Homosexuals can't repeal biology, but they can pretend that it doesn't exist. This is at work in Massachusetts, where homosexuals seek to alter birth certificates to indicate "Parent A" and "Parent B." Parents, a mother and a father, create children. Any variable--an "A" and a "B"--won't do. Preferably, mothers and fathers raise the children too. To intentionally deprive a child of a mother or a father is evil. To erase a child's biological heritage--even if half of that equation is a deadbeat--is similarly evil.

Despite advancements in chemistry, neither two men nor two women can procreate together. Governor Mitt Romney has outraged homosexual activists by standing by the traditional birth certificate. It lists a "mother" and a "father," and if both homosexual partners wish to be listed on the document Romney suggests that they scratch out the offending label and write in "second parent." The governor finds something Orwellian in the new, demanded language. "My view is that that's wrong on paper and it's wrong on fact," notes Governor Romney. "Every child deserves to have a mother and a father, and a birth certificate should reflect mothers and fathers."

Less than one-tenth of one percent of Massachusetts babies were born to married, same-sex couples in 2004. That's right, 61 of roughly 80,000. Gay activists literally want 99.9 percent to accomodate .1 percent. Might society be better off if the abnormal were to accomodate the normal every so often?

What the hell? This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time.

In the most literal sense, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a child to be born to anything but a mother and a father.

What a joke.

h8r

Why stop at just two parents? How bout a triad? A man ( with a moustache), a woman ( with a wiffle) and a maitre' D at a posh restraunt ( with a goatee.)Or say Three men. Or a village of women raising all the children,while the men attend workshops given by tenured women studies professors. Wierdos.

Lets hear it for the Moral Majority not the immoral minority!

Isn't this about creating a birth certificate for an adoptee? In olden days a birth certificate was generated for an adoptee listing the adoptee's non-bio parents. When the law allows for legal adoption by same-sex couples it should also allow for appropriate documentation, if that is the issue here.

The problem is not that we aren’t hearing from the moral majority because they are out there and they are vocal. The problem is that the pandering politicians react more to the politically correct squeaky wheels and unless these kinds of issues end up as referendum questions for all in the Commonwealth to vote on, the useless weasels in the State House will go with the vocal PC minority every time.

This is where liberalism has become a mental disorder.

Hey, Flaming Joe, we all appreciate your reasoned, intelligent response to Ben T's comment. It's funny, a person makes a comment with which you disagree, and you're only comeback it to lable them a "h8r". I suppose, since I agree with Ben T, I am a "Nazi"?

I think it was a joke, Thom.

A variable notation could work, but the variables would have to be of different kinds to show the logical differences between their arguments. The difference in kinds of variable would prevent invalid substitutions, e.g., 'John' would be an invalid argument for the second variable.

Thus, the homosexuals have devised an inadequate notation that is guilty of a category mistake. Or more simply, the nature of marriage is evident even in formal logic.

What about Parent C? A husband's sperm and his wife's egg can be joined to form an embryo that can be implanted in surrogate Parent C.

Word is there's a movement afoot to rename those holidays in May and June to "Parent A Day" and "Parent B Day", respectively.

When I have children, I will strive to be the best Parent B I can be.

Tyranny of the minority.

webster,

i think you're absolutely right. although i think it's critical throughout a child's development that he or she have a stable male and female influence in his or her life, the issue is that every child adopted by same-sex couples should have the information necessary to trace their biological lineage. it's a human rights issue for the child that they someday know who their actual father and mother is.

this argument continues to prove my point that breeding is never, NEVER, about the child and it's always about satisfying a selfish physiological or psychological need within the parent(s). the birth certificate controversy in Massachusettes is one example among many.

PMA-
IMO, male and female are the ideal duo to raise a child. They simply have more to offer a child than male-male or female-female, all things being equal.

I would like for people to be able to know about their bio parents, but this openness may have a deleterious effect on potential adopters and on the bio parents. Parents may choose more often to abort if they cannot preserve their anonymity. And fewer people choose to adopt if they fear the bio parents re-entering the kid's life. You have to balance the kid's rightful interest in the bio parents with the concerns of the adults involved. Tricky.

I'll be the first to agree that adoption law in this country is wacky. Birth certificates themselves are sort of a misnomer, they don't reflect who the birth parents are, but who are the legal parents of the child. As mentioned above, since birth certificates are the basis on which people are given parental rights it follows that if a same-sex couple OR opposite-sex couple adopts an infant, both of the legal parents names are then placed on the birth certificate. (In the case of women it is often only the second-parent that is being added to the certificate. The first one is the birth-mom, the second is either the other mother or a non-biological adoptive father.)

Question-- if the very existence of gay couples raising children makes you all so unhappy then do ya'll advocate? That all children who aren't living in married, hetero households be forcefully removed by the state? If not, do you really want to stop these families from having the same basic, legal protections other families have, even if you don't like or approve of them? There are a lot of legalized things people don't like but this is supposed to be America, land of the free. Right?

Zoe, Free is not equal. Freedom is a random spread with varied results. Equal implies control (as things are only "equal" by rules). You are free to think of strait and gay marriages as equal, but to make them equal requires the force of law.

Your question about forcibly removing children deserves nothing but a dishonorable mention. It is a pathetic way to argue. Can I likewise assume that because you don't want conservatives to make law, you want to strip them of their right to vote? Shame on you for allowing me to read something so fascistic into your comments!

Yes, this is a "supposed to be a" free country. Now, try to get nice liber-als to let you turn your yard into a pig farm. Where we conservatives might want to conserve the lack of pig odor, I'm sure that liber-alls would rather that you have that freedom. And that's what you get with overly facile readings of the word "free".

Now, what's with me having to stop at red lights and stop signs?!?! What's with speed limits. I've got to get the true believers in freedom on that one.