This one's for Goofball...

[Don Corleone]

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...

[Meneldil]

Holy crap. This is unbelievable.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[Franconicus]

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

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

[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 this

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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

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.

[Ser Clegane]

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?

[A.Saturnus]

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.

[Ser Clegane]

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)

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[KukriKhan]

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.

[Franconicus]

Pray for the baby, of course.

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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

[Azi Tohak]

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:

"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

[A.Saturnus]

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.

[Byzantine Prince]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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

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'.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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....

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?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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...

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

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.

[Byzantine Prince]

WOW, Don, talk about not making any sense.

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?

[Don Corleone]

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.