55 2 mins 11 yrs

“Goodbye Mother, Goodbye Father,

You’re a Relic, Come tomorrow… ”

It’s the continued advance of the Gay lobby and the sustained erasure of the traditional concept of the family unit;

For decades, passport applicants have been required to provide details of their mother and father. But now, after pressure from the gay lobby, they will be given the option of naming ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’. The change, which is due to take place within weeks, has been made following claims the original form was ‘discriminatory’ and failed to include same-sex couples looking after a child. It has led to claims the official travel document is being turned into a ‘PC passport’. Campaigners for family values said the move ‘denigrated’ the roles of parents bringing up children in traditional families.

Just how MANY same-sex couples are there out there, and how many traditional couples are there? Why does the majority definition now fall to the wishes of a tiny minority?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

55 thoughts on “ERASING MOTHER AND FATHER

  1. We can’t blame the Gay activists for trying : we CAN blame undemocratic champions of minorities for giving in to their demands against/ or without consulting, the concerns of the majority.
    There is a trend here.
    (Christian) moral values.. ignored.
    Traditional family life.. attacked.
    Human rights of victims of crime or terrorism…ignored.
    Rights to referendums in a democratic society… denied.

    This is how you open the door to a totalitarian state. You steadily remove the rights of the people to help shape policies. You give them the illusion of political choice. Then you create the conditions for a national emergency, necessitating the Government be granted absolute power until the emergency is past…

  2. Alan Shermans little song doesn’t scan too well now.

    Hello Parent 1, Hello Parent 2 here I am in Camp Grenada or maybe he’d use Gitmo instead eh?

  3. Ahh a change to the passport in Britain is the beginning of the end of mother and father….hmmmm hmmm. From the Daily Express, that scaremonger of the middle class horses. Yes yes now I can see your point…

  4. Little by little, the culture is destroyed.

    Shush, you’re not supposed to notice.

    Shame on the paper for observing this ” minor ” change.

  5. Little by little, the culture is destroyed.

    Which culture would that be? British? This will definitely lead to the fall of the west if we’re not careful. ssshhhh the msm haven’t noticed a thing. No body is shouting this from rooftops but the horses are starting to be restless….

  6. “Them things” couldn’t be very robust then could they? If such a small thing could knock them flying… I thought western civilization was founded on much more than how a parent is described on a passport.

  7. Far from the British ‘horses’ getting restless, it appears that our rag-tag colonial donkeys are getting distinctly nervous…

  8. Don’t worry, you’re not supposed to notice.

    All of ATW has noticed now. Still pondering how ‘them things’ could be so fragile…

  9. Ernest because of a change in wording, does not language change over time? Is this not one of those times?

    YOu shouldn’t really describe Americans as colonial donkeys though, I know its not the Northern Irish you mean…DV would be offended 🙂

  10. Its the frog in the water concept.

    Prefer your arse is outta the windy concept…for Britains’ colonial donkeys…:)

    say hee haw…

  11. Two things:
    1. From the article: ‘The new form to be introduced by December 2011 will in addition provide for “parent 1” and “parent 2”. So nothing is being replaced, simply something being added.

    2. Happened in the US 8 months ago. Doesn’t seem to have heralded the arrival of Alaric the Visigoth.

    Of course this doesn’t only relate to same sex couples, but to any couple outside of the one mother: one father (eg lone parents or divorced couples).

  12. There are things to get you knickers in a twist about (or for the US readers, your panties in a wad). This isn’t one of them.

    Nothing is being replaced; something is being added.

  13. Yes, and it’s just a few small things every week so it will never amount to anything over time.

    And the gay lobby didn’t lobby for this change for any reason so there must not have been any purpose to it at all. Just a small administrative change.

  14. Of course the gay lobby wanted this change. They want equality. I am sure I read somewhere a line about “all men are created equal”. Where was that?

    The idea that marriage and family values are denigrated by bestowing the same rights to other groups is a very curious idea. WHo knew that marriage was so vulnerable?

    If you want to portray this as part of some great conspiracy then that is your prerogative. If you want to claim that changing a form will lead inexorably to the collapse of democracy and the growth of the totalitarian society, that’s also your prerogative. But don’t complain when allan@ goes off on one of his Jewish conspiracy theories. At least he usually cites some evidence to support his claims.

  15. So you guys are simultaneously making the argument that this is a very small change and that it is a bold step for equality in the modern world.

    Magnificent logic there.

  16. “all men are created equal”

    You’ve done it now Geoff…paving the way for the bible thumpers to enter the fray..

  17. So you guys are simultaneously making the argument that this is a very small change and that it is a bold step for equality in the modern world.

    Yes indeed. You have multiple audiences. For some audiences the small change represents a significant improvement, for other audiences it represents a very small change.

    My argument is that since this has no deleterious effect on most couples (the roles of mother and father are recognised on the form) therefore their status is not affected. However the addition of phrasing that recognises that not everyone fits into that category is a step for equality. So no group loses and one group benefits.

    Not that hard to understand.

  18. Doesn’t designating the abnormal as normal take something from the general definition of what, by consensus, is considered normal, – and isn’t that the goal of gay activism?

    I would suggest that we are all ‘normal, but different’ – so why should ‘gays’ expect to be treated any differently? Could it be that they don’t see homosexuality as anything abnormal and more of a life-style choice than a genetic problem, and thus this urge to be considered ‘normal’ is as much about their concept of ‘gayness’ and their peace of mind, as about changing the general opinions of the rest of us.

    Given that ‘gayness’ is generally accepted, and considered ‘normal, but different’, why continue fighting a battle they have already won? – especially as these repeated attacks on the familiar vernacular are seen as being overly aggresive and largely uneccessary, done more to annoy than for any other reason.

  19. Like Daniel said, it’s ” Defining deviancy down ”

    Said it a thousand times, and it’s still true.

  20. why continue fighting a battle they have already won?

    Because evidently they haven’t won. Otherwise such a move would not be controversial. I think it is about equality. Unless you are saying that gay parents are not equal then why is a different treatment justified? But it doesn’t only affect gay couples, it affects all non-standard couples.

    It may seem petty to you, but I dare say that if you are the child of a gay couple, or indeed a gay parent, it would seem like you were being officially treated as equal. I am sure that would have significance.

    “Defining deviancy down” is a seductive expression that masquerades as a self-evident, uncontestable truism, but it is actually a loaded phrase with severe limitations … The expression is not intended to be an objective, impartial, unbiased social scientific description of a process or trend bringing about social change. It is a partisan campaign slogan which is meant to serve as a weapon to beat down the opposition in debates over social policy.

    Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture : “Defining Deviancy Down”: How Senator Moynihan’s Misleading Phrase About Criminal Justice Is Rapidly Being Incorporated Into Popular Culture

  21. Congratulations on the successful use of google.

    Moynihan was correct on the use of the term as respects criminal activity, and on the disintegration of the family unit.

    He was one of the more prescient thinkers of his time

  22. Congratulations on chucking around someone else’s ideas without thinking them through.

    No he wasn’t.

    Possibly by American standards.

    We can all play that game.

    So let’s stick to the matter at hand. In what way does the addition to, not the replacement of, the terms have any deleterious effect on society? In what way does this act as some harbinger of the collapse of western society? How does recognising that there are alternative forms of partnership take away from, detract, or in any way weaken the dominant form of partnership, especially when the form will continue to recognise that form of partnership as the dominant form?

  23. Geoff,
    how can you have gay parents?
    Gay parents could not father a child or bear a child
    A parent (noun) is a mother or father
    To parent (verb) is a different thing entirely.
    I “parented” as a foster carer; I was not a parent.

    If however your definition is
    two people of the same sex, who find same sex relationships preferable to heterosexual relationships, but who like the idea of “parenting” a child (i.e. resorting to a third party/and a turkey baster or syringe) to help produce a child “to parent”), then that is clearly not the traditional, historical, religious and biological definition of being a parent.
    If you then argue that in order to achieve “equality” we should dispense with definitions that may exclude..
    well, we are indeed heading for George Orwell’s 1984!

  24. My definition of a parent is the same as the legal definition. A parent under law is defined as someone who has parental responsibility for a child, not necessarily the biological parent. An adopted child for the purposes of this form will put down their adoptive parents, not their biological parent(s).

    So if a gay couple adopt a child then they are gay parents in the eyes of the law. The law is rightly blind to how that child came about.

  25. Geoff 3pm

    I have very much thought through Senator Moynihan’s views, albeit on a devolved matter.

    Please read the last four years of ATW commentary where such matters have been extensively discussed.

  26. I don’t understand the agina. Can’t people name theri mother and father as parent 1 and parent 2? How do they get erased?

  27. Geoff,
    I take it that you are referring to the Education Act of 1996, section 576?
    But because it is legal does not make it right/desirable/approved by the majority.
    Someone recently said that they are all for homosexuals being free to practice, but they were against the politicizing of homosexuality.I agree with that viewpoint. I have nothing against a Gay for being a Gay, but being Gay is NOT the norm. It is a deviation from the norm.
    Two people of the same sex (however legally) cannot give a vulnerable child the role modelling and particular love that a mother or a father can give: and we are talking ideals here -not extremes.

    What you are arguing for goes against our biological development and our human traditions. That is not equality: that is irresponsibility, and the child suffers first, then the family, then ultimately society. Because somewhere along the line those same poor kids will find themselves struggling at school and struggling to form relationships with the opposite sex.

  28. I don’t understand the agina.

    Me neither. I’ve been filling out Parent 1/Parent 2 forms for years on nearly everything having to do with my children.

  29. Agit8ed- Homosexuality is not as common, but it is certainly normal. I’d like to see a study that indicates whether kids do struggle as you suggest, I’m not sure they do.

  30. “A parent under law is defined as someone who has parental responsibility for a child, not necessarily the biological parent. An adopted child for the purposes of this form will put down their adoptive parents, not their biological parent(s).”

    Quite so, so why feel it necessary to define further categories by expanding the options. If you consider that every computation of people suitable for consideration as parents should be listed, – in the interests of ‘equality’, – then the list would be quite considerable, – perhaps with suitable explanations it might require a form of its own. After all if we do it for one minority, it has to be done for all, lest it be seen that some are more equal than others. The title of ‘Parents’ should be enough to cover all situations.

    Surely, in the case of a same gender couple, one of them wouldn’t be embarrassed by having his/her name entered under a specific header?

  31. Daphne,

    ‘ I’ve been filling out Parent 1/Parent 2 forms for years’

    Perhaps because that has been the ‘usual practice’ in your neck of the woods for a long time, and is the same for all parents. In this case it is an addition to the normal headings, clearly a sop to pander to an aggrieved minority.

    As you Americans are so fond of saying; -‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!’ We don’t happen to see this as something that is ‘broke’, and therefore, it don’t need fixing.

    In reality this is just another example of the thoughtless stupidity of the bureacratic class, If instead of just adding another two headers to the form, and thereby sending the wrong message, if they did what obviously your people did, that is – just replace the old headers with the new, it would have sent a far stronger message, if slightly more subtle one of equality, and perhaps far less controversial…

  32. Mahons,
    Homosexuality happens.
    It is normal that it happens
    but does that mean it is normal in the normal understanding of the word “normal”? 😉

  33. Exactement!

    But…
    the issues are more complex than whether you hold a cup in this hand or that hand.
    I have no idea if there is any credible research into the issue; it is after all very recently that the changes have been forced on us discussed democratically.
    It could all boil down to generational values, and I don’t like having ANY major changes forced on the society I live in without debate. So I largely believe in homogenous societies, not multicultural ones; I believe in traditional values being upheld, not Human Rights being imposed on us etc. etc.

    Homosexuality has always been with us, and homosexuals deserve the same rights and freedoms as anyone else. However I reserve the right not to approve the “in yer face” approach, Gay Pride marches or teaching it in schools as an alternative lifestyle.

    For myself the real area of conflict is in the procreation and nurturing of children, and the socialization and role modelling that goes on within the traditional family.

  34. I have no idea if there is any credible research into the issue;

    The University Of East Anglia may offer its services for the same type of unbiased research as they gave us on Global Warming

    If anything this will be more politicized and the outcome more pre-ordained.

  35. Do I detect a whiff of cynicism Phantom?
    The problem is that if the political tide is towards supporting and enforcing equality, diversity and inclusivity, it might be difficult to get impartial research, and in any case, once you open the boxes it’s very difficult to close them again.
    Ask Pandora! 😉

  36. Why do we have to analyze every detail of the human psyche? – when, as with so many things in life, much of our attitude to the things which have a direct effect on us boil down to personal likes and dislikes.

    What actually influences those choices most certainly has much to do with culture and nurture, and a great deal of social engineering.

    I’m sure that almost any act the human being is capable of performing has some devotee who is capable and willing to defend it, – would you believe that even paedophilia has a support group, with clergy among its members.

    It remains as to which is the best way to change attitudes, – by education, coercion, diktat, or by plain, simple and truthful explanation, bullying never works, and at the end of the day there will still be folk who just plain know what they like or dislike, – its human nature!

  37. What’s the big deal. The opportunity to use the Mother/Father boxes will remain, but a new box allowing people to choose ‘parents’ is to be added. Why on earth should this be seen as controversial. Nobody is being deprived of anything here.

  38. if the political tide is towards supporting and enforcing equality, diversity and inclusivity

    Surley that is a good thing? Unless you oppose equality, diversity and inclusivity?

    All that is happening is that a form is recognising that not every family is the same. In doing so that does not change the status of any other family. If a union is so fragile that the addition (not the replacement) to mother/father is going to herald the end of democracy then we are living in dangerous times.

    That, or someone is going in at the deep end.

    homosexuals … deserve the same rights and freedoms as anyone else
    So they are fine as long as they don’t try and assert those rights and freedoms. Such as the right to equal treatment?

  39. Geoff,
    “Surley that is a good thing? Unless you oppose equality, diversity and inclusivity?”

    I don’t oppose them, but I believe changes should happen in the context of a value system as in Christianity , Islam, Judaism etc etc. I believe in evolution, not imposition. These changes are not coming through by the force of argument and public sympathy. They are being forced on us by a political system responding to lobbyists, not inclusive debate.
    As I have stated elsewhere, increasingly Laws are being enacted in the Name of the People, but not by the Will of the People. That is a form of tyranny disguised as freedom!
    We also have to think through the consequences of the changes we make. You are aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences?!

  40. Colm,
    Wondered where you were!

    It may not appear to be a big thing, but it is where it is all leading. (For me) it falls into the same category as renaming Christmas Winterval or Winter holidays, or doing away with GMT or having an ever increasing pass rate for GCSE’s whilst removing or watering down the core subjects from the curriculum.
    You make little changes here and there, see how people react and change some more..
    Look at how the charge of “Racism” has stifled debate on immigration- just one example.

  41. but it is where it is all leading

    To greater equality without impinging on anyone else. All that is being moored is the addition of two words and two numerals. That is all.

    How you go from that to a dictatorship I have no idea. However I salute your honesty in saying you don’t like any change, that is an honest reply.

    Change is often difficult and with only access to partial facts (and this story came from The Daily Mail so it is not a disinterested observer) even harder.

    But put yourself in the position of a gay couple. They will have had to endure considerable prejudice for most of their lives. They adopt a child and the form makes no allowance fir them. If you are in favour of equality then how can you oppose such a minor change which has no deleterious effect on anyone else?

  42. Agit8ed

    I agree with you about all the nonsense to do with Winterval and all the other silly adjustments that supposedly deal with perceived ‘sensibilities’ but this doesn’t fall into that category. It just add’s a choice that may be more suitable for some people when completing these forms. It neither replaces nor erases the traditional mother/father wording and there is no justification for the false outrage about this.

  43. I am always happy to agree to disagree with you Colm. You are reasonable. Let’s look at what follows on from this in say, two years time.

  44. Agit8ed

    In 2 years time we will have no parents. We will have no gender. We will have no race. We will have no national origin. We shall each of us be happy and contended units of Euroland – each of us glittering little contended stars embedded in one giant happy united human Euroflag 🙂

  45. Ernest, I think you hit the nail on the head.

    We didn’t make a big deal of the change ten years ago, it just happened without any fanfare and nobody took offense or made political victory of such a minor difference in official forms.

    As a matter of fact, many of our forms feature slots for Parent 3 and 4 considering most children seem to be raised in split families.

    I don’t think you should have to change anything to suit politically driven minority special interests, although acceding to the reality of common family life these days only makes sense.

  46. “each of us glittering little contented stars embedded in one giant happy united human Euroflag :)”

    Ha ha! Well at least you’ll have lots of other little stars to play with..that should set your heart a-flutter 😉
    And so soon!!

  47. Geoff,
    I didn’t say I don’t like any change. I like logical change that fits in with the world view and values I grew up with!
    I admit I am approaching that age where I find fewer people who share those values….

  48. I didn’t say I don’t like any change. I like logical change that fits in with the world view and values I grew up with!

    Of course, but this is, in effect, saying I like the things I like. But this is a change that fits in with the world view and values that other people grew up with – so there will always be a conflict between competing views.

    I fully understand that people don’t like change; but this is a change that does not have any deleterious effect which is why I am so perplexed that people are so strongly against it. But I do think that Ernest may be right when he says “at the end of the day there will still be folk who just plain know what they like or dislike“.

Comments are closed.