AIBU to be increasingly infuriated by the issue of same sex marriage with BOTH sides?

[dopishe]

The whole thing is getting on my nerves now. And I mean both sides of the debate, too. The against who are saying it will wreck society-how exactly? Those who say that it will strengthen relationships of gay people=pull the other one!
As far as I am concerned, civil partnerships and marriage provide equality of financial and legal rights and, whichever a person has, it is up to THEM to make it (relationship) work and cp's and marriage are just titles. So just leave things as they are.

I am absolutely infuriated by The tory party using this issue as pure gesture politics when they do not give a stuff about people's lives and the REALLY important issues like the economy and jobs and things that really matter.

Not saying labour wouldn't be any different, but people, does it matter enough to alter the status quo?

What 'differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals', exactly?

I doubt any civilly partnered men and women say they are parents 'just because they think they are' - I would imagine they say it because they have actual children and actually parent them.

Do you also think we should DNA test every child born in the UK to make sure he or she is brought up by two biological parents? Or should be put a stop to all adoptions?

No it wouldn't dopishe.

Why should Empress have a civil partnership because her partner is a woman? Why not a marriage.

And as for your post about parenting . It is extraordinarily ignorant to think that two women/men can't be parents. Of course they can.

It isn't that they "think" they are, they are parents. They may not both be biological parents, but they are both parents.

I have had a civil partnership since they came in. If names for things were unimportant then the N word would still be in regular use for black people.

My adoption comment was in reference to what you said about husbands being assumed to be biological fathers, and the same assumption not being possible with gay co-parents. The implication being that biological parents are superior.

You're taking it for granted that we cannot be treated "exactly the same". THINK I'm a parent? Exactly how do you define parent? I would bet that I have done everything for my DD that you have done for your DCs (if any) except carry her in my womb.

Well Empress says I sound like an arse, she is, however, talking out of her's. Nothing, she describes about her 'discrimination' couldn't be solved via a civil partnership.

Yes, civil partnerships sound all very egalatarian, until, of course, a couple find out that they are not automatically assumed that the male civil partner is the father of the female's civil partner's baby (as it is with marriage) or that as having sex with another person is not adultery -it's just 'unreasonable behaviour' the dissolution may take longer.

In fact I would go as far as to say that your post "do you think that two civilly-partnered women/men should just be able to say they are parents just because they think they are?" is exceptionally ignorant and is quite possibly showing your true colours.

I don't think you wanted this thread to be a discussion at all, just another "let's tell gay people they can't get married because they are different" thread.

Which is a load of bollocks

Empress it's got nothing to do with superiority at all. Superiority doesn't enter into it. It's just a fact: a child born to a married woman is assumed to be the husband's. That is how it is. It would be impossible to apply the same criteria to gay people. Unless you are so paranoid that you think that nature is homophobic or something .

And your latest post is even more shockingly ignorant.

What's adultery got to do with anything? Why don't the civil partners just put parents' names on the birth certificate.

Your posts are sounding increasingly bigoted as this thread goes on.

And mnhq - I'm saying her posts make her sound bigoted, so you needn't (according to Justine's rules) delete me.

Except that minor instance of discrimination that she's not allowed to be married, dopishe.

"a child born to a married woman is assumed to be the husband's" - that may be legally so, but should be changed. It is wrong to assume anything like that and shouldn't be enshrined in law.

This is a law that does need changing.

Why wouldn't it be possible to assume that a child born in a couple belongs to that couple?

Surely this is - aside from the law - what we all do?

You don't wander up to your gay mates (if you have them, which seems unlikely), congratulate the one who's breastfeeding and ask brightly 'who is the other parent', do you?

If the whole debate is getting on your nerves, why on earth are you spending so much time ranting about it on ths thread? Go and do something else - you seem to have all your own answers and to be unwilling to listen to anyone else's opinion, no wonder if the whole debate is on your nerves. Go and have a coffee and some medication, or something.

ffs. Now I'm getting annoyed. A baby is not just a piece of meat that any old f*** can be claimed by one person just because they are in love. There is no way that the government can just accept that two gay people are parents of a baby without further back-up evidence.

They do with heterosexual people because it is entirely reasonable that the baby is their's as they have the means to produce it naturally.

WTF?

What about adoptive parents? Or parents who have IVF?

Frankly, I think a parent who has a baby because he or she wants to love that baby is the best sort of parent you could hope for.

The fact you think that is a reason to disqualify gay parents is just unbelievable.

Um, LRD, she probably does.

In my view (and having seen Jeremy Kyle this morning), the vast, vast majority of gay parents who are not biologically related to their child are much, much more parents to them than some of the so-called biological parents kicking around these days.

I think you are now showing a very anti-gay-couple stance [polite]

I've NOTHING against gay people adopting a child; however, it is ludicrous to say that the same rules -as they standregarding marriage- i.e. husband is the father unless said otherwise can be applied in the same way to gay people.

mary - yes, she possibly does.

But it it absurd.

The reason the (antiquated) law states that children born to a married women belong to her husband is because women used to be property. The baby was his just as a calf born to his cow was his.

I am not 100% convinced this is a brilliant argument for homophobia.

LRD are you serious? Do you really think that two gay people should just be allowed to declare themselves the parents of a child without there being evidence of IVF treatment, further back-up evidence from an approved official?

Note: I am not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to adopt; just that rigorous procedures have to be in place.

You are not allowed to discriminate in any other circumstances so why is it acceptable if it is in the name of religion?

Why is it ludicrous, dopishe?

And how do you square making out that heterosexual people are allowed babies because it's 'natural' with claiming you don't have anything against gay people adopting?

dopishe - I think, if we allow civil partnerships and marriages of gay people, it would be perfectly sensible to apply the same rules about parenthood to gay and straight couples, yes.

If a couple is married, then the baby one of them has is - socially - going to be assumed to be theirs.

Legally, I would be fine with us getting rid of the idea that a child is automatically assumed to be the offspring of the person who didn't give birth to it, but equally, I'd be fine with the assumption being spread to include gay couples.

What's the big difference?

dopishe I wish that it wasn't legally assumed that a child born within marriage was the biological child of the husband and wife in England and Wales (it's not in Scotland, by the way). I have given birth to three babies that have nothing genetic to do with me or my husband but we both had to go down on the birth certificate because we were married and the biological parents had to adopt their own child. It isn't just the recognition of different relationships that has moved on, the whole of society has.

Dopishe, I've been in a civil partnership since 2005.

Of course a child born in a marriage is assumed to be the husband's. But I'd assume the same in any committed straight relationship.

I know a straight couple who've been together since secondary school, have 3 kids (the oldest is 12) and aren't married, but they're likely to be together forever. And a child born in a committed gay relationship can equally well be assumed to be the offspring of the biological parent and the legal / non-biological offspring of the other parent.

As MaryZed said there should be no assumptions on the birth certificate - it should just be a question of both parents giving their names. And I still want to know how you define parent.

All this talk of DCs, though, is completely ignoring childless relationships. My DSis and her DH don't and won't have kids. My DGM remarried at 70 so that (surprisingly enough) is also a childless marriage. How are they relevant to all this?

And if none of this affects you, why are you so bothered about it?

But if they are married you think it is ok for the husband to claim the baby as his even if it isn't biologically his?

Surely you are contradicting yourself here.

Yes, but it is legally assumed to be theirs because it is possible for them to be the parents!

It is simply not possible for anybody to believe that a gay couple produced a child by natural methods.

There is no way that officialdom can just accept that a gay couple are a child's parents without there being further proof.

Indeed, lesbian couples are allowed to have IVF and be named as parents provided certain procedures are followed.