|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 30, 2010 18:01:10 GMT
Who, exactly who, is being disadvantaged by this change and precisely how? anything, and everything, intended solely to benefit a minority with the intent of depriving the majority, as in this instance, is by defintion, wrong. it's not a point of view, it's simple reality the child, obviously. normal people as the result
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 30, 2010 19:51:49 GMT
Could someone please explain exactly what certiifcates are issued and with what information, what is registered where and available to whom, before we all unravel and disappear up our own belly buttons? Yeah. What she said.
|
|
|
Post by june on Mar 30, 2010 20:24:31 GMT
Who, exactly who, is being disadvantaged by this change and precisely how? the child, obviously. normal people as the result not quite sure how you make that connection- no children were harmed by the issuing of a certificate showing paternity. What a ridiculous notion! For clarity all children in uk have a birth certificate showing one or both biological parents. A small percentage of children get an addtional certificate, that shows who has parental responsibility ie those who have legal commitment to the child, adoptive and/or same sex parents. It's a simple concept and perfectly sensible. No need to froth at the mouth. Calm down and return to your domicile, your rights are not at risk etc......
|
|
|
Post by june on Mar 30, 2010 20:29:08 GMT
Oh my goodness one of the forms will say parent rather than mother!
Let's raze parliment, loot harrods and spit roast Gordon brown, the sky is falling whoop whoop the sky is falling.......
<sarcasm off>
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 30, 2010 20:46:49 GMT
Oh my goodness one of the forms will say parent rather than mother! Let's raze parliment, loot harrods and spit roast Gordon brown, the sky is falling whoop whoop the sky is falling....... <sarcasm off> unfortunately, it's falling on those of us who are normal, as well as the lunatics. that's the problem
|
|
|
Post by june on Mar 30, 2010 21:10:09 GMT
Oh my goodness one of the forms will say parent rather than mother! Let's raze parliment, loot harrods and spit roast Gordon brown, the sky is falling whoop whoop the sky is falling....... <sarcasm off> unfortunately, it's falling on those of us who are normal, as well as the lunatics. that's the problem Look up Look up jumbo - the sky isn't falling at all!
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 30, 2010 23:47:37 GMT
The next step will be the abolishment of Mother's Day and Father's Day!
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 31, 2010 1:04:00 GMT
lol Anna. I doubt it. People here are still writing to the papers in a fury that ''Mothering Sunday'' has turned into ''Mother's Day''.
So...we are all still muddled then?
Skylark is right, the Daily Mail article does not make it clear because it gives contradictory information.
June, are you saying that children who are born to homosexual couples via surrogate parents will have two certificates?
Because if so, that implies that the words ''mother'' and ''father'' don't need to be dropped and won't be dropped? Except in those specific cases.
|
|
|
Post by jade on Mar 31, 2010 7:09:00 GMT
The next step will be the abolishment of Mother's Day and Father's Day! I wish. Mother's Day makes me almost as cross as Valentines.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 31, 2010 7:48:32 GMT
ah mothers day...lol folks its mothering sunday NOT MOTHERS DAY the words mothering sunday are so much gentler than ""mothers day"" but ""the rather pathetic ""fathers day"" is the one that anoys me.....but i guess we have to be inclusive..i keep waiting for every other group to have their ""own day""
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 31, 2010 7:57:15 GMT
Oh my goodness one of the forms will say parent rather than mother! Let's raze parliment, loot harrods and spit roast Gordon brown, the sky is falling whoop whoop the sky is falling....... <sarcasm off> parent is such an obscure word and yes the sky is falling in in our rush to be fuzzy and warm and inclusive what is wrong with the word mother...every body has one.... or perhaps we should change the word parent althogether to carers..get rid of the words mother and father and just have ""donor"" and ""host"" and we can all have a group luv in knowning that no one feels left out whoops....but not every one is a donor or a host back to the drawing board yup that would be fine
|
|
|
Post by jade on Mar 31, 2010 7:59:17 GMT
how about Lifegiver and Patriarch?
Yep, that'd do it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2010 8:03:56 GMT
Mouse, if two people decide to bring up a child together, this needs to be recognised somehow. So if two women or two men bring a child into the world and one is the biological parent, what status does the other have? None, unless there is some kind of document to say so. S/he can walk away into the sunset leaving the other quite literally holding the baby; s/he can get the boot then find s/he has no right to see the child.
Identifying the person who donated the sperm or egg is useful for genetic reason, as discussed, but if done through the proper authorities, they have no legal rights or responsibilities.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 31, 2010 8:29:15 GMT
many same sex couples have brought up children through out the ages...be they homosexual...two sisters or two brothers..or just [straight friends]friends...they have brought up children they have adopted or just aquired and it was never a problem untill fairly recently the midwife who delivered my first son was a single unmarried woman who lived with her friend whether they had a relationship is irelevent..anyway one of the babies she delivered ..the mother died the father didnt want it and to cut a long story short she adopted this babe and she and her friend brought it up.....no fuss no palaver just a loving home and he is now a top flight barrister...he called the one who adopted him mum and the other one aunty....so they were rekonised and their place and importance in his life was rekonised and he was their son in every way.............we place or should i say some place far to much importance on their status and the wording of their status...its un-necessary and more about ego,s than about the good of the child
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 31, 2010 8:36:48 GMT
Mouse, if two people decide to bring up a child together, this needs to be recognised somehow. So if two women or two men bring a child into the world and one is the biological parent, what status does the other have? None, . if there is no biological imput.....then the answer is simple make the one with no bio imput joint legal gaurdian....that way they are both involved
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 31, 2010 8:49:33 GMT
The next step will be the abolishment of Mother's Day and Father's Day! I wish. Mother's makes me almost as cross as Valentines. You think it should be Mothers' Day? But it could be either, I think. Edit: ...or not... Spelling In 1912, Anna Jarvis trademarked the phrases "second Sunday in May" and "Mother's Day", and created the Mother's Day International Association.[4][5]
"She was specific about the location of the apostrophe; it was to be a singular possessive, for each family to honour their mother, not a plural possessive commemorating all mothers in the world."[4]
This is also the spelling used by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in the law making official the holiday in the U.S., by the U.S. Congress on bills,[6][7] and by other U.S. presidents on their declarations.[8]
Common usage in English language also dictates that the ostensibly singular possessive "Mother's Day" is the preferred spelling, although "Mothers' Day" (plural possessive) is not unheard of.from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother's_Day (they could have found a nicer cake to illustrate it)
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 31, 2010 8:52:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 31, 2010 9:37:56 GMT
It's all because of this: Midway through Lent, you were allowed a bit of a let-up in your grim regime of fasting and abstinence and general self-mortification. The first word of the Introit for that Sunday is Laetare - 'rejoice'. For reasons I am not entirely clear about, part of this rejoicing invoved a visit to your Mother church.
|
|
|
Post by jade on Mar 31, 2010 9:47:05 GMT
good god you know a lot
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 31, 2010 10:00:01 GMT
Mothering Sunday was also known as 'Refreshment Sunday', Pudding Pie Sunday (in Surrey, England) or 'Mid-Lent Sunday'. It was a day in Lent when the fasting rules were relaxed, in honour of the 'Feeding of the Five Thousand', a story in the Christian Bible.
Roman Spring Festival
The more usual name was Mothering Sunday. No one is absolutely certain exactly how the name of Mothering Sunday began. However, one theory is that the celebration could have been adopted from a Roman Spring festival celebrating Cybele, their Mother Goddess.
Mother Church
As Christianity spread, this date was adopted by Christians. The epistle in the Book of Common Prayer for this Sunday refers to the heavenly Jerusalem as "the Mother of all us all", and this may have prompted the customs we still see today.
It is known on this date, about four hundred years ago, people made a point of visiting their nearest big church (the Mother Church). The church in which each person was baptised.
Cathedrals are the 'mother church' of all other churches in an area ('diocese'). Canterbury Cathedral is pictured below.
People who visited their mother church would say they had gone "a mothering."
|
|