Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Try not to group all liberals together. I know a lot of liberals do the same with conservatives, but it would help us all if we stopped grouping each other together and making sweeping generalizations.
I would be all for a Parent 1 / Parent 2 in that situation too. Though I also happen to believe that if parents split up, all of them remain responsible for caring for children in all ways possible. If someone is unfit for parenting, they still remain responsible for the child financially.
Fox reported this story on January 7th. Why? Because it came out that Secretary of State Clinton had caught this policy change and reversed it. The State Department noted that on Births abroad, Clinton had reversed the policy, but they neglected to state that she had also reversed it on passport applications. Rather than Fox reporters actually accurately reporting the story, you know, by asking questions, they chose to go the sensational route instead.
So, to all of you who are scared of Parent 1 and Parent 2, it's not happening, you can take a deep breath and relax.
Fox reported this story on January 7th. Why? Because it came out that Secretary of State Clinton had caught this policy change and reversed it. The State Department noted that on Births abroad, Clinton had reversed the policy, but they neglected to state that she had also reversed it on passport applications. Rather than Fox reporters actually accurately reporting the story, you know, by asking questions, they chose to go the sensational route instead.
So, to all of you who are scared of Parent 1 and Parent 2, it's not happening, you can take a deep breath and relax.
The problem with rejecting the concept of normal is then where does this process end?
Today it's sexuality and gender designation, but why would we expect it to stop there if it the same people who now promote gender nullification cannot give a logical explanation why any remaining standards of normal should not be discarded in the future?
Gay rights supporters who compare the "right" of same-sex marriage to other civil rights cannot explain why this "right" doesn't include three-way marriages between any combination of heterosexuals, homosexuals, trans-genders and the essential bi-sexual except to say bi-sexuals must pick one. OK, why? Who appointed himself the marriage police so as to apply an arbitrary limit of two participants? If three people want to marry each other, what argument that prevents them from doing so is consistent with permitting same-sex marriages?
It's all either right for a reason, or it's all wrong for the same reason.
This gay marriage supporter has always been a supporter of poly marriage.
Yeah, I'm really chapped when I get mail addressed to "resident". Even worse, it seems I'm always having to sign forms next to titles like "applicant", "engineer", "licensee", or all of those other ridiculously gender-nonspecific terms.
Yeah, I'm really chapped when I get mail addressed to "resident". Even worse, it seems I'm always having to sign forms next to titles like "applicant", "engineer", "licensee", or all of those other ridiculously gender-nonspecific terms.
I can understand that but I think it's different. If a company went out of their way to get your mailing address, they should be able to handle your name too. But the Parent 1/Parent 2 fields are intended for filling in names, so that they can use your actual names and not just refer to you as Parent 1 or Parent 2. On those letters addressed to Resident or Applicant or what have you, they use the impersonal term throughout. In that instance it's not the lack of gender that bugs me, but the fact they can't be bothered enough to even ask my name.
I used to write briefs for pro se litigants, and the judges had the same problem, but without the humor.
Example:
Judge Jack, you ignorant pr*ck!
When any document is statutorily required to be in the possession of any person, party to any CDA litigation, and that person fails to produce said document when ordered by CDA authority to do so, contumacy is a given.* Thus as in this case where one statute requires a document, and another statute requires it to be submitted, failure to adhere comprises defiance of statutory mandate - twice over.* With regard to the aforesaid, this Board’s acquiescence of statutory detachment abets the failure of the very judiciary machinery upon which this and all other CDA cases rest, and indeed in such manner as to cause subject case to be grounded to estop, subverting any forward judicial progress of this Board’s impartial task of adjudging appellant’s presentment of appeal for proper adjudication of it’s claims against the government.**
Maybe a judge would use a writing similar to this, but addressed to the Governor of Hawaii.
I used to write briefs for pro se litigants, and the judges had the same problem, but without the humor.
Example:
Judge Jack, you ignorant pr*ck! "When any document is statutorily required to be in the possession of any person, party to any CDA litigation, and that person fails to produce said document when ordered by CDA authority to do so, contumacy is a given. Thus as in this case where one statute requires a document, and another statute requires it to be submitted, failure to adhere comprises defiance of statutory mandate - twice over. With regard to the aforesaid, this Board’s acquiescence of statutory detachment abets the failure of the very judiciary machinery upon which this and all other CDA cases rest, and indeed in such manner as to cause subject case to be grounded to estop, subverting any forward judicial progress of this Board’s impartial task of adjudging appellant’s presentment of appeal for proper adjudication of it’s claims against the government."
Please don't start with the hate/homophobic labels. I am not a hater. I have neighbors/friends, etc. who are gay and lovely people. I happen to have a different opinion on these social/political issues. I don't hate anyone.
Actually when you want to take people's rights away because your religion says so, that is hate. And you say you have gay friends; are they close friends or are they people you are forced to be around such as coworkers? Most self-respecting gay people aren't going to want to be around people who consider them abominations and want to take their rights away any more than they absolutely have to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
