Male Sexual Orientation Influenced by Genes

What silliness. I made no claims about what the article contained and instead spoke specifically of the case. That case Rahl claims youve presented but wont share with us.

 

Curious, how does dixon know about that case...if he didn't read a news article about it?

Was he directly involved in it???

 

Well then please share with us the case- and show us that you didn't just lie about all the things you have claimed about regarding this case?

Since you now claim to be speaking of the case- and not the news article that I cited- and that you replied to- please feel free to provide us with that case:

Ive confirmed it repeatedly. You just cant let go of the strawman. No one denies that when a biological father has surrendered his parental rights in a fertility clinic, and the lesbian couple has an invitro fertilization agreement between them, and the child is born and then the lesbian who didn't give birth acknowledges parentage, THEN she is the legal parent. In case you didn't notice none of these other elements are involved in the statute I cited.

And please show us where the Judge based her ruling on any of that- rather than the fact that under NY state law, the child born of any married couple is presumed to be their legal child.

 

More on Dixon's Dancing on this issue

Quote Originally Posted by dixon76710 View Post
Doing no such thing. I didn't invent them, they are the facts and I stand by them

Dixon stood by his "facts" so much- he has kept repeating them- but has not once proven any of his claims.

As I said then:

Well then prove them. Otherwise I will point out that each time you call them a fact that you are lying.

You made these specific claims regarding this couple

A)The child was born through invitro fertilization
B) with semen from a sperm donor
C) who surrendered all parental rights,
D) conducted by a Dr in a clinic
E) with the other spouse acknowledging parentage after the child was born.

When you first posted them, I was willing to assume that you were just making stuff up because you presumed them to be true.

Now I am saying that your claim is a lie- since you have not- and cannot establish that any of the things you claimed are true.

A-E- if you want to make the claim back it up.

You can't.

And still can't.

Oh and this one too

Originally Posted by dixon76710 View Post
Nope. It was the paternity agreement and acknowledgment of parentage on the birth certificate that obligated the lesbian spouse. Not the birth of the child. Without the agreement and acknowledgment, the lesbian spouse would of had no legal relation to the child.

Again- directly contradicted by the judges own words- and there is no evidence that they ever had any 'agreements'- you just made that up.

She noted that children born to married couples are considered legally theirs and pointed to the Supreme Court decision last year ordering the federal government to recognize gay marriage.

And this

However, she continued, “today no such action is warranted or permitted by this court to affirm an existing, recognized, and protected parent-child relationship between the petitioner and her son. Indeed, were this court to entertain the instant petition, such action would imply that, notwithstanding the existing and lawful marital relationship between the petitioner and her spouse, true marriage equality remains yet to be attained, and that, although legally recognized in this state, a same-sex marriage remains somehow insufficient to establish a parent-child relationship between one particular parent and any child born within that marriage, thereby raising equal protection concerns.”

Yet Dixon persists in pretending that the reason why this judge did not allow these two parents to adopt their child is because of invitro agreements.

 

then you should have no trouble proving there was an agreement.

 

Just as youve not proven your claim that there was no artificial insemination agreement. You are just so full of yourself that you think your personal proclamations are proof that mine are false.

A-E- if you want to make the claim back it up.
)The child was NOT born through invitro fertilization
B) with semen NOT from a sperm donor
C) who DID NOT surrendered all parental rights,
D) NOT conducted by a Dr in a clinic
E) Not with the other spouse acknowledging parentage after the child was born.

 

Sure I could, if he would provide to me the case he provided to you. You two could split the $29.95 / month
http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202640648296?slreturn=20140513164249
to access the case.

 

your concession is accepted.

 

Im not conceeding. Ive shown you lied about SF providing the case. He has all but admitted that he has not, all though hes much too dishonest to actually admit it.

 

However, I have not made any claim that I couldn't substantiate.

That is entirely yours.

Every claim I have made is supported by newspaper articles and quotes from the Judge.

Every claim of yours is well.....just made up by you.

- - - Updated - - -

That is a great concession that you just made all of this stuff up.

Thanks

 

Worth requoting.

Remember- when I pointed out that a Judge in NY had refused an adoption request, ruling that the married lesbian couple could not adopt the child that was legally theirs a because they were married when the child was born- Dixon claimed that it was not because they were married- and proceeded to make claims that he has never supported- even though he claimed:

I didn't invent them, they are the facts and I stand by them

Dixon has never provided any source or any citation for those claims. That apparently is what Dixon means by "I stand by them" which apparently means "I have no evidence to support what I said".

 

No, its a concession that I cant find what I read. While you on the other hand, based upon NOTHING more than an assumption that because the NY Daily didn't report an invitro fertilization agreement, there is not such an agreement. My recollection of facts trumps your assumptions based upon the absence of the facts.

 

And you are making the opposite claims that are not in any news report. You can't back them up. There is no news report which substantiates your claims. But feeling so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing full of yourself, you think your claims some how disprove my claims.

 

But the news reports exactly substantiate my claims. My claim from the beginning was states recognize that the children born of married same gender couples are legally theirs- exactly in the same way those of opposite gender couples are.

That was my claim from the beginning

I provided this quote to you to substantiate that

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1594320


A lesbian couple who wanted to cement the custody of their 1-year-old son with an adoption were denied by a Brooklyn judge who cited the state's marriage equality law.

The baby's non-biological mother - who is legally married to her partner and whose name appears on the child's birth certificate - asked to also adopt him so the couple would be protected in a case of separation or a medical emergency in a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage.

But in a first of its kind decision, Brooklyn Surrogate Judge Margarita Lopez Torres ruled that a redundant adoption “is neither necessary nor available” and that “no such action is warranted or permitted by this court to affirm an existing, recognized and protected parent-child relationship.”

The women, identified in court papers as A.C. and M.M. got hitched in Connecticut in 2011, with the marriage affirmed in New York. M.M. gave birth to Sebastian last year and the couple sought the extra protection, as many same sex parents do.

In the past, Lopez Torres wrote, she would have granted the petition “without any hesitation whatsoever.”

But in light of New York's legalization of same-sex marriage, “such action would imply that, notwithstanding the existing and lawful marital relationship between the petitioner and her spouse, true marriage equality remains yet to be attained, and that, although legally recognized in this state, a same-sex marriage remains somehow insufficient to establish a parent-child relationship,” she explained.

She noted that children born to married couples are considered legally theirs and pointed to the Supreme Court decision last year ordering the federal government to recognize gay marriage.

I followed it up with a quote from another news source

However, she continued, “today no such action is warranted or permitted by this court to affirm an existing, recognized, and protected parent-child relationship between the petitioner and her son. Indeed, were this court to entertain the instant petition, such action would imply that, notwithstanding the existing and lawful marital relationship between the petitioner and her spouse, true marriage equality remains yet to be attained, and that, although legally recognized in this state, a same-sex marriage remains somehow insufficient to establish a parent-child relationship between one particular parent and any child born within that marriage, thereby raising equal protection concerns.”

You denied that the judge said that marriage established the parental bonds- and then brought up claims about invitro etc, etc- none of which are in the news reports- none of which you have ever substantiated.

It is my opinion, based upon your absolute lack of substantiation, that you just made up those claims.

I backed up my claims.
You have never backed yours up.

The State of NY recognizes that the children born of married same gender couples are their legal children- just the same as opposite gender couples.

 

When a married lesbian gets knocked up in a night out with the boys and gives birth to a child, the child isn't "born of married same gender couple".
AND you also claimed there was no surrender of the fathers rights and there was no invitro fertilization agreement. The opposite of my claims that are not in any news report. You can't back them up. There is no news report which substantiates your claims. But feeling so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing full of yourself, you think your claims some how disprove my claims.

Nope, you've demonstrated that this judge in a different fact situation not before her in this case, probably has the same opinion as you, as to the way it should be.
Like I said before, this judge fancies writing the law to be the way she thinks it should be as opposed to what the law and constitution requires.

 

When any married woman gets knocked up- whether by her lawful husband, whether through a sperm donor and a turkey baster, whether through invitro, or because she schtupped the mailman- in NY and CA, the child at birth is the legal child of both spouses.

That only changes there is some sort of successful challenge by one of the spouses or the biological father- but at birth- the child is the child of the two spouses.


.

Nope- i gave my opinion that you made up those claims since a) there is nothing to substantiate them and b) despite being challenged to substantiate them a dozen times you the best you have come up with is "I remember seeing that but can't find it now"

I have backed them up- and am glad to do so again- the news reports that I quoted not only do not have any mention of any of the 'facts' you claimed- the judge specifically noted that the parents were parents because of NY marriage laws- not because of any invitro agreement etc.

However, she continued, “today no such action is warranted or permitted by this court to affirm an existing, recognized, and protected parent-child relationship between the petitioner and her son. Indeed, were this court to entertain the instant petition, such action would imply that, notwithstanding the existing and lawful marital relationship between the petitioner and her spouse, true marriage equality remains yet to be attained, and that, although legally recognized in this state, a same-sex marriage remains somehow insufficient to establish a parent-child relationship between one particular parent and any child born within that marriage, thereby raising equal protection concerns.”

However, she continued, “today no such action is warranted or permitted by this court to affirm an existing, recognized, and protected parent-child relationship between the petitioner and her son. Indeed, were this court to entertain the instant petition, such action would imply that, notwithstanding the existing and lawful marital relationship between the petitioner and her spouse, true marriage equality remains yet to be attained, and that, although legally recognized in this state, a same-sex marriage remains somehow insufficient to establish a parent-child relationship between one particular parent and any child born within that marriage, thereby raising equal protection concerns.”

 

Lets see even one example of a lesbian impregnated by a man with her spouse as the legal parent. You've only supplied examples of lesbians using invitro fertilization.

Child born from a married lesbian getting knocked up by a man, ISNT a child "born within that marriage". The father is the legal parent unless he surrenders all those rights.

 

of course you are. you made a claim which you refuse to substantiate. evidence has been presented which refutes your claim. lol

I didn't lie, I misspoke. a lie is deliberate.

- - - Updated - - -

are you even reading what you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing post?

 

repeatedly refuted.

 

Nothing presented refutes my claim.

 

everything presented refutes your claim.

 

You simply claim anything presented refutes my claims.

 

I am not aware of any examples of lesbians that I have provided of lesbians using invitro- feel free to show me some examples. meanwhile, doesn't matter- under the law in California and in NY any child born within the marriage is a child of the parents.

I have provided you with proof of this before- now you are just being stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

the judges words again.

 

No, I point out what refutes your claim.