[breakem]

Your comments about the two women are false. Since they married in their church they are related. A marraige that involves a woman is always capable of producing a child. Modern science and all that. Their child is proof.

[mcg1969]

Get back to me when the child is actually biologically related to both mothers. (And I'm talking nuclear DNA, not mitochondrial. I've heard about that weird experiment where a child was born with one mother's mitochondrial DNA and one mother's nuclear DNA. But mitochondrial DNA does not fundamentally determine the physical nature of the person.)

Although in truth I personally don't use the bioligical argument when defending my stance against gay marriage, so I'm just nitpicking.

[John O]

Your comments about the two women are false. Since they married in their church they are related. A marraige that involves a woman is always capable of producing a child. Modern science and all that. Their child is proof.

They are not married in the eyes of God. (at least not the Christian or Judaic God, or even in the eyes of the Islamic God) They are not married in the eyes of society.

The child is biologically related to only one of them. The other is an unrelated cohabitant.

The child is proof that one of them and an unnamed man who donated the sperm can have a child. "They" did not have a child.