There are lots of legal things in this world that people have a moral compunction with. Abortion, gun control, capital punishment, and realistic sex education in schools are some of the more common examples, although gay marriage has become quite an ignited spark these days.
And now, with “mother” and “father” being removed from United States passport applications in …
… lieu of “Parent One” and “Parent Two,” that spark might well explode when this policy goes into effect in February.
A statement on the State Department website noted: “These improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.” The statement didn’t note if it was for child applications only.
The State Department said the new passport applications, not yet available to the public, will be available online soon.
[Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services Brenda] Sprague said the decision to remove the traditional parenting names was not an act of political correctness.
You know, Brenda Sprague, somehow I doubt that. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the move … I have friends in same-sex relationships that are raising a child together, and I think it’s the only fair thing for the children involved, not to mention their parents (who have as much of a right to raise a child as anyone).
But don’t say that it’s not a PC ploy, particularly given the enthusiastic reaction of gay rights groups.
And of course you can imagine that conservative Christians are on a tear … and as usual, I’m torn between laughing at how crazy they sound and crying at how truly small-minded some people are.
“Only in the topsy-turvy world of left-wing political correctness could it be considered an ‘improvement’ for a birth-related document to provide less information about the circumstances of that birth,” Family Research Council president Tony Perkins wrote in a statement to Fox News Radio. “This is clearly designed to advance the causes of same-sex ‘marriage’ and homosexual parenting without statutory authority, and violates the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act.”
Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, agreed. “It’s part of an overall attempt at political correctness to diminish the distinction between men and women and to somehow suggest you don’t need both a father and a mother to raise a child successfully,” said Jeffress. “(This decision) was made to make homosexual couples feel more comfortable in rearing children.”
Look, as far as I’m concerned, as long as children are being raised in healthy, happy, nurturing homes, more power to the people who are raising them. I know of cases where grandparents, aunts and uncles, and even family friends have custody of children because theirs is a better child-rearing environment than those who are often little more than sperm and egg donors.
Two women or two men in a living, committed relationship have as much right to raise a child as anyone. Get over yourselves, crazy radical right religious nuts.
As is often the case, I’m especially touched by the personal story, that of Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Equality Council.
Chrisler recounted the day she and her female partner tried to get her twin sons passports.
“Even though my partner was their legal mother, had adopted them after I gave birth to them, she still had to put her name in the father field, and that is both discriminatory and makes us feel like second-class citizens,” she said.
I get that. I think this change is a good thing, and not just for homosexual families. I’ve seen a lot of school forms where “father” and “mother” were crossed out and replaced by “uncle” and “aunt,” and if that doesn’t scream out, “Awkward!” for all parties involved, I don’t know what would.
Is this really that big a deal?
Parent 1 and Parent 2 are fine.
It isn’t such a big deal, really – it is simple, descriptive terminology. It works for 2 moms, 2 dads and the traditional mom and dad.
Why would anyone care? It isn’t like it’s taking from the traditional parents, or being disrespectful or dismissive.
This has nothing to do with political correctness or advancing gay marriage or anything similar. It’s simply ensuring that passports actually are correct. If you put a women in the “father” field, it is leading those who need to look at a passport to believe that the second parent is a man when she is not. Putting father and mother makes this unnecessarily restrictive. This is really just making passports more correct.
More stupid sh!t from the government.
…………………7O…………….
………………..888…………….
………………..888,……………
…………I8888888888D……………
……….88888888888888888…………
……..7888,…O888~88O~8888……….
…….788O….7888..888…888………
…….88O….Z888..788O….888……..
……88O….8888….88O…..888…….
……888…8888…..8888….888…….
88888O8888D888888888888888888888Z$…..
..8888888888888888888O888O..=888$:,$7O..
.,,…88O8888………8888..888……..
……~88888……….88887888………
…….O888…………888888……….
……88888888,…….,88888………..
…..8888..O8888888888888888………..
….8888…….88888O$..8888………..
…$,.8……………..OO,8,……….
…………………….8.?………..
…………………………………
I squinted at that thing until i got light headed,still can’t figure it out. You need a hobby.
Turn your head slightly to the right – about 2 o’clock.
Now, close your left eye about 3/4′s shut.
Flutter your right eyelid like theres a gnat in it.
See it now?
It’s a squid with a breast cancer awareness ribbon around it’s neck.
.
Glad I could help.
Yeah,I think your right,I thought it was a cheerleader playing a trumpet.
It’s more stupid sh!t from the government.
What a bunch of maroons.
We’ve been promised serious action on deficit reduction,and this is what we get? We’re in serious doodoo.
You do wonder if there would have been less outcry had they used the term ‘guardian’ rather than ‘parent’. This would have covered all bases, be they same-sex parents, divorced/remarried parents, other family members, or adoptive/foster families.
And it’s worth noting that this is for passports, NOT birth certificates. The FRC should realise that a passport is not a ‘birth-related document’.
I had a huge argument over the holidays with my sister, her husband (a pastor), and my mom (a pastor’s wife). It started as a “being gay isn’t a sin” argument and turned into a “people of the same sex can successfully raise a child” argument. I realized during this argument that no logical thinking really goes into this for conservative christians. The arguments presented to me were: 1. Most convicted felons come from single parent homes, 2. You need make and female influences to be fully adjusted, 3. Studies show that children of same sex couples are maladjusted, 4. It makes kids gay. and of course 5. It’s not in God’s plan. So, so, so aggravating. Because 1. Those statistics definitely have more to do from coming from a living situation which likely was unstable and in which there was not a lot of money, meaning the mother had to work more often and the child was either alone or left in someone else’s care 2. You can get those elsewhere and most gay parents are very conscious of that because the right wing throws it in their face 3. Actually that is the opposite of what any reputable study has shown. Where is your info from? James Dobson’s ass? 4. No it doesn’t. You can’t make someone gay, maybe more likely to admit they are if they come from a loving home. 5. Prove that to me. You can’t, I thought so. Anything logical i responded with was completely tossed away. AHHHHH! Rawr!!! And then we had a nice slice of pumpkin roll, watched some TV and forgot it happened. Another day with of oft-crazy people; glad to be out of America and away from it!
I suggest someday you google conservative gays,they have some very interesting sites. I’m not really sure what it is that you suggested that the right wing was throwing around,intolerance I suppose.
Generally the term “conservative christian” is meant to refer to a fundamentalist christian. You can be a a conservative and be a tolerant person and you can be a christian and be a tolerant person. You can even be a christian who is conservative and be a tolerant person. Unfortunately, when those two things go together they do tend to push upon each other, driving the nail into the psychotic bastard coffin. Of course, I’m being facetious, I know many lovely people who are conservative christians, whose negative qualities only really come out when you push them out. Then there are those who are just generally a-holes and those who are living in some alternate selectively perceived reality. When I say conservative christian it not only means someone who is conservative politically, but someone who is conservative within the scale of their religious belief.
You didn’t say conservative christian,you said right wing. That must have been what confused me. I have a gay friend who makes me look liberal,he doesn’t want government in his private life or his wallet. Most likely to do with the fact that he has made a fair amount of money in the commercial real estate business,and pays mega taxes.
I did say conservative christian, Right near the top :3
You stated that you had an argument with conservative christians,then later you implied that gay parents were aware of something because of something right wingers throw in their face,I’m just curious what that is?
@Joey that was in reference to the argument which goes: children need both a male and female parent to be well-adjusted. My response to that would be that you actually don’t need male and female influences to come from your parents- especially since those are terms are *so* incredibly vague and are quickly loosing meaning. Does that mean feminine and masculine influences? and what exactly does that entail, yadda yadda. But regardless of this, from what I know, same-sex couples are very conscious of having their children have important figures on their lives of both genders. I think that happens pretty naturally anyway, but also a large part of that very conscious choice is to placate those who have the idea that these children never experience time with both genders. This actually can apply to just right wing (political wise) actually in addition to the conservative christian group, if only because a lot of right policies have demonized the single mother and non-traditional families (and this *is* related). This is reflected in policies which make it difficult even for children being raised by a mother and grandmother to get certain benefits for the child they are both raising.
Part of that is due to a large segment of people being unable to comprehend the difference between ‘tolerate and ‘encourage’ or the difference between ‘demonized’ and ‘not preferred’.
I would like it if everyone could take a course on the sexual politics of america, then would see really how demonized single mothers have been and how it has carried through our culture.
I’ve never experienced demonization over being a single mother.
I wasn’t just a single mother, I was a young single mother, and still nothing.
I volunteered in my daughter’s class every week and came in contact with other parents on a regular basis. They were all much older than me and most were married, yet they all treated me very well.
Liberals need a victim to implement a government solution,its their agenda.
Now now, Joey, everyone has an agenda. Liberal agendas just cost more.
^Says the liberal.
Your right,I’ll try to control my obstinate attitudes.
I think your sexual politics of america professor has done her job very well! You seem completely convinced!
For one, to suggest that ‘it is better for children to have two parents’ is not ‘demonizing’. It is suggesting that a better alternative exists where possible. Much like saying ‘Lithiums work better in the cold’ is hardly a ‘demonization’ of NiMH batteries..
But that isn’t an option for a woman who left her abusive husband. Demonizing her for having the audacity to try to raise a child alone happens a lot. Denying it doesn’t make it disappear.
Raising children with a partner isn’t an option for many women. I personally was one of those women who raised a child alone rather than with an abusive man. She and I were both better off on our own than we would’ve been in a traditional two parent home with him.
.
That said, now that I’m currently raising a child in a good environment with two parents, I’m forced to see the differences between his home environment and hers. He gets more out of his two parents than she got from just me.
She turned out great, she had fantastic male role models, and the single mother experience didn’t ruin her.
But her little brother is still getting more.
.
I don’t doubt that some single mothers face flak for being single mothers. I’m just saying I’ve never experienced it or seen it, and I agree with Kai’s point that simply pointing out that children receive more benefits from a typical two parent home is not the same as demonizing single parents.
Thank-you Alzaetia for the last sentence.
To say that it is preferred for a child to have two parents is not the suggestion that that is the only thing that matters.
Of course one good parent is better than two bad parents. Or even better than a good parent and an abusive parent. Sometimes people die, and kids are left with only one parent. Sometimes one or both people who make a baby are completely unable to be a parent and the child is best raised by Grandma.
The point is not to suggest that single parents can’t do things well, or that it’s better to get another person around no matter how terrible.
It’s simply a note that while the child can certainly be raised well in any situation, it could have been better to have two stable decent parents.
I’m not saying that there isn’t anyone out there who does take issue with a woman for raising a child alone. I am saying that there is a lot less of it than some of you might think, when you define any suggestion of a better way as ‘demonization’.
Also, I will go ahead and state that I think it’s a poor choice for women to purposely go ahead and plan to raise a child alone. they can do it of course – just not identify the father, or use a sperm bank, but I think it is a selfish choice that is not made in the best interests of the child.
That’s a separate issue from commending single parents who do the best they can do, while acknowledging that they are not in the optimal situation.
I absolutely agree that’s it’s better for a kid to have two parents. I didn’t mean to suggest that somehow 1 parent can do the job of 2 people; however, I do find there is an attitude that single mothers cannot produce quality children at all, ever.
And I absolutely agree that the few people out there with that mindset are wrong. But I don’t see it very often.
I think you’re dead on about the selfishness involved when you decide to raise a child alone.
I did not get pregnant with my daughter on accident. I was very young and I was with a man who obviously wasn’t suitable, a man I knew I would leave, yet I did it anyway because I wanted her and I didn’t want to wait.
I have apologized countless times to her for that.
In fact, the more I see the benefits that her brother is receiving, the more I apologize.
.
However, I don’t think it’s a selfish decision that is necessarily detrimental to the child. There are definitely women out there who choose to raise children alone and do a better job of it than they would with a partner.
I think this just makes sense. Why on earth should a passport include any information about the circumstances of one’s birth? Do we need to include the length of the labour as well?
I would ditch the parent term altogether though, and go with guardian, as someone suggested above.
That’s all that really matters for a passport – which person(s) have legal guardianship rights over the child. And that doesn’t matter whether that includes one woman, two men, or three unrelated hermaphrodites.
Makes way more sense to just include guardians, to deal with the reality that some kids are raised by parents, others by friends, or aunts, or grandparents, and some by the state. Sex of guardians is irrelevant to a child leaving the country.
I’m a bit confused over the preference for “guardian” over “parent” but maybe that’s because I don’t understand the difference. If someone is a legal guardian, doesn’t that make the person a parent, more or less, to the child in question? Maybe it’s because I assume parents are the people who raise and take care of you, not necessarily with any biological connection to you. If anyone could explain the nuance that I’m missing, I would be grateful.
legally speaking, a child can have recognised ‘parents’ whose legal rights are stripped and given to another person to be the ‘guardian’ of those children.
They may be ‘parenting’ the child as we know it, but may have a different term, and the two aren’t confused.
For example, if a child is being raised by his grandparents, it would seem silly to call them his parents. We know who his parents are (let’s say they died), and we know who is raising him. So if the grandparents have the legal rights to the child, they are his legal guardian.
Another one might be where parents exist, but have temporarily lost the rights to their child (parent is in jail and kid is in foster care, perhaps). The guardian and the parent may exist separately.
So it might be just a difference between how you think of ‘parent’ and how the law does.
The law will assign ‘legal guardian’s without caring who is considered a parent.
And since, for the purposes of a passport, we are using legal-speak, and caring about who has legal rights, ‘guardian’ seems like the logical term.
I think for things like passports identification is the point.
So, having the name of the parents, even if they aren’t the guardians, is still important.
In cases where a child is being raised by somebody other than a parent, the guardian issue is only important as it relates to the right to travel out of country with a child. That’s where custody papers come into it.
Aren’t birth certificates and ID cards made for identification?
Why would a kid NEED a passport except to leave the country?
A passport is identification, and since people are identified not only by their names, but also by their parents’ names, guardians that are not listed on the birth certificate shouldn’t be listed on a passport.
Did that make sense?
My parents are not listed on my passport.
If the names of my parents were used to help identify me, then I would expect them to be on my passport for identification purposes even as an adult.
Since they are on the passport of a child, and not of an adult, it seemed to me that the purpose was more for who is responsible for the child.
Is this a nationality difference? Does your passport include the names of your parents?
Or ahhhhhhh. This information is NOT on the passport at all. This is in the passport *application*, and is used to identify the person to get them the passport. I think the ‘application’ part of it got list in my brain along the way (and by the sounds of it, the brains of others as well).
For identification purposes, on the application, parent 1 and parent 2 make total sense for as long as two is the maximum number of parents a child is legally permitted to recognise in the country.
“Only in the topsy-turvy world of left-wing political correctness could it be considered an ‘improvement’ for a birth-related document to provide less information about the circumstances of that birth”
.
Do the circumstances of the birth matter that much to this guy?
I gave my second child up for adoption and I’m not on her birth certificate or passport forms as her mother.
And that’s exactly as it should be, because the circumstances of her birth have little to do with who her parents are.
It’s not the circumstances of the kid’s birth that matter. It’s the circumstances of its life that are more important to be shown on the passport. I could have been born in Namibia and become a US citizen, and all that matters (on my passport at least) is that I am a US citizen.
Do you not have access to birth control, or are you some papist bead mumbler who can’t keep her legs together?
Most nights I get drunk and hang out in biker bars having unprotected sex with whoever’s next in line.
.
I’m insulted that you’d think I was Catholic.
Where is the “Like” button?
Lola’s jealous that Alzaetia gets laid.
ha!
Wow, just read a couple of comments and couldn’t be fucked to read the rest. My professor was a man, not that that makes a real difference. They actually used to call this imagined group of single mothers of african and hispanic origin who had children constantly and couldn’t take care of them “demon mothers” so there isn’t much argument there. The ideology has carried through to the ideas of the “welfare queen” in current political debate.
The “Welfare Queen” and single parenthood are completely different topics.
The concept of a “welfare Queen” is a woman who continually has children she can’t provide for in order to receive greater benefits from the public welfare system.
.
That has nothing to do with women raising children without a man.
I think you’re off base with the suggestion that “single mother” automatically triggers the notion of a career welfare mother in most people’s eyes.
.
Just because your professor can conjure up examples of “Welfare Queens” being referred to a “demon mothers” does not mean that most women today are being demonized for being single parents.
So, there absolutely is an argument about whether or not single mothers are demonized.
In fact, you focused on one tiny nuance of single motherhood and declared that single mothers are demonized.
That’s faulty logic.
Actually, if you read my comment correctly you would see that the demon mother was not some tiny example. I don’t mind explaining things to people, but when they act like assholes for no reason it really turns me off. The demon mother was truely a past paradigm, this is not a dinky dissertation, it has been recorded, tracked, discussed, analyzed, reanalyzed, had books written on it, etc. It was something that had importance on American culture. I am incredibly invested when I make claims like that, I don’t just make shit up, that is what my entire life is based around. This was a huge part of American culture in the 1940s. And yes, it VERY obviously relates to welfare queens. Considering **I** brought up single mothers in the first place, and the type I brought up were in the context of poor living conditions in relation to my brother in law’s argument (that gay parents would clearly be a negative thing because most convicted felons come from single mothers), I think it is safe to say that we are still referring to the SAME group of single mothers who come from poor conditions and have financial issues taking care of their children. This is obviously different from “career women”. If we are going to argue about what I’m not talking about and never referred to, then we can do that, but I mean, it’s just “faulty logic.”
?!
Guess what! It’s not the 1940s!
Also, declaring that you “can’t be fucked” to read what anybody else has written and then getting pissy about whether or not somebody read your comment correctly is laughable.
And it kinda makes you look like an asshole.
I mean, as long as we’re talking about being assholes, let’s not ignore that one…
I comprehended what you said.
You declared that you wish everybody had your education so we could all see how demonized single mothers are in this culture.
.
The Welfare Mother stigma has more to do with race and class than single parenthood. It is a separate issue. In declaring that single mothers are demonized, you referenced this particular situation.
.
Just because a situation has existed in the past and been well documented is not an indicator of the current situation.
I realize that you think that it has carried down through history and that women are demonized today because of the past climate.
All I said originally was that I had never seen nor experienced that behavior.
I disagree with your assessment.
That makes me an asshole?
Single mom of 5 here. no one has the cojones to stigmatize me.
Or maybe I just wasn’t paying attention.
:/ Holy crap it’s attack Gigi day.
So…anyway….
I see what Gigi’s saying, and I agree that the stigmatization of single mothers has been around for a long time. I think we all agree that it is certainly not nearly as severe as it was in the 40′s, there are those who still associate single mothers with being “welfare queens,” because making that association makes it easier to file people away into little boxes of “People I Like” and “People I Don’t Like.” Obviously (and I believe this is coupled with the rise of the working mom) there are more prominent single mothers who are obviously doing a fantastic job and prove that the demonization of single moms is less prevalent.
I’m also a tad confused as to why we’re angry that the world isn’t out to get single mothers anymore and Gigi is acknowledging that some people still think that way. I would much rather save my ire for someone who says that life is all fluffy bunnies and welfare money for single mothers.
Erin, Sticking my two cents in. One can learn a whole lot of things through a good education, but until you take that education and apply it to the real world through living it, it means nothing. I think Alzaetia hit the point when she said “I comprehended what you said.
You declared that you wish everybody had your education so we could all see how demonized single mothers are in this culture.”
Again, don’t read this as saying that Everyone has to live through everything to get real knowledge of a subject, but I have know so many people that are “book” smart that have no common sense in the real world. Not saying this about Gigi, you and her are still young and learning and forming your values and opinions on subjects. Just don’t be surprised if/when some of those change as you encounter life.
I very carefully avoid attacking anyone. I disagree with the ideas they present. And right now I am disagreeing with these.
Who is angry that the world isn’t out to get single mothers? I think we’re just fine with that – we’re just failing to convince Gigi that what happened in the past is not necessarily what is happening now.
I absolutely agree that there USED to be a lot of societal shaming of single mothers for any reason except widowhood. and even then, why hasn’t she remarried?
I don’t agree that this remains the case.
I don’t think the sex of the professor makes a difference – I just use ‘she’ as the generic pronoun in these parts.
And Alzaetia has already explained the difference between single mothers and welfare leeches.
I’m blaming the right wing!
I blame Communism and the Soviets!
How can we make this more about me?
By upping the acid content, silly. At least 5% should do it.
Your my favorite condiment for french fries.
Fascist bastards.
They don’t know why they are angry, but boy are they glad to create an environment to be unjustifiably so! Thank god we are all so level headed and rational and not at all lashing out out of frustration that we might not be 100% right all of the time! Yippie!
A reminder, you are the one who started calling people names.
I felt not a moment of frustration, I simply disagreed.
I also disagree with the reasoning behind your opinion. I feel that I stated that pretty clearly and unemotionally.
I gave my own experience, challenged the basis for your statement, and disagreed with your conclusion.
If that’s taken as “lashing out” by you, then you need to try talking to more people who disagree with you so that you get some practice handling the situation.
No-one here is angry. Definitely not unjustifiably angry, due to not being angry. I stated something mockingly, and many people made clear points, but if you’re reading anger, you might want to take another look at what you read in.
I scrolled down to recent comments and first saw “Fascist bastards.” from you Kai then immediately saw “No-one here is angry.” Also from you, oh man the lack of context between those two lines was fantastic.
.
However the only person I read as angry is Gigi “They don’t know why they are angry, but boy are they glad to create an environment to be unjustifiably so! Thank god we are all so level headed and rational and not at all lashing out out of frustration that we might not be 100% right all of the time! Yippie!”
.
And yes I did read all the comments. Kai especially has never *yelled* at me, mocked me probably, but has never gone into alpha bitch mode. The rest of you might have at one time or another, hell if I can remember, but generally people keep the snarling beast contained here, unless directed at Boring.
That IS awesome noncontext. :D
.
Trolls are not real commenters and do not deserve the same level of respect. Once a poster has devolved into a troll, they are required to demonstrate consistent useful posting to lose the label.
.
For everyone else, I do my best to always stay on the issue. I will *absolutely* mock a comment, use sarcasm, call something inane or ridiculous, but I try really hard to avoid ever attacking the commenter, and catch myself when ‘that’s dumb’ attempts to manifest itself as ‘you’re dumb’.
It doesn’t help anything, and I think personal attacks demonstrate a lack of ability to discuss ideas.
This moved from people commenting on the story and saying interesting things to Kai saying something really snarky, essentially picking on me because she didn’t understand why I used the word “demonized”. So I responded in the same format, just snarkyness. Then Alzaetia said my logic was faulty, mostly becasue she construed my flippant response to Kai as a “I know so much more than you bleeeeaahhhh” (which was, I thought, pretty obviously not serious) which pissed her off. I then called her out on sounding like an a-hole. Ta-da! This is how things devolve! By the way, I realize it can be difficult to pinpoint a commenter’s personality and in what tone they say things- because we don’t know each other. So let me just say, I am a deadpan sarcasm type of girl. I am an incredibly happy and levelheaded type and I don’t tend to get angry. In fact the only time I can remember being angry while posting on this site was when a few people started saying things along the line of “You can just sit down sweetheart, you are just young, you’ll change your mind. Let us real women, with all the life experience talk” Which actually just happened again. But this time, I’m not angered by it. We sorted it out last time and pretty much decided that was inappropriate, to determine someone’s life experience and maturity by their age. Now it just makes me sad that no one gleaned anything from that conversation and they just bounced right back into their previous ways of thinking.
Gigi, I am not saying “sit down sweetheart, you are young, you’ll change your mind, blah, blah. What I am saying is and I’m sure most of the people here over 30 or so can atest to. Keep an open mind on subjects. Our minds evolve over time with our life experiences.
.
You appear to be a bright assertive young women, who brings very valid points to discussions. Maybe it is in the way it is worded and as you said, it is hard to judge tone by written words. Sometimes a post comes across as very judgemental (as you can atest to about mine), without being meant so. Peace.
You didn’t say it directly like that, but it always comes out like that.
Appropriate debate speaks to the issue, not the person stating the opinion.
Even if it is true that many people change their minds on many subjects as they age, it is irrelevant to the discussion of the ideas.
There is no need to go on to “you are still young and forming opinions and they will change” if you actually have a point to disagree with the opinion. Either you can talk about the issue, in which case that’s unnecessary, or you can’t talk about the issue, in which case resorting to that just looks low.
You may mean it nicely and fully genuinely, but it will always come out as patronizing, and has no place in a discussion about an issue.
If the issue at hand is something in which age actually plays a factor (eg. I’ve had a child, I’ve been a single mother, my experience was different), then (and only then) age matters and has a place in the discussion. Even then, it is only the directly related experience that matters – not the fact that you’ve been around a while longer.
Again, I did not get pissed off. And I said your logic was faulty because you were backing up the statement that single mothers are demonized with an example that only ever applied to a small (and very specific) segment of single mothers. And that issue was about race and class anyway, not single mothers.
.
That is faulty logic. You begged the question and I called you on that.
.
All I ever did was disagree with you and point out why I disagreed.
If you think that makes me an asshole, you’ve got no future in debate.
I understood why you said people were demonized. I disagreed with you, since we’ve all been talking about today, and your evidence is that it happened in the 1940s, which I don’t find relevant at all.
No-one suggested that it had never happened – we disagreed that it was common today.
I think it was Churchill who said if your young and conservative,you have no heart,if your old and liberal you haven’t a brain.
“If you were my husband, I’d poison your coffee,” Ms. Astor.
“If you were my wife, I’d drink it,” Winston Churchill.
I never did believe in ‘heart’…
you know, my mom was a single mother and i dont think i turned out wrong. sometimes, if raised well, we(the children of single parents) can be actually more independent because we see how hard our parent works and how much they sacrificed a lot. i mean, my mom is gone on a business trip for a month and im living with my roommates, perfectly fine. also, addressing the gay topic, i think the adults are already set in their ways of “hating” gay couples, so people should let their children see how gay couples are okay and should be respected. because they are the ones with the courage to come out and raise a child. then the younger generation will influence their kids and voila, no more gay hating. of course, that is an idealistic view. plus, when you think about it, isnt gay couples and single parents raising their children in a loving caring way, better than couples that are not homosexual raising their kids in a non-loving, non-caring way?