on the front lines of the gender wars
By Diogenes (articles ) | Mar 13, 2006
Having allowed same-sex couples to enter legal marriages, and adopt children, the brave new government of Spain has taken another step, the London Telegraph reports. Birth certificates will no longer specify a "mother" and "father," since those terms presuppose distinctions which can no longer be assumed.
According to an announcement in the Official Bulletin of State "The expression "father" will be replaced with 'Progenitor A', and "mother" will be replaced with 'Progenitor B'."
What's next? Newsweek answers that question with a story on the fast-growing movement for legal acceptance of polygamy. The argument, in a nutshell, is:
... if Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy.
And you know what? That argument, as stated, is logically correct. As Leon Trotsky said, who says B must say B. If the state doesn't restrict the gender of marital partners, why restrict the number? Or for that matter the species?
Use the slippery-slope analogy if you like. Just recognize that we are not at the top; we're already well on our way downhill.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Web Doctor -
Mar. 15, 2006 12:40 PM ET USA
There's something here that reminds me of science fiction literature and movies from the 60s through 80s, in which some writers scared me with futuristic scenes in which procreation in the traditional sense had been removed from the landscape. The phrase "Progenitor A" by itself is enough to bring up visions of a sterile, world-government ruled by "The Progenitor" etc. It gives me chills. Please tell me this too is just fiction?
Posted by: Exaudi nos -
Mar. 14, 2006 2:20 PM ET USA
Progenitor:an ancestor in the direct line : FOREFATHER b : a biologically ancestral form What is direct about two people who cannot progenate? There always has to be a third party so to mention A + B and not C is omitting one very important aspect of the history and creation of the child.
Posted by: Canismater -
Mar. 14, 2006 7:06 AM ET USA
I think it’s a little strange that they waited so long for this argument. Couldn’t they have gotten polygamy years ago? I mean, that’s in fact the case as it is right now with many families… Watch some American TV or movies, if you can stomach it. Ephebophilia is right around the corner. Perhaps Paul VI wasn’t prophetic enough…
Posted by: Canismater -
Mar. 14, 2006 6:57 AM ET USA
You got it exactly right Quadratus…can you say “Progenitor B – for Bin Laden”?
Posted by: Sterling -
Mar. 13, 2006 11:34 PM ET USA
How does it make sense that "father" will be "progenitor A" and mother will be called "progenitor B", since baby Heather (how do you say "Heather" in Spanish?) may have two progenitor A's and so forth. Say, I like it: "Heather has two progenitor B's."
Posted by: Quadratus -
Mar. 13, 2006 8:36 PM ET USA
The last great Catholic country in Europe has no been lost for Catholicism and Christianity in General. Spain is now part of the new pagan Europe. Of course homosexual unions are infertile and adoption goes only so far in a country with one of the lowest birth rates in Europe, so low that in a few generations Spanish people as an ethnic group will disappear, perhaps to be replaced by Moroccans, Arabs and other preponderantly Islamic peoples. We'll see if Muslims as as "incluisve"...
Posted by: Ross Dee -
Mar. 13, 2006 5:49 PM ET USA
Altar boy, you better reread the Bible. What did Jesus say to the woman at the well? "You have no husband", in other words you are fornicating."Go and sin no more. Jesus also said , "any man that puts away his wife for another is an adulterer". Jesus was speaking in the singular mode of one wife, He would have said "wives" if that was acceptable. Get Real! Any man that would want more than one wife at the "same time" is demented and has an obsession with sex. Even pagen kings had one queen.
Posted by: -
Mar. 13, 2006 4:20 PM ET USA
I say polygamy is not against the Natural Moral Law. Besides, neither the Bible, the Koran, nor the Torah speaks against it. Anti-polygamy laws are adaptations of civil code and a natural consequence of a highly regulated society. The people who advocate for polygamy are not insane and the case for polygamy is not nonsense. Besides, can anyone demonstrate how a polygamous marriage is like a same-sex marriage, in that the latter “thwarts the will of God”?
Posted by: Tony D -
Mar. 13, 2006 4:15 PM ET USA
In April 2003, U.S. Senator Rick Santorum said, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery," said Santorum. "You have the right to anything." He was crucified for these remarks . . . which today are beginning to sound quite prophetic.
Posted by: Ross Dee -
Mar. 13, 2006 2:53 PM ET USA
These insane people got caught in a lie, that same sex is "normal", or a "right", so now they want us to redefine,parents, gender,marriage, family completely. This is nonsense, none of these insane ideas should have been accepted by our society. It just does not work, when people go against "Human Dignity, Natrual Law and Social Norms" . It is so clear it is glaring, that they are insane and anybody that condones this kind of nonsense also belong in a padded cell.