Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatorplank, May 13, 2014.
What does this have to do with Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals?
Destroy the family....
I don't know California. But I do know that in Florida, the "mother" has different parental rights than the " father". So a coin flip may have consequences. That is of course, if Florida ever gets to the whole gay marriage thing.
Where is that found in Rules for Radicals?
How does this make it any different than it already is for adopted children, or children born to a surrogate mother? Whether the child is being adopted by a gay couple or a straight couple, their access to their family history is the same.
Says you. The destruction of the core family two parent (actual mother / father of the penis / vagina variety) household has attributed to a lot of bad things in the parts of society where this has significantly occurred. What the consequences will be when Johnny has two mommies or two daddies is still way too early to say.
I agree that the absence of fathers in so many homes has had a very negative effect. Two parents is generally far better.
Doesn't bother me as long as hetero couples can still positively identify themselves as Mother and Father. In other words, I'd not like 'Mother' and 'Father' replaced to two spots labeled 'Parent'. I don't have children, but I have to assume seeing your name under Mother or Father is pretty special and I wouldn't want that done away with for the sake of homosexual couples.
Helping Gatorrick22 out with his research, here is every paragraph where the words family or families appear in Rules for Radicals:
I don't mind when people point out the logical flaws in an argument, or factual errors, but just making up stuff and then acting as if it is true is unacceptable.
Full au naturel body shots will be required as Exhibit "A" & "B", to keep things straight.
But we can put a penis on a woman and a vagina in a man. Two men, two women....."what difference does it make"
Divorce has done that far more thoroughly than gay parents. And divorce--at least up until now--is completely on the heteros.
Tis true, selfishness has always been a big problem. It's always easier to walk away and use children as tennis ball.
True. Give it time. We are already seeing gay marriages ending in divorce. Custody battles to follow.
We as a society have learned to cope with divorce. In most cases, there is still a mother and a father involved in the lives of the children. In many cases more than one of each. IMHO, the current generations sense of entitlement is somewhat fueled by competing sets of parents vying for their children's attention. Just a theory, but man have I seen it in action.
What is not a theory is single parent families which is a totally different beast. But I get your point.
If I recall HS Biology, there is a father (sperm) and a mother (ovary/uterus/etc). It seems rather illogical to have the name of someone who was neither the father or mother on a . . . BIRTH certificate. If you don't know who the the father is then leave it blank - which is often done, sadly. After that point, there are ways (some mentioned above) to hash out who will be identified as legal guardians, etc. Why be dishonest at the start? There's time and means to confuse things down the road. (And, no I don't care about the very rare surrogate situation as an exception. First, the father (sperm) and mother (egg) can still be identified - even if one/both are from a sperm bank, etc. Second, just add another box or description to show surrogate pregnancy.)
To be even more concise and succinct - given two gay men, one may be the father, but neither can be the mother. Given two lesbian, one may be the mother, but neither can be the father. Especially when the context is a BIRTH certificate. What is so wrong with just stating the truth and acknowledging reality (biologically and naturally)?
The point of a birth certificate (at least in its official uses) isn't and never has been to be a genetic record though. And the actual practice backs that up, including the issuance of amended birth certificates following adoption (which is the common practice, and will most often result in having an official birth certificate that identifies neither of the natural parents).
It's essentially just a governmental record that you exist that has over time been used for a variety of administrative purposes (citizenship determinations, record of the tax base, etc.).
I'm not arguing that birth certificates' purpose is to provide genetic records - but they definitely were/are used for geneology and establishing parental rights/obligations. Let's say the father is known and out of the picture (so to speak), but the two women decide to list one of them as the "father." That would not abrogate the father's paternal rights as provided by most states' statutes. There is a process whereby the birth father's rights could be abrogated, but simply putting the wrong name on the birth certificate is hardly due process.
In any event, it is pure fiction to list a woman as a father or a man as a mother on a birth certificate. Again, whoever ends up as the legal guardian(s) involves a separate process that I suspect all states have in place.
Florida overthrew the ban on gay adoptions in 2010. So If a gay couple adopted a two year old immediately thereafter the kid would be now be 6. How about a couple of generations of data before you start jumping to any conclusions preliminary or not? I don't anticipate that there will be any unfortunate conclusions, but that would only be a wild ass guess on my part.
The destruction I speak of is the two parent household into the single parent household. Nobody can convince me that anything positive can be concluded from that. And I'm not talking about divorce per se. I'm talking about a totally absent, I don't know who my daddy is , household.
How about a heterosexual couple who adopts? They contributed no sperm or egg so it seems rather illogical to put their names on a . . . BIRTH certificate, or to call them "mother" and "father". They're just legal guardians. Right?