Gay Marriages Should Be Denied.

Actually your completely wrong there. Marriage does indeed cover the children of gays.

That's the beauty of marriage, it allows the spouse to take custody of the children in the event of the death of the other.

 

There are none that aren't based on some arbitrary and prejudicial notion of recognizing civil unions. Marriage should be defined and determined outside of the law. Its a primarily subjective concept and should be left to the participants, not the state, to define. I'm sick of PC conservatives having a cry about getting the government getting out of people's social lives.

 

Nope

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY.
(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;.......

No application whatsoever to a gay couple. A married lesbian woman gives birth to a child, the other partner has no legal parental obligations or parental rights in the child. As it should be because she has no connection to the child whatsoever. A married gay man fathers a child, his same sex spouse again has no legal parental obligations or parental rights in the child. As it should be because he has no connection to the child whatsoever.

Your silly declarations that I am wrong, couldnt be more meaningless.

 

You can marry whomever you like. The issue is whether government should give tax breaks and governmental entitlements to those who do. The government always defines who gets governmental tax breaks and entitlements.

 

You should be able to, yes, as long as they consent.

It should do no such thing.

Sure. In the case of marriage no such distinction should exist. If there were to be some managerial procedure to make it cheaper or more efficient or whatever in addressing civil unions, then they could do that, but this would be irrelevant to marriage once again.

 

It does, and most everyone here advocates it being extended to gays. Thus the topic "gay marriages" as opposed to marriage for any two consenting people who wish it.

 

I'm fine with marriage carrying with it special incentives and rights. Though as long as those things are a part of marriage, it will be a constitutional issue.

 

Yes it is. Thats why marriage remains an institution limited to heterosexual couples in 44 states because most states adhere to the Constitution.

 

Just like MANY heterosexual couples. Making your point irrelevant.

 

Already refuted. If daddy isn't the daddy, he has no responsibility

 

Doesnt even have an impact upon my point. You still havent been able to comprehend my point.

 

Actually, after two years in most states the presumption become irrefutable.

 

Not just an impact, but a direct refutation of your point. My comprehention is just fine.

 

Oonly if daddy doesn't challenge it. Making it a voluntary responsibility. If daddy challenges it, and he's not daddy, he has no responsibility.

Would you like to quit while you're behind? Or do you require further embarrassment?

 

No, my point is that it cannot apply in the case of a gay couple. The fact that it doesnt apply in every single case of heterosexual couples marriage doesnt change the fact that it NEVER applies in the case of a gay couple. Only a man can be the father of a womans child so only a man married to a woman is presumed to be the father of her child. Biology!

 

"irrefutable" means that when daddy seeks to refute the presumption, he cannot.

 

dixon, I think you're a distraction... paid (or weirdly-motivated) to make strange/illogical noise here.

I'll check your posts occasionally for now; you're on ignore.

Others need to NOT let you be a distraction as well.

 

Promises, promises.

 

___Yep.___

 

of course he can. If he chooses not to contest paternity, within the two year time span, he voluntarily accepts responsibility. If he chooses to contest it in the two year time span, and he's not the daddy, he has no responsibility. making it irrelevant.