The word Guardian has specific legal meanings. Taking my life as an example, I was never the Legal Guardian of The Frau's kids. So in my case, a form that has Guardian would not be of help to me.

A friend of ours and his partner adopted THREE older, hard-luck kids from the reservation (in a really bad situation). They adopted all three siblings so they'd have SOME continuity in their sh*tty lives. Now the kids are doing great, and will likely—like their parents—be successful professionals (one is an engineer for the labs, the other a dentist).

They have the disposable income to take their 3 kids abroad on vacation. Why should the form not allow for this?

Tempest, meet teapot.

:sign_yeah:

And this means what, exactly?

It means exactly that in many cases the technique goes before human interest

I still don't understand what you mean, could you paraphrase? I am not trying to be difficult here, just interested in what you are saying.

We live in a world that is changing,and although we not always welcome ideas which in this case, so they grow into society just like everything else,(and you must excuse) but when I'm doing a job I do not currently able to make a deep analysis of the situation, then you are not satisfied with the outcome of the results

Since several millenia mankind uses to think in terms of mother and father and child and family. Noticable rules of far-reaching adoptation, like in Rome for example or with certain Indian tribes, do not change that. But suddenly a going-mad Western mankind thinks it must take it upon itself to abandon a social concept that has proven its worth and value both for survival and for the interest of society since so long just to "prove" that women no ölonger are discriminated by being asspoicated with the mother-role and that they act as successfully and equal in the business world like men? Because that is what is really behind it: the ideologic desire to abandone motherhood in order to free women for the claim by emancipation. You can find this, hedged and encoded, both the the official description of policy for the running legislation period of the German family ministry run by the womean with the always present battle-smile, Ursula von der Leyen, and you also find it in the declaration of interior political goals for social policies on EU level.

BTW, there have been several people crossing my ways who were raised by stepfathers or stepmothers, and nevertheless called them, felt for them as and referred to them as their father or mother. Becasue the terms describes not so much a statistical observation of how man children ar raised by the biological or just social parents, but in the first the terms describe how somebody refers to and feels for a given women and man playing a role in his/her life, and it refers to the emotional binding and the social role model and the communal importance of having children raised not by state-run collectives or interest groups refered to as "Anonymous Parents" or "Elter in Neutrality", but by families.

We see our Wetsern cultural structure desintegrating since longer time now. We endlessly relativsde ourselves. We are being out in question by new challengers in the race. The conditions of the envrionment in whichg we live, raise certain indices indicating the conditions of our future survival to critical levels. We are demanded to apologise endlessly and feel guilty for the crimes coimmited by our forefathers. We want to be nice and demosntrate how tolerant we are even if that means to deny our own identity. We have plenty of academic brnches, namely social "sciences", pedagogic "science", psychology, wanting to maintain the fincial fundings and individual careers - and so need to endlessly produce fictional ideas and pseudo-theories in order to found an explanation and reason why they even exist, and so they theorise away like mad - in Germany, we can sing a song of that, for example regarding our school system and the Kultusministerkonferenz. The latter is not only incompetent, disconnected from reality, and a total disater - it'S existence even gets explained by several law experts as non-constitutional (ex-chancellor Helmut Schmidt also says that).

So: when seeing it in this context, and in the context of an ideologic drive to make woman, whether they want or not, to serve in a new social role-model, no longer as "mother" but as "female males", then it all nevertheless is still self-damaging and insane - but in the insane context as outlined above the insane thing - in a perverse way - suddenly makes a lot of sense.

Wow, changing innacuracies on a declaration is abandoning a social concept:doh:

So what?
Irrelevant nonsense, just like your "I knew two gays at school"

This is about an official declaration on an official document, it doesn't matter if you knew someone who called a stepmother a mother as its got bugger all to do with it as mother/father means something just as guardian means something.
What you are talking about is emotional attatchment which is about as relevant on a passport application as the size of their uncles left shoe(which according to secret EU legislation written in invisible ink on the back of the Lisbon dictat must now be included in all formal applications as your mother or fathers brothers shoe size is an important key in the deliberate dismantling of western society)

Appeal to tradition. You know better than this.

Yeah, when two men fall in love and want to marry they do it not for the same reason straight couples do, but to change the role of females in their society.

</derail>

No, it doesn't. In fact, can't make head nor tail of your post. It starts off vaguely related to the topic but then goes off on a rant about foreigners and political correctness and conspiracy theories.

[sigh]

For the x-thousandth time: a homosexual man cannot replace the role-model of a fem,ale mother, nor is a lesbian women capable to serve as a role model of a male.

And homosexual couples cannot and will not reproduce, their value for the community thus is zero, they are not capable to biologically contribute to the survial of the tribe, to put it in archaic language. Fopr soc iety it means nothing whether I have feiewnds or notr, wheter I have colleagues or not, and whether I live with another man or not. Only when I live with a women and their is the chance that we will raise kids by ourselves, we make a difference - beyond that, comosexual couples are as non-relevant to the survial interest of the comm unity as are us singles.

That you cannot understand the context in which I see the relativising of the mother-role (some emancipatory activists even still think that every coitus is a demonstration of males subjugating females, and all that nonsenes...), and how ideologic leftist camps try to demonstrate enforced equality between genders by destroying the traditional roles of fathers and mothers so that the gender-component gets ignored, does not automatically mean that you lack of understanding indicates that I have it wrong. Maybe you simply are not capable to see it, or you simply do not wish to see it, for whatever your motives are. ;)

Last I checked humanity was in no risk of going extinct due to lack of reproduction.
Other than that the so called traditional roles are a relatively new thing as fas as the history of humanity is concerned. And equality is not enforced, only made possible. There is a HUGE chasm of a difference here.

This isn't about the relative effectiveness of different parenting scenarios, it's about a FORM that must include options that exist to properly categorize the people in question.

Divorce and remarriage is also an issue. In addition to "parent" there should probably be some indication of the relatedness of them biologically. Why? Because in case of some mishap, the passport data might be all authorities have to ID a body. Knowing if Parent 2 is biologically related (instead of perhaps being dad #3 or something with multiple divorces not at all uncommon) would be useful (they find the body of parent 2 but are trying to ID others based on DNA alone, for example—if parent 2 is unrelated to any of the kids that will be fruitless).

Anyway, it's just a form, and there are MANY scenarios where the "parent" might not be the mother or father (could be the grandparents, in fact).

:agree:

This. In a perfect society we wouldn't even need any equality legislation.

Even so, the 'disappearance' of traditional roles/values/techniques that is often so bemoaned in certain circles has in areas other than marriage often led to innovation and actually led to progress in human society. Modern science anyone?

I don't think any "equality" legislation is needed, actually (in terms of sexual orientation). Personally, I think as long as the State doesn't hold them to any different standard than anyone else (and they don't, any man has the same right to marry a woman that I do, neither of us has the right to marry another man, we are entirely equal), there's nothing to see. Regarding "marriage," my personal feeling is that "marriage" is well defined in common law as a male/female pair bonding. I would vote "yes" on a ballot tomorrow for a "civil union" law, and might even do so if it was called "marriage" though I think that that word already has a very specific meaning. What gay couples need is the cheap, durable legal rights that marriage gives "off the shelf," from the county clerk—the word is just a word.