I understand. I am still disagreeing with you on the average reader. this involves real people. more than you and I know about, who enter into these contracts. it is huge "news" to them when a state makes decisions that affect their lives . yes, the british tabloid was how I hooked into it-probably via Drudge. but my point in posting was a cautionary tale, unfortunately revolving around real people out there,

The man was married to the woman in this story. That makes it completely different than an independent sperm donor.

I am not talking about myself personally. I do not have a problem with gays adopting or having children. I am talking about what the average reader will see when reading the story and thus why it was written,

finally, we get to your point. I have posted on this previously, but I will answer "them."
I know several gay couples. They are long term partnered (like any married couple). They lead stable lives and they have children. Their contracts with sperm donor, whom they did not meet, was a sound one. Their adoption (in these cases one partner) went off without a hitch. Their children, lovely and happy. Their burden on the State? Zero. would they make the papers? No.

It IS the same story, or might as well be. It's the same damn story all over the damn country: men are dying, living on the street, living in their cars -- thanks to the child-support Nazis while the women, who oftentimes conceived through fraud, are living high on the hog.

Men are being destroyed, and nobody cares. Were it not for the woman I'm now with, who just happens to be a paralegal, I would be among the dead myself.

My exact point. The same question regarding paternity is involved and it made the news. I agree that adding "lesbian couple" in the headline was meant to titillate, however, I maintained from the beginning that the compelling part of the story revolves around parental rights. Gay couples grapple with this issue in their private lives hugely. that aside, where I see the humor, is sooo many things did not go well here, and most center on poor decision making.

What makes this story stand out...

...is its sensationalism. Remember that you linked to a British tabloid.

That's not what most people will read the story will see. They'll see a lesbian couple trying to be parents without a man then turning around and asking the man that donated his sperm to them for money because it contradicts homosexuals saying they can raise children the same as straight parents.

That's not the same story. That story is about two people who were married.

what makes this story stand out is that the couple did not go through the standard, accepted method for sperm donor. that's why they were tagged. the article reports above about an estranged hetero couple-same concerns, the state stepped in.

http://www.patriotledger.com/topstories/...

Then you're wrong. This wouldn't have been reported had the couple been straight.

understood. but it is my post and I thought I'd throw my appreciations in the mix

loll We were talking about Ayn Rand.....but good to know :)

my appreciation was for Craigslist buying of important stuff, like LIFE, well yes, I agree orgasms are important as well as sausages. However PICTURES were also important to this post

completely disagree

it's true. I'm trying not to keep this post going but it has a life unto itself

Go forth young man and try your hand at opening a new post to see if you can beat this one. :) I dare ya.

I think she had an appreciation for the aforementioned..items.

Legal vs cultural. I never said there was a difference legally. I said the difference is cultural. The only reason this is news is because the couple is gay.

since those words have meanings removed form their original etymology, are you saying your one of those pc nuts?
My kids used to say, "oh, that's so gay, mom!" were they going out of their way to bash homosexuals? I do try to be sensitive if someone doesn't like to hear the F word, but sometimes it creeps out anyway. I kinda like the effect and drama of using it. seriously, be a good fart and understand neither of us were laughing at this story because the couple was in a same sex relationship.

I'm not your Mother, or the joke police... You're a grown man, tell whatever jokes you're comfortable telling.

Amen, brother. And while I disagree vehemently with their tactics (i.e., use of force), I agree with their stated end goal of acceptance.

If only their STATED goal was their ACTUAL goal, but that's a topic for 'nuther thread.

Well, there are more legal steps to take. The birth mother/father is the parent. His/her partner must adopt and go through all state outlined procedures. You can draw up a contract to to handle all these situations. This usually goes smoothly, but not always. This is the first time I have heard of the State pursuing what all other parties say was an acceptable arrangement. See, this is part of the whole trainwreck thing. Most couples making this decision have to have the means to carry out their part of the contract. That things look sort of murky here to the State (well according to them) leaves doubt. Of course we don't have all the facts, but as far as US culture goes, we have standard setups for this kind of thing. Where it usually falls apart is when you have a birth parent break their contractual arrangement. Honestly, that can go either way for any of the contracting/adopting parties, even all hetero ones. I really think the partnership arrangements play no role in the State's actions.