and inane. However, when it comes to children there is one small thing that irks me about the direction things are moving. Gay couples can make great parents, but they cannot at this stage both contribute the entire genetic heritage of the child. That is, they are not the 'biological' parents. This distinction IMO needs to be made on birth certificates. I have read articles in recent times of the same gender parents being listed as the two parents. I believe this undermines the purpose and utility of the registry as a tool for tracing genealogy and possible genotypic pathology. What I suggest is that biological parents are listed as such, and in the case of one biological parent who forfeits rights (donors etc.) this is recorded. For all legal purposes the "legal guardian" section should take precedence of course, but I think we are having trouble with the psychological perception that "legal guardian" is a somewhat lesser title, which it shouldn't be. GlendaSings : 16 May 2012 7:16:00am As the adopted daughter of heterosexual parents, I absolutely and totally disagree with you. I was adopted at 5 weeks old, and it is my adoptive parents, not my biological parents, who appear on my birth certificate, and rightly so. Heterosexual couples who adopt today are also put on birth certificates. A woman can put any man who agrees on her child's birth certificate, even if he is not the biological parent, including if she has used a donor because her