Mookie, I think you could use a little help in defining bigotry, as it certainly isn't terminology on a document that identifies a child's parents as "mother" and "father", unless you think that nature really screwed up on that one.

To be honest, I don't see this change as an issue. But it IS yet another example of the minority's imposition of political correctness through obfuscation and dilution of meaning for the sole purpose of avoiding unintentional insult to those who find offense in the traditions of the majority.

So, yet again, we decide to bow to such petty demands rather than insisting that those whiney, self-important, easily-offended individuals grow thicker skin.

Why is it that we insist on changing how the MAJORITY percieves the world rather than insisting the the minority try to simply UNDERSTAND that most of us have different values?

Fill in the blanks and get on with it. Jesu Christo, does every little thing in life have to be so difficult? :doh:

Yea I agree. I see "Parent or Guardian" on a lot of forms and it makes sense, not everyone was raised by their parents.

For example I was raised mostly by my grandmother until I was about 10.

I actually see people getting tattoos' of bar codes stamped on there arms... hmmm didn't someone do this already?... Oh wait my bad..:nope: They put GPS chips in you or soon will... ya...:doh::stare: hopeless..

Oh ****, the world is changing, doom must be upon us all! Give me a ****ing break.

This is just the beginning....

As opposed to a couple of cardinals accused of buggery?:doh:

Given the bitter nature of some break ups and custody battles you can imagine the complaints recieved from parents who see someone else listed as the mother/father of their child.

What has this to do with PC? If someone is not the mother/father of a child they should not be listed as the mother/father, it isn't Political Correctness it is just correct.
If you want traditions of the majority you would amend the page to include all the various traditional titles for someone who is not actually the childs mother/father

personally, I actually want to hear what these guys would like to say about this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOrz5...eature=related
troll warning

the Westboro Baptist Church, the world's biggest trolls without question. the third man, you should watch and learn

I took TDW's little rant as being against gay marriage/gay couples adopting a kid. That's what I was going for there.

The answer to irrational bigotry and intolerance isn't for the victim to grow thicker skin.

Because hate isn't a value. And as I've said before, if the majority doesn't want to recognize the worth and value and equality of human beings just because they're gay, then yes, that idea needs to be rammed into their heads. Civil rights trudges on, no matter how much people kick and scream and wail against it.

Off-the-cuff reply fueled by intolerance and ignorance: Nuanced, rational reply:
What a difference between the two. See, folks, sometimes it pays to lay down your zealotry, take a deep breath, and think before you post.

Oh, the irony :) .
That was my first thought as well:rotfl2:.

Yeah, there's that, too.

Whoda thunk it, future society will not remain stagnating in its current state, but it will be different, that is something completely unprecedented in the last 10,000 or so years of written history.:shifty:

It is in line with allowing a married woman to keep her sirname on legal and other forms. I was married in 1978 in California where that was recognized, but other states and business forms had no provision for it. The world survived somehow. This is a non-issue.

We're doomed:-?

In fact, occasionally these things get suggested. In all seriousness. For example, one argument to raise a smoke screen is to have an ID and banking chip in your hand, so that you can pay by laying your hand onto the sanner, and that'S it.

Technique is refined and it is something that will shape society, regardless of what citizens have to comment