'Mother,' 'Father' Changing to 'Parent One,' 'Parent Two' on Passport Applications

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by TheDarkWraith

complete and utter breakdown of American society. Pretty soon robots will be able to be your parents also? What happened to core values, morals, and 'complete' families? Yes I'm an American but every year I see this country going deeper and deeper down the crapper

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

[antikristuseke]

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

[Gerald]

This is just the beginning....

In a lose context, some days ago two Catholic German cardinals have accused the PC crowd of wanting to homosexualise mankind.

As opposed to a couple of cardinals accused of buggery?

Don't assume this is in response to homosexual couples

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.

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.

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

[the_tyrant]

personally, I actually want to hear what these guys would like to say about this:
troll warning

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

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Vendor

This is just the beginning....

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.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

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.

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

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Vendor

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

And this means what, exactly?

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

And this means what, exactly?

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

[Aramike]

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

Fair enough.

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

Why not?

If the "irrational bigotry" you're referring to merely is using traditional terms such as "mother" and "father", than again, why not?

Because hate isn't a value.

Disagreement and opposition isn't necessarily hate, either.

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.

If by "value" you mean generically human life, I would agree with you. If by "value" you mean one's abilities to perform functions, either by biological imperative or one's ideological leanings, such values SHOULD be questioned.

Not doing so is along the same lines as allowing people with horrible eyesight to fly airplanes in the name of civil rights, which makes no sense.

Civil rights trudges on, no matter how much people kick and scream and wail against it.

Civil rights are indeed important, but they shouldn't fly in the face of pragmatic sensibilities nor preclude discussion of an individual's fitness regarding the ability to engage in society's most important functions. And, being a member of a larger subgroup does, in some ways, define the individual. If those particular definitions are seen as detrimental to certain functions, engagement in those functions should be examined.

[Skybird]

The family (mother, father, children) is under expliciut special protection by the state - so it is ruled black on white in the German constitgution. It is intentionally given a special status, due to the importance of it for the communal wellbeing and future survival.

If now the term family gets watered down and desribes non-families as well, relations that do not have the capoability to contribute to the communal interest by producing new kids and future tax payers paying for the old, then this can be achieved by two ways: the special legal status of families gets destzroiyed, or it gets relativiised by lifting other couple rerlations of homosexual natuzre to the same legal status . Both is what is being done. Which is a breaking of the constitution, in case you have not noted it, becasaue the constitution rules, for good and sane and vital reasons, that families are not to be seen as equal as other social relations, both as being of higher importance. This additionally is also due to the keeping of the interest of the weakest, the children.

Giving homosexuals the same legal status and tax privileges like families, and claiming they are of the same value for the community, is discrimination of singles, colleagues and social friendships. If homosexuals now are treated the same way as hetereosexual couples, although they do not controibute anything more to the community than twio individual persons ´not reproduzcing and not raising a family, then I demand the same legal status and the same tax privileges for people like me: singles.

Which still would be a breaking of the constitution.

You can argue that men and women are not equal as long as women have no penisses and men have no breasts, and you can cry wolf over black snot being white and whites not being black, and that it is not erquality as long as they all are not light brown. But it is absurd. It is as absurd as claiming that it is a thing of euqlaity that hetereo and homo couples must be treated the same, and are of the same benefit for the community. They are not, and it does nothing for a community whether or not to homsexual people live together or not. Couples reproducing and educating chiuldren in our shrinkling and over-aging Wetsenr societies - that is what it is about. And youz cannot argue around the basic design nature has decided for ther bluieprio9nt of the human species. Homosexcualisity is a reality, but it is not the norm, and it is not the way survival mof the species was meant to be acchived by. And in this understanding, homosexuality is not "norm al", and never will be. A homosexual population of any sypecies - dies within two generations. Period. Is that fair or unfair? Honestely said, nature doesn'T ask you for your ideas of fairness. Man is a heterosexual species. That's
how he is meant to be, to live, to survive as a species. Live with it.

A homosexual couple is of no more value to the community than is the single living. So why should the one be given the same special status like families, and the other not? Why should any of the two be given the same status like families/hetero couples, when none of the two do contributes as much to the community, as families do, invests as much in timer and money, and securess the future survival of the community by producing and educating kids??

I am against singles like me being given the same tax status and benfits and the same legal status, like families. And for the same reasons I am strictly against giving homosexual couples these benefits and rewards. I qwould contraqdict myself if I will it for the one, and exlcude it for the other. So I rule it out for both - for the sake of families still being recognised as something special that is more important than singles, and homosexual relations.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Vendor

This is just the beginning....

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.

[Safe-Keeper]

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.

We're doomed

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Wolfehunter

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

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.