Two-mother family is to be enshrined in UK law

Well, I'm not sure what to think of this. At first, it looks like a victory for men, since lesbians can't attack the biological father for money. However, it seems to be a loss for men when you line up the pros and cons.

• Pros
  • Lesbian couples can't make the biological father pay for a child he would never give up.
  • 
    
• Cons
  • Male gay couples who have children via surrogate mothers or by adoption are not covered by the new legislation.
  • It will also say for the first time that babies born through fertility treatment do not need to have a father figure

A smart move. This bill in fact devalues and destroys the notion and the idea of "Mother". From now on this term does not designate anymore a woman who "gave birth" and simply describes social relations between persons. In short, the word "mother" loses its old sacral and important meaning.

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

Once women lose that false "trump card"(i.e. motherhood) they have been wielding men can finally be free of them. Now what needs to happen is an update on the artificial womb and men can finally have a choice when it comes to having children that does not involve women. Women have had all the time in the world to bring this silly war they started to an end. Instead they are twiddling their thumbs accepting and inventing even more anti-male laws and propaganda. It's time for men to be free of relying on women for children.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

Sooner or later, gay male "couples" are going to say, "hey, wait a minute..just because only women can get pregnant, shouldn't mean that two men aren't able to become parents also". After all, when a straight couple adopts a child, they become the parents.

Besides, what about in cases where one gay man uses a woman as a surrogate mother to bear his child, while at the same time he and another man are in a gay marriage? Why can't they be parents, in light of this ruling on lesbians?

Note that I'm not saying that I agree with the ruling. I think civil unions are okay but not marriage. On the other hand, I'm not sure it would be a good idea to ammend the constitution to prevent this. It should probably be handled at a state level.

-ax

I've always felt the state should just get out of the marriage business altogether. The papers you file with the state, regardless of specifics, are a 'civil union'. Then let the word "marriage" mean whatever it means to individual people. Catholics won't call a union after a divorce a "marriage", but other churches might. If two people want to do the hokey-pokey around a campfire while roasting marshmellows and call that their wedding ceremony, who cares.

Infact I'd support being able to get a civil union without the 'marriage', or what we don't allow now, which is a marriage without the 'civil' part, between the two people and their respective God or gods, it's a marriage, to the government, they're just 2 people with the same address on their driver's license.

Exactly. Let people draw up their own marriage contracts and keep the state the hell out of it.

I find it odd that the bill seems to imply that it's bad for a child to have three legal parents (in this case, two mothers and one father). That is rather hypocritical in terms of the arguments espoused by the politically correct. I mean, if they wish to step outside the bounds of tradition and biology by allowing two women to be a child's legal parents, I don't see how having three legal parents is any worse. I thought we were supposed to accept alternate family structures.

I agree that marriage should not be defined by the government. Marriage no longer has any societal meaning, and as such, it should be defined by the two (or more) people involved. If it's a ceremony in the confines of a church, fine. If it's performed by the Captain of the Love Boat, fine. This would solve many problems.

Just send all of the kids to Oprah's school.

Marriage is a contract, falling under law*. And married partners reap all the benefits, as well as carry the responsibilities, of those under any other form of contract (not the SAME benefits and responsibities obviously, I am just making a general statement about contracts).

Not to mention spousal benefits from employers, e.g. health benefits; and I'm sure there are other types of benefits, such as recognition by the Church, that society offers those who are married.

If the jurisdiction of law in this case, is not going to be the state, then who the heck is it gonna be? The PTA??

*it is above the level of "civil union".

-ax

Really, I'm trying to imagine a future when guys would want to go deposit their sperm in an industrial womb-farm and then come back in a few months and pick up their kid.

Last time I checked, most guys have kids because they wanted to get laid.

If you subtract the human va-jay-jay from the equation, do you really see a whole lotta kids being conceived by single dad-wanna-be types with a fetish for latex vaginas?

How many guys are gonna get up one Sunday morning and say --- "Hey! I think I'll go manufacture a thirty-year commitment to my sperm donation today!"

This is so not even funny.

I disagree. Marriage is not a contract in the sense that it does not have the same requirements as other contracts. This is obvious considering the words "until death do us part" have no meaning in 50% of all marriages. The statement should read, "I promise to be with you forever unless I change my mind." This is not a contract.

People who break contracts do not continue to receive the benefits of the contract. If I keep my side of the bargain and the other person does not, I have legal recourse to recoup my loss. It's the exact opposite with marriage (currently in our society), since the person who usually breaks the contract is the same person who comes out ahead (i.e., the woman). Special circumstances such as abuse or desertion are not required. "Because" is sufficient justification. I only wish that would work with my bank. I wish I could stop paying my mortgage and then sue my bank so that they continue to pay my home insurance and property tax.

Spousal benefits from employers are not required by law. They could exist or not exist regardless of whether marriage is recognized by the state. Some employers offer health insurance for pets. This has nothing to do with marriage.

If marriage was not recognized by the state, then jurisdiction would not be necessary. That is, dissolution of marriage would be handled in the same way as dissolution of any other living arrangement (e.g., people simply living together). For example, the division of property would be based on who actually paid for the property. None of this would prevent two or more people from making specific binding agreements about who gets property if the relationship fails, but this has nothing to do with marriage.

"The statement should read, 'I promise to be with you forever unless I change my mind.'"

Okay so what?..so it "should" read that..the fact is that it does read "until death do us part".
The fact that many people do not follow through on all the provisions of a contract, does not make it not a contract. That is like saying that since software projects usually go over budget, that somehow makes the typical agreements between clients and contractors "not a contract".

"If I keep my side of the bargain and the other person does not, I have legal recourse to recoup my loss. It's the exact opposite with marriage.."

Just because a contract is not strictly enforced by the system in all circumstances, does not somehow make it "not a contract". Besides, what about adultery?? One partner certainly has legal recourse in that case..mainly, it is grounds for filing divorce.

"Spousal benefits from employers are not required by law.."

What about the Family Medical Leave Act?

I could go on..