http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/07/passport-applications-soon-gender-neutral/
Now, I may have missed the latest headlines, but last I checked it still took a man and a woman to produce a child. Or should I say it takes a man's sperm and a woman's egg to produce a child? But what do I know? I'm not enlightened like the people at Hillary Clinton's State Department.
In fact, I would ask why we should stop at parent number one and parent number two. How about parent number three, four, fifty-five and so on? We could just make those forms one hundred pages long to make sure nobody is "excluded".
In fact, I think it is now time to ask the question we have always wanted to know. Since Hillary and her erstwhile husband, Bill are parents, what I want to know is Hillary parent number 1 or parent number 2?
Oh, that's a sexist question? Sorry.
20 comments:
Jesus Christ, Gary. You know damn well that there are kids out there who have two mothers or two fathers. What's so wrong with reflecting this reality? And most importantly, how the hell is it hurting YOU, or anybody, that they're doing this?
And which one would they normally put on their application, Lance?
If both are raising them, then I would say that they put both for the same reason they'd put a mother and a step-father (who, you know, had nothing to do with the kid's existence).
This is despicably petty of you.
I suggest a more nuanced approach:
Father (or other custodial parent)
Mother (or other custodial parent)
If two men or two women want to fight over who goes on the "Father or" line and who goes on the "Mother or" line, that's their problem.
Every child has a biological father and a biological mother. That some adults try to efface that and offer the kid something else is an aberration, quite without prejudice to whether it is an abomination or not.
For most children, father is a distinct function different from mother, and vice versa.
Word verification: "exual"
Or, should that be 'exual ?
I think the State Dept application was meant for biological parents.
What a novel idea!!
I think the State Dept application was meant for biological parents.
Is it? Being a biological parent and actually BEING a parent are two different things.
I answered your questions, Gary. How about you answer mine:
1. What's so wrong with reflecting this simple reality?
2. How does this hurt you or anybody else?
I eagerly await the usual chirping of the crickets.
Lance,
It doesn't hurt me one bit. I just think it is stupid. If you are doing geneology research, would you not want to know who the actual fathers and mothers were?
What does this have to do with genealogy research? I thought it was about passport applications. Do you not read your own posts?
What will my friend's son put down? He's adopted and they don't know who his birth parents are. I guess they'll have to put the people who raised him - which is what somebody would do if he or she was raised by two moms or two dads.
And where do you get this assertion that it's going to cost "untold thousands of dollars"?
Basically, this is something that doesn't hurt you but potentially makes some people feel better, yet you're acting all butt-hurt about it.
Again, the biggest whiners of all are you "conservatives".
As usual Siarly has a sensible answer to a "problem".
What hurts in the long run has not been established. Lance, but what hurts me today is that I see two old perverts like Elton John and his "husband" buying a baby boy, and other celebrities, not only gays, having babies by surrogate mothers. Who asks those children what they want??
And just what is wrong with not liking something just because it goes against your grain? We don't have to accept everything, it's bad enough that we have to tolerate it.
Lance,
It's going to cost a lot of money to make up those new forms.
Butt-hurt?
It's going to cost a lot of money to make up those new forms.
And you base this on what, exactly? Don't they have to make new forms all the time? How much is it going to cost to make the new ones read something slightly different?
Again, you have nothing to back up your assertions.
I see two old perverts like Elton John and his "husband" buying a baby boy, and other celebrities, not only gays, having babies by surrogate mothers. Who asks those children what they want??
Wow. I don't even know what to say to this. How are they "perverts"? Because they're gay?
And just what is wrong with not liking something just because it goes against your grain?
You can turn this question right back around on yourself, and Gary who made the original point.
Lance,
You are absolutely correct. It costs nothing to produce new forms. After all, paper grows on trees.
"You can turn this question right back around on yourself, and Gary who made the original point."
I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Ahem,
Lance. Would you care to respond to Ingrid?
You are absolutely correct. It costs nothing to produce new forms. After all, paper grows on trees.
Gary, come on. Are you really this obtuse? Aren't they going to be making new forms anyway? You know, for NEW passport applications? They're just going to make a change to them before they print the new ones. And the last time I got a passport, it wasn't free from what I recall. In other words, people who apply for a passport will pay for them. Geez...
As for responding to my Mom, I don't even know where to start. First of all, who gives a crap about Elton John? I feel stupid that I'm even getting trapped into defending him because this is not what it's all about.
As for this statement:
Gays have all the rights in the world now and I am sick of them crying constantly about how discriminated they are.
What do you think it's like to be a gay person in the deep South? There are plenty of gay people out there who are still terrified to come out of the closet.
Shoot, they JUST got "Don't ask, don't tell" repealed. To say that they have every right in the world is simply wrong and downright hateful.
Lance,
Don't argue with me. I'm not saying anything against gays because I am not a gay-basher. I just think the idea of these forms is stupid. You need to address your Mom, not me.
Deep South? You know I could tell you who gays really have to fear, but why go there again?
Gary, I was responding to my Mom's comments. Notice how I quoted her, and not you? Are you unable to see the rest of the conversation like I am when you post?
And yeah, I didn't even get started on how gays are treated in the Middle East. I figured that the conversation was more about what's going on here in the West. If we want to talk the Muslim world, then my Mom's comments are even more incorrect.
The bottom line is this regarding our debate: You haven't shown how this is going to cost any extra than it would to just keep making the old forms, and most importantly, you haven't shown how you will personally be affected by it in any way.
Even if I agreed that changing the forms is stupid, I would still think that complaining about it is far more stupid.
Lance,
After all this dancing around, you come full circle back to the point of the whole post. It is stupid. I told you it doesn't hurt me. I was making light of it, but you got all worked up over it. And in the end, you agree with my main point.
Sheez.
Gary, I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to have some real reading comprehension problems lately. I wrote: "Even if I agreed..."
That means that I don't agree.
Lance and I are most likely to disagree when "gay rights" is at issue. I voted against my state's "Defense of marriage" amendment, because I don't much care if a majority of the legislature votes to license same-sex couples, or whether they call it a marriage, or something else.
But there is good cause to consider that MAYBE, biologically speaking, a child has a healthier development with one father and one mother. Since that can't be ruled out, I do see a kind of self-absorbed narcissism (and a touch of hubris) in gay couples saying "But we WANT to adopt a child" (or conceive on by turkey baster, although men aren't very well equipped for that).
Given that so many unwanted children are languishing in the foster system waiting for adoption, I'm also not opposed to gay couples adopting -- let's look for the least bad option in the real world, instead of everybody pontificating.
But, I have a sense Gary's point includes the blatant way well-intentioned people are trying to establish that a gay couple parenting is "just the same as" a man and a woman doing so. It's not, just as a gay couple is not engaged in "the same" relationship as a heterosexual couple. It's different. It may not be such a horrible thing - not that I want any part of it - but it's a distinct and different relationship.
Post a Comment