|
Post by mouse on Mar 29, 2010 13:58:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 29, 2010 14:01:35 GMT
lets hope people dont try to find out who their families are...because its going to get harder for those looking up their ancestry since when have the interests of a minority been put before the interests of the majority...this is very wrong imo
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 29, 2010 14:05:07 GMT
Well, this is just plain wrong. In the first place, two homosexual couples can't be the BIOLOGICAL parents (only one of them could be that at most).
More importantly, it's getting rid of choice.
I don't have a problem (I know Mike disagrees furiously with me on this issue but who said married couples had to agree all the time?) with two gays or lesbians bringing up kids (as long as they don't try to mould them in a same-sex direction) but this is blatant discrimination AGAINST heterosexual couples and IMHO ought to be ruled unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 29, 2010 14:32:26 GMT
it should be optional..that way all feeling can be ""sensetivly OBSERVED"" this country makes me sick at times
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Mar 29, 2010 17:42:21 GMT
I believe that a birth certificate should only be used to record immutable factual information pertaining to the individual. I do not think that they are the place to track who has current PR for the child, or who is currently fostering them or who has adopted them or what institution is currently taking care of them, and so on.
But if such non-immutable data is to be kept on the certificate then let it be clearly labelled for what it is. 'So-and-so's biological mother is Mary Jones, biological father is David Smith, current PR-holders are Mary Jones and Frank Simpson' for example.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 29, 2010 20:31:07 GMT
lets hope people dont try to find out who their families are...because its going to get harder for those looking up their ancestry since when have the interests of a minority been put before the interests of the majority...this is very wrong imo it's just another case of imbecillic trash being in a position of authority, kowtowing to the homo agenda, knowing that they have absolutely NO right to
|
|
|
Post by june on Mar 29, 2010 21:32:13 GMT
It's only about 200 certificates a year though isn't it, they don't replace the need to complete the ordinary cert where the mother will always be named. In fact they are just like adoption certificates but suitable for same sex parents.
Cannot see what the fuss is all about, unless you are a rampant homophobe why would you care.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2010 21:37:45 GMT
Genes are important, June, that is why it matters.
The more we know about our geneaology, the easier it is to take precautions in order to avoid an early death.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 29, 2010 21:39:36 GMT
It's only about 200 certificates a year though isn't it, they don't replace the need to complete the ordinary cert where the mother will always be named. In fact they are just like adoption certificates but suitable for same sex parents. Cannot see what the fuss is all about, unless you are a rampant homophobe why would you care. it has nothing whatsoever to do with homophobe, although that is a cool word to toss around when you're on the wrong side. this happens to be about what's right, nothing more, and changing certificates to benefits homos is NEVER right
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 29, 2010 21:51:35 GMT
what skylark and jumbo wrote..nail on head....
|
|
|
Post by june on Mar 29, 2010 21:52:18 GMT
It's only about 200 certificates a year though isn't it, they don't replace the need to complete the ordinary cert where the mother will always be named. In fact they are just like adoption certificates but suitable for same sex parents. Cannot see what the fuss is all about, unless you are a rampant homophobe why would you care. it has nothing whatsoever to do with homophobe, although that is a cool word to toss around when you're on the wrong side. this happens to be about what's right, nothing more, and changing certificates to benefits homos is NEVER right So, "benefiting homosexuals is never right" - and yet you are not a homophobe. And darling, FYI, my opinions are not based on how many other people agree with me - I am no sycophant. I also prefer to debate points of view rather than just childishly claim someone is 'on the wrong side'.
|
|
|
Post by june on Mar 29, 2010 21:55:57 GMT
Genes are important, June, that is why it matters. The more we know about our geneaology, the easier it is to take precautions in order to avoid an early death. But the original certificate is not lost it is available for the child at 18 years old. Just as happens when a certificate of adoption replaces the birth certificate. No big deal at all. This is about anti gay prejudices - no one has frothed at the mouth about adopted children having to have 'a certificate of adoption' replacing their original birth certificate. Where was the hoo-ha then? Or do they not matter?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2010 21:59:40 GMT
I know people who have been adopted, and to them their "mum and dad " were the important people in their lives, and they had nothing to do with their biological parentage. The same would apply to people brought up by same sex couples. And if two people commit themelves to bringing a child into the world, or adopting one, it is right that this is acknowledged so that if, at a later date, disputes arise, none has a legal priority over the other.
But if we don't record the biological parentage, there will be no chance of tracking vital information about inheritance should this be needed.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 29, 2010 22:01:08 GMT
the childs interests should over ride the ""homosexual"" rights of any parent would be parent...we all have a right to know who we are..where we come from..what our backgrounds are....our gene pool for what ever reason...any child brought up by two men or two women will soon put to gether that both cannot have biologically parented him/her and that there must have been a third party imput the rights of the child who has and had no say in this parenting should be paramount...just as a child born to hetro sexuals has the right to its background
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2010 22:01:32 GMT
Oh - I've just read your last post, June!
So there is always a certificate with the real parentage? Well, I can't see the problem, then. But that isn't what the story in the OP says.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 29, 2010 22:10:22 GMT
Oh - I've just read your last post, June! So there is always a certificate with the real parentage? Well, I can't see the problem, then. But that isn't what the story in the OP says. but not until the age of 18...however as any parent knows the questions start much earlier... much better to be up front with kids from an early age..they find it easier to come to terms with
|
|
|
Post by june on Mar 29, 2010 22:20:29 GMT
Oh - I've just read your last post, June! So there is always a certificate with the real parentage? Well, I can't see the problem, then. But that isn't what the story in the OP says. but not until the age of 18...however as any parent knows the questions start much earlier... much better to be up front with kids from an early age..they find it easier to come to terms with It's exactly the same for adopted children
|
|
|
Post by june on Mar 29, 2010 22:23:08 GMT
the childs interests should over ride the ""homosexual"" rights of any parent would be parent...we all have a right to know who we are..where we come from..what our backgrounds are....our gene pool for what ever reason...any child brought up by two men or two women will soon put to gether that both cannot have biologically parented him/her and that there must have been a third party imput the rights of the child who has and had no say in this parenting should be paramount...just as a child born to hetro sexuals has the right to its background But no one is claiming that are they? The certificate will show that two people other than the birth parents have the PR - just as happens in adoption. It is no different.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 29, 2010 22:38:45 GMT
...this is blatant discrimination AGAINST heterosexual couples and IMHO ought to be ruled unconstitutional. How can it be? We haven't got a constitution.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 30, 2010 1:56:26 GMT
I didn't realise that adoption certificates worked that way but I suppose it's logical. So it's also logical that two homosexual parents be given the same legal document - it's just a fast track system to bypass an unecessary lengthy adoption procedure. Seems sensible. The only thing I don't understand is why they can't have two forms of the certificate, one that says mother and father and one that caters to a more flexible description but still applies to the male-female parents - a simple term such as parent, or a blank space where the registrar can fill in the description. Let people choose the form they want to use. Edit: Duh! I should read more carefully. That IS what they are doing. DMI guess this is another to put on the list of classic Daily Mail misleading headlines. Do you think that working in the Daily Mail office is a bit like living in a clown family? Constant wind ups and trick flower buttonholes? Either that or it's a support group for depressive pessimists.
|
|