Vt. judge: Birth mom must give child to ex-partner

The Virgin Queen wrote:

<quoted text>
A child can only have one mother. As for whether this child is "harmed"...only the child can speak on that matter.

You're just in La La land if you think a child can't have two mothers. Many children have a grandmother that is the "mother" because her daughter is too busy doing drugs to raise a child. Guess though since she's not the official mother, and actually a grandmother, the drug addict should be able to send a taxi at any time and have her child brought back to the crack den she's lying in.

You just hate gays and lesbians so much that you dissociate yourself from any feelings they might have for their children and any feelings their children might have for them. It's sickening and twisted that you can do that. And yet you think you're in close touch with God?

That's insane. Get help.

The Virgin Queen wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no comparison between a Christian woman who CREATES a child WITH a Hindu male, and a lesbian whose only stake in the whole situation is that she signed a contract.

Actually, there is. Please let me explain. According to the Bible both would be considered sinful situations. Christians are not to marry therefore procreate with none believers and we all know what it says about homosexuality. Just because a person gets "saved" does not mean that God has absolved them from the consequences of their sins, prior or future sins. I personally agree with you on this custody issue but the law does not. If a judge can grant custody of an AI conceived child to a male ex-lover (heterosexual couple) simply because he signed his name to a piece of paper (birth cert.) then I'd have to say that under the law in the state of Vt. the judge can (and did) do just that. I vehemently oppose that but when the birth mother signed a contract she screwed herself. I don't know what I'd do in her situation. Putting it bluntly the whole situation sucks, for everyone -especially the poor child!

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
Yet I would guess the lesbian mother isn't suggesting that their child must be a lesbian...that would be an insane stance for a homosexual person.

Doesn't matter. She's going to raise the child to believe homosexuality is okay. She will fill the mind of this child with all sorts of perverted "values". Which is another reason why I empathize with both the Christians mother desire to go on the run, and to not allow the lesbian to have visitation with the child in the first place. The Christian mother rightly fears this lesbian is going to corrupt her childs mind.

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
Good, then just don't post next time. If I were too lazy to post sources when people asked for them, I wouldn't be on here.

So sorry but I'm not the one that posted that story. I was commenting on the relevence of human trafficking. And that I did not feel the need to check out SOMEONE ELSE's assertions. OK?

cwbuff wrote:

I would think it would be far easier and more practical to regulate the incestuous couple's procreation within the confines of marriage. Afterall, if one of the aforementioned "couples" truly wanted to procreate nothing other than the law is stopping them. In either case (with or without being legally joined) a law would be broken. I apologize if I'm not making myself clear...

What method of regulation would you suggest? Forced sterilization, round the clock police surveillance, or maybe some other way of making sure they're not procreating a baby destined to have genetic abnormalities? It's like you said, people are going to do what they are going to do, law or no, but it certainly isn't the state's interest to be encouraging them by giving them essentially a license to do it, especially in this instance where the consequences are so dire.

The Virgin Queen wrote:

<quoted text>
Unjust laws were made to be broken. I wonder how many gays in this forum would become celibate if homosexuality was criminalized. Anybody??

In fact, homosexuality was a crime. Who knows, might still be in some states, although unenforced. There are all kinds of antiquated laws still "on the books". And there have been practicing homosexuals since, more than likely the beginning of time.

The Virgin Queen wrote:

<quoted text>
A child can only have one mother. As for whether this child is "harmed"...only the child can speak on that matter.

Goddamnit, VQ, gay and lesbian parents are just as normal as any parents. If you don't believe it here's proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Make sure you watch it...ALL!!!

The Virgin Queen wrote:

<quoted text>
Doesn't matter. She's going to raise the child to believe homosexuality is okay. She will fill the mind of this child with all sorts of perverted "values". Which is another reason why I empathize with both the Christians mother desire to go on the run, and to not allow the lesbian to have visitation with the child in the first place. The Christian mother rightly fears this lesbian is going to corrupt her childs mind.

But a Hindu who believes the child should be a Hindu, when the bible talks much more against unbelievers and directly says many times that they'll perish in hell...that isn't a problem?

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
Yet I would guess the lesbian mother isn't suggesting that their child must be a lesbian...that would be an insane stance for a homosexual person.

The notion that homosexuality is a mental disorder is not all that far-fetched.

There is a reason homosexual unions cannot yield children without outside help.

It isn't meant to be

sock wrote:

<quoted text>
The notion that homosexuality is a mental disorder is not all that far-fetched.
There is a reason homosexual unions cannot yield children without outside help.
It isn't meant to be

There are many other unions like barren women and impotent men that can't yield children without outside help. Guess that wasn't meant to be either.

The Virgin Queen wrote:

<quoted text>
She will fill the mind of this child with all sorts of perverted "values".

Like what? Like this?

Exodus 21: 20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver.[c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Numbers 31: 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

1 Timothy 2: 11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

That would be a problem.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>What method of regulation would you suggest? Forced sterilization, round the clock police surveillance, or maybe some other way of making sure they're not procreating a baby destined to have genetic abnormalities? It's like you said, people are going to do what they are going to do, law or no, but it certainly isn't the state's interest to be encouraging them by giving them essentially a license to do it, especially in this instance where the consequences are so dire.

Of course I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm just saying that if certain folks are going to do that anyway it would be far easier to monitor the situation if the state knew who they were. Also, voluntary sterilization could be an option. Example, two siblings want to marry, yes, you may marry but only if one of you undergo voluntary sterilization. The choice is left up to the couple. Either marry and adopt, AI whatever or shack up, and play russian roulette with genetics.

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
You're just in La La land if you think a child can't have two mothers. Many children have a grandmother that is the "mother" because her daughter is too busy doing drugs to raise a child. Guess though since she's not the official mother, and actually a grandmother, the drug addict should be able to send a taxi at any time and have her child brought back to the crack den she's lying in.
You just hate gays and lesbians so much that you dissociate yourself from any feelings they might have for their children and any feelings their children might have for them. It's sickening and twisted that you can do that. And yet you think you're in close touch with God?
That's insane. Get help.

I'm sure you know I am not trying to offend you personally. If this were a situation where the child had been adopted by a gay couple I could understand your point a little better. But the child is with its birth mother...the lesbian is only associated via a contract.

To say I hate gays and lesbians is just a lie.

cwbuff wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, there is. Please let me explain. According to the Bible both would be considered sinful situations. Christians are not to marry therefore procreate with none believers and we all know what it says about homosexuality. Just because a person gets "saved" does not mean that God has absolved them from the consequences of their sins, prior or future sins. I personally agree with you on this custody issue but the law does not. If a judge can grant custody of an AI conceived child to a male ex-lover (heterosexual couple) simply because he signed his name to a piece of paper (birth cert.) then I'd have to say that under the law in the state of Vt. the judge can (and did) do just that. I vehemently oppose that but when the birth mother signed a contract she screwed herself. I don't know what I'd do in her situation. Putting it bluntly the whole situation sucks, for everyone -especially the poor child!

Here's the difference. The life of a child should not be relegated to a "contract" as if it were a piece of property. It is not as if Ms Miller were a Christian when she signed the contract. She has since left the lesbian life and come to the Lord. That, combined with the fact that she is the childs biological mother I believe should be enough to invalidate the "contract" which is atrocious to begin with.

While the Bible does tell Christians not to marry outside the faith, if a Christian marries and creates a child with a Hindu, the biological relationship gives the Hindu parent a right that a piece of paper cannot replicate.

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
But a Hindu who believes the child should be a Hindu, when the bible talks much more against unbelievers and directly says many times that they'll perish in hell...that isn't a problem?

Yes it is a problem which is why a Christian shouldn't marry a Hindu in the first place. But there is a difference between a biological relationship and a "contract".

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
Like what? Like this?
Exodus 21: 20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver.[c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Numbers 31: 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Christians do not live by the OT.

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
1 Timothy 2: 11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Works for me.

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
You know if there was really such a guy (and there wasn't - we're not idiots) and you had any balls you would have reported him to the authorities and you'd be telling us how many years he got...because that's what you would have done if you really didn't want someone like that having access to children.
And so how do we know you're lying???
Geez.

I did report him after thinking about
breaking both his arms and legs.
Then I decided to get the Pleasant Hill PD
involved with the case.
I had to deal with noise like you make.
'You don't like Bill because he's gay'
etc, etc...ad nauseum.
A year after Bill got ran off some
of the hippes told me..
'You were right about Bill,
..we were WRONG!'

How many kids did he molest?
How many more did he get to molest?
Every strident and shrill voice
like yours gives cover for these freaks.

Put a sock in it.
You are covering for chlld molestation
by adult men on boys.

How does that fit into your ideology?

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
There are many other unions like barren women and impotent men that can't yield children without outside help. Guess that wasn't meant to be either.

And?

Those are rare cases, not scientific impossibilities like 2 mothers(and no father) or 2 fathers(and no mother).

Regardless, you want to call a childless marriage a "sham"? Fine with me.

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah and if their roles were reversed you'd be talking about how Lisa drank for 14 years and therefore is unfit to be a mother.
We're not fools.

WE are not fools
but YOU are!

Every time you run your mouth
you invalidate your side.

Now you stick up for pervs
who molest small children.

You have no shame or decency.

Tell me how your neighbors
in OK love you so much.

Have them read your posts
on this thread and then
see how the look in their
eyes changes when they
look at you.

Some things are just wrong.
You have no honor.

The Virgin Queen wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's the difference. The life of a child should not be relegated to a "contract" as if it were a piece of property. It is not as if Ms Miller were a Christian when she signed the contract. She has since left the lesbian life and come to the Lord. That, combined with the fact that she is the childs biological mother I believe should be enough to invalidate the "contract" which is atrocious to begin with.
While the Bible does tell Christians not to marry outside the faith, if a Christian marries and creates a child with a Hindu, the biological relationship gives the Hindu parent a right that a piece of paper cannot replicate.

I agree with you, but unless she gets one heck of a lawyer, legally I think she's screwed.