Printable View
Well, wait a minute here... actually, this isn't true either. If we adopt your defintion, clones will never be human. And as I pointed out, the two biological parents are not the sole contributors of unique genetic material.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Aside from which, BP, I dare you to kiss 'Parent A' goodnight tonight and refer to her as such. ~;)
HOW DO SAME SEX COUPLE HAVE KIDS WITH EACH OTHER???????
Seriously! I mean... OH MY GOD! TRANSVESTITES!
Please turn off the CAP LOCKS Kaiser...
I haven't seen Goofy around so much. I hope nothing happened to him (unless it was good).
Thas because hes in Cuba which gives even more cause for concern ~;)
Just saw that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
*smites* I feel better.
Anyway, it does seem typical for the more liberal states (i.e. the Non-South.) Seriously, we need to stop this crap and start persecuting people!
Bump, cause I think Goofy missed this while receiving his secret orders from Fidel....
Hmm... What have we here? Gay marriage thread, eh?
*walks in, kicks tires, opens and closes doors, plays with the power mirrors*
Not bad. Let's take this baby for a test drive...
Well, having read the article Don, I have to say that I still think you're being silly and trying to make the proverbial slope much more slippery than it actually is. They are in no way trying to "render inert the terms 'mother' and 'father'." They are simply seeking acknowledgement that their non-traditional families are valid and because of that they should not have to manually scratch out and modify standard government forms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Having said that, I think both parties in question (the Mass. Governor and the gay rights advocacy group) are also being silly. If I read this right, the gay advocacy group wants birth certificate application forms to have boxes labelled "Parent A" and "Parent B" rather than "Mother" and "Father." The Governor, OTOH, wants same sex couples to simply scratch out the word "Mother" or "Father" as appropriate, and manually write in "Parent A" or "Parent B," or whatever the hell they want, for that matter. Both options are stupid, and here's why:
The gay advocacy group's plan is bad because it does not acknowledge that there are many traditional couples who place great emotional importance on having the terms "Mother" and "Father" applied to themselves with reference to their children. "Parent A" and "Parent B" are cold, clinical terms, and don't adequately describe the parent/child relationship.
The Governor's plan sucks because it does not acknowledge that same-sex couples are a legal reality in his state, and there will now be parents who don't fit into the traditional father/mother mold. Forcing these couples to scratch out entries on legal forms is demeaning and annoying, and just one more little reminder that some people don't accept them, don't like them, and don't want to do anything that might help them enjoy a little happiness in life.
Here is the Goofball solution to the problem:
On the birth certificate application form, there should be one box for each parent to fill in their name. The boxes should be labeled "Parent A" and "Parent B." However, below each box should be another box that says "Relationship to Child?" where each parent can write in "Mother" or "Father." Then, when the actual birth certificate is printed, it would list each parent's name, and also whatever they indicated, either "Mother" or "Father." This way, tradition families' birth certificates would have one parent listed as "Mother" and one as "Father," while non-traditional families could have both listed as "Mother" or "Father" as appropriate.
That makes sense. I don't like the circumstances behind such a move, but that's a different debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
So on a on a gay couples BC it would say father and father ? This cant be. Same for women. Mother and Mother? ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Here is the Goofball solution to the problem:
On the birth certificate application form, there should be one box for each parent to fill in their name. The boxes should be labeled "Parent A" and "Parent B." However, below each box should be another box that says "Relationship to Child?" where each parent can write in "Mother" or "Father." Then, when the actual birth certificate is printed, it would list each parent's name, and also whatever they indicated, either "Mother" or "Father." This way, tradition families' birth certificates would have one parent listed as "Mother" and one as "Father," while non-traditional families could have both listed as "Mother" or "Father" as appropriate.
Why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
It may be ok if they adopt the child but what if one of them is the actual parent of the child? Besides that you said on the BC. No men I know of have been able to produce a child yet so how would they get their names on the BC. What do you intend to do with the original and real parents?Quote:
Why not?
I actually don't have a problem with mother & mother, or father & father. It reflects the role, not the biology, and I'm okay with that. But I'm not making a slippery slope. The lawsuit is seeking to delagilize the terms mother & father. That's gay advocacy groups forcing the rest of society to adhere to their rules. I agree the governor's solution was insensitive, but why do they have to outlaw the terms father and mother? I told you this would happen, and you said I was imagining it. Now that it's happen, you're saying 'aww what's the big deal". That's exactly how slipperly slopes go.
As far as I'm concerned, the "real" parents are the ones who are going to love, raise, support, and nurture the child. If that happens to be two fathers or two mothers, so be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Sorry, Don, I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but I just re-read the article twice and not only could I not find any evidence that the gay advocates are trying to "delegalize" the terms mother and father, but I couldn't even find any mention of this lawsuit you are referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Sorry again Don, but these are not just the "gays' rules," but the rules of all the people of Massachusets since gay marriage is legal there. Since this is so, birth certificates should be able to reflect non-traditional couples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
They aren't. That is nothing more than emotional hyperbole on your part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Sorry, but what exactly did you tell me would happen? That even if gays are legally allowed to marry people will still try to find ways to harass and belittle them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Yes, I agree.
So you have no problems with the law forcing your children to call you Parent B, huh? All in the name of 'diversity'. Look, I agree homosexuals have a right to be who they are. But don't I have a right to be straight? Aren't I allowed to live my life in the way I desire? Do they really need to force my children to call me Parent B because they find the term father offensive? God man, wake up. Even most homosexuals don't support this. I know, I talk to them quite a bit about it. This is the lunatic fringe of their world, and you're in lock step with them.
Here is NZ, these type of laws are part of a "bigger" agenda set by our social-liberal government.
1) Civil Union (Gay Marriage)
2) Relationships Act (De Facto Marriage)
Thought by some to be coming up
1) Gays allowed to adopt
2) Transgender Act (Change Birth Certificate Sex)
I am sure there are more. On these points I lean with the "conservatives"
Your not addressing my question. I dont know how it is in Canada but here in the US your birth certificate is given to the parents by the hospital when the child is born. Now if they are adaopted by a unconventional family do you want to throw away the original certifacate and issue a new one? Isnt the idea of a BC to say who your biological parents are and where their from and where you were born. Its not to make you someones property. The adoption papers do that.Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, the "real" parents are the ones who are going to love, raise, support, and nurture the child. If that happens to be two fathers or two mothers, so be it.
Yes, I do, which is why I said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
See?Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
I know I move pretty fast sometimes, but try and stay with me Don.
~;)
And anyway, you know very well that that is not what this story is about. Nobody is trying to pass a law saying that children have to call their parents "Parent A" and "Parent B." Again, you are guilty of something that starts with "h" and ends with "yperbole."
Only if you can convince someone else to be straight with you...Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
~D
Two issues with that statement:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
1) I don't believe the gay rights group finds the terms father and mother offensive, nor do I believe that they are trying to ban either term. They (as I have said over and over again) simply want to address the fact that current birth certificates don't allow for the fact that a child may have two fathers or two mothers, so at this point same sex couples are being left out in the cold.
2) Please re-read my posts. I am not in "lock-step" with any fringe groups. I simply believe that a same sex couple should be able to have both of their names listed on their child's birth certificate (if that state requires the parents' names to be so listed) and should be able to call themselves "Mother," "Father," "Parent A" or "Parent B," as they so desire. Your efforts to paint me as an advicate of banning the terms "Mother" and "Father" and of forcing hetero couples to be labelled "Parent A" and "Parent B" are nothing more than a cheap way to score emotional points in this debate.
I can't speak for all provinces, but as far as I know, birth certificates in Ontario and British Columbia list only the child's name, the city, the province and date of the birth. The parents' names don't even appear on the actual certificate, and are only kept in the records offices of whatever government department (I believe in British Columbia it's the Ministry of Children and Families) keeps track of such things, mainly to keep biological parents' names confidential in the event of adoptions, I believe. So the Massachusets debate would be a moot point here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I would say yes. Whether the child is adopted by an unconventional family or a traditional one, is it fair that that child may one day get the news that they are adopted by seeing a name other than their parents' on their birth certificate? Also, as a birth certificate is often a child's only form of identification until they are old enough to drive, is it fair that the kid's adopted parents should have to go through a big song and dance, explaining why they appear to have stolen somebody else's child every time they have to do any paperwork for the kid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny