New law: The terms "mom" are "dad" are discriminatory

[middletree]

In California, of course.

School personnel would be not allowed to use the terms "mom" and "dad" because it discriminates against non-traditional families. It's not actually a law yet, but it's likely to be passed by the CA legislature, and Gov. Arnold will hopefully veto it. Absolutely amazing. And there's more in the article about this law, too. One item dictates that if a student wants to be called by the opposite pronoun (i.e. a boy wants to be referred to as "she") then the school personnel are required to comply with that request.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57 593

This is from a website that's pretty conservatively biased. However, it seems correct in light of my reading of the actual text of the law at http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20070223_intr oduced.html

Note this clause:
"Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender
identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not
stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

Note: This thread is not about homosexuality, so please don't turn it in that direction. We all know the verses. This is about wacky laws and an agenda to put traditional families on the backburner. It's about eroding standards and the denial of the idea that there just might be a right and wrong way to do things.

[cheewiee]

In California, of course.

School personnel would be not allowed to use the terms "mom" and "dad" because it discriminates against non-traditional families. It's not actually a law yet, but it's likely to be passed by the CA legislature, and Gov. Arnold will hopefully veto it. Absolutely amazing. And there's more in the article about this law, too. One item dictates that if a student wants to be called by the opposite pronoun (i.e. a boy wants to be referred to as "she") then the school personnel are required to comply with that request.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57 593

This is from a website that's pretty conservatively biased. However, it seems correct in light of my reading of the actual text of the law at http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20070223_intr oduced.html

Note this clause:
"Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender
identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not
stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

Note: This thread is not about homosexuality, so please don't turn it in that direction. We all know the verses. This is about wacky laws and an agenda to put traditional families on the backburner. It's about eroding standards and the denial of the idea that there just might be a right and wrong way to do things.

Every day that goes by I am more and more convinced that Paul was talking about America in Romans 1...

[Andi]

wow. That is so messed up I don't even know how to respond. wow.

I pray that Arnold vetos this. I also pray for those families, moms, dads, and children that are living in the midst of this evil.

[rossid]

I just said out loud, "school personnel would be not allowed to use the terms "mom" and "dad" because it discriminates against non-traditional families", and then wondered if it offended one of my coworkers. :rolleyes:

[Jesuslove]

I don't see this as necessarily bad. I registered my son for school in New Jersey last week (I split time between NJ and DE as my primary residence). Anyway, their school forms list "Parent 1" and "Parent 2".

I too don't want to turn this into a gay / straight issue. I am aware of a few non-traditional families in my area. In one case, two single sisters are raising a child together. In another case, a single mom adopted and she lists her father as the second parent, for emergency purposes. I don't see either situation as wrong, or immoral. Both would be considered "non-traditional" households.

[SonflowerGurl]

I don't see this as necessarily bad. I registered my son for school in New Jersey last week (I split time between NJ and DE as my primary residence). Anyway, their school forms list "Parent 1" and "Parent 2".

I too don't want to turn this into a gay / straight issue. I am aware of a few non-traditional families in my area. In one case, two single sisters are raising a child together. In another case, a single mom adopted and she lists her father as the second parent, for emergency purposes. I don't see either situation as wrong, or immoral. Both would be considered "non-traditional" households.

...but it shouldn't be a law.

[Jesuslove]

...but it shouldn't be a law.

It's a way to include people without them, or their child feeling like outsiders.

[cheewiee]

It's a way to include people without them, or their child feeling like outsiders.

Yes, because we are not quite PC enough in this country... We need traditional terms like Mother and Father to be recorded in state law as "discriminatroy"...

[Jesuslove]

Yes, because we are not quite PC enough in this country... We need traditional terms like Mother and Father to be recorded in state law as "discriminatroy"...

I don't see it as a big deal. Parents are parents. It is estimated today that 25% of all children live in traditional households. What if a child's parents are being divorced and he's being raised by Mom and her new husband. Technically, the new husband isn't the father, but he is the father figure. I can think of many reasons why "father" and "mother" not work for a particular family.

[SonflowerGurl]

I don't see it as a big deal. Parents are parents. It is estimated today that 25% of all children live in traditional households. What if a child's parents are being divorced and he's being raised by Mom and her new husband. Technically, the new husband isn't the father, but he is the father figure. I can think of many reasons why "father" and "mother" not work for a particular family.

All children have a biological mother and father no matter how they came to be...of course, when a family member such as a sibling is raising the child or the grandparents it can be noted in a file and treated in a respectful manner but why would you put a law into effect that mandates paperword be done in a specific way. Seems like a effort to try to micro-manage something that is pretty intutive.

[Jesuslove]

All children have a biological mother and father no matter how they came to be...of course, when a family member such as a sibling is raising the child or the grandparents it can be noted in a file and treated in a respectful manner but why would you put a law into effect that mandates paperword be done in a specific way. Seems like a effort to try to micro-manage something that is pretty intutive.

The state is saying it is appropriate because traditional families are in the minority. Not every family is the same. I am a single dad raising a child, so I'm lumped in with all the other non-traditional families, so I'm sensitive to the issue.

[cheewiee]

The state is saying it is appropriate because traditional families are in the minority. Not every family is the same. I am a single dad raising a child, so I'm lumped in with all the other non-traditional families, so I'm sensitive to the issue.

Excuse me, your not a dad... You are a Parental unit, because the term dad is offensive...

[SonflowerGurl]

The state is saying it is appropriate because traditional families are in the minority. Not every family is the same. I am a single dad raising a child, so I'm lumped in with all the other non-traditional families, so I'm sensitive to the issue.

So you are saying your child was born without a mom?

[Jesuslove]

So you are saying your child was born without a mom?

No but his Mom put him up for adoption, therefore no, he doesn't have a Mom.

[Tony Trout]

Boy, this world gets more messed up as every day passes......I'm just speechless at this.....

[middletree]

No but his Mom put him up for adoption, therefore no, he doesn't have a Mom.

That's getting sidetracked from the real argument, here. There is no Constitutional guarantee to not get offended, no guarantee that all will be included all the time. This law is a clear attempt by a certain group of activists to minimize the importance of mothers and fathers. Not "parents", but mothers and fathers. They are two distinct entities, and serve two different roles.

[Jesuslove]

That's getting sidetracked from the real argument, here. There is no Constitutional guarantee to not get offended, no guarantee that all will be included all the time. This law is a clear attempt by a certain group of activists to minimize the importance of mothers and fathers. Not "parents", but mothers and fathers. They are two distinct entities, and serve two different roles.

But if you read what I had already written, there are only about 25% of children today being raised in traditional (mom & dad) households. So the traditional family is no longer the norm. There are all types of scenarios that could constitute a non-traditional family, therefore changing terms to reflect "parents" and not gender specific roles may be appropriate. I gave a few examples above of situations I'm aware of.

Also, you said...

Note: This thread is not about homosexuality, so please don't turn it in that direction.
then you said:
Note: This law is a clear attempt by a certain group of activists to minimize the importance of mothers and fathers.
Aren't you contradicting yourself?

[kiwisongbird]

Um, our boys have already decided what to call us from now on... Farter and Mutter!!! Oh dear - but I would say those names are descriminatory (oh how do you spell that one!) in themselves..... :) :):eek:

[middletree]

But if you read what I had already written, there are only about 25% of children today being raised in traditional (mom & dad) households.


That doesn't mean that 75% of the households are right. The dwindling number of kids being raised by moms and dads is an attack of the enemy on our nation and culture. The fact that this number is getting worse is proof of that. The fact that some groups want to normalize this is even more proof.

Aren't you contradicting yourself?

Absolutely not. When I said there are groups with agendas, I wasn't speaking of gay groups. I was speaking of people who are anti-God. Anything they can do to trivialize the way God created things, they will do. Or at least try.

[Jesuslove]

That doesn't mean that 75% of the households are right. The dwindling number of kids being raised by moms and dads is an attack of the enemy on our nation and culture. The fact that this number is getting worse is proof of that. The fact that some groups want to normalize this is even more proof.



Absolutely not. When I said there are groups with agendas, I wasn't speaking of gay groups. I was speaking of people who are anti-God. Anything they can do to trivialize the way God created things, they will do. Or at least try.

You probably know that I am a single dad raising an adopted child. We've had discussions before. Part of the problem is there are not enough families (father/mother) willing to step up and adopt hard to place children.

Because my household is considered non-traditional by your definition, you want to lump me together with the anti-God crowd. Many single people adopt children that heterosexual couples have kicked to the curb. In doing a good deed, non-traditional families shouldn't be punished for the sins of "traditional" families. Be careful when you lump people into groups. Not every single parent raising a child is doing so because of sin.

[middletree]

You probably know that I am a single dad raising an adopted child.

Yes, I did. And I applaud you for that. Never said anything different. I think you'd agree that any child is better off with a mom and dad in the home than only one or the other. However, it's very probable that in your case, the kid is better off with you than in an orphanage.

Because my household is considered non-traditional by your definition, you want to lump me together with the anti-God crowd. Be careful when you lump people into groups.

I am dumbfounded where you got this from. I'm not lumping you with anyone. I am talking about a group of people that not only have the opinion that terms like "mom" and "dad" are bad, but they believe it to the extent that they are willing to jump through hoops to get a state law passed to force others to speak the way they want them to speak.

[Jesuslove]

Yes, I did. And I applaud you for that. Never said anything different. I think you'd agree that any child is better off with a mom and dad in the home than only one or the other. However, it's very probable that in your case, the kid is better off with you than in an orphanage.

As with everything else, there are no absolutes. I know of many two-parent households that are horrible. Many children are removed from two parent households throughout the country every year. There are good and bad dad/mom households and there are good and bad single parent households.

I know from my experience, my son would not have had a chance in life had he remained with his biological parents. There is no doubt he was better off being put up for adoption and being raised by a single parent who is able to provide for him in every way.

[middletree]

I know of many two-parent households that are horrible. Many children are removed from two parent households throughout the country every year. There are good and bad dad/mom households and there are good and bad single parent households.

That has nothing to do with my point. Exceptions don't prove that the rule isn't true. I'm glad you rescued a boy from his home. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the effort by anti-God forces to erase any lines between mothers and fathers.

[Jesuslove]

That has nothing to do with my point. Exceptions don't prove that the rule isn't true. I'm glad you rescued a boy from his home. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the effort by anti-God forces to erase any lines between mothers and fathers.

Really, does it matter that much if a form say "mom" and "dad" or "parent 1" and "parent 2"? You make it sound as if there is some high level left wing conspiracy to destroy the family. A family is a family, no matter what form it takes.

[Yippy]

Really, does it matter that much if a form say "mom" and "dad" or "parent 1" and "parent 2"? You make it sound as if there is some high level left wing conspiracy to destroy the family. A family is a family, no matter what form it takes.

I think there is a HUGE difference between wanting forms to be user friendly by changing a few words to accomodate a diverse parental population (although there are only so many combinations with two genders) and enacting laws stating that the usage of "mom" and "dad" are discriminatory. And the pronoun bit...sheesh.

[clemsontigers23]

Not to turn it into a homosexual issue, but California also recently passed laws changing the definition of marriage from "a man and a woman" into "two persons." I think this is just another attack on the family, and the more "politically correct" we become, the more freedom we lose. This is absolutely ridiculous to make it illegal to refer to a kid's parents as "mom and dad." Someone said they're more convinced everyday that Romans 1 talks about America...if America keeps turning it's back on God, there's no question that God could remove His hand from this nation. The attack on traditional values continues, and will only worsen with a Democrat in the White House. Our country's in trouble.

[middletree]

Really, does it matter that much if a form say "mom" and "dad" or "parent 1" and "parent 2"?

1. Yes it does matter, and

2. Even if some people don't think it matters, there's no reason to pass a law to force those who do care about the terms to use those other terms.

You make it sound as if there is some high level left wing conspiracy to destroy the family.

Almost. I think there's a conspiracy, having nothing to do with left- or right-wing, to change our thinking.

[Jesuslove]

Almost. I think there's a conspiracy, having nothing to do with left- or right-wing, to change our thinking.

Who is behind it?

[SonflowerGurl]

Well it appears it's coming from California....I'd start there.

Maybe it's MoveOn...

[Jesuslove]

So you are saying your child was born without a mom?

a biological one. she is not part of his life. My son is being raised fine by a healthy Christian single parent. I can't imagine him having a better life.

[SonflowerGurl]

a biological one. she is not part of his life. My son is being raised fine by a healthy Christian single parent. I can't imagine him having a better life.

I don't question whether you love your son or take good care of him but even you'd concede that a child is better off with their biological mom and dad in a healthy family situation than with a single parent or another non-traditional situation, right?

[Jesuslove]

I don't question whether you love your son or take good care of him but even you'd concede that a child is better off with their biological mom and dad in a healthy family situation than with a single parent or another non-traditional situation, right?

In a healthy family situation? There are no absolutes. Every child would be happy in a healthy family situation, but there are 150,000 kids in America with no home. I know many single parents who do a better job than other two-parent households. All I'm saying is there are no absolutes. If families were perfect, no children would be in foster care. A two-parent household does not ensure a healthy family situation.

[SonflowerGurl]

In a healthy family situation? There are no absolutes. Every child would be happy in a healthy family situation, but there are 150,000 kids in America with no home. I know many single parents who do a better job than other two-parent households. All I'm saying is there are no absolutes. If families were perfect, no children would be in foster care. A two-parent household does not ensure a healthy family situation.

So why are there so many dysfuntional homes? Have we lost our way somewhere? I agree families need to step up to the responsibility of raising there children properly and not treat children as mistakes and nusances. Any ideas how to do this?

[Jesuslove]

So why are there so many dysfuntional homes? Have we lost our way somewhere? I agree families need to step up to the responsibility of raising there children properly and not treat children as mistakes and nusances. Any ideas how to do this?

There are so many dysfunctional homes because some people don't know how to parent, and some just don't care. It doesn't take a license to have a child. How do we solve this? I believe mothers and fathers (not necessarily husbands and wives) need to attend classes. Free classes on parenting should be provided to all parents-to-be. As an adoptive parent, I had to jump through numerous hoops in order to adopt. Social workers came to my house and inspected it carefully to ensure a safe environment. I had to pass background checks from child services, the local police, the state police and the FBI. I just think birthparents (whether married or unmarried) should be encouraged to attend parenting classes.

[SonflowerGurl]

There are so many dysfunctional homes because some people don't know how to parent, and some just don't care. It doesn't take a license to have a child. How do we solve this? I believe mothers and fathers (not necessarily husbands and wives) need to attend classes. Free classes on parenting should be provided to all parents-to-be. As an adoptive parent, I had to jump through numerous hoops in order to adopt. Social workers came to my house and inspected it carefully to ensure a safe environment. I had to pass background checks from child services, the local police, the state police and the FBI. I just think birthparents (whether married or unmarried) should be encouraged to attend parenting classes.

The part I disagree with in your comment is that the parents don't need to be married. I think maybe this kind of thinking is part of the breakdown of family values. Over the past 40 years people's attitudes about casual sex has brought children into this world that are unwanted by their parents - which has been a key breakdown in the current generation. Another key breakdown is when parents look at their kids as accessories to fulfulling their lives instead as a stewarts over their children. Too many people are worried about how it affects their life instead of being concerned how it affects their childs life. I agree when needed Parenting classes can be a useful tool.

[Jesuslove]

The part I disagree with in your comment is that the parents don't need to be married. I think maybe this kind of thinking is part of the breakdown of family values. Over the past 40 years people's attitudes about casual sex has brought children into this world that are unwanted by their parents - which has been a key breakdown in the current generation. Another key breakdown is when parents look at their kids as accessories to fulfulling their lives instead as a stewarts over their children. Too many people are worried about how it affects their life instead of being concerned how it affects their childs life. I agree when needed Parenting classes can be a useful tool.

I never said parents don't need to be married, but it doesn't take two married people to create a child, therefore parenting lessons should be available to unmarried couples. It would only benefit the child.

[SueQ]

Speaking from the viewpoint of a teacher: We need to know who is responsible for the student.....many of my students come from non-traditional families. Not every non-traditional family structure came about because of out of wedlock children or through same-sex partnerships.....(In fact most do not in my instance...) In any case, I need to know who is parenting the child....the words "Parent 1" and "Parent 2" simply inform me who is doing the job......My letters are addressed to "Parents" because, regardless of their gender or familial relationship, they are parenting the child. I have several grandparents, aunts, uncles, family friends, etc. of students who are parenting my students but feel like outsiders when the terms "mom" and "dad" are used. I don't see this change as an attack on the family....simply a response to reality....and a way to recognize the people who are stepping up to the plate.....


Speaking from the viewpoint of a parent: My daughter came to me through an unholy relationship. (I consider her proof of God's forgiveness, grace and blessings in spite of my sin). Many times, in guilt, when things get tough, I wonder if I should have let her go to be raised by a mom and dad. I do believe that God's plan is the best. I'll never know what would have happened if I had given her up, but I do know this:
She has changed my life and the lives of those in my family for the better. At this point in time she is a beautiful young lady who loves the Lord and puts God first. She has the compassionate heart of Jesus and feels the burden to tell others about Him. When others ask me how I did this alone I tell them that I haven't. God is the Father (of all of us) and my parenting partner, although "partner" doesn't accurately describe the true balance. He gets the credit.

[SonflowerGurl]

Speaking from the viewpoint of a teacher: We need to know who is responsible for the student.....many of my students come from non-traditional families. Not every non-traditional family structure came about because of out of wedlock children or through same-sex partnerships.....(In fact most do not in my instance...) In any case, I need to know who is parenting the child....the words "Parent 1" and "Parent 2" simply inform me who is doing the job......My letters are addressed to "Parents" because, regardless of their gender or familial relationship, they are parenting the child. I have several grandparents, aunts, uncles, family friends, etc. of students who are parenting my students but feel like outsiders when the terms "mom" and "dad" are used. I don't see this change as an attack on the family....simply a response to reality....and a way to recognize the people who are stepping up to the plate.....


Speaking from the viewpoint of a parent: My daughter came to me through an unholy relationship. (I consider her proof of God's forgiveness, grace and blessings in spite of my sin). Many times, in guilt, when things get tough, I wonder if I should have let her go to be raised by a mom and dad. I do believe that God's plan is the best. I'll never know what would have happened if I had given her up, but I do know this:
She has changed my life and the lives of those in my family for the better. At this point in time she is a beautiful young lady who loves the Lord and puts God first. She has the compassionate heart of Jesus and feels the burden to tell others about Him. When others ask me how I did this alone I tell them that I haven't. God is the Father (of all of us) and my parenting partner, although "partner" doesn't accurately describe the true balance. He gets the credit.

I don't want you to think for a moment that as a single parent who has made mistakes but obviously redeemed with your child (I'm glad) is what was being spoken. What we were discussion about...I'm just saying that attitude is driving many cases why kids are being discarded or just neglected at a alarming rate.

And as stated earlier in the thread, where appropriate, a school or school district should have the right to determine what is best for each school...I still don't think a law making the terms "mom" and "dad" as discriminatory and replace them...I think we have way to many laws as it is and I don't like the the slippery slope this kind of proposed law is opening the door for other kinds of legislation --the intended purpose.

[clemsontigers23]

No one here's saying there's anything wrong with not saying mom and dad, but to make it a law that it is discrimatory, and accusing a teacher of being discrimatory if they use it, is downright ridiculous. It shouldn't be against the law to use "mom" and "dad" and that is an attack on the family. Political correctness keeps getting worse and worse and now people are always having to worry about offending somebody...taking the terms mom and dad as being offensive is ridiculous.

Surely Arnold's getting ready to veto this.

[prayercloth sis]

That doesn't mean that 75% of the households are right. The dwindling number of kids being raised by moms and dads is an attack of the enemy on our nation and culture. The fact that this number is getting worse is proof of that. The fact that some groups want to normalize this is even more proof.



Absolutely not. When I said there are groups with agendas, I wasn't speaking of gay groups. I was speaking of people who are anti-God. Anything they can do to trivialize the way God created things, they will do. Or at least try.



AMEN!!!MD I agree...

Rhonie

[prayercloth sis]

That has nothing to do with my point. Exceptions don't prove that the rule isn't true. I'm glad you rescued a boy from his home. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the effort by anti-God forces to erase any lines between mothers and fathers.


EXCELLENT POINT!
Rhonie

[prayercloth sis]

No one here's saying there's anything wrong with not saying mom and dad, but to make it a law that it is discrimatory, and accusing a teacher of being discrimatory if they use it, is downright ridiculous. It shouldn't be against the law to use "mom" and "dad" and that is an attack on the family. Political correctness keeps getting worse and worse and now people are always having to worry about offending somebody...taking the terms mom and dad as being offensive is ridiculous.

Surely Arnold's getting ready to veto this.



I do not question single parent families, nor families that are raising children by grandparents. aunts, uncles and adoption...

The point of the thread is the terms Mom & Dad being discrimatory and a law passed that these terms can not be used....

Which is a spirtiual wickedness in high places attack on the family unit...God created man and woman and told them to "have children"....

He created the Dad & the Mom...and to vote a law into existence that states that those terms are politically incorrect is disobeying the word of God....

I pray in Jesus name Arnold vetos is...but i am not sure he will.

...not sure of his stance where the Lord is concerned....

We are losing our rights as Christians ....and we are not standing up for the truth and the word of God and what he has told us is right in his eyes...which we will be held accountable for in my opinion...

There is no reason why we can't get prayer put back in school and the ten commandments put back up in court houses...if we would all unite together and make a stand and not back up or give in...For with GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE....

PERSISTENCE is the key....& getting the knowledge & the wisdom to have it done...wish I had it...

so I continue to pray and fast for this ONE nation under God....

Rhonie

[Jesuslove]

Speaking from the viewpoint of a teacher: We need to know who is responsible for the student.....many of my students come from non-traditional families. Not every non-traditional family structure came about because of out of wedlock children or through same-sex partnerships.....(In fact most do not in my instance...) In any case, I need to know who is parenting the child....the words "Parent 1" and "Parent 2" simply inform me who is doing the job......My letters are addressed to "Parents" because, regardless of their gender or familial relationship, they are parenting the child. I have several grandparents, aunts, uncles, family friends, etc. of students who are parenting my students but feel like outsiders when the terms "mom" and "dad" are used. I don't see this change as an attack on the family....simply a response to reality....and a way to recognize the people who are stepping up to the plate.....

Speaking from the viewpoint of a parent: My daughter came to me through an unholy relationship. (I consider her proof of God's forgiveness, grace and blessings in spite of my sin). Many times, in guilt, when things get tough, I wonder if I should have let her go to be raised by a mom and dad. I do believe that God's plan is the best. I'll never know what would have happened if I had given her up, but I do know this:
She has changed my life and the lives of those in my family for the better. At this point in time she is a beautiful young lady who loves the Lord and puts God first. She has the compassionate heart of Jesus and feels the burden to tell others about Him. When others ask me how I did this alone I tell them that I haven't. God is the Father (of all of us) and my parenting partner, although "partner" doesn't accurately describe the true balance. He gets the credit.
Amen! Very well put!

[SonflowerGurl]

Being simply pragmatic....this is not something that should be legislated.

[clemsontigers23]

I do not question single parent families, nor families that are raising children by grandparents. aunts, uncles and adoption...

The point of the thread is the terms Mom & Dad being discrimatory and a law passed that these terms can not be used....

Which is a spirtiual wickedness in high places attack on the family unit...God created man and woman and told them to "have children"....

He created the Dad & the Mom...and to vote a law into existence that states that those terms are politically incorrect is disobeying the word of God....

I pray in Jesus name Arnold vetos is...but i am not sure he will.

...not sure of his stance where the Lord is concerned....

We are losing our rights as Christians ....and we are not standing up for the truth and the word of God and what he has told us is right in his eyes...which we will be held accountable for in my opinion...

There is no reason why we can't get prayer put back in school and the ten commandments put back up in court houses...if we would all unite together and make a stand and not back up or give in...For with GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE....

PERSISTENCE is the key....& getting the knowledge & the wisdom to have it done...wish I had it...

so I continue to pray and fast for this ONE nation under God....

Rhonie

Well said.

[SueQ]

I don't want you to think for a moment that as a single parent who has made mistakes but obviously redeemed with your child (I'm glad) is what was being spoken. What we were discussion about...I'm just saying that attitude is driving many cases why kids are being discarded or just neglected at a alarming rate.

And as stated earlier in the thread, where appropriate, a school or school district should have the right to determine what is best for each school...I still don't think a law making the terms "mom" and "dad" as discriminatory and replace them...I think we have way to many laws as it is and I don't like the the slippery slope this kind of proposed law is opening the door for other kinds of legislation --the intended purpose.

I may have gotten off point a bit. Just throwing in my 2c......I agree with the fact we have too many laws.....On Monday (Constitution Day) a radio program was talking about the constitution and all the amendments and laws and such......My daughter pipes in with, "God's laws are just so much easier to remember.....the government's are just too complicated"......

Okay....back to the original thread.....

[lilmikey]

I don't see it as a big deal. Parents are parents. It is estimated today that 25% of all children live in traditional households. What if a child's parents are being divorced and he's being raised by Mom and her new husband. Technically, the new husband isn't the father, but he is the father figure. I can think of many reasons why "father" and "mother" not work for a particular family.

lets put it this way. This is another way that the government and liberal pukes are trying to control us. Sry nfor the harshness but when I read about these laws it sickens me and I see red:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: