NationStates

The Emerald Legion wrote:I... don't really see what's so heinous about this. A Birth Certificate isn't some kind of scoreboard or parent card. It's a record that someone was born. DNA from individual A and individual B was combined to make the person to which the certificate refers. Not to mention that you will want to have the donor on their for family medical history purposes in all probability.

Birth certificates do not always show the biological parents.

Neutraligon wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:I... don't really see what's so heinous about this. A Birth Certificate isn't some kind of scoreboard or parent card. It's a record that someone was born. DNA from individual A and individual B was combined to make the person to which the certificate refers. Not to mention that you will want to have the donor on their for family medical history purposes in all probability.

Birth certificates do not always show the biological parents.

They don't? Admittedly, I've never had kids. But aside from cases where the parents literally aren't known I thought it was standard to have the biological parents.

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:Birth certificates do not always show the biological parents.

They don't? Admittedly, I've never had kids. But aside from cases where the parents literally aren't known I thought it was standard to have the biological parents.

Not sure but I think a newly married couple where the child is not the husbands and has yet to be born would have the husband's name, not the biological father. Also, not sure what happens in surrogacy.

San Lumen wrote:

Luziyca wrote:Fuck him, and fuck that proposal.

He won't be attorney General for much longer. He lost renomination at the state convention.

Oh, that's great news.

Yeah, no this won't go anywhere. I doubt the supreme court will even rule on it.

What a load of bullshit, Indiana.

Tis is why Obama was such a failure.

A fierce advicate would have consolidated these rights into law.
He let the court pull the chestnuts out of the fire, on a case by case basis. And court verdicts can be overturned...

Obama has been a fierce fair weather friend of the LGBT community. And Biden will be just as useless.

Terraska wrote:Tis is why Obama was such a failure.

A fierce advicate would have consolidated these rights into law.
He let the court pull the chestnuts out of the fire, on a case by case basis. And court verdicts can be overturned...

Obama has been a fierce fair weather friend of the LGBT community. And Biden will be just as useless.

And how much of that will be his fault and how much of it will be McConnell obstructing everything?

Vassenor wrote:

Terraska wrote:Tis is why Obama was such a failure.

A fierce advicate would have consolidated these rights into law.
He let the court pull the chestnuts out of the fire, on a case by case basis. And court verdicts can be overturned...

Obama has been a fierce fair weather friend of the LGBT community. And Biden will be just as useless.

And how much of that will be his fault and how much of it will be McConnell obstructing everything?

maybe if Biden had run a better campaign, McConnell wouldn't be in a position to obstruct things

Vassenor wrote:

Terraska wrote:Tis is why Obama was such a failure.

A fierce advicate would have consolidated these rights into law.
He let the court pull the chestnuts out of the fire, on a case by case basis. And court verdicts can be overturned...

Obama has been a fierce fair weather friend of the LGBT community. And Biden will be just as useless.

And how much of that will be his fault and how much of it will be McConnell obstructing everything?

Obama takes some of the blame. He had a filibuster-proof majority from 2009-2011. He didn't even publicly support same-sex marriage until it was politically convenient.

.

Is there a case that genealogists will want to use the birth certificates to find the biological parents? Otherwise this just sounds like trying to screw over LGB people for the sake of it.

Shouldn't birth certificates include in such situations both biological parents and the parents who upbring the children? In would be helpful in the very rare case that the biological parents have had an another child and both children somehow fell in love later on in life; it would literally be incest.

Black Hetmanate wrote:Shouldn't birth certificates include in such situations both biological parents and the parents who upbring the children? In would be helpful in the very rare case that the biological parents have had an another child and both children somehow fell in love later on in life; it would literally be incest.

Far fewer people would donate sperm or eggs without assurance of total anonymity.

As for the possibility of accidental incest, that would be incredibly rare, and there are no consequences if they don't procreate, and if they do procreate the chances of a single union of half siblings resulting in significant genetic problems are pretty low. The complications of incest typically come from several generations of inbreeding.

Page wrote:

Black Hetmanate wrote:Shouldn't birth certificates include in such situations both biological parents and the parents who upbring the children? In would be helpful in the very rare case that the biological parents have had an another child and both children somehow fell in love later on in life; it would literally be incest.

Far fewer people would donate sperm or eggs without assurance of total anonymity.

As for the possibility of accidental incest, that would be incredibly rare, and there are no consequences if they don't procreate, and if they do procreate the chances of a single union of half siblings resulting in significant genetic problems are pretty low. The complications of incest typically come from several generations of inbreeding.

Yeah, I mentioned it would be an extremely rare occurence, but I still think it would help, perhaps much more often in the interest of a child developing hereditary conditions (accelerating diagnosis, treatment etc.). Perhaps the anonymity issue could be solved by employing some method of encryption, but I guess even such means would be rendered controverial in countries where ID cards and personal identity numbers are not a thing.

Free Las Pinas wrote:

North American Imperial State wrote:What? Why have you singled out my post and not these two eh?

Probably because only your post expressed shock.

Geneviev wrote:But then it wasn't adoption, was it? I don't know, I'm confused.

From what I understand, the legal father is the sperm donor, so they recognize him as the father.

Disappointing, if I'm understanding correctly.

Not correct. Every state is a little different, but usually The father in heteo couples is considered the spouse, unless its specifically contested by the father. The lesbian couple is asking to be treated the same.

Its better for the child growing up to have the couple listed, as in case of divorce, both people are still financially responsible for the child, and it makes inheritance simpler.

From a health perspective, its better for the child to know the birth parents in case of potential genetics issues

I am ashamed to live in a state that borders Indiana.

From what I gather Indiana is quite a conservative state, so not too surprised.

But lol. A shame this happened.

Free Las Pinas wrote:

North American Imperial State wrote:What? Why have you singled out my post and not these two eh?

Probably because only your post expressed shock.

Really but it is shocking
Christ Sorry San Lumen for that

But yer it is very Bullshit from the AG

Neutraligon wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
They don't? Admittedly, I've never had kids. But aside from cases where the parents literally aren't known I thought it was standard to have the biological parents.

Not sure but I think a newly married couple where the child is not the husbands and has yet to be born would have the husband's name, not the biological father. Also, not sure what happens in surrogacy.

Surrogacy varies by jurisdiction. Some nations mandate the birth mother's name goes on the birth certificate and the intended parents have to apply to adopt, other nations let the intended parents put their names on the birth certificate.

(Sorry for the link, but it was a quick one under the circumstances).

As for the subject, it only seems right for both intended parents to be named on the birth certificate (especially if the reason for reversing the ruling is because the parents involved are a lesbian couple).

While I see that a child needs access to their genetic background, in case of medical problems (and most laws allow children born of artificial insemination to find their donor after eighteen), that is a side issue here, as this is about the family -- the two mothers and their child (not the nameless donor -- many are anonymous and the ones that are not do not sign up as donors to parent the resulting offspring -- with no stated wish to be on the birth certificate).

It seems to be denying a child two named parents for no other conceivable reason than homophobia.

Vassenor wrote:

Terraska wrote:Tis is why Obama was such a failure.

A fierce advicate would have consolidated these rights into law.
He let the court pull the chestnuts out of the fire, on a case by case basis. And court verdicts can be overturned...

Obama has been a fierce fair weather friend of the LGBT community. And Biden will be just as useless.

And how much of that will be his fault and how much of it will be McConnell obstructing everything?

McConnell only had control of the senate for the last two years of Obama’s term.

Before that the democrats held the house until 2011. For two years Obama could have passed anything and didn’t. They only barely got rid of DADT.

Artificial insemination should not even be allowed. The world has too many people already. The fact that 2 people of the same sex can 'make a baby' using artificial insemination (although technically, only one of these 2 people in the same sex relationship actually is a biological parent) is another reason to ban artificial insemination.

Freiheit Reich wrote:Artificial insemination should not even be allowed. The world has too many people already. The fact that 2 people of the same sex can 'make a baby' using artificial insemination (although technically, only one of these 2 people in the same sex relationship actually is a biological parent) is another reason to ban artificial insemination.

It's rather a more complex issue than that. Even though we are rather overpopulated right now (at least according to some metrics), we still need to have more children to keep the species alive since we tend to die off from natural causes as time passes. I also don't see why two people of the same sex being able to procreate is a reason to ban something.

Albrenia wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:Artificial insemination should not even be allowed. The world has too many people already. The fact that 2 people of the same sex can 'make a baby' using artificial insemination (although technically, only one of these 2 people in the same sex relationship actually is a biological parent) is another reason to ban artificial insemination.

It's rather a more complex issue than that. Even though we are rather overpopulated right now (at least according to some metrics), we still need to have more children to keep the species alive since we tend to die off from natural causes as time passes. I also don't see why two people of the same sex being able to procreate is a reason to ban something.

What should be the maximum limit for the world population? Your argument that we constantly need a bunch of babies is also used by many officials as well. This means the world population must forever keep increasing to the point that human civilization suffers greatly. We already see the consequences overpopulation has had in many African nations as well as Bangladesh. Why not just have a steadily declining population which means a higher quality of life. Japan, Italy, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Russia (all with very low birth rates) are all better off now vs. the 1950's when they had much higher birth rates.

Homosexuals can adopt in the USA (which I am against, but it is a reality). Why not adopt instead of using unnatural artificial insemination?

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
It's rather a more complex issue than that. Even though we are rather overpopulated right now (at least according to some metrics), we still need to have more children to keep the species alive since we tend to die off from natural causes as time passes. I also don't see why two people of the same sex being able to procreate is a reason to ban something.

What should be the maximum limit for the world population? Your argument that we constantly need a bunch of babies is also used by many officials as well. This means the world population must forever keep increasing to the point that human civilization suffers greatly. We already see the consequences overpopulation has had in many African nations as well as Bangladesh. Why not just have a steadily declining population which means a higher quality of life. Japan, Italy, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Russia (all with very low birth rates) are all better off now vs. the 1950's when they had much higher birth rates.

Homosexuals can adopt in the USA (which I am against, but it is a reality). Why not adopt instead of using unnatural artificial insemination?

What is wrong with artificial insemination?