This one's for Goofball...

Sorry guys, don't have time to read & respond to threads in here. Quite a bit going on at work these days, but please don't think I'm ignorning you in other threads. However, I saw this article, and I just couldn't resist....

Last summer, when the whole gay marriage in Massachussets debate was taking place, I said legally, I didn't see how we could refuse homosexuals the right to marraige, but that I was concerned that gay marriage wasn't an end in itself, it was just one step towards re-defining traditional marriage and families. Goofball called me chicken little & a homophobe and said I was being silly, that the right to get married was all they wanted.

Well, sir, I beg to differ. Now, in Massachussets, they are seeking to render inert the terms 'mother' and 'father' and force the state to use the terms 'Parent A' and 'Parent B', because the possiblity exists for them to create children.
Don't you EVER DARE use the term 'father' around me again, you homophobic hatemonger!!!

You know, if you on the Left really want us to believe you're taking a moderate position on an issue, you ought to quit while you're ahead. Legally redefining birth certificates because they offend homosexuals is ridiculous. Do we really need to redefine every aspect of our social structures to accomodate them? Should we make it illegal for me to refer to the woman I'm married to as my 'wife', and maybe force me to refer to her as my 'heterosexual female spouse'? Crap, now I'm giving you ideas... :furious3:

Holy crap. This is unbelievable.

I saw this last night. As I said in the other thread, its stuff like this that makes people hate gays..

Oh and Goofy is experiencing the wonderful little communist paradise we call Cuba for a few weeks.

You really have problems over there. ~D Panzer, why don't you come back to good ole Europe? ~:cheers:

its stuff like this that makes people hate gays.
Hey, there are idiots all over, no reason to hate all gays.

Absurd story.

But quite frankly - and not wanting to offend our US patrons - this nonsense is more typical for the US than it is for gays.

Some people do not seem to have enough real problems to worry about if they can spend time on such "problems"...


But then ... considering this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Panzerjager

its stuff like this that makes people hate gays

---

it seems that other people have too much time at their hands as well. If such silly stuff makes people "hate" gays, than those people have a serious attitude problem.

I couldn't agree more Ser Clegnane. I made that point with the gay marriage debate in summer 2004 also. I wasn't making a statement on gays, but Americans (who happen to be gay) that we tend to take everything to the extreme. Just look at our abortion policy, and that has as little to do with gay couples as one could possibly imagine. (Actually, I shouldn't say things like that. This is America. I could see a gay couple getting impregnated, then insisting on their 'right to choose' to end the pregnancy, just to prove a point).

The problem with America is that unlike other countries, where the 'slippery slope' is a scare tactic, here it's the law of the jungle.

Quote:

---

Panzer, why don't you come back to good ole Europe?

---

Business. I seem to be more suited to the USA anyway, ive got more of a pre-war German mentality than post-war, and that doesnt work very well over there.

Quote:

---

it seems that other people have too much time at their hands as well. If such silly stuff makes people "hate" gays, than those people have a serious attitude problem.

---

Its more of a compilation of many, many incidents such as the one described in Don's article. They keep trying to throw their weight around in the political arena and one day theyre going to get burned for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The problem with America is that unlike other countries, where the 'slippery slope' is a scare tactic, here it's the law of the jungle.

---

The more I see these cases, the more I understand the "slippery slope" argument that I used to discount as a "buzzword" - it actually seems to be a valid argument here.

Quite scary that a couple of fools manage to polarize the society in a lot of issues when the vast majority of the US poplulation most likely would be willing and able to compromise and just get along...

Do you think that this also has to do with the legal system where precedences play an important role?

Actually I´m not sure whether I understand that article right. Gov. Romney said ""Look, each child has a mother and a father. They should have the right to have that mother and father known to them and that's something I'd like to preserve on a birth certificate."
But that isn`t correct. The child of a gay couple obviously hasn`t a mother and a father, but either two fathers or two mothers. The source of this debate seems to be that the governer wants the certificates to be nonsensical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

But that isn`t correct. The child of a gay couple obviously hasn`t a mother and a father, but either two fathers or two mothers. The source of this debate seems to be that the governer wants the certificates to be nonsensical.

---

Depends how this birth certificates defines "mother" and "father" - from a biological point of view every child certainly has a mother and father (and IIRC that's what's entered in a birth certificate - not the people who raise a child ... but I could be wrong of course)

The Gov ordered the hostpital to simply scratch out the offending term and replace it with a second "mother" or "father" since its such a small amount of people doing this.

The argument is whether the state should change its birth certificate to pander to gay rights advocates... or thats how I understand it.

Just to muddy these waters a bit more: in California, only the Mother's name is required on the birth certificate (there is a space for 'father', but it may be left blank, legally). I don't know what we'll do when a fetus/baby can (someday) gestate entirely outside an actual woman's body.

Pray for the baby, of course.

Ser Clegnane,
In terms of judges issuing fiats from the bench, I definitely believe a precedent based system such as ours leads to this. That's how American judges make their mark in the law books.... who can come up with such an outrageous ruling that it will set a new precedent, yet has enough theoretical legal merit that it cannot be overturned on appeal which can only be done on technical grounds, appelate courts aren't allowed to weigh the merits of an argument.

Whether that is what drives the various 'nutjob' factions within society, such as the Gay & Lesbian Advocacy and Defense group in this story (or Focus on the Family for that matter), I cannot say. For a 'free society', we spend entirely too much time and effort forcing all corners of society to adopt extreme positions, we don't seem very happy to live and let live, with a compromise position, as you pointed out.

Perhaps, in light of this, some of you in Europe & Canada can begin to understand WHY judicial activism is such a boogey man over here. My prediction is that within 6 months, a Massachussets judge is going to order Governor Romney to strike the terms 'mother' and 'father' from all legal documents in the state, and no, I'm not creating straw men. The argument will be that 'mother' and 'father' force gender roles upon parents that may or may not be appropriate, and as long as one couple has two male or female parents, nobody should be allowed to use the terms indicating one parent of each gender.

Saturnus, everyone has one male and one female chromosonal parent. As much as gay advocacy groups may like to abuse children by forcing them to be ignorant of their genetic history, it's a well established precedent in medical ethics that people have a right to know what genetic illnesses you're predisoposed to. See, two of us can use the extreme rhetoric, which I was actually trying to avoid...nonsensical indeed.

Equally importantly Kurkri, how will we generate a birth certificate for a clone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Absurd story.

But quite frankly - and not wanting to offend our US patrons - this nonsense is more typical for the US than it is for gays.

Some people do not seem to have enough real problems to worry about if they can spend time on such "problems"...


But then ... considering thisit seems that other people have too much time at their hands as well. If such silly stuff makes people "hate" gays, than those people have a serious attitude problem.

---

Hit the nail on the head. I could not believe the crap last year during our #%* election about this stuff.

But anyway, I really like this from that article:

Quote:

---

"There's no need for the governor to be stigmatizing the children born to same-sex couples just because he does not personally approve of same-sex couples," Granda said.

---

Last time I checked..you require a male and a female to have a child "born" to a couple...

But maybe that is just the hate-monger in me...

Also, I talked to a gay friend of mine last night. He thinks this is ludicrous too. But then...he also does not want kids. (Good thing huh?)

Azi

Quote:

---

Saturnus, everyone has one male and one female chromosonal parent. As much as gay advocacy groups may like to abuse children by forcing them to be ignorant of their genetic history, it's a well established precedent in medical ethics that people have a right to know what genetic illnesses you're predisoposed to. See, two of us can use the extreme rhetoric, which I was actually trying to avoid...nonsensical indeed.

---

Well, actually, not necessarily so. It would be technically possible to insert the core of an ovum into a sperm. That way two women could infact get a child that is biological theirs. It would be female of course. Though probably the question would rise whether this doesn`t discriminate gays. Or men in general.
But of course, all birth certificates should be equal. If it´s usually the name of the biological parents that stands there, we don´t have an issue.

That's true Saturnus, they have done that with rats(or something), where they take to females and make an offspring. It's a complicated process, but it has worked. It's all in the trickery of the technical side of ensemination.

Insert the core of an ovum into a sperm..... hmm, where did that sperm come from? Wouldn't that make 3 parents?

Quote:

---

But of course, all birth certificates should be equal. If it´s usually the name of the biological parents that stands there, we don´t have an issue.

---

Who's we? Regardless of whether you're gay or not, I seriously doubt this a major legal issue in Germany or Belgium, as when it comes to matters like this, most European countries are sensible enough to find the middle ground. Outlawing the terms 'mother' and 'father' seems like a uniquely American expression of 'equality'.

Quote:

---

Insert the core of an ovum into a sperm..... hmm, where did that sperm come from? Wouldn't that make 3 parents?

---

Not really-the baby wouldn't have any generic material from the sperm.

That's not what I asked. Where would you get the sperm from? Can two women create a baby on their own, with absolutely no input from men? For that matter, can two men, with no input from women? We can be as PC as we want to here guys, the way science stands right now, at least one man and one woman are required to finish the job.

I was responding to your 'Would that make three parents?' question. As far as I'm aware, you have to contribute genetic material to be a parent. I agree that you would need a man, at least until we find some way of cloning sperm.

It depends on how you define biological parent. If it's '1/2 of the chromosonal material's donor', you're correct. But doesn't that make the term surrogate mother an oxymoron? Shouldn't we call her what she is, uterus for rent? What's more, doesn't that now mean that men and women should have identical parental rights, as by using your defintion, they have each contributed to 'parenthood' equally?

If you define parenthood as 'required participant for the birth of a human child', then my statement holds up (and no, neither doctor's nor midwives are required, strictly speaking). What's more, with this defintion, the preferential custody the American (and I assume European) court systems offer mothers makes sense, as she was 'more of a participant' in the birth of the human child than the father was.

Quote:

---

But doesn't that make the term surrogate mother an oxymoron? Shouldn't we call her what she is, uterus for rent?

---

That's a bit cold, but I wouldn't call her a parent of the child she gives birth to. To be a child's biological parent, the child should have to be your biological child-and I would argue that our sperm donor here is thus not the child's parent-it is not related to him in any way. It would be ridiculous if he tried to seek custody of the child, for example

The preferential custody thing, I think, is based more on societies hang-ups about the roles of parents. I favour a more scientific definition of parenthood however.

Okay, BKS, have it your way. Parenthood is about nothing more than finding genetic donors. I believe we should stop all this adoption foolishness at once, as regardless of who actually cares for you, that drunken frat boy in the back seat of a car will always be your father.... :dizzy2:

Personally, I see little of how this has to do with outlawing the terms 'mother' and 'father', but by all means, feel free to continue discussing how genetic material donation is the only acceptable definition of parenthood. By the way, does that make DNA altering viruses your new parent?

Quote:

---

Parenthood is about nothing more than finding genetic donors. I believe we should stop all this adoption foolishness at once, as regardless of who actually cares for you, that drunken frat boy in the back seat of a car will always be your father....

---

We were talking about biological parents, were we not? In which case, yes, that drunken fratboy will always be your father. That may have been an incorrect assumption on my part. I simply wanted to assert that this sperm donor fellow would not be a biological parent of the child he helped to create.

Well, you make a good point, said drunken frat boy will always be your biological father, regardless of whether he ever has anything to do with you again or not. You've got a good point there, I got sloppy.

I still am going to have to agree to disagree with you on the defintion of biological parent though. I think 'required participant for reproduction of species' makes a better one than 'genetic donor'. Beyond the example of viruses, what about other things that alter your DNA in ways seen in neither your biological mother or fath.. (oops, I'm stinkin homophobe, sorry), seen in neither Parent A or Parent B. Would a microwave become your third parent? A particularly nasty form of cancer? They're all contributing to your genetic material in unique ways...

Well, I suppose you would say that the virus/cancer only altered the genetic material, rather than contributing it. That is rather weak, however.

As an aside, if two women did manage to have a baby in the way we're discussing, I think Mother and Mother sounds much better than Parent A and Parent B.

WOW, Don, talk about not making any sense. :dizzy2:

We are made out of the genetic material of two people, how the genetic material was formed is completely irrelevent. What part of that is unclear?

You stinkin homophobe you!!!

Seriously, as Ser Clegnane had to say earlier, this is a story much much more about the American need to drive an issue well beyond the bounds of any reason than it does with any particular sub-group in American society. It is a shame though, because we wind up letting the lunatics run the asylum, and the most extreme, most outrageous, most bizarre view on one side or the other wind up being the two camps we're allowed to choose from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

WOW, Don, talk about not making any sense. :dizzy2:

We are made out of the genetic material of two people, how the genetic material was formed is completely irrelevent. What part of that is unclear?

---

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.

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 ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Absurd story.

But quite frankly - and not wanting to offend our US patrons - this nonsense is more typical for the US than it is for gays.

Some people do not seem to have enough real problems to worry about if they can spend time on such "problems"...


But then ... considering thisit seems that other people have too much time at their hands as well. If such silly stuff makes people "hate" gays, than those people have a serious attitude problem.

---

Just saw that.

*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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Last summer, when the whole gay marriage in Massachussets debate was taking place, I said legally, I didn't see how we could refuse homosexuals the right to marraige, but that I was concerned that gay marriage wasn't an end in itself, it was just one step towards re-defining traditional marriage and families. Goofball called me chicken little & a homophobe and said I was being silly, that the right to get married was all they wanted.

Well, sir, I beg to differ. Now, in Massachussets, they are seeking to render inert the terms 'mother' and 'father' and force the state to use the terms 'Parent A' and 'Parent B', because the possiblity exists for them to create children.

---

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.

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.

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.

---

That makes sense. I don't like the circumstances behind such a move, but that's a different debate.

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.

---

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 Gawain of Orkeny

So on a on a gay couples BC it would say father and father ? This cant be.

---

Why not?

Quote:

---

Why not?

---

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?

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.

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?

---

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 Don Corleone

But I'm not making a slippery slope. The lawsuit is seeking to delagilize the terms mother & father.

---

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

That's gay advocacy groups forcing the rest of society to adhere to their rules.

---

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

I agree the governor's solution was insensitive, but why do they have to outlaw the terms father and mother?

---

They aren't. That is nothing more than emotional hyperbole on your part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I told you this would happen, and you said I was imagining it.

---

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?

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"

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.

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

So you have no problems with the law forcing your children to call you Parent B, huh?

---

Yes, I do, which is why I said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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.

---

See?

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Look, I agree homosexuals have a right to be who they are. But don't I have a right to be straight?

---

Only if you can convince someone else to be straight with you...

~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.

---

Two issues with that statement:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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.

---

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.

---

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

Now if they are adaopted by a unconventional family do you want to throw away the original certifacate and issue a new one?

---

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?