'Mother', 'Father' titles are stigmatizing

[Avid_Liberal_Hater]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163748,00.html

Birth certificates in Mass that say Mother and Father are discriminatory to gay couples.

Reading the story it appears that gay activists want to change the verbage on all birth certificates in Mass to say Parent A or B. Doesn't seem to specify if that's for gay couples only.

And, of course, the governor is being 'discriminatory' because he doesn't consent to this gross perversion to satisfy the queer lobby.

What I want to know is, why Parent A and B? Doesn't A come before B in the alphabet, suggesting that Parent A is somehow 'better' or 'more important'. These liberal gay rights types need to be a little more sensitive before they stigmatize people with these 'A is better than B' stereotypes.

[HOKIEHUNTER]

"LIBS TAKE NOTICE"
Shit like this is why us conservatives don't like the homos. You are telling us to be tolerant and loving, but there is nothing TOLERANT about a dumb freaking proposition as this. we are having BS shoved down our throats and the more YOU do it the more polarized we become. No way in hell are we gonna give in to gay marriage and tax write offs for fags if they push stupid crap like this. things like this are a dime a dozen and I will do everything i can to oppose such utter and worthless nonsense.

[FightinDaMan]

It says pretty clearly that it's only for babies born to same sex couples. In bold. At the top.


BOSTON — Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (search) says babies born to couples of the same sex should be given amended birth certificates

[fancyguppy]

Since when are babies BORN to gays? Last time I checked they didnt posess the parts to procreate.

Secondly, "Mother" and "Father" is stigmatizing?! I have come to believe this isnt about "accepting" gays and fighting the "discrimination" they feel- this is about coversion. Gays wanting us to covert to their ways. If we dont, if we refuse to "change with the times" as they say, then suddenly we're discriminating against them. If they werent trying to change society why else would they demand things like this and like defining marriage etc? They want things changed that have been our way of culture, running business, even the way we worship just to suit their deeply disturbing behavior. I'm sorry, but I dont want birth certificate's altered in any shape or form because I dont want Parent A and Parent B on my future child's birth certificate just because a bunch of gay people think Mother and Father are stigmatizing.

Gays shouldnt even have children to begin with in my opinion.

[believer]

I can hear the child now; "my parent A's partner...."
Normally, I don't think a mental illness could generate such a QUAGMIRE.
Please, nobody refer to them as "gay" or their despicable practices as "sex".
They are homosexuals and their practices are an abomination, a perversion and unfit for family, community or validating.
Homosexuality is a mental illness, nothing less. That is a fact.
Practice of the perversion of this mental illness simply should not be allowed.
Crap like this is the reason why.

[Avid_Liberal_Hater]

It says pretty clearly that it's only for babies born to same sex couples. In bold. At the top.

The article states:


gay rights advocates want the words "Mother" and "Father" removed from birth certificates, and put in their place the terms "Parent A" and "Parent B."


Reading this quote it would appear that they want the rules changed for everyone. I took the word 'amended' in the opening sentence to mean that somehow they wanted gays' kids' BC's to be altered now, and for the rules to be changed for everyone going forward. Maybe I misinterpreted that part, but I doubt it.

The point is that this is another example of gay's pusing their lifestyle on us (there's that phrase that the libs don't like to hear). Barring some incredible medical breakthrough that I'm not aware of, it is biologically impossible for a child to be born to parents of the same gender. This stupid idea denies a child (who may not even approve of the 'gay lifestyle' in the first place) the opportunity to know whoe their real parents are. It's kind of like the San Fran mayor's idiotic 'gender-neutral' marriage liscenses.

[FightinDaMan]

It is possible for gays to have children by in vitro fertilization (for women), or with a surrogate mother (for men), in which case only one person in the relationship is an actual biological parent.

[Avid_Liberal_Hater]

It is possible for gays to have children by in vitro fertilization (for women), or with a surrogate mother (for men), in which case only one person in the relationship is an actual biological parent.

That's not the point. The point is that babies come from a man and a woman. What you're describing are clinical approaches to achieving what it takes a male and woman to do. Having two parents of the same sex on a BC is an abomination.

[RightisRightLeftisWrong]

Wow Liberals have gone off the deep end I just think that is ridiculous. Those libs left the shallow water gen pool of morons to the deep water gen pool of morons.

[Miro Satan Fan]

Mere selfish vanity. A child, I believe, has a right to know from whence it came. The self-serving desire of adopting lesbian life partners across the nation to see themselves named on the child’s birth certificate aside, each and every child born has a mother and a father.

Period.

The fact that one or both of the biological parents may not be interested in being involved in the child’s life should not obfuscate that.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

It is possible for gays to have children by in vitro fertilization (for women), or with a surrogate mother (for men), in which case only one person in the relationship is an actual biological parent.


That doesn't detract from the fact that homo's are incapable of procreation, and the ultimate destination of the homo lifestyle is the extinction of mankind.


I love how you spin the concept and call it "in vitro"

I mean what part of ARTIFICIAL insemination is so offensive to you?

[RightisRightLeftisWrong]

Maybe they should make it Parent A and Parent 1.

BUT that isnt fair because what if one of the parents wants the number and the other ones wants a number too.

or

So parent 1 means thats the first parent.

[FKLBRLS]

And the left talks about how "intolerant" we are of gay people. We ARE NOT INTOLERANT of gays, we just don't accept their behavior as normal. We are tolerant of them, we let them go and do their homo shit, BUT when the gays turn around and say that that homo shit is normal and we should all accept it as normal, THAT'S what we conservatives are against. This is only one in a handful of attempts to normalize homosexuality. There is also...
*The whole gay marriage issue. Not the one about gays getting married, the one that marriage cannot be defined as a mutual connection between members of the opposite sex.
*When articles are printed saying that various historical figures are gay, ie. Leonardo Da Vinci, Abraham Lincoln, etc. I imagine gays would go on to say that Jesus was gay except that they don't believe in Jesus.
*When the MA supreme court "discovers" that the Mass. state constitution, written in 1780 requires the state to allow gay marriage. (Even though we know that the MA state constitution was written by John Adams who was very religious)
*When two eighth graders in Oregon were suspended for kissing in a hallway because it might be offensive to gay students.

[rightwingxtremist]

As I've said time and time again, it is the right of Americans to chose who they recognize as married. It is not our job to prevent people from being offended, if they are, tough shit.

- Nate

[FightinDaMan]

I love how you spin the concept and call it "in vitro"

I mean what part of ARTIFICIAL insemination is so offensive to you?

It's not a spin and there's nothing offensive about calling it artificial insemination. Both are acceptable names for the same thing.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

Except that one term defines the activity as FAKE/UNNATURAL.


Your using the same arguement as "It's not adultery, it's extra marital affair"

Is a watered down definition to make people feel better about themselves and make it easier to justify what it is that they are doing.

[FightinDaMan]

I don't really see why you are so dead set against it. Heterosexual couples who can't conceive a child do it as well. If I had a guess they were/are the primary targets and consumers of artificial insemination services.

[fancyguppy]

It is possible for gays to have children by in vitro fertilization (for women), or with a surrogate mother (for men), in which case only one person in the relationship is an actual biological parent.

To me this is spin. It is proven without a shadow of a doubt gay people can NOT produce children NATURALLY. To say that they can produce children through invitro fertilization is nothing more than a spin to avoid the plain fact only a man and a woman can procreate and produce a baby. No turkey baster needed. In both cases that you provided that baby WOULDNT be their's because they would only be providing 1 half of what is needed to make a baby. In both cases they would need the opposite sex involved to get what men and women can create naturally.

The bottom line is, when men and woman have a baby it is 100% their's. When gays "produce" babies its half theirs and half someone else's at best. It just goes to prove that men and woman together is a natural God intended thing. No matter what Gays do they will NEVER be like a man and a woman although they really are trying. Men and woman compliment each other not only in our physical make up and the fact our reproductive parts are meant to work together but the fact that emotionally we compliment each other too. Being gay is just not normal and this is further evidence of it.

[fancyguppy]

I don't really see why you are so dead set against it. Heterosexual couples who can't conceive a child do it as well. If I had a guess they were/are the primary targets and consumers of artificial insemination services.


This is a moot argument. The fact of the matter is the reason heterosexual couples sometimes use those services is because part of the couple's reproductive parts are not working normally. The fact still remains they can produce a child naturally and bring BOTH the egg and the sperm to the table. When heterosexual couples go through artifical insemination the woman's egg and the man's sperm are mixed together and put in the female- only difference between it and when a man and a woman have sex is that they are getting alittle help making sure it lands in the uterus.

When gays go through artifical insemination they actually have to go shopping for either a willing body to produce an egg or a person willing to do the dance in a cup. Gays NEED invitro to "have children". Heterosexuals use it only when the blueprints go alittle haywire.

[Peace_by_superior _power]

What I want to know is, why Parent A and B? Doesn't A come before B in the alphabet, suggesting that Parent A is somehow 'better' or 'more important'. These liberal gay rights types need to be a little more sensitive before they stigmatize people with these 'A is better than B' stereotypes.

I agree because in a family the mother and father are equals who make the decesions together. It will be good to see if any womens right groups will jump on this,

[FightinDaMan]

This is a moot argument. The fact of the matter is the reason heterosexual couples sometimes use those services is because part of the couple's reproductive parts are not working normally.

I'm aware of that, but WAA seems to be decrying the practice entirely as unnatural, not just when gays use it. Unless he/you would prefer it be called one thing when straight people do it and another when gays do it, in which case it seems a little rediculous.

Anyways, I'm not arguing about semantics. I like George Carlin's take on it: All language exists to distort the truth.

[fancyguppy]

I'm aware of that, but WAA seems to be decrying the practice entirely as unnatural, not just when gays use it. Unless he/you would prefer it be called one thing when straight people do it and another when gays do it, in which case it seems a little rediculous.

Anyways, I'm not arguing about semantics.

Artifical insemination SHOULDNT EVEN EXIST and while we're at it the idea of surrogate mother's shouldnt exist, neither should sperm banks or frozen embryos. It is unnatural unlike its counterpart. Human life shouldnt be ours to artifically create. If people werent so stuck on the advancement of science, the argument of researching on disgarded frozen human embryos wouldnt even be a topic of discussion it today's society. If people cant have a baby, there is something called adoption. I'm not arguing semantics either, I'm arguing the facts of life.

[Topiary Lady]

So, I guess none of you were in attendance for San Diego's Gay Pride Parade this weekend? This years theme was Equality For All/ Nothing More Nothing Less.

So I take that to mean that I can hold a One Man One Woman/ Nothing More Nothing Less parade? That'll be the day. The city would never permit such a thing.

[rightwingxtremist]

So, I guess none of you were in attendance for San Diego's Gay Pride Parade this weekend? This years theme was Equality For All/ Nothing More Nothing Less.

So I take that to mean that I can hold a One Man One Woman/ Nothing More Nothing Less parade? That'll be the day. The city would never permit such a thing.

You mean equality for things that aren't equal? 1+1=256? Apples are oranges? Terrorists are nice guys?

If everything in this whole world were equal, or at least called equal, what would it be called? Fart?

Variety is the spice of life they say....

- N