Scientists cannot prove the "born homosexual" theory

Correct. He is pointing to the crux of the relevant decisions. You have consistently cherry-picked words (not holdings or intents) out of irrelevant decisions (carefully ignoring every case that directly addresses the topic), so that you could rather hilariously misinterpret those irrelevant decisions.

What I don't understand is, what do you gain by lying for hundreds and hundreds of posts? It's not like your view is being supported by any relevant cases, and it's not like your bigotry is being directly offended by what people you never met are doing somewhere else.

 

Still waiting for you to address the plain language of the court- which is gender neutral

Under NY common law- any child born by the mother is the legal child of both spouses:

Indeed, the presumption that a child born to a marriage is the legitimate child of both parents " 'is one of the strongest and most persuasive known to the law' " (State of New York ex rel. H. v P., 90 AD2d 434, 437 [1982],

Hence, our analysis begins with the rebuttable presumption that the child, a child born to a married woman, is the legitimate child of both parties


If you don't disagree with the sentences of the court- then you should be agreeing that any child born to a married woman is the legitimate child of both parties- but you don't- so clearly you do not agree with the unambiguous language of the court. 0

And applied in a similar fashion the the other case I brought to your attention:

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york...-op-24122.html


The court must now determine whether the spouse who did not give birth to the child (the non-biological spouse), is a parent of the child under New York's longstanding presumption that a married couple are both parents of a child born during their marriage.

New York's public policy strongly favors the legitimacy of children, and that "the presumption that a child born to a marriage is the legitimate child of both parents is one of the strongest and persuasive known to law." In re Estate of Fay, 44 NY2d 137, 141 (197

But, while the word "legitimate" may be somewhat archaic, the intent of these statutes, and the common law presumption, is unambiguous: a child born in a marriage is the child of the couple.

Prior to 2010, even if a party did not strictly comply with the requirements of DRL § 73, New York courts held that the non-biological spouse may still be declared a parent of the AID child under the common law marital presumption of legitimacy.

The presumption of parental status for children born into a marriage should not be so easily discarded because the married couple, who planned for the child and celebrated its arrival, then encounter marital troubles.

As in Laura WW. v. Peter WW., the marital presumption of legitimacy created a presumption of consent in the AID context for this couple.

he pervasive and powerful common law presumptions that link both spouses in a marriage to [*17]a child born of the marriage - the presumption of legitimacy within a marriage and the presumption of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination - apply to this couple. This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.

Wendy G-M. v Erin G-M.

 

The situation: Dixon contends that legally, only the biological father and biological mother become the legal parents at birth- any other parental arrangement is due to some man giving up his parental rights, and some form of agreement by the parents.

The facts:

a) A NY judge refused to allow two lesbian parents- who were married when one of them gave birth to their child, to adopt- stating specifically that NY marriage law makes the married couple automatically the legal parents.

b) NY law firms web pages on same gender marriage and child custody say that any child born to married lesbians is automatically the child of both spouses.

c) The NYCLU states the same thing.

I have provided quotes from two court cases which affirm everything noted above:

d) In the first case- a woman gives birth while still legally married to her husband- she was fertilized through IV. The husband never signed the legal consent forms that would obligate him under NY AI laws. The court found him still the legal father under two presumptions:
* Marital presumption- that presumes that both spouses are legally the parents of any child born during marriage and
* Marital presumption of consent- that the marriage itself creates a presumption of consent.(Laura v Peter)

e) In the second case- a woman gives birth while still legally married to her wife- she was fertilized through IV. The wife never completed the consent forms in the required way. The court found her also the second legal parent- for the same reasons- and quoted the first case

The presumption of parental status for children born into a marriage should not be so easily discarded because the married couple, who planned for the child and celebrated its arrival, then encounter marital troubles.

As in Laura WW. v. Peter WW., the marital presumption of legitimacy created a presumption of consent in the AID context for this couple.

he pervasive and powerful common law presumptions that link both spouses in a marriage to [*17]a child born of the marriage - the presumption of legitimacy within a marriage and the presumption of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination - apply to this couple. This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.

In NY- and in California- at a minimum- Any child born within a marriage- any child born to the mother while married- makes both spouses legally the parent of both children.

The irony of this- Dixon's faux reason for opposing same gender marriage is claimed to be to prevent single mothers raising children with no legal obligation of a father- and yet- marriage in the case of two married lesbians is the only way that child has a second legal parent. Denying those two lesbians marriage means that the non-mother can skip town the day after the baby is born with no legal obligation to the baby. Marriage would tie her to that baby for the rest of her life.

Presenting same gender marriage would not only not decrease the number of single mothers raising children without the support of a second parent- but would increase the number of single mothers without a second parent.

 

You have been jamming that garbage for weeks.

 

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that there is a genetic cause or that their isn't.

The far left consistantly presents hypothesis as conclusion. This is remarkably convenient because they can make up what ever weird craziness they want and then proceed to demonize those who question.

 

Actually, he challenged me to show where in any of the cases there is a reference to "husband", claiming I had made it up. I pointed out and linked to the 35 references to jusband, just in the one case he most recently cited.

- - - Updated - - -

And like a fool, he claims I have made it up.

- - - Updated - - -

Only if you ignore the 35 references to "husband" and pretend that I made them up.

 

it isn't relevant.

 

What you made up was any reference to 'husband' in the decisions that I quoted.

Certainly the word 'husband' was used in context of the case regarding the husband and wife- but the decision- and the explaination of that decision was gender neutral and made no reference to 'husband'- I had pointed out that nowhere in that decision was the word 'husband' used- you then brought in the strawman of 'husband' being used elsewhere in the argument.

The court must now determine whether the spouse who did not give birth to the child (the non-biological spouse), is a parent of the child under New York's longstanding presumption that a married couple are both parents of a child born during their marriage.

New York's public policy strongly favors the legitimacy of children, and that "the presumption that a child born to a marriage is the legitimate child of both parents is one of the strongest and persuasive known to law." In re Estate of Fay, 44 NY2d 137, 141 (197

Not one mention of 'husband' in discussing who is the legal parent- the statement is and was gender neutral.

Which is why the later court in Wendy G-M. v Erin G-M cited the same case- and the same argument noting

he pervasive and powerful common law presumptions that link both spouses in a marriage to [*17]a child born of the marriage - the presumption of legitimacy within a marriage and the presumption of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination - apply to this couple. This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.

(by the way- Wendy v Erin mentions husband 26 times- in a case about two married lesbians- this doesn't mean that the decision was only in regards to 'husbands'- it means that the court decision discussed husbands in the decision)

Finally a good point the court raised:

The only thing that distinguishes petitioner here from the husband in Laura WW. v. Peter WW. is the fact that the spouse and birth mother share the same sex. The Marriage Equality Act now eliminates that distinction. The Marriage Equality Act swept away many of the sex-based distinctions in New York's Domestic Relations Law in the spirit of individuals making their own choices in both entering and living a married life, free from unreasonable restraints.

The pervasive and powerful common law presumptions that link both spouses in a marriage to [*17]a child born of the marriage - the presumption of legitimacy within a marriage and the presumption of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination - apply to this couple. This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.

In NY- a child born of a married mother- is the legal child of both spouses- both spouses are the legal parents of the child- because of the presumption of legitimacy with a marriage- and based upon the presumpotin of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination- that presumption also based upon marriage.

If this couple was not married when the child was born- the non-birth partner would have no legal obligations.
Since this couple was married when they were born- both spouses have legal obligations to the child- which Dixon claims is exactly what Marriage laws limited to heterosexual couples is supposed to achieve.

Denying marriage to lesbian couples accomplishes exactly the opposite result that Dixon claims the State is attempting to achieve.

 

Actually, I linked to the 35 references to "husband" in the very case you quoted. Good god man, dig DEEP for some shred of integrity, some semblance of character.

 

That is deliciously hypocritical.

What you made up was any reference to 'husband' in the decisions that I quoted.

Certainly the word 'husband' was used in context of the case regarding the husband and wife- but the decision- and the explaination of that decision was gender neutral and made no reference to 'husband'- I had pointed out that nowhere in that decision was the word 'husband' used- you then brought in the strawman of 'husband' being used elsewhere in the argument.

The court must now determine whether the spouse who did not give birth to the child (the non-biological spouse), is a parent of the child under New York's longstanding presumption that a married couple are both parents of a child born during their marriage.

New York's public policy strongly favors the legitimacy of children, and that "the presumption that a child born to a marriage is the legitimate child of both parents is one of the strongest and persuasive known to law." In re Estate of Fay, 44 NY2d 137, 141 (197

Not one mention of 'husband' in discussing who is the legal parent- the statement is and was gender neutral.

Which is why the later court in Wendy G-M. v Erin G-M cited the same case- and the same argument noting

he pervasive and powerful common law presumptions that link both spouses in a marriage to [*17]a child born of the marriage - the presumption of legitimacy within a marriage and the presumption of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination - apply to this couple. This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.

(by the way- Wendy v Erin mentions husband 26 times- in a case about two married lesbians- this doesn't mean that the decision was only in regards to 'husbands'- it means that the court decision discussed husbands in the decision)

Finally a good point the court raised:

The only thing that distinguishes petitioner here from the husband in Laura WW. v. Peter WW. is the fact that the spouse and birth mother share the same sex. The Marriage Equality Act now eliminates that distinction. The Marriage Equality Act swept away many of the sex-based distinctions in New York's Domestic Relations Law in the spirit of individuals making their own choices in both entering and living a married life, free from unreasonable restraints.

The pervasive and powerful common law presumptions that link both spouses in a marriage to [*17]a child born of the marriage - the presumption of legitimacy within a marriage and the presumption of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination - apply to this couple. This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.

In NY- a child born of a married mother- is the legal child of both spouses- both spouses are the legal parents of the child- because of the presumption of legitimacy with a marriage- and based upon the presumpotin of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination- that presumption also based upon marriage.

If this couple was not married when the child was born- the non-birth partner would have no legal obligations.
Since this couple was married when they were born- both spouses have legal obligations to the child- which Dixon claims is exactly what Marriage laws limited to heterosexual couples is supposed to achieve.

Denying marriage to lesbian couples accomplishes exactly the opposite result that Dixon claims the State is attempting to achieve

 

Actually, I linked to the 35 references to "husband" in the very case you quoted. Good god man, dig DEEP for some shred of integrity, some semblance of character.

 

That is deliciously hypocritical.

I have shattered your false narrative of only men being obligated as parents by marriage law, and you are left with attacking my character.

What you made up was any reference to 'husband' in the decisions that I quoted.

Certainly the word 'husband' was used in context of the case regarding the husband and wife- but the decision- and the explaination of that decision was gender neutral and made no reference to 'husband'- I had pointed out that nowhere in that decision was the word 'husband' used- you then brought in the strawman of 'husband' being used elsewhere in the argument.

The court must now determine whether the spouse who did not give birth to the child (the non-biological spouse), is a parent of the child under New York's longstanding presumption that a married couple are both parents of a child born during their marriage.

New York's public policy strongly favors the legitimacy of children, and that "the presumption that a child born to a marriage is the legitimate child of both parents is one of the strongest and persuasive known to law." In re Estate of Fay, 44 NY2d 137, 141 (197

Not one mention of 'husband' in discussing who is the legal parent- the statement is and was gender neutral.

Which is why the later court in Wendy G-M. v Erin G-M cited the same case- and the same argument noting

he pervasive and powerful common law presumptions that link both spouses in a marriage to [*17]a child born of the marriage - the presumption of legitimacy within a marriage and the presumption of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination - apply to this couple. This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.

(by the way- Wendy v Erin mentions husband 26 times- in a case about two married lesbians- this doesn't mean that the decision was only in regards to 'husbands'- it means that the court decision discussed husbands in the decision)

Finally a good point the court raised:

The only thing that distinguishes petitioner here from the husband in Laura WW. v. Peter WW. is the fact that the spouse and birth mother share the same sex. The Marriage Equality Act now eliminates that distinction. The Marriage Equality Act swept away many of the sex-based distinctions in New York's Domestic Relations Law in the spirit of individuals making their own choices in both entering and living a married life, free from unreasonable restraints.

The pervasive and powerful common law presumptions that link both spouses in a marriage to [*17]a child born of the marriage - the presumption of legitimacy within a marriage and the presumption of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination - apply to this couple. This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.

In NY- a child born of a married mother- is the legal child of both spouses- both spouses are the legal parents of the child- because of the presumption of legitimacy with a marriage- and based upon the presumpotin of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination- that presumption also based upon marriage.

If this couple was not married when the child was born- the non-birth partner would have no legal obligations.
Since this couple was married when they were born- both spouses have legal obligations to the child- which Dixon claims is exactly what Marriage laws limited to heterosexual couples is supposed to achieve.

Denying marriage to lesbian couples accomplishes exactly the opposite result that Dixon claims the State is attempting to achieve

 

Actually you quoted Laura WW. v Peter WW
http://www.nypti.org/?p=413587

Anyone interested in how truely full of (*)(*)(*)(*) SFJeff is can search the text for husband to see the thirty five seperate references to "husband"

 

Actually I have quoted both cases repeatedly

That is deliciously hypocritical.

I have shattered your false narrative of only men being obligated as parents by marriage law, and you are left with attacking my character.

What you made up was any reference to 'husband' in the decisions that I quoted.

Certainly the word 'husband' was used in context of the case regarding the husband and wife- but the decision- and the explanation of that decision was gender neutral and made no reference to 'husband'- I had pointed out that nowhere in that decision was the word 'husband' used- you then brought in the strawman of 'husband' being used elsewhere in the argument.

The court must now determine whether the spouse who did not give birth to the child (the non-biological spouse), is a parent of the child under New York's longstanding presumption that a married couple are both parents of a child born during their marriage.

New York's public policy strongly favors the legitimacy of children, and that "the presumption that a child born to a marriage is the legitimate child of both parents is one of the strongest and persuasive known to law." In re Estate of Fay, 44 NY2d 137, 141 (197

Not one mention of 'husband' in discussing who is the legal parent- the statement is and was gender neutral.

Which is why the later court in Wendy G-M. v Erin G-M cited the same case- and the same argument noting

The pervasive and powerful common law presumptions that link both spouses in a marriage to [*17]a child born of the marriage - the presumption of legitimacy within a marriage and the presumption of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination - apply to this couple. This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.

(by the way- Wendy v Erin mentions husband 26 times- in a case about two married lesbians- this doesn't mean that the decision was only in regards to 'husbands'- it means that the court decision discussed husbands in the decision)

Finally a good point the court raised:

The only thing that distinguishes petitioner here from the husband in Laura WW. v. Peter WW. is the fact that the spouse and birth mother share the same sex. The Marriage Equality Act now eliminates that distinction. The Marriage Equality Act swept away many of the sex-based distinctions in New York's Domestic Relations Law in the spirit of individuals making their own choices in both entering and living a married life, free from unreasonable restraints.

The pervasive and powerful common law presumptions that link both spouses in a marriage to [*17]a child born of the marriage - the presumption of legitimacy within a marriage and the presumption of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination - apply to this couple. This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.

In NY- a child born of a married mother- is the legal child of both spouses- both spouses are the legal parents of the child- because of the presumption of legitimacy with a marriage- and based upon the presumption of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination- that presumption also based upon marriage.

If this couple was not married when the child was born- the non-birth partner would have no legal obligations.

Since this couple was married when they were born- both spouses have legal obligations to the child- which Dixon claims is exactly what Marriage laws limited to heterosexual couples is supposed to achieve.

Denying marriage to lesbian couples accomplishes exactly the opposite result that Dixon claims the State is attempting to achieve

 

Actually you quoted Laura WW. v Peter WW
http://www.nypti.org/?p=413587

Anyone interested in how truely full of (*)(*)(*)(*) SFJeff is can search the text for husband to see the thirty five seperate references to "husband"

 

Actually I have quoted both cases repeatedly.

Speaking of pointing out how truly full of (*)(*)(*)(*) a poster is- you continue to dodge every reference that shows that any child born to a married mother is the legal child of both parents.


The only thing that distinguishes petitioner here from the husband in Laura WW. v. Peter WW. is the fact that the spouse and birth mother share the same sex. The Marriage Equality Act now eliminates that distinction. The Marriage Equality Act swept away many of the sex-based distinctions in New York's Domestic Relations Law in the spirit of individuals making their own choices in both entering and living a married life, free from unreasonable restraints.

The pervasive and powerful common law presumptions that link both spouses in a marriage to [*17]a child born of the marriage - the presumption of legitimacy within a marriage and the presumption of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination - apply to this couple. This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.

Wendy G-M. v Erin G-M

 

Lets focus upon the ONE case you quoted, I responded to, and YOU claimed I made up the references to "husband". Instead of your normal bob and weave, duck and jibe to avoid the topic of discussion.

 

Speaking of pointing out how truly full of (*)(*)(*)(*) a poster is- you continue to dodge every reference that shows that any child born to a married mother is the legal child of both parents.


The only thing that distinguishes petitioner here from the husband in Laura WW. v. Peter WW. is the fact that the spouse and birth mother share the same sex. The Marriage Equality Act now eliminates that distinction. The Marriage Equality Act swept away many of the sex-based distinctions in New York's Domestic Relations Law in the spirit of individuals making their own choices in both entering and living a married life, free from unreasonable restraints.

The pervasive and powerful common law presumptions that link both spouses in a marriage to [*17]a child born of the marriage - the presumption of legitimacy within a marriage and the presumption of a spouse's consent to artificial insemination - apply to this couple. This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.

Wendy G-M. v Erin G-M

 

I continue to be saddened by the continuous stream of bovine excrement about "paternity" being bandied about on this thread that is not even about gay parenting. The issue of children in relation to same sex marriage is to important to be buried under this pile of moronic rubble. Therefor, I have started a separate thread to be devoted exclusively to the issue of children and parental rights. However, please stay away unless you have something intelligent, factual and on topic to say. Dixon, you're not invited! http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...imacy-gay-lesbian-parenting-their-rights.html

Here is a preview:

 

The only moronic rubble is from you who insist marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Insist that marriage cant be limited to heterosexual couples because they are the only couples who procreate, because we allow the old and infertile to marry. BUT, that we must allow gay couples to marry because if they are lesbians, they might chose to use artificial insemination to have a child.

 

The "moronic rubble" is not just from me but from numerous judicial opinions that say that marriage has nothing to do with procreation. I wrote a lengthy post on that but I'm sure that you're to lazy to read it and if you did, you're not able to comprehend it. We must allow gay couple to marry, not because they might have children, but, in part , because they DO HAVE CHILDREN. Children who benefit from having married parents, but, as we have documented, you do not give a crap about the kids.

 

gays cannot reproduce with each other, unlike heterosexuals. They do not have children with each other. Their child is the parent of a third party.y Therefore, comparing children from a gay marriage, to children from a straight marriage, makes zero sense.

 

So a child born to a gay couple, by what ever means, is somehow less of a child, less deserving of having the security of two legal, married parents? Less of a human being? How are those two kids different ? Have you given this much thought? Are you able to actually think?

 

A woman's wife/partner is not the other parent of the child. The artificial insemination donor is.

Strawman. I never said kids adopted/born to a gay couples are inferior or less of human beings.

 

Really? A straw man? Your words:

What did you mean then? And you are absolutely wrong about the donor, at least where the women are legally married. You just make this crap up, just like Dixon. You make it up to try to prove that gay relationships are inferior and ignore the evidence that that laws in some places are unfair are damaging to the kids? Please show me some sigh that you are smart enough to understand that?