rumbleph1$h Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 Parent A and Parent B? Children need mom, dad! By KATHLEEN PARKER July 30, 2005 The slippery slope that wasn't supposed to happen once same-sex marriage was granted is making Everest jealous. In Massachusetts this week, Gov. Mitt Romney has been butting heads with same-sex couples over birth certificates for their newborns. I'll give you a minute to wrap your mind around that concept. The problem is that birth certificates as currently written reflect archaic notions of procreation, that is, involving a mother and father. Thus, gay and lesbian parents have asked the state to replace "mother" and "father" with Parent A and Parent B. And we thought Dr. Seuss was just being silly when he created Thing One and Thing Two in his "Cat in the Hat" series. Romney thus far has prevailed in declining to eradicate the notion of mother and father from his little corner of civilization, noting that all children not only have a right to a mother and a father but, in biological fact, do have a mother and a father. Records should reflect that reality to the extent possible, says Romney. Nevertheless, recognizing that married same-sex couples do have children these days, Romney has been instructing hospitals to cross out the word "Mother" or "Father" and write in "Second Parent" to accommodate individual cases. The governor's view is that these altered certificates, while not perfect, at least resolve the immediate issue of recording the intended, if not the biological, parents' names. Problems arose recently when Massachusetts town clerks suggested that certificates thus altered might not pass legal muster in some circumstances and urged that new forms be created. Although Romney has refused, it's probably only a matter of time before the courts are asked to intervene. The fuss over birth certificate terminology might seem insignificant in the scheme of things, but words matter. The larger effects of this little two-word change are enormous over the long haul, despite protestations to the contrary, and Romney seems among the few willing or able to articulate them. Children are born of man and woman. Or so it has always been. Now with technology, sperm donors and "uterobots" ? women willing to sell or give away the flesh of their flesh ? any random collection of human beings can "parent." Or so the theory goes. In one case Romney recently had to entertain, two men ? one a sperm donor and the other his boyfriend ? became "parents" when a woman gave birth to the donor's child. The two men wanted their names on the birth certificate, with the boyfriend replacing the birth mother. In a bold act of increasingly rare sanity, Romney said "no." No doubt the gentlemen-parents were distressed by this negative intrusion into their familial fantasy, but Romney appears to understand that effectively codifying the "family" of two men and a newborn birthed by a uterobot has extensive implications. Meanwhile, one can't help but feel sorry for the infant ? Baby C, or Thing Three? "Thing" is used here neither dismissively nor derisively, but as a term of stunning accuracy. Throughout our culture, children have become objectified, "thingified," created or acquired for the fulfillment of our selves ? decor options, accessories, cute little bundles for our entertainment and amusement. Unless, of course, we're not in the mood, in which case we hit the "abort" button, the ultimate expression of "thingification." As long as children are viewed as mere extensions of our selves, put here to satisfy some narcissistic need for self-actualization, it is easy to suppose that our needs and their needs are complementary. If same-sex marriage is what "I" need, then two same-sex parents are what "my" child needs. What we know but the courts apparently choose to ignore is that identity and selfhood are rooted, in part, in our biological origins. Adopted children seek out biological parents in their quest for identity. Genealogical organizations do a brisk business as families try to reconstruct their lineage. "Who am I?" keeps psychotherapists in new Volvos. Obviously, narcissism isn't limited to the gay community, but it is surely at the root of the current skirmish in Massachusetts. What's really behind the push for biology-neutral birth certificates isn't fairness, or equal rights, but the elimination of any biological/procreative connection to parenthood. Same-sex couples need this and, therefore goes the Seussian Logic, it is good for the children as well as civilization. Once the idea of a biological mother and father is expunged from the culture, there is one less logical impediment to normalizing same-sex marriage, which is, of course, the point. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/e...outlook/3288619 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTUsEr Veteran Posted July 31, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 31, 2005 just make one for gay couples and one for straight couples, solve this stupid problem. and rumbleph1sh, i know plenty of people who where raised in single parent home and they turned out fine, and Most kids these days who are with a mom and dad turn out to be violent, out of control, so i bet a gay couple could do better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[hxc] Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 children need love, understanding and guidance. the sexual orientation of the people giving them these things is not important. having gay parents doesn't automatically mean the children will be homosexual, it means they will grow up openminded to others whether is be on the topic of ethnicity, homosexuality. a homosexual parent isn't any less of a parent than a straight one. they will feel the same love that everyone feels for their children. that's just my opinon though, i'm all for equal rights for everyone. discrimination against a person for sexual preference is just as bad as discrimination against skin colour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R-Flex Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 No, not a difficulty with terming same-sex parents! This must be stopped! Seriously, I hate this holier-than-thou image that is produced in opposition to the idea of same-sex parenthood. Somehow, they are deemed irresponsible and ill prepared to become parents, while heterosexual parents are painted as the perfect nuclear family. Remember when the perfect nuclear family was a son, a daughter, a wife, all led by the father? I would be wary of judging so hastily, and I would be cautious against Kathleen Parker's ambitions, who is likely anti-homosexual in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christracy Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 (edited) well i have to agree with romney and im not a romney supporter. until the law of nature can be broken by science, where two men or women can have a kid 23 chromosomes from the respective couple then it should be mother and father. let the kid be adopted by the spouse but don't make it parent a and parent b as that would just be utterly stupid and would fly in the face of the fact of nature. parent a and parent b definitely reeks of narcacism on the parents parts to feel some document part of the kids life which is sad because it should be about the kid as the article states. Edited July 31, 2005 by christracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven P. Administrators Posted July 31, 2005 Administrators Share Posted July 31, 2005 Excuse me.. as far as I remember it takes a man and a woman to pro-create. Whether or not 2 same sex people become legal guardians of the child is a totally different matter. <- period Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted July 31, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 31, 2005 On the birth certificate they should probably list the biological mother and father (if known). However, same-sex parents want to make sure that both "mothers" or both "fathers" will not be denied access to their child from schools, daycares, hospitals or any other organization that requires a parent's permission. I'm not sure if another document addresses this. I believe in Canada the non-biological partner can legally co-adopt the child and be given equal rights for emergencies decisions and other parental responsibily issues. I don't know if the US does this as well. It doesn't seem to be an issue here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted August 1, 2005 Veteran Share Posted August 1, 2005 On the birth certificate they should probably list the biological mother and father (if known). However, same-sex parents want to make sure that both "mothers" or both "fathers" will not be denied access to their child from schools, daycares, hospitals or any other organization that requires a parent's permission. I'm not sure if another document addresses this.I believe in Canada the non-biological partner can legally co-adopt the child and be given equal rights for emergencies decisions and other parental responsibily issues. I don't know if the US does this as well. It doesn't seem to be an issue here. 586304522[/snapback] there is a point to listing biological parents. it could help with scientific and health-related matters. but why not put biological and non-biological parents on the same page? everyone's happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moloko Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 Before christianity became main stream in the world...having sex with same sex was no issue. It was seen as normal to chose any partner, male or female. To me it makes no difference. If same sex marriages decide to have kids. How does who you have sex with hurt how you raise kids? Western thinking at it's best? Close and narrow minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted August 4, 2005 Veteran Share Posted August 4, 2005 Before christianity became main stream in the world...having sex with same sex was no issue. It was seen as normal to chose any partner, male or female. To me it makes no difference. If same sex marriages decide to have kids. How does who you have sex with hurt how you raise kids? Western thinking at it's best? Close and narrow minded. 586320841[/snapback] Christianity is hardly the only world religion that has problems with homosexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the long lost son Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 children need love, understanding and guidance. the sexual orientation of the people giving them these things is not important. having gay parents doesn't automatically mean the children will be homosexual, it means they will grow up openminded to others whether is be on the topic of ethnicity, homosexuality. a homosexual parent isn't any less of a parent than a straight one. they will feel the same love that everyone feels for their children. that's just my opinon though, i'm all for equal rights for everyone. discrimination against a person for sexual preference is just as bad as discrimination against skin colour. 586303557[/snapback] While a (same sex) couple can care for and raise an adopted child like a couple who naturally created a child, there is no way that the love that they share for that child can ever be compared. The effort that a husband and wife go through to create a child. And once the child is conceived, the 9 months of loving and caring that the parents care for each other only increase the love for the soon-to-be born child. When your wife is in labor and you hold your child for the first time, there is nothing like it. I have two kids. I know if I were to adopt a third child, I would care for it and raise it as I would my other two children, but the love I would have for it could never compare to my two children who were naturally brought to us. I mimic what Neobond says. Only a man and a woman can create a child. Two men can not create a child, nor can two women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted August 5, 2005 Veteran Share Posted August 5, 2005 While a (same sex) couple can care for and raise an adopted child like a couple who naturally created a child, there is no way that the love that they share for that child can ever be compared. The effort that a husband and wife go through to create a child. And once the child is conceived, the 9 months of loving and caring that the parents care for each other only increase the love for the soon-to-be born child. When your wife is in labor and you hold your child for the first time, there is nothing like it. I have two kids. I know if I were to adopt a third child, I would care for it and raise it as I would my other two children, but the love I would have for it could never compare to my two children who were naturally brought to us.I mimic what Neobond says. Only a man and a woman can create a child. Two men can not create a child, nor can two women. 586329507[/snapback] A lesbian couple could share all of that except for the original conception deed. Unless you only have sex on a month then you are unlikely to remember the original deed anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts