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

[Lord Justice]

Have to ask sir SS, with much observation toward tom petty quote, sig. (wont back down) then do you retreat ? or might I put it, withdraw? I have witnessed on occasion if you sir, are proven wrong, or outmatched you simply push on and dont respond, (on occasion) would that be backing down even if tempered? I see no shame to back down or walk away, sometimes it can be most advantageous, thus I find your sig quote like mine most err mixed and intresting.

[Sailor Steve]

I've been wrong on many ocassions, and every time I've apologised and admitted my error. In fact I go into every argument with the attitude that I might be wrong this time too, and very few things annoy me more than people who "know" that they're right (witness my reaction to posters here whose sole contributions are confined to rants against the "other side"). The only thing I won't back down from is my conviction that no one holds a monopoly on the truth, and those who act as if they do are the most dangerous people alive.

As to Tom Petty? I just liked the quote.

[Lord Justice]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I've been wrong on many ocassions, and every time I've apologised and admitted my error. In fact I go into every argument with the attitude that I might be wrong this time too, and very few things annoy me more than people who "know" that they're right (witness my reaction to posters here whose sole contributions are confined to rants against the "other side"). The only thing I won't back down from is my conviction that no one holds a monopoly on the truth, and those who act as if they do are the most dangerous people alive.

As to Tom Petty? I just liked the quote.

Indeed, I am fond of it too, thank you, well said, and truth be told at times I march with you on your right flank! depending of course wich angle you direct.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Gammelpreusse

You can repeat that often as you want. Relativism simply does not fit here. It's a non argument, completely pulled out of the water, without any kind of logical connection to reality.

OIh, it is logical, perfectly. You cannot define any quality like "better" or "slower" in without refering to any kind of standard, or its opposite: "worse", "faster". You cannot explain what "up" means when there is no "down", it becomes pointless. And the value of an institution is not set per se, but is defined by comparing its relative value to other institutions or items, and if the comparison shows that there is no difference between them in value, then the one cannot be superior in recognition/value than the other. That is so logical that one needs to actively wishging not to admit it in order to say it is not true. And the point is, that I insist on allowing families and heterosexual couples that special status. It is being eroded already muc h enough.

Love is not a matter of relativism, it simply is, and marriage is a conclusion out of that emotion.

Do we shall count for how many centuries and millenia it was much different and love was rfeplaced by finacial interests and economic conerns. Marriage in the first is an economic community, and was born from this, it was about "Arbeitsteilung", and peope being broiught togtehr often were married withoiut love having much to do with it.

But admitted, today we enjoy the luxuary to mostly marry for emotional reasons. But these emoptions aree not caused by marriage, and they are being felt no matter whether you are married or not. in this meaning, love has little to do with my argument. It is about the social function of the institution of marriage. Can you please try to fginally understand this diufference? I have indicated that so many times now.

A law code needs to serve as an orientation for the most cases taking place, that'S why it rules for example that the maximum speed inside cities is such and suc h, no matter that occaisonally there is a medical emergency that reocmmends to drive faster. Laws need to prioritize , and they need to weigh interests of the few versus interests of the many. Also, bureaucratic effort should be minimised, by avoiding and endless chain of exceptions from the rules (ideally). So, it is found that homosexual couples cannot produce babies, neither can singles do that, but that where there are heterosexual couples you have by far the highest hit chance for babies becoming the result - sometimes wanted, sometimes unwanted and by surprise. The consequences are far-leading and reach 18, 20, 25 years into the future. Ergo: you recognise that heterosexual relations between - loving or non-loving - partners living in relations are the norm, and possibly could see the prouction of babies, or have had babies. This is what makes heterosexual couples superior in importance to singles and gay couples. You grant them tax reliefs and certain privileges to encourage especially ypoung people to chose this way of living (so that not the state has to pay for the education of children). You additonally grant financial bonusses when there are children, and pay a bonus per baby-head. The babies grow. The get jobs. They pay taxes, they fill the jobs the own economy demands to be manned.

Thjat's why the family understood and defined as it was comon for long long times, is the social core cell of our social communities, thjat is what makes it so vital for all, and more important than any other form of partnerships.

Yes, I know, not all couples have had children or will have children. But the chance is always there, even by accident. And children never get produced by singles and gay couples. The evolutional role model for human families
is one female, one male, optional children. Like incest sooner or later creates dmatic disadvanatges for the communty by damaging its gene-pool, so it got tabood (?) , so the general understanding in most cultures of the past 3000 years has been that marriage means not brother and sister like the pharaoes did, and means not two men or two women like it is wanted now, but this: one male (doing the heavy work on the field when the women is prganant, and meeting the dangeporus animals in the kungle when hunting), one female doing the work inside the home, and during prgannacy tghe lighter work, else the sees a higher risk for giving biorth too ealry or to a dead baby. Arbeitsteilung.

Marriage in the first has economic motives. And registered poartnerships there alredy are, what they demand when calling for marriage status is economic advanatges like normal couples have them, and families. It's about material reasons for the most! Me and my girl back then, we had no material reasons to worry about, at least back then. Marriage was no issue for us, therefore, being married or not did not effect our emotional relation.

But being married certainly makes certain child-related necessities mandatory. Which is in the interest of the child, the weakest player in all this. It may also help coupels that are in a crisis to live thporugh it and stay together, trying to find solutions, instead of just easily walking away.

That many mothers raise their chiuldren alone, and are too young, is a deformation. And it costs the community money, much money - more money then we can afford, burdened with debts and demands that we already are. Other reasons also play a role, like said earlier in this and other comparing threads, it also is about political ideologies and they views of humans and females as needing to prove them as something like "male females" in jobs and careers. That'S why there are even initiaves by some totally insane hysterics to make it a punsihable crime to call a female witha child a "mother", because that is sexual discrimination and an offense, being a mother. When being confronted with BS like this I want to stop being polite and giving arguments, but want to stand up and yell as loiud as I can "Scheiße!" Everything has limits. Even patience and tolerance for what is beyond insane.

Children also are the result of love, not marriage. Marriage simply is a formalized agreement to this relationship without an impact on the real world behavior patters of a couple but a monetary one. And if we go the monetary route, I can start giving you sh*tload of a list of issues having a greater effect on children in this regard.

Yes, I agree. And still children and family are what has the most important meaning for the communal wellbeing, and the future of our society. My argument is from the perspective of the communty and its survival intertests, and alwas has been that. This communal interest is what defines heterosexual copuples and mothers and children and families are worthy to be given special protection and special statius by the state. In fact article 6 says somewhere that all members of community (not just authorities) should give a special support to them, whioch means: a form of support and rfecognitiuon that is not vbeing vien just to everybody, but to them, and them alone. If just everybody gets the same support and recogntiioon, mthzen what is left that is special in support for families, mothers and children that sets it aparts and is an additional gain for them in support? And here we are at "relativisation" again, and how relativising reduces the signficance of the one by making the other more significant, by that reducing the relative difference.

I even do not go into different psychologic influences by male fathers and female mothers. Having been psdychologist myseld and having last satistics on these things more than 13 years ago, I just summarised it in an ealrier according thread and do not want to type it all again. Use the search button. I just leave iot this time to say that childe education by mother and father together (as long as tghey are not conflicting parties) is the preferrabvle solution to raising children by just one parent. Therefore I oppose adoptation of foreign children by singles and strangers, or homosexual couples. Which also may not be needed because infertility is growing and many heterosexcual couples cannot have babies for this reason or due to accidents or diseases. A female women and female mother still is something different, psychologically and sociologically, than a homosexual man, and a male man is not the same like a lesbian woman, psychologically and sociologically. On sociologists claiming the opposite, I have a very critical sdtand, even more becasue I still remember that psychology also has, for hiostoric reasons, a strong tendency to lign up with the demands of politcs for communal control and appeasemnt - by proving those views of man that currently are wnated, are opportune, and are en vogue. There is a reason why I kicked psychology. Too much opportunism in there, and too much hot air (with the latest smells from the latest ideologic debates). Psychology and sociology are no a sciences, but just pseudo-sciences (Popper). Sometimes they are right, but their claims should be digested critically and with healthy scepticism. Especially the younger these claims are, and the more influenced from the modern distorted Zeitgeist.

[Gammelpreusse]

Skybird, this is getting really tiresome.
This debate runs like this

Skybird: The Sky is red

Gammel: no, its blue

Skybird: The Sky is red

Gammel: Nope, defnition of blue is this, that, laid down here and there

Skybird: The Sky is red, can't you see that?

Gammel: Nope, I can't, neither scientifically nor in the public sense of that word

Skybird: The Sky is read, how often to i have to repeat myself until you understand?

Gammel: Please lay out why you think so

Skybird: The Sky is red because I see it that way

Gammel: And your scientific basis?

Skybird: The Sky is red, because it always was red and always will be red

Gammel: *Headdesk*

Let's put that to rest.

[Morts]

Originally Posted by Gammelpreusse

Skybird, this is getting really tiresome.
This debate runs like this

Skybird: The Sky is red

Gammel: no, its blue

Skybird: The Sky is red

Gammel: Nope, defnition of blue is this, that, laid down here and there

Skybird: The Sky is red, can't you see that?

Gammel: Nope, I can't, neither scientifically nor in the public sense of that word

Skybird: The Sky is read, how often to i have to repeat myself until you understand?

Gammel: Please lay out why you think so

Skybird: The Sky is red because I see it that way

Gammel: And your scientific basis?

Skybird: The Sky is red, because it always was red and always will be red

Gammel: *Headdesk*

Let's put that to rest.

took you a while to figure that out

[Skybird]

Gammelpreusse, you obviously want me to keep running around the house. But while I have led out with all reasonability my argument and also pointed out the meaning and importance of demographics and statistic (on finance policy, in this case), you just fail to explain yourself.

So I say take a round or two around the house yourself now.

Underhanded rethorics like your latest entry, certainly do not help your "cause".

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Gammelpreusse, you obviously want me to keep running around the house. But while I have led out with all reasonability my argument and also pointed out the meaning and importance of demographics and statistic (on finance policy, in this case), you just fail to explain yourself.

So I say take a round or two around the house yourself now.

Underhanded rethorics like your latest entry, certainly do not help your "cause".

*headdesk*x2

seriously, let's just leave it as it is

[Aramike]

Gay couples are perfectly capable of raising said children, and should be accorded the same opportunities.

Why?

Actually, I don't mind children being raised by gays - so long as there are no heterosexual couples willing to do so. I trust nature's judgement to a certain extent. Medical conditions aside, nature has deemed that only a man and woman can reproduce. Furthermore, it drives us in the communal, family sense leading to the concept of "parenting", which is naturally impossible for gays.

I think some of you are either intentionally misreading Skybird's point, or you simply have blinders on and cannot understand it. Essentially, from what I read, he's simply extrapolating society as an extension of human nature. To him (and I tend to agree) it makes sense to reward CONCEPTUAL communal units that possess potential for the continuance of society - hence, marriage. (Note: I say "coneptual" because marriage is generally based upon the PERCEIVED ability to produce offspring - not whether that ability actually exists.)

So let me throw this nugget out there - if gay marriage should be allowed because the potential to produce offspring is irrelevant, than should marriage between siblings be allowed as well?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Aramike

So let me throw this nugget out there - if gay marriage should be allowed because the potential to produce offspring is irrelevant, than should marriage between siblings be allowed as well?

Good point. Marriage with my dog also is an option. Why not? Some people dress their dogs in cloathings, bury dogs on cemetaries for dogs, and even leave their property to their pets in case they live shorter than their pets.

In fact in Switzerland - that is the same Switzerland that was the first state in Europe to bring up this ugly issue of no longer discrminating women by calling them mothers - there is a strong political initiative that wants to abandon a so far existing law that puts incest under punishement. I'm not sure but I think at the time I type this, it is either in the final stage of preparation, or is already being decided. Ther argument is that the law is only rarely used, and cases of incest could be handled by laws against absue of minors and rape. What is ignored here is that incest also can take place between consenting adults.

Due to the genetic risks and the expensive consequences for the community if ill babies get born from such "relations", there is good reason why cultures of all eras and around the globe have tabooed incest. They dominate by far in numbers, and very clearly so. Even where we know from history that royal families practiced it, it was not a common practice amongst ordinary people, but an exception at the very top of the social hierarchy.

My defintion of decadence: when a people or country not only no longer is capable to defend its survival, but actually asks why it should even want that, or finds it clever, even entertaining to try out how it is when defence and survival gets actively rejected, if not prevented. The major way in the EU to acchieve this is self-crucification over many different issues.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Good point. Marriage with my dog also is an option. Why not?

Because a dog is not a concenting adult.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Why?

Why not? It may seem trite, but your arguments against still seem to be excuses for a greater agenda.

So let me throw this nugget out there - if gay marriage should be allowed because the potential to produce offspring is irrelevant, than should marriage between siblings be allowed as well?

The taboo on siblings has nothing to do with the ability to have children. It has to do with the propensity of said children to have extreme problems.

Again it seems like you're trying to muddy the immediate question by dragging in "what ifs" and "why nots". On the other hand that is a valid question, but not for this particular argument, and you seem to have a very invalid reason for bringing it up.

[Aramike]

Why not? It may seem trite, but your arguments against still seem to be excuses for a greater agenda.

What gives you the prerogative to apply greater agendas to my most simple of arguments?

I have no greater agenda - I'm merely trying to apply equal rights while acknowledging DIFFERENT rights. In case you haven't noticed, a gay man has the SAME rights as a straight man. (That is, unless you define a gay man as something other than a man, which would require the term "gay" before it, hence the different term in the first place, logically invalidating your argument.)

The taboo on siblings has nothing to do with the ability to have children. It has to do with the propensity of said children to have extreme problems.

Really? That's your answer? That having children has nothing to do with it but the children had could be "defective"? REALLY?

Again it seems like you're trying to muddy the immediate question by dragging in "what ifs" and "why nots". On the other hand that is a valid question, but not for this particular argument, and you seem to have a very invalid reason for bringing it up.

An odd argument to make when bearing children have nothing to do with it whilst the "quality" of children being beared is clearly in question due to your own reasoning.

Ultimately, if you're going to make the idea that the potential to have natural biological children is NOT a factor, I find it odd that you would dismiss the survivabilty of said children as an argument - I mean, really? Because doing so only lends plausibility to the argument that procreation is a factor in marriage. Or are you merely interested in invalidating any argument that is not your own on the merits that you don't agree with it (something you accused me of)?

So - are you for siblings being able to marry or are you not?

The ironic thing is that we're not far off on this argument, but you refuse to accept that gay marriage is something different than traditional marriage, but yet we still both term is as "gay marriage". But still, how do you reconcile the child-bearing aspect, now that we've introduced incest? Is that a traditional fallacy? Is the procreational deficits an issue at all? If not, why not allow siblins to marry? If so, why dismiss procreation as a reason to disallow any benefits of homosexual unions?

You're suppose to be the open-minded one here, Steve - why are these logical questions too shallow for you to reason with? These are simple.

I propose the middle ground - marriage indicates, conceptually, something DIFFERENT. Yet that's unreasonable to you. You want it to mean the same thing. Then why can't siblings marry?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Because a dog is not a concenting adult.

What about your sister?

[Aramike]

My defintion of decadence: when a people or country not only no longer is capable to defend its survival, but actually asks why it should even want that, or finds it clever, even entertaining to try out how it is when defence and survival gets actively rejected, if not prevented. The major way in the EU to acchieve this is self-crucification over many different issues.

This position is likely to be considered one of the most extreme many have ever read here ...

... and I couldn't agree with it more. Well done! This is an excellently articulated point of the value of traditional culturalism. Indeed, as a species we have risen far beyond our most basic instincts but Skybird's point is that some of those baser drives have deep, intrinsic value.

I find it amazing that so-called progressives who are deeply driven to return to a more naturalistic state share the same political leanings as those most invested in defying such a state.