A gay couple, barring some technological advances or heterosexual help, can not have their own children. Yet a hetrosexual couple married-committed to each other or not, even on a ‘one night stand’, or even rape can. Both will be recognized as the parents, really no questions asked.
So what about or gay brethren and sisteren, what should their requirement be for becoming parents, and how does this apply to a straight single person who also desires a child?
Gay couples can most definitely have children – just not with each other. The requirement for becoming parents should be the same as any other non-biologically related parents – and as I understand it, these are actually the requirements in most places in the US.
Single (fertile) women can have a child any time they want (and take the trivial step of finding a willing partner). Single (fertile) men can also have a child if they find a willing partner. If they want to adopt, I presume the same requirements apply as above.
I’m not entirely sure I understand the question. There’s a lot of reasons why a given couple might not be able to conceive on their own - both partners being the same sex is just one. Why should a couple who want a kid, but can’t have one on their own because they’re both men, be treated any differently than a couple who want a kid, but can’t have one on their own because the man’s got a low sperm count?
Single people who want to become parents strikes me as an entirely separate issue. I don’t see how it fits into this discussion at all.
Because THE GHEY… duh.
Why should those who cant conceive/birth a child have a higher standard then those who don’t?
Well I do see how it does fit, we accept gays as normal, we accept singles as normal - no difference, it is choice or biology - does not matter, unless it is absolutely necessary to have 2 people to raise a child, I intimately know 2, as well as many more not so much, single parents who stand in contrast to this notion.
If you’re just asking what, if any, of the hoops placed in front of hetero couples who want to adopt should also be placed in front of gay couples, and while we’re at it, what hoops should we add, I’d say it needs to be even-steven… there should be no differences in the requirements regardless of the number and diversity of sexual organs present on the part of the parents.
If you’re asking why do we place any restrictions at all on adoption, that’d be supply and demand, plus a certain amount of humanitarian care for the actual human being in the crib.
Can you rephrase that in standard English?
We also accept sofas as normal. WHY CAN’T SOFAS ADOPT?!?!
I have nothing against single parents. But I don’t understand how our attitude towards single parents is in any way dependent on how we treat gay couples.
I’ll throw one hoop into the ring, though it may not remain relevant for long.
Many states apparently view any child born of a married woman to be the husband’s child, at least absent a DNA test proving the contrary.
For equal footing, any child adopted by or born of a married lesbian (or a surrogate so contracted) should be considered the legal child of the other partner with the rights (e.g. family court access) and responsibilities (e.g. child support) and all that goes with it.
Any child adopted by (or born of a surrogate contracted by) a married gay man similarly should be the legal child of the other partner bearing similar rights and responsibilities as the prior case.
I’m not exactly sure that hetero couples have such requirements when adoption or surrogacy is being considered, but in the interest of the child I would support such.
As it has stood until quite recently, the legal parent in a same sex relationship could cut off a former partner from all communication and access to the child when a relationship ended. With legalization of SSM such cases will hopefully become much more rare.
I didn’t know all this stuff – thanks. And I agree.
If this were to come to pass, if Bill and Ted arrange with Mary to have Bill’s child, would this mean Bill, Ted and Mary would all have equal rights as parents? Or would Mary have no rights whatsoever?
I don’t think Bill and Ted are mature enough to be parents.
Are you kidding me? These days, even Archer is getting to be a father, and he’s at least as immature as they are.
For Bill and Ted, it depends. If Bill and Ted purchase a donor egg from a licensed facility and contract Mary to be the surrogate, then Mary has no rights to the child after birth, in the U.S. at this time AFAIK, IANAL, etc*. If Mary just agrees to let Bill or Ted impregnate her, that is different. Just as if Mary (with or without a spouse of any gender) goes to a sperm bank, the donor has no rights or responsibilities. But if she uses the sperm of her friend Bob (no matter the delivery method), Bob can sue for his rights, and the state or the mother can go after him for child support.
In general, gay couples will be treated like any other couple with fertility issues. Adoption rules and guidelines should be the same. Those who just need sperm will be better off than those who just need an egg, who will be better off than those who just need a surrogate, who will be better off than those who need some combination.
*I know surrogates without genetic interest have sued for rights before, but I do not remember the exact outcome.
Would Bill and Ted take their kids time traveling? I think we should definitely scrutinize time travelers more than gays when it comes to adoption. One has an inherent risk of resurrecting Hitler and the other only risks a fabulous wardrobe
This seems to potentially get very messy if genders are equated (yes I know you said woman giving birth, husband is the father, not the other way around but it does seem like we are heading there), especially in the case of a gay married male (to another male) who has a child, obviously by a woman, who is known to be the person who gave birth to the child. By what you state here the woman would be SOL and the male and male would be the parents because they are married
Similar to the woman married to a woman, yes we know there is a male somewhere, but w/o a DNA test we don’t know who.
I don’t see why this would be messy – many kids have multiple “parents”. Many kids are born out of wedlock to parents married to someone else.
It all depends on where the DNA comes from. My cousin has been a surrogate for a couple where the woman could neither carry nor produce eggs. The egg was provided by an anonymous donor. My cousin has legal claims or responsibilities for the child after birth. But, if the anonymity is not there, then the genetic parent has rights and responsibility.
Right now, there are heterosexual married couples where either one cannot provide genetic material or neither can carry the baby. There are already legal guidelines in place that seem to work. Why would they need to be different?
It was the idea that in a situation where
Male1 married Male2
And Male 1 had a child with Female 1
Because M1 and M2 are married and M1 is the father, the other parent would be assumed legally to be the other parent, so child would be taken from F1 and given into the family M1 and M2 regardless of F1’s wanting to raise the child or that she is the indisputable mother of the child.
Why does the help have to be heterosexual?
-a member of a lesbian couple arranges to be artificially inseminated by a gay male friend of theirs
-a gay male couple contracts a surrogate, who happens to be lesbian.
Sure, the techniques were developed by scientists who, we can safely assume, were mostly heterosexual, but it’s not like a homosexual couple needs the generosity of a “normal” to have a child.
Yes, welcome to the wonderful world of surrogate motherhood. This is what the term means - you are acting as a womb for a couple who cannot have a child on their own. The child is not “yours”, any more than a child you gave up for adoption a year ago would be “yours”. The cases where a surrogate becomes attached to the child are unfortunate, but there’s not much the surrogate can do about it, nor should they be able to - they agreed to this, and they have a contractual obligation to it.