At the end of this article they don't say anything about the disadvantages of a child who is raised in a home with a mother and father who hate each other either. The best interests of the child has always been to live in a home where they are loved. Who raises them is irrelevant. Family is not only those who you share a genetic code with.
Code:
TORONTO -- An Ontario boy can legally have two mothers and a father, the province's highest court ruled Tuesday.
The same-sex partner of the child's biological mother went to court seeking to also be declared a mother of the boy.
After hearing arguments in 2003, Superior Court Justice David Aston dismissed the application saying he didn't have the jurisdiction to rule in the case.
Court was told the child has three parents: his biological father and mother (identified in court documents as B.B. and C.C., respectively) and C.C.'s partner, the appellant A.A.
A.A. and C.C. have been in a stable same-sex un ion since 1990. In 1999, they decided to start a family with the assistance of their friend B.B.
The two women would be the primary caregivers of the child, but they believed it would be in the child's best interests that B.B. remain involved in the child's life.
The boy refers to A.A. and C.C. as his mothers.
Aston indicated that had he thought he had jurisdiction, he would have made ruled that A.A. was also the boy's mother.
"The child is a bright, healthy, happy individual who is obviously thriving in a loving family that meets his every need," the decision reads.
"The applicant has been a daily and consistent presence in his life. She is fully committed to a parental role. She has the support of the two biological parents who themselves recognize her equal status with them."
A.A. and C.C. did not apply for an adoption order because, if they did so, B.B. would lose his status under the Child and Family Services Act.
"Perhaps one of the greatest fears faced by lesbian mothers is the death of the birth mother," the appeal court heard. "Without a declaration of parentage or some other order, the surviving partner would be unable to make decisions for their minor child, such as critical decisions about health care."
The Children's Law Reform Act does not reflect current society, the appeal court judges ruled.
"There is no doubt that the Legislature did not foresee for the possibility of declarations of parentage for two women, but that is a product of the social conditions and medical knowledge at the time," they wrote. "The Legislature did not turn its mind to that possibility, so that over 30 years later the gap in the legislation has been revealed."
As a result, the statute does not provide for the best interests of the child in this case, the judges said.
"The Act does not deal with, nor contemplate, the disadvantages that a child born into a relationship of two mothers, two fathers or as in this case two mothers and one father might suffer."
The Attorney General for Ontario did not chose to intervene to support the legislation, the ruling noted.
I think I know what you meant to say here but what you wrote is wrong. Not trying to be a jerk here but here goes... (I know I'm picking nits so don't be offended)
sjc wrote:
At the end of this article they don't say anything about the disadvantages of a child who is raised in a home with a mother and father who hate each other either.
Why would this be relevant since it does not apply to this case? The arguments are different. If it can be shown to be true that a lack of a parent of each genders results in a deficiency that'd be inherent in any gay couples (except here where the biological dad is still in the picture which is cool). The two parents of different genders hating each other is not a given.
sjc wrote:
The best interests of the child has always been to live in a home where they are loved.
As apposed to unloved yes but love alone? no. The two parents who hate each other that you mention above could both love the child for example.
sjc wrote:
Who raises them is irrelevant.
Wrong. A child that is raised in a family where both parents are violent, abusive, drug using gang members would be an example.
sjc wrote:
Family is not only those who you share a genetic code with.
This one I can't argue with.
The story is an interesting one and makes sense but could cause for some very odd legal battles in certain situations--Not that it isn't worth sorting these things out. It sounds like the kid has 3 people who love him and want what is best for him and that's a good thing.
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:00 am
Saitou wrote:
Why would this be relevant since it does not apply to this case? The arguments are different. If it can be shown to be true that a lack of a parent of each genders results in a deficiency that'd be inherent in any gay couples (except here where the biological dad is still in the picture which is cool). The two parents of different genders hating each other is not a given.
Maybe, but it is more of the case than anything else. After all the majority of marriages in America do end in divorce.
Quote:
Wrong. A child that is raised in a family where both parents are violent, abusive, drug using gang members would be an example.
Hardly. You are thinking in binary terms, either all or none. The facts are that too many on the religious right believe that what is in the interest of the child is to be raised in a "traditional" home where the parents are of the opposite gender, whether they're abusive or not is irrelevant to them as long as they're "good, god-fearing, heterosexual Christians.". In other words to them a heterosexual home without love is far better for a child than a homosexual home with love.
Quote:
This one I can't argue with.
The story is an interesting one and makes sense but could cause for some very odd legal battles in certain situations--Not that it isn't worth sorting these things out. It sounds like the kid has 3 people who love him and want what is best for him and that's a good thing.
Family is one of the most important things there are in this world.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:18 am
sjc wrote:
Maybe, but it is more of the case than anything else. After all the majority of marriages in America do end in divorce.
Many of them don't end in hatred or are caused by full blown hatred.
Quote:
Wrong. A child that is raised in a family where both parents are violent, abusive, drug using gang members would be an example.
sjc wrote:
Hardly. You are thinking in binary terms, either all or none. The facts are that too many on the religious right believe that what is in the interest of the child is to be raised in a "traditional" home where the parents are of the opposite gender, whether they're abusive or not is irrelevant to them as long as they're "good, god-fearing, heterosexual Christians.".
I think you're making an assumption here. Christians don't think child abuse is beneath notice just because a Christian is the perpetrator.
sjc wrote:
In other words to them a heterosexual home without love is far better for a child than a homosexual home with love.
Some may think that which is sad and very wrong.
Quote:
This one I can't argue with.
The story is an interesting one and makes sense but could cause for some very odd legal battles in certain situations--Not that it isn't worth sorting these things out. It sounds like the kid has 3 people who love him and want what is best for him and that's a good thing.
sjc wrote:
Family is one of the most important things there are in this world.
Again I agree. That's why I decided to start one of my own despite the sacrifices.
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:11 am
Saitou wrote:
Many of them don't end in hatred or are caused by full blown hatred.
They are still without love.
Quote:
I think you're making an assumption here. Christians don't think child abuse is beneath notice just because a Christian is the perpetrator.
Its no assumption. They just don't believe that the parents are abusing the child since "good Christians don't do that sort of thing.."
Quote:
Some may think that which is sad and very wrong.
Enough to make it a real problem.
Quote:
That's why I decided to start one of my own despite the sacrifices.
This term makes it sound as if having a family is some kind of hardship or burden. It isn't. From my prospective nothing you have to give up in order to have a family, that loves you, is a sacrifice. A loving family is the greatest reward there could possibly be and one should consider one's self very lucky. The sacrifice comes when you give up that family for something else.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:13 am
sjc wrote:
Quote:
That's why I decided to start one of my own despite the sacrifices.
This term makes it sound as if having a family is some kind of hardship or burden. It isn't.
It absolutely is a hardship and a burden but not without rewards. As a husband and father and sole "breadwinner" in the family I can tell you my life is much harder and much more burdensome than my single days. At the same time I feel my life is much richer though (and not just because I make more money and get more tax breaks now).
sjc wrote:
From my prospective nothing you have to give up in order to have a family, that loves you, is a sacrifice.
That's just a platitude. You have no idea how much freedom is sacrificed when you have small children.
sjc wrote:
A loving family is the greatest reward there could possibly be and one should consider one's self very lucky.
True and I do. But this fact doesn't mean I didn't sacrifice much and that I don't endure addition hardship and burden compared to if I didn't start a family.
sjc wrote:
The sacrifice comes when you give up that family for something else.
Another Platitude. You should write sappy romance novels under a female pen name. Another career suggestion your's free.
sjc Thinker
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
Posts: 423
Posted:
Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:16 am
Saitou wrote:
It absolutely is a hardship and a burden but not without rewards. As a husband and father and sole "breadwinner" in the family I can tell you my life is much harder and much more burdensome than my single days. At the same time I feel my life is much richer though (and not just because I make more money and get more tax breaks now).
That is a difference between you and I. I don't see family as any kind of burden nor hardship. That being alone makes one incomplete.
Quote:
That's just a platitude. You have no idea how much freedom is sacrificed when you have small children.
Freedom is a relative term. One can have too much and like rope one can hang one's self with it.
Quote:
True and I do. But this fact doesn't mean I didn't sacrifice much and that I don't endure addition hardship and burden compared to if I didn't start a family.
But you were incomplete before. What good is freedom, like wealth, if you have no one to share it with?
Quote:
Another Platitude.
As in Duck-billed platitude? Its more of a truism instead.
Quote:
You should write sappy romance novels under a female pen name. Another career suggestion your's free.
Whatever.
Ivan_Ivanov Grand Poster
Joined: Jun 16, 2004
Posts: 1250
Location: Poland
Posted:
Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:11 am
sjc wrote:
That is a difference between you and I. I don't see family as any kind of burden nor hardship.
No wonder, since you are the one that needs support, not the one supporting.
Quote:
Freedom is a relative term. One can have too much and like rope one can hang one's self with it.
Hooray for one sentenced cliches that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Quote:
But you were incomplete before. What good is freedom, like wealth, if you have no one to share it with?
How is it that you feel qualified to preach to him about beuties of family life, if he's the one that started and supports his family on his own, not you?
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:31 am
sjc wrote:
Saitou wrote:
It absolutely is a hardship and a burden but not without rewards. As a husband and father and sole "breadwinner" in the family I can tell you my life is much harder and much more burdensome than my single days. At the same time I feel my life is much richer though (and not just because I make more money and get more tax breaks now).
That is a difference between you and I. I don't see family as any kind of burden nor hardship.
That might be in part because we each are in a different position and roll in our families. I think you'd agree I have more responsibilities? The other 3 members of my family rely upon me for food, shelter, and other needs (I'm even the only driver). My in-laws help us out too which I very much appreciate. However whether one chooses to see something as a burden or hardship or not is a case of trying to mask reality with personal perspective and I think in your case very much deliberately. Raising children is unquestionably a hardship and burden even if I consider it very much worth the effort. There are many things I cannot do because the children need looking after or needs that must be met. A simple example would be making breakfast. If I was single I'd make myself something and I'm done. Now I make breakfast for 4.
sjc wrote:
That being alone makes one incomplete.
Such a statement doesn't apply to all. Completeness is for us each to decide for ourselves.
Quote:
That's just a platitude. You have no idea how much freedom is sacrificed when you have small children.
sjc wrote:
Freedom is a relative term. One can have too much and like rope one can hang one's self with it.
I'd rather have the freedom to pay for my own mistakes than have others who rob me of freedom put the noose around my neck. (my statement is as useless as yours. Why not debate without metaphors?)
Quote:
True and I do. But this fact doesn't mean I didn't sacrifice much and that I don't endure addition hardship and burden compared to if I didn't start a family.
sjc wrote:
But you were incomplete before. What good is freedom, like wealth, if you have no one to share it with?
A lot of good if enjoying life and living comfortably is the goal. Also you can share things with others if they aren't family. Such a person would probably be "like family" though.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file