|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Judge approves birth certificate that contains|
Judge approves birth certificate that contains
Posted - 2/9/2013 10:39:25 AM | show profile | flag this post
I can only imagine the wonder and confusion this child is going to suffer at some point in her life.
Posted - 2/9/2013 12:52:01 PM | show profile | flag this post
Listing three parents??
What about all those single Moms out there? Isn't listing one parent a "biological impossibility."? Just saying.
Posted - 2/10/2013 10:20:07 AM | show profile | flag this post
Birth certificates are not ...
.. statements of biological fact.
They are legal document.
unless cruiser, the expert, wants to argue that every single father ever listed on a birth certificate is the actual DNA biological father .. and that women have never ever cheated and had another man's baby.
What a fool.
Posted - 2/10/2013 10:56:04 AM | show profile | flag this post
Part of the reason I post here
is to read the fanciful, convoluted and mind-blowingly stupid responses from left wingers.
Posted - 2/10/2013 10:59:25 AM | show profile | flag this post
The purpose.of a birth certificate
Is to create a legsl ldocument that certifies location, date and parentage of a child. Of course it is biological, that is all that matters on a birth certificate. The identity of the mother is listed (duh!!!) but the father may or may not be identified. Since it is biologically impossible for more than one biological father this is the stupidest idea I have heard. And as usual you guys are responding to the poster not the post. Unless you lost your friggin mind sometime over the last two days.
Posted - 2/10/2013 12:39:38 PM | show profile | flag this post
It's more than biological. A birth certificate also establishes the father's rights and legal responsibility for the child.
Here is a more explanatory story about this particular case that gets past shock value and titillation: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/02/07/182355/judge-oks-plan-for-gay-man-lesbian.html
There's a lesson in it for any married couple (as the women in this case are) that calls on a friend to help them create a family without having all the legal issues nailed down first.
Posted - 2/10/2013 12:56:39 PM | show profile | flag this post
These are some of the pitfalls men create for themselves
when they mess with Mother Nature. There is a natural order of the universe and the objects within it established by time, chemistry, physics, biology and (on Earth) the way the various species interact...or don't, as the case may be.
For our planet it's been a 4.5 billion year evolution and even though man has emerged as the most intelligent and facile species, he still is not wise enough to fully understand or appreciate the consequences...intended or not...of his attempts to alter the natural order.
Posted - 2/10/2013 1:08:09 PM | show profile | flag this post
A birth certificate does NOT.....
.. Establish biological fatherhood, or parenthood. It establishes legal fatherhood and parenthood.
That is why many, many, adoptive parents petition courts to amend birth certificates, after adoption: to further cement their legal rights
And courts ,again and again, are asked to weigh in when evidence come to light that a listed father, is not the biological father.
Sorry, folks, that isn't right or left, conservative or liberal: it is simple legal fact.
Google it. Look it up.
You assumptions, are simply wrong.
That you hate the fact gays have legal right in such family matter now .. Well that's your problem.
Which .. In any case ... Why should you care? It has nothing to do with you.
It doesn't effect your life one bit.
It is, quite frankly, none of your damn (homophobic) business to deny their Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.
Posted - 2/10/2013 1:16:04 PM | show profile | flag this post
Oh, and BTW...
... If you think it is just fatherhood, women ... Who have children via surrogates (or donated ovum) regularly have their names as mother of record rather than the women who carried the child or provide the egg.
The is no biological connection.
And fully legal.
Posted - 2/10/2013 1:34:01 PM | show profile | flag this post
Oh, and particular congrats to cruiser...
... For trotting out the same old "natural law" argument that conservatives used to defend slavery (black inferiority is the "natural order")' not to mention misogyny, anti-semitism, white supremacism and pretty every unjust and immoral discrimination since time (or religion) began.
Great work there. You're could pretty much have taken that quote out of Mein Kampf, without Godwin exaggeration.
Posted - 2/10/2013 1:45:17 PM | show profile | flag this post
You SERIOUSLY need
some remedial reading comprehension work...along with a psychological "adjustment" to aid your socialization.
There are only a few people on here I'd characterize as real idiots but you top that list.
There is not another person on this forum of whom I'm aware that is reviled by both left and right. But that describes you to a T.
Posted - 2/10/2013 2:24:56 PM | show profile | flag this post
I may be hated...
... But you are wrong. And can't present a single fact or make a coherent argument.
Again, and again and again.
(Omg! We you sorting to ad hominem?! I you say you never do that! .... So, that also makes you a proven liar.)
I'll take hated and right, over stupid, wrong and dishonest any day.
Posted - 2/10/2013 2:25:56 PM | show profile | flag this post
At its core was the "Judge approves birth certificate that contains biological impossibility."
Well yea. You can't have three biological parents, but you can have three legal ones. That's why I said having only parent listed is ALSO a biological impossibility, but it makes perfect sense if you're dealing with a legal docuent.
Grateful? I'm not sure why I was singled out and lectured for playing along with cruise when you posted in the same thread. And blackedtape? "you guys are responding to the poster not the post". No, I was responding to the post/idea of "biological impossibility" I would have said the same thing no matter who posted it.
I thought it was interesting that this was dealt with in California as well (Yea, I know, big shock) There was a Dem sponsored bill that would allow multiple parents to be recognized by the law. The Dem Gov vetoed it. “I am sympathetic to the author’s interest in protecting children,” he wrote. “But I am troubled by the fact that some family law specialists believe the bill’s ambiguities may have unintended consequences" Let's give Brown credit for that one.
And, oh yea, cruise?? YES. You're babbling about "Natural Law" is dog whistle-code speak-You know what I mean sly cowardly homophobic bullshit. "mess with Mother Nature. There is a natural order of the universe" claptrap is just another sneaky way of saying Gay couples are against the Grand Scheme of things. Which is why the whole news story bothered you in the first place, or you wouldn't have brought it up.
Posted - 2/10/2013 2:34:46 PM | show profile | flag this post
That was decidedly NOT my intent. I won't bother to try to explain it to you...you're demonstrably too dense or too partisan to understand/accept what I'd say.
Jesus! I'd have never believed making myself understood by journalists would be so tedious and difficult. But I've seldom encountered journalists like dogson who hear/see everthing through radical left filters.
Posted - 2/10/2013 2:45:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
A few comments
First I think I need to apologize for commenting without reading the article in the first place. Thanks to Grateful for the link, it made things much clearer for me. This is a legal document establishing parental rights and since all involved parties are in agreement the judge did the right thing.
I think this is another one of those times when traditional definitions no longer apply. My old school understanding of a birth certificate was that it identified the specifics of a live birth: date, time, location, mother, and if listed father. I never thought of it as a legally binding document establishing the paternal rights of the father. As someone pointed out the listing of a father's name is no guarantee of paternity while there is no doubt regarding the mother. I did not realize that a birth certificate establishes paternity. I stand corrected.
Posted - 2/10/2013 5:01:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
Part of the reason I post here
Is I have no life.
Posted - 2/10/2013 5:22:40 PM | show profile | flag this post
For those who need an explanation..are you listening dogson?
...homosexual couples cannot...repeat, CANNOT...procreate. It is a biological impossibility. Any birth certificate that lists "two mommies" or "two daddies" contains a falsehood, whether or not there is the name of one or more additional persons in the parentage column(s).
Posted - 2/10/2013 5:51:44 PM | show profile | flag this post
A few comments;
First, a tip o the hat to my friend blackedtape. Anyone here who says " I think I need to apologize" and "I stand corrected" in this forum deserves a nod. (Hey, when I said the other day about the cop shooter in LA; 'in all honesty I'd report his pro-Dem leanings', I thought I was going to catch all kinds of crap)
Second: Hell. I'm no lawyer. I don't know if listing one or more 'parents' on a Birth Cirt is legal or not. From what I read it's state by state anyway. But I DO know that there is such a thing as a single woman giving birth (Which means this whole "biological impossibility" thing is a piece of semantic crap) IF the parents involved want to list themselves as the parents involved WHO ARE WE to deny them that?? What's that to you??
Third. cruiser? I keep getting beat up for even addressing you--especially when you say or hint, at something outrageous or well, just plain dumb. You're a homophobe bigot and we all know it. So pardon me, but when you rant about 'natural order' of things?? Yea. We know what you're referring to, and it's not pretty.
Posted - 2/10/2013 6:12:22 PM | show profile | flag this post
Of course you're leaning on a lie
because you know I'm right...and it would kill you to admit it.
By the way, dumb ass, listing a single name...that of a woman...on a birth certificate as a parent is NOT in any way a biologiical impossibility. Once again you're trying to change the narrative so you can make believe you're "right."
But here's a hint: you ain't.
Posted - 2/10/2013 6:22:36 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** blackedtaped wrote: Thanks to Grateful for the link, it made things much clearer for me. ***
You're very welcome. I thought it would help anyone who was here to talk about the story -- glad to know it did.
mpdodgson, I mistook you for a grown-up. I apologize.
Posted - 2/10/2013 7:14:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
You don't care who you piss off, do you? Is that how people act when they believe they're the smartest one in the room?
Posted - 2/11/2013 10:25:49 AM | show profile | flag this post
One more time...
Birth certificates are LEGAL documents -- not biological reports.
I know some people -- who thinks military weapons are designed to wound rather than kill, can't tell the difference between adjectives and nouns, believes in conspiracy theories from birtherism to skeeterism -- can't grasp reality all that well.
But, birth certificates have NEVER been held up as "biologically accurate."
Posted - 2/11/2013 10:57:03 AM | show profile | flag this post
Try re-reading AND UNDERSTANDING
what I posted so you won't embarrass yourself with egregiously dumb-assed replies like the above.
Posted - 2/13/2013 1:21:02 PM | show profile | flag this post
Homosexual couples can't procreate?
Ever heard of IVF? What about Melissa Ethridge and her partner having a child fathered by David Crosby. You should really read more and/or move into the 21st Century...
Posted - 2/13/2013 1:53:15 PM | show profile | flag this post
Rather than trying to warp
my PRECISELY ACCURATE assertion into some left wing political correctness, I suggest you study biology.