Index Home About Blog
From: B. Harris)
Subject: Re: The Problem with Homosexuality...
Date: 26 Sep 1998 07:07:45 GMT

In <6ui1qg$4qq$> "Thomas  Hall" <>

>"Fruits of what men and women have done together...sure!" In today's
>paper an AP release - "New studies using genetic testing techniques show
>that even the most devoted partners often mate around. An Oregon study
>suggested that about 10% of the children were not sired by the male
>partner of the parental pair." Good grief! Poor slobs working their butts
>off supporting children they think are theirs when in fact the kids were
>sired by the wife's motel matinee.

   As usual, this is presented like it was today's newsflash, when in
fact it's long been known from testing families to see who is a
possible living donor for a kidney.  finding cuckooa is so common that
doctors have long had a protocol of what to tell families (hint: it's
basically a lie.  One that is institutionalized and that nobody likes
to talk about).  There's a reason they no longer do blood group testing
in science classes in California: kids would get typed and ask their
parents what type they were, and it would cause problems. Very

    As for those people slaving away to support kids that aren't
theirs, BTW, that wouldn't change if they found out the truth.  Another
little known part of marriage law in all states is that the father is
responsible for child support for all children born "into" the
marriage.  Whether they are his or not.  That's just one of those
little parts of the 20 volume marriage contract which you become
subject to when you take those simple vows. Why gay people want to
participate in this madness is beyond me.

                                            Steve Harris

From: B. Harris)
Subject: Re: The Problem with Homosexuality...
Date: 27 Sep 1998 04:55:59 GMT

In <> (Fenris) writes:

>Really. You are saying that results of DNA testing contradict the genetic
>rules regarding possible blood types of parents and offspring? Comes as
>news to me.

   Comes as news to everyone.  A man is still reponsible for children
born to his wife while they were married-- whether they prove to be his
or not.  DNA testing, haplotype testing, or even the old blood group
testing, are all irrelevent.  That rule was instituted a long time ago,
in order to prevent the inevitable demands for paternity tests in every
divorce.  Whichout which, of course, such things would be a nearly
universal roll of the dice to reduce legal child support obligations.
Since a third to a half of all marriages end in divorce, and 10% of
kids aren't fathered by the husband, your government is not interested
in having 3 to 5% of all the children in the country newly added to the
medicaid and WIC roles.

   There is a strong sentiment in common law that when a man has sex
with a woman he agrees to be responsible for children she bears--
marriage or not.  You'll remember that the straw that broke the
cammel's back and made Charlie Chaplin finally flee to Switzerland, was
when a jury convicted him in a paternity suit, even though blood tests
had proven conclusively that the child wasn't his.  He'd had sex with
the women (admitted that) and had a lot of money.  That was enough for
the jury.   Must have had a fair number of women on it.

                                        Steve Harris

From: B. Harris)
Subject: Re: Blood type
Date: 5 May 1999 22:42:33 GMT

In <> David Rind
<> writes:

>Andrew Chung wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > Is this possible:  0 negative mother, A positive father,
>> B postivie son?
>> sorry, not possible.
>Careful on this.  There are some odd things that rarely
>happen with blood types, including, as I recall, some
>people who test as "O" on standard tests, but actually have
>the A or B genotype which they phenotypically express very

   Yes.  The correct answer is that if the father truly wonders about
the parentage of his child, he should have kid and himself HLA typed.
Blood bank studies suggest that 5-10% of cases, the putative father is
not the actual father.  In California they had to stop science class
blood typing of kids because of such problems.

   Not that the answer makes any legal difference, since if the child
was borne into the marriage the husband is still legally reponsible for
it (is the legal father, if not the biological one).

   Naturally I cannot agree with such laws.  "No fault divorce" is a
good idea in that figuring out whose "fault" a divorce is, is generally
just a way to transfer public wealth into the pockets of lawyers.
However, finding out that someone isn't the father of a child is quite
cheap, free of need to pay lawyers, very objective scientifically, and
should matter (except in cases where the man has freely adoped the
child, and given such a liability up explicitly, in exchange for
certain fatherly rights).  And does matter, in cases of child support
when the couple are not married.  It continually astonishes me that
marriage is a contract which you don't have to sign to be considered a
party to (common-law marriage), and one composed of shelves of pages
which none of the signers, almost without exception,  never read before
the fact.  Not that it matters, since the rules change yearly, and
parties in the contract are expected to bound by the new rules (which
they have not signed, either), not the ones in force when they married.

	[[ Note: Greg Cochran disputes the non-paternity figures used
	above, saying the real figures are more like 1-2%; see
			-- Norman ]]

Index Home About Blog