We read in the Daily Mail (also reported in the Daily Telegraph, for those who prefer broadsheets):
[INDENT]This is the birth certificate that leaves the father off the official record for the first time in nearly 200 years.
It shows only a mother and a ‘parent’ – also a woman – for newly-born Lily-May Betty Woods.
[/INDENT]I know the Daily Mail can be a bit dodgy, so here is an image of the birth certificate:
So now a child in the UK will have a “parent” and a “mother”. Why not?
Oh, btw, in case anybody is wondering, this is courtesy of the “Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Act 2008”
We have the same thing in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada since December 2007
River Hyacinth Christie-Cooke was only seven pounds, three ounces and new to the world the morning of Dec. 21, but already she was making history.
River was the first baby to be born in Newfoundland and Labrador with two legal mothers at birth. Until the day before her birth, only one parent in a same-sex relationship could be listed on the birth registration. The other parent needed to adopt their child in order to be listed on the birth certificate. thelabradorian.ca/index.cfm?sid=94138&sc=347
No surprise that this smut is happening in the UK.
And you know if it happens there, it is only a few months from crossing the Atlantic. The importation of New Labour’s perverted values is the most biggest threat to America, from Britain, since the armies of ‘red coats’ and Hessians.
Anyone interested in hearing the perspective of a conservative discontent on the decay/collapse of Britain, should read (former prison psychiatrist) Theodore Dalrymple’s books.
Not exactly the most tasteful work (very amateurish at points), but valuable for his position on UK’s problems (he pulls no punches) and his experience working with the worst scum in British prisons.
Recently, when Gordon Brown was publicly exposed for his already-obvious private hypocrisy my first thought was: “This will be great for the other two centre-left candidates!” :o
In practice, it doesn’t seem to be all that different. Secularism or Mohammedism is being forced on Christians.
Case in point, the Christian sex therapist who was recently sacked for refusing to offer sexual advice to homosexuals, or the Premier of Ontario trying to force a sex ed program on the Catholic schools that attempted to portray masturbation and anal sex as simply other options.
At least with an Islamic state, none of that would be happening.
WOW, they take father off but leave mother? Talk about biased. That is flat out discrimination. It's one thing when they take both mother and father off and replace it with parents. I don't like that but can live with it. That is treating both parents equally. But to take just father off and leave mother is flat out biased. When did the UK start hating men?
BTW, what happens when the parents are two men? What do they put down then?
[quote="Merciless, post:12, topic:196784"]
OK, John Locke.
If the world was left to people like you, Catholicism would be dead.
Quite presumptuous. First of all, I'm not a liberal, it's just common sense that laws are meant to protect peoples rights and freedoms, not restrict them. Second of all I don't care what religion you follow, that's your right, but it is not your right to use your religions teachings to control the actions of others. Go ahead and be a Catholic, but don't expect biblical laws to have any place in secular society, we're not going to condemn homosexuals just like we're not going to own slaves, the bible is irrelevant when it comes to law. I'm not going to continue debating this in here because I'm already in the middle of that in another thread.
By definition, if you believe the sentiments expressed in your little post, then you are a liberal. Personal freedom, along with the separation of the spheres of public and private, is the foundation of liberalism–historic and modern. In fact, its one of the only things they have in common.
I am arguing from the Catholic’s perspective. Its not like I agree with them on everything (needless to say, I don’t), but I think that your little rant about the permissibility of such things is baseless from the Catholic position.
Don’t pull the ‘slave’ card, either. Nobody is advocating that, and you know it. And as for, well they’re all comparable, insofar as they can be found in the Bible, that is a bunch of rubbish. If I have to explain it in detail, then you are either a troll or your abysmal grasp of history will give me some fun.
[quote="Hobble, post:11, topic:196784"]
A big so what. Does this limit anyone's rights or freedoms? Does it harm anyone? No, so why should it be illegal? This is really no ones business but there's.
The words of relativism. "What's the big deal? So what?" A functional society that calls itself civilized needs to recognize natural law at the very least. There is always a mother and a father. This is giving a bad example and causing confusion where none should exist.