[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Initially, you sorta made it sound like your stance on artificial impregnation was tangential here. So, that is where the breakdown is, it seems.

Somer is arguing from the standpoint of how he perceives "natural law". And others are arguing from a more "practical" or contemporary standpoint.

However, for somer to make this about Christians bashing gays seems a bit unfair, for if you logically extend his premise, we just may get to an even more "anti-gay" position (at least "just as"... as some would accuse).

As for whether the court got it right here, who knows...I haven't a clue as to what statutes and case law are in play here. However, it is not unprecedented for someone who acts as a father to a child, even if the child is not biologically his and even if the couple is not married, to be forced to pay child support. So, if this guy is the biological father and has, in at least some ways, acted as a father figure to the children, then it is not entirely surprising that the court made this ruling.

Baba,
You are basically correct regarding the different points of view here...I'd say that my viewpoint is more based on a moral and ethical overview as well but yeah, that's about right. I think I said something along the lines of "you conservative christian types"...I'm not saying all or even most but certainly the more "conservative" or "fundamentalist" christian folks are, the more anti-gay they present....timm's language, "broad" and "real" support my statement in the context of this board and the personalities involved (OK, "broad" is offensive to all women not just gays).