Just Plain Strange

[Urchin]

No way.. marriage is a sanctified relationship between a man and a woman under the eyes of God.  It has always been defined that way, and it should stay that way.  

Now, if you replace the word "marriage" with "civil union" with all the rights and responsibilities that go with it, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

As far as this case goes, Seagoon, read the article.  The couple (two women) decided they wanted a kid.  The one lady's brother impregnated the dead lady, and the couple had a kid.  But it really is the couple's child.  

If a married man and woman decided they wanted a child, but the man was sterile so someone else impregnated his wife, and then the wife died in a car accident... you would still consider that child to be the man's child, even though it isn't really biologically his, right?  

I don't see it as being any different.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Urchin
No way.. marriage is a sanctified relationship between a man and a woman under the eyes of God.  It has always been defined that way, and it should stay that way.

Nah, you can be married by a justice of the peace.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Urchin
No way.. marriage is a sanctified relationship between a man and a woman under the eyes of God.  It has always been defined that way, and it should stay that way.  

Now, if you replace the word "marriage" with "civil union" with all the rights and responsibilities that go with it, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Actually the ancient Egpytians are generally blamed for the marriage concept. So its not an exclusive to Christianity, nor does marriage require any religious beliefs.

"Civil Union" is nothing more than a slight change in wording to appease a bunch of ignorant religious bigots.

Allowing gay marriages would've prevented this problem.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Urchin
No way.. marriage is a sanctified relationship between a man and a woman under the eyes of God.  It has always been defined that way, and it should stay that way.

Gotta disagree with you there.  My wife and I are atheists, and we took great pains to have a completely secular wedding.

I hope you're not suggesting that only christians can be married?

[Momus--]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Just Plain Disgusting

I agree. Pretty disgusting that the objections to this verdict appear largely to be due to Tina Burch's sexuality rather that to what a 5 year old child and the biological father actually want.

Originally posted by Seagoon
Are live in boyfriends "the parents" of their girlfriends children? Do they cease to be parents after they break-up with their girlfriends? Should they be allowed to sue for custody or visitation rights after the break-up on the grounds of "psychological parenthood"?

Fallacious argument. The relationship didn't break up, the biological mother died. This case would never had got to the stage of repeated court hearings if it had been a simple case of a breakup; custody would have almost certainly gone to the mother.

As for the concept of "psychological parenthood", Justice Davis gave a reasonable definition of this, calling it a person who "fulfils a child's psychological and physical needs for a parent and provides for the child's emotional and financial support." and someone who has a "substantial, not temporary relationship with a child, and one that is forged "with the consent and enthusiasm of the child's legal parent or guardian."

Also, notwithstanding the predictable allegations of judical activism, this was actually a case of an appeals court upholding an existing family court decision. The verdict was also supported by the court appointed advocate for the 5 year old boy in question.