#Every sperm is saaaacred....#

Apr 12, 2007 18:08

Tiny but potentially mindblowing stupid at
Read more... )

booju_newju

Leave a comment

morpheus0013 April 12 2007, 17:31:06 UTC
Just a small correction: whatever article I read on the matter yesterday indicated this was her ex-boyfriend, not her ex-husband. It's a detail that seems important to some people in this discussion.

Reply

paraxeni April 12 2007, 17:33:10 UTC
Ooh ta, will edit accordingly!

Reply

morpheus0013 April 12 2007, 17:36:17 UTC
"Partner" is what I keep seeing now. I don't know how that affects the legalities in the UK, but in the US that would be a Big Fucking Deal. *heh*

Reply

paraxeni April 12 2007, 17:41:30 UTC
Here in Blighty no-one gets married anymore, apart from the gays, there's been an upsurge in 'marriage' since civil partnerships were legalised. In many situations a 'common-law' partnership carries the same weight as an actual married couple. A lot of people choose to get married after their babies are grown up, or they can afford the 'Dream Wedding'. Rarely would someone would be stigmatised for being unmarried.

In short - we're all dirty trollops!

Reply

morpheus0013 April 12 2007, 17:45:40 UTC
YAY for trollops! I never would have bothered with marriage if my father-in-law and my mother hadn't been so enamoured of the idea.

How does that affect things legally? I imagine that, here in the US, the fact that they weren't ever married would work against the woman, but had they been legally married, it would have worked against the man in this situation.

Reply

thetathx1138 April 12 2007, 18:01:37 UTC
US courts tend to lean more towards having the children. I'm pretty sure in the US that the boyfriend would be qualified as a "donor" and the woman would be allowed to go ahead. He just wouldn't be required to pay any child support.

If they'd been legally married, "worked against", he would have been on the hook.

Reply

paraxeni April 12 2007, 18:03:25 UTC
Well it worked against the woman in this case, only because the guy stated that he did not want his child to be born if he couldn't be involved in it's upbringing. Even if they'd been married, then divorced, the outcome would've been the same. In the UK parents cannot sign anything terminating their rights to be a child's parent, so he would've been eligible for child support, maintenance etc. The case for support payments would probably be stronger if they'd been married or in a civil partnership when the child was conceived ( ... )

Reply

morpheus0013 April 12 2007, 20:24:17 UTC
Yes. Living in a society that is so over-sexualized, but wherein the mention of actual sex causes people to have strokes, is a ton of fun, let me tell you. =P

You can't sign away your rights to your child in the UK ever? Or just not voluntarily, to escape child support payments and the like? Because I'm pretty sure you can only sign them away here in the states if both parents agree, such as if the mother is getting re-married and the new husband wants to adopt the kids, while the biological father couldn't care less. I don't know for sure, mind you, but I imagine if you could just sign your parental rights away that easily, there'd be more people doing so to absolve their financial obligations ( ... )

Reply

thetathx1138 April 12 2007, 17:57:44 UTC
This sounds a lot more reasonable than in the US, where we blow five figures on a wedding that ends in divorce six years later.

Reply

paraxeni April 12 2007, 18:06:01 UTC
Yeah I definitely like the idea of being together first, it seems so normal! Then you can have a celebration with all your family and mutual friends that isn't just a gift-grabbing bonanza, and is more meaningful because of the shared history. We'll certainly be waiting, although we're bucking the trend at the moment, lesbians are getting married on the third date now!

Reply

thetathx1138 April 12 2007, 18:12:14 UTC
I thought the third date was when you were supposed to have sex. Unless it is and lesbians are a lot more conservative and traditional than I've seen.

Reply

paraxeni April 12 2007, 18:30:33 UTC
Oh God no!

First date - sex
Second date - move in together and buy cat
Third date? No such thing really, 'cos that's your wedding day!

Reply

thetathx1138 April 12 2007, 19:38:25 UTC
You mean you don't adopt your kitty from the local animal shelter? :-)

Reply

paraxeni April 12 2007, 20:18:01 UTC
Oh please can we have lesbian cat adoption wank? *squeals* OK, here I go, be prepared:

ADOPSHUN IS EEBIL, IT HURTS BAYBEE KITTEEZ! I AM USING MY 'IDIOT' ICON TO EXPRESS MY OUTRAGE AT YOUR PRO-ADOPSHUN VIEWS!!!111

Hell, if I'm going to avoid housework I might as well do it properly! ;)

Reply

thetathx1138 April 12 2007, 20:27:55 UTC
..."lesbian cat adoption wank?" It exists? Cat adoption wank can not only have a gender but a sexuality?

I need to go lie down now.

Reply

paraxeni April 12 2007, 20:52:05 UTC
I figure if people are anti human adoption, then someone's bound to be anti animal adoption. Lesbians just make things more interesting!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up