Germaine Greer criticises Elton John for naming husband David Furnish as son's 'mother' on birth certificateOf course it has, that's the point of homosexual equality: society must be made equal to homosexuals. That involves destruction of normative values such as "motherhood". (As an aside, Elton John is the "husband", as in the male figure??)
"Germaine Greer has voiced her disapproval of Sir Elton John’s decision to allow his husband, David Furnish, to be named as the mother of their sons on their birth certificates.
The couple have two children – Zachary, four, and Elijah, two – who were born to the same surrogate mother using the same anonymous egg donor.
Speaking at the Hay Festival, the feminist author said she felt that their decision to name Furnish the mother was damaging to the concept of motherhood.
“Sometimes I think that really the problem is the concept of motherhood, which we can't give any real structure to,” she said.
“Sir Elton John and his 'wife' David Furnish have entered on the birth certificate of their two sons that David Furnish is the mother. I'm sorry. That will give you an idea of how the concept of motherhood has emptied out. It's gone. It's been deconstructed.”"
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Homosexuals and the Continued Perversion of Reality
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Bu why should you care if I may ask? Where I am from, religious and non-religious alike fight for the liberty to make their own choices instead of forced decisions as per their elders decision. It's the same here with homosexuals wanting to label their family as they wish...
Either a word has a specific meaning, or it is gibberish which means nothing because it also means everything. When words no longer have meanings, all rationality is lost because information which should be used for logical decisions is corrupt and is thus false. If all words are false representations, then there is no logic. Even if some words are corrupt, there is no logic without a guide to those words which still have stable meanings.
Ah if it's just the above word 'mother' which you have issues with then I would agree with you, a mother is a woman by definition. But I thought the underlying issue was to be able to list 2 fathers and that they had to use the 'mother' field for that, which would be a legitimate thing to fight for in my opinion. It's the logical equivalent after agreeing that any 2 people of their choice can get married.
Should any three people allowed to marry, Anam?
I don't know, why ask about 3, what would be the point? But if 2 can, why not let the 2 people in question choose who they can be with... your above comment is another example of red herring.
anam: I think the point is where you draw the line. "I don't know, if 2 can, then why not let the 3 people in question choose who they can be with..." and by this reasoning, anything can become marriage if one so chooses. I see Stan's point with words having specific meanings.
Oh, it is so not a red herring. There are plenty of legal challenges already underway. So are you saying that a marriage is defined by the number 2? There has been polygamy as long as recorded history. Do you not support the right of three people to enter into matrimony?
When the AtheoLeftists have seized control of an institution, they may do with it whatever they want. The original intent has been destroyed, and the words describing the institution ("marriage") also have been given over to the AtheoLeft to be changed however they wish, whenever they wish, to accommodate whatever they wish.
Once the AtheoLeft succeeds in obtaining that one capitulation, there will be no peace until all institutions are under their redefinitions.
For now, they must concentrate on seizing and destroying marriage, because they have not succeeded in toto conquest. But when that is done, via the dictates of the courts, then they will move on to other institutions and no longer have need of homosexuals, because their votes are secure, as is the black vote. (Education is a battle ground now, perhaps the next war for total control of minds, what with morality already conquered).
Good day! Not sure what the 'AtheoLeft' is or what it has to do with mariage but perhaps I can clarify that I am merely talking about rights currently given to 2 individuals being 'married' as most authorities at different levels recognize. When such laws exist, I don't understand why the 2 people are restricted by outside forces as to who they can be! Why do you care??
But Religious organisations that also perform the act that is most usually also called 'marriage', then freedom of religion should have utmost priority, and they should decide for themselves. I heard that in Norway I think the church was forced to marry gays. That is going too far so wr would certainly agree here.
Therefore as per above, asking about 3 people is not relevant since 3 people unions are not recognized as far as I know. If they were, I don't know what that would mean.... but as a thought experiment I dont see why it would have to be 2 women 1 man for example. Any 3 people would be allowed to opt in for that kind of strange union. A bit like starting a company when you think about it.
Post a Comment