail]

Post 8 was a question. Try again.It was an implication. And what you're attempting now is deflection, so I'll ax my question again.

To add the name of a person who did not contribute genetically would possibly present incorrect health history, a far worse scenario than an incomplete history. Wouldn't you agree?

[Gunny]

Post 8 was a question. Try again.



No, I stated that the woman can't be forced to reveal it. Besides aberrant behavior has nothing to do with adoption and sperm banks.

Sorry, but the woman should be required to disclose information that may pertain to health related issues.

And yes, aberrant behavior has a LOT to do with fags adopting a child. Homosexuals can't reproduce. Now they get to do an end around play?

[fj1200]

It was an implication. And what you're attempting now is deflection, so I'll ax my question again.

To add the name of a person who did not contribute genetically would possibly present incorrect health history, a far worse scenario than an incomplete history. Wouldn't you agree?

Since you're into research I answered in the affirmative multiple times back on page 2. And no, it was a question. It's a shame you inferred poorly. :)


Sorry, but the woman should be required to disclose information that may pertain to health related issues.

And yes, aberrant behavior has a LOT to do with fags adopting a child. Homosexuals can't reproduce. Now they get to do an end around play?

The power of the State shouldn't be used to force compliance on something such as a certificate of live birth. Many folks can adopt and presumably alter the birth certificate to reflect adoptive parents.

[glockmail]

Since you're into research I answered in the affirmative multiple times back on page 2. And no, it was a question. It's a shame you inferred poorly. More attempt at deflection, whouda thunk.

Since you now agree with me, you should recognize that your link in post 15 was bullshit, as I called out in post 30.

[fj1200]

More attempt at deflection, whouda thunk.

Since you now agree with me, you should recognize that your link in post 15 was bullshit, as I called out in post 30.

Oh geez. Your fantasy is not my fault. :)

[glockmail]

No, but my victory is. :)

[indago]

Many folks can adopt and presumably alter the birth certificate to reflect adoptive parents.

The Birth Certificate should be accurate, and reflect the actual parents of the child. Adoption papers are separate documents.

[Gunny]

Since you're into research I answered in the affirmative multiple times back on page 2. And no, it was a question. It's a shame you inferred poorly. :)



The power of the State shouldn't be used to force compliance on something such as a certificate of live birth. Many folks can adopt and presumably alter the birth certificate to reflect adoptive parents.

History should be recorded accurately by fact, not political revisionism.

[fj1200]

No, but my victory is. :)

Victory is getting caught in a lie and covering it up with another one? Interesting world you live in.


The Birth Certificate should be accurate, and reflect the actual parents of the child. Adoption papers are separate documents.

But yet it doesn't in many cases.


History should be recorded accurately by fact, not political revisionism.

But yet it doesn't in many cases. Adoption is not political revisionism and if it is it has been for some time I'm guessing.

[glockmail]

No victory is stating a fact, having you deny it then me proving you wrong. :lol:

[fj1200]

No victory is stating a fact, having you deny it then me proving you wrong. :lol:

You stated no fact. You didn't even use "imply" correctly.

[Gunny]

Victory is getting caught in a lie and covering it up with another one? Interesting world you live in.



But yet it doesn't in many cases.



But yet it doesn't in many cases. Adoption is not political revisionism and if it is it has been for some time I'm guessing.

And I disagree. It always has been political revisionism. I know my family's history back to the 8th century. I could care less except it explains a lot about me. I would deny no one else nothing less.

[fj1200]

And I disagree. It always has been political revisionism. I know my family's history back to the 8th century. I could care less except it explains a lot about me. I would deny no one else nothing less.

I would guess that it was initially for the benefit of the child.

[Gunny]

I would guess that it was initially for the benefit of the child.

Howso? How many stories have we heard over the years of people being traumatized by learning they were adopted? What's wrong with the truth?

My GF and I are pretty much raising her granddaughter. I've seen this movie before. Matter of fact, I was raised in it. Teenage mom dumps kid on grandparents because it interferes with her partying. I thought my grandparents were my parents. Imagine how happy I was to find out the woman that showed up every couple of weeks for an hour or so was my mother and I had to leave my grandparents when she decided it was convenient for her. Works real well on a 5 years old mind.

So who's thinking about the child and not themselves?

[fj1200]

Howso? How many stories have we heard over the years of people being traumatized by learning they were adopted? What's wrong with the truth?

Can't say that I know why but I would guess that there wasn't a political push. It's just the way they did things.


How is a birth certificate changed after an adoption?After a child is adopted, most states will perform a similar procedure as follows:


If the child is from a foreign country, the parents will file the adoption papers from that country in their local jurisdiction when they arrive home. The papers will be handled by the district court to complete a certificate of adoption.
The same will be true of a child adopted within the US. The adoption certificate will be created by the parents’ district court based on those papers, regardless of their point of origin.
After the adoption is finalized and the certificate of adoption is completed by the district court, it will be mailed by the court to the local State Department of Health to be processed by the Registrar.
The adoption certificate will be used by the Registrar to create a new birth record. This will list the new adopted information, i.e. the names and information of the adoptive parent(s) as the legal parents of the child. The child's birth date and other details may or may not remain as listed, depending on the circumstances of the birth. Information about the biological parents will be removed from the official record, and the new information regarding the adoptive parents will officially replace the original birth records, if any. The original records will be sealed and filed in confidentiality, only to be released under specific court orders in rare situations.

http://family-law.freeadvice.com/family-law/adoption_law/adoption_birth_certificate.htm#ixzz3vkcr0M5m

[Gunny]

Can't say that I know why but I would guess that there wasn't a political push. It's just the way they did things.

I understand the "way they did things" but does it make it right? More importantly, does it make it historically accurate?

[Black Diamond]

I understand the "way they did things" but does it make it right? More importantly, does it make it historically accurate?

Kid is gonna get wise in a hurry. He is gonna find out two dykes can't make a child and demand to know who his daddy is beyond a turkey baster.

[Gunny]

Kid is gonna get wise in a hurry. He is gonna find out two dykes can't make a child and demand to know who his daddy is beyond a turkey baster.

Oh I get THAT part. But this is in the interest of the kid? THAT I don't get.

[indago]

But yet it doesn't in many cases.

And that's where the DNA comes in.

[glockmail]

You stated no fact. You didn't even use "imply" correctly.So you say.

[fj1200]

I understand the "way they did things" but does it make it right? More importantly, does it make it historically accurate?

I don't think anyone is contending it's accurate.

[fj1200]

And that's where the DNA comes in.

Demanded by, investigated by, and enforced by the State? And at what penalty for non-compliance?


So you say.

Along with the history of the thread. :)

[glockmail]

That's your interpretation, alone apparently.

[indago]

It looks like fj1200 is for subterfuge and deceit...

[Gunny]

I don't think anyone is contending it's accurate.

No? Let's see ... 6th grade biology ... takes a mommy and a daddy to make a child. Two mommies can't make a child biologically. Math seems kind of simple, don't it? A birth certificate is a matter of historical documentation, not political activism.

[fj1200]

That's your interpretation, alone apparently.

More talky no backy?


It looks like fj1200 is for subterfuge and deceit...

Mmm, no.


No? Let's see ... 6th grade biology ... takes a mommy and a daddy to make a child. Two mommies can't make a child biologically. Math seems kind of simple, don't it? A birth certificate is a matter of historical documentation, not political activism.

I haven't disagreed with any of that.

[indago]

Mmm, no.


No?

You have shown a proclivity toward covering up the actual birth parents of a child. I would say that comes under subterfuge and deceit. I have seen some posters who have proclaimed their heritage back to kings and lords in England. How do they know that for sure, unless DNA analysis proves it to be so? Birth records rely on the word of the Mother, and you are certainly aware of the consequences of a Mother declaring someone other than their Husband to be the Father of the birthed child.

[Perianne]

No?

You have shown a proclivity toward covering up the actual birth parents of a child. I would say that comes under subterfuge and deceit. I have seen some posters who have proclaimed their heritage back to kings and lords in England. How do they know that for sure, unless DNA analysis proves it to be so? Birth records rely on the word of the Mother, and you are certainly aware of the consequences of a Mother declaring someone other than their Husband to be the Father of the birthed child.

Maybe fj is a spy.


No?

You have shown a proclivity toward covering up the actual birth parents of a child. I would say that comes under subterfuge and deceit. I have seen some posters who have proclaimed their heritage back to kings and lords in England. How do they know that for sure, unless DNA analysis proves it to be so? Birth records rely on the word of the Mother, and you are certainly aware of the consequences of a Mother declaring someone other than their Husband to be the Father of the birthed child.

I am a princess. I look in the mirror each morning and it tells me so. :)

[glockmail]

Maybe he's queer.

[fj1200]

No?

You have shown a proclivity toward covering up the actual birth parents of a child. I would say that comes under subterfuge and deceit. I have seen some posters who have proclaimed their heritage back to kings and lords in England. How do they know that for sure, unless DNA analysis proves it to be so? Birth records rely on the word of the Mother, and you are certainly aware of the consequences of a Mother declaring someone other than their Husband to be the Father of the birthed child.

Mmm, no. Who cares about what people proclaim? Did I miss your answer to the below?


Demanded by, investigated by, and enforced by the State? And at what penalty for non-compliance?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

More talky no backy?



Mmm, no.



I haven't disagreed with any of that.

Little fj would argue with a damn fence post about what kind of wood it was...
and declare himself the winner... :laugh:-Tyr

[fj1200]

Little fj would argue with a damn fence post about what kind of wood it was...
and declare himself the winner... :laugh:-Tyr

It's not very smart for you to compare yourself to wood. Wood is by definition not intelligent and unable to win debates. :)

[Perianne]

This is another of those terrible threads. Just flat rotten, lol.

[indago]

This is another of those terrible threads. Just flat rotten, lol.

You mean (gasp) there are more of them?

[Perianne]

You mean (gasp) there are more of them?

Well, it started out okay, but then the arguing took over. Maybe others enjoyed it.

[Gunny]

This is another of those terrible threads. Just flat rotten, lol.

The topic remains the same. Certain people here are like anyone else in the real world. They're going to argue. I won't even talk to my brother on the phone. I can't get a word in edgewise and he'll start an argument over anything. One of the reasons I like message boards. Don't have someone constantly talking over me. Except this damned computer that for some reason has taken to correcting what I want to say to some other BS. Whatever upgrade started that crap has to go. I', more literate than this damned machine.

Anyhow, I think the topic ran its course and everyone was repeating themselves. That's when they turn into something else.

[indago]

I won't even talk to my brother on the phone. I can't get a word in edgewise...

You could just call him up on the phone, say Hi, then put the phone down and go get a beer, and have your girlfriend make you a sandwich, and then come back in a half-hour and say NO!, and put the phone down again for another half-hour...

[Gunny]

You could just call him up on the phone, say Hi, then put the phone down and go get a beer, and have your girlfriend make you a sandwich, and then come back in a half-hour and say NO!, and put the phone down again for another half-hour...

Believe it or not, I've done a LOT of that. :laugh2:

[indago]

Journalist Tom Davies wrote for The Associated Press 8 April 2016:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for eight married lesbian couples argued Friday that the state of Indiana is discriminating against them by not allowing both women to be listed on their children's birth certificates, echoing a dispute that has led to similar lawsuits in several other states. ...The couples want state officials to treat married lesbian couples the same as heterosexual couples who have used artificial insemination to have children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_BIRTH_CERTIFICATES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-08-16-58-42)

See the legal quagmire that is created when gays are recognized as a legal lifestyle, and gay marriage is recognized? And this is only the beginning...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Journalist Tom Davies wrote for The Associated Press 8 April 2016:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for eight married lesbian couples argued Friday that the state of Indiana is discriminating against them by not allowing both women to be listed on their children's birth certificates, echoing a dispute that has led to similar lawsuits in several other states. ...The couples want state officials to treat married lesbian couples the same as heterosexual couples who have used artificial insemination to have children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_BIRTH_CERTIFICATES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-08-16-58-42)

See the legal quagmire that is created when gays are recognized as a legal lifestyle, and gay marriage is recognized? And this is only the beginning...

Dem/libs love opening Pandora's box.
As it almost always causes chaos, confusion , eroding of moral norms , etc..
They scream change is good-- yes it is to them, just as long as it is the "socialistic fairytale change" that they envision, which is always in reality a damn pipe-dream.
FFing idiots ....--Tyr

[fj1200]

Journalist Tom Davies wrote for The Associated Press 8 April 2016:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for eight married lesbian couples argued Friday that the state of Indiana is discriminating against them by not allowing both women to be listed on their children's birth certificates, echoing a dispute that has led to similar lawsuits in several other states. ...The couples want state officials to treat married lesbian couples the same as heterosexual couples who have used artificial insemination to have children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_BIRTH_CERTIFICATES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-08-16-58-42)

See the legal quagmire that is created when gays are recognized as a legal lifestyle, and gay marriage is recognized? And this is only the beginning...

It seems the quagmire was created a bit earlier.

[indago]

On cable tonight 17 April 2016

Long Lost Family

Episode: Everything Your Parents Told You Was a Lie
NEW
S01, E07
A woman suspects her adoptive parents withheld information about her birth family; a man discovers previously sealed documents that could unlock the mysteries about his birth.
HD CC TV-PG
10:01 - 11:02 PM TLC HD (192)


Why should an individual have to jump through hoops to find out who his birth Father and Mother are?