UK Government bans ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’ from passports due to pressure from homosexuals

The UK Government’s Identity and Passport Service is banning any reference to ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’ in future passport applications due to lobbying from gay activists who claim the terms ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’ discriminate against homosexuals. Instead UK citizens will be asked to give details of ‘parent 1′ and ‘parent 2′. The Huffington Post refers to the banning of the accepted names for parents as a ‘major win’ for gay rights proponents.

A spokesman for the IPS  stated:

‘‘IPS is planning to amend the application form and associated guidance to deal with same-sex parents applying for a passport on behalf of a child. Currently, the application form provides the relevant boxes of “mother” and “father” to be completed. The new form to be introduced by December 2011 will in addition provide for “parent 1” and “parent 2”.

The Daily Mail reports:’

‘Documents seen by the Daily Mail suggest the change was made as a result of lobbying by the gay rights group Stonewall. The Home Office ‘Diversity Strategy’ states: ‘IPS [the Identity and Passport Service] is working with Stonewall in response to an issue about having to name a “mother” and “father” on the passport application form.’

Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust, said: ‘Fathers and mothers are not interchangeable but have quite distinct roles to play in the care and nurture of their children. To speak of “parent 1” and “parent 2” denigrates the place of both fathers and mothers.

‘Much as the equality and diversity social engineers might wish it were otherwise, it still takes a father and a mother to produce a child.’

‘Like the Labour administration before it, the Coalition seems to be in Stonewall’s grip. It is high time ministers started to represent the interests of the country as a whole and not capitulate to every demand made by a vocal and unrepresentative minority.’

Gay lobbyists and politicians have long claimed that 10 per cent of the population is homosexual.

But figures from the Office for National Statistics last week suggest that this is a wild exaggeration.

According to the Integrated Household Survey, homosexuals and bisexuals make up only 1.5 per cent of the population. One per cent said they were gay or lesbian, while 0.5 per cent said they were bisexual.

More men than women declared themselves homosexual, with 1.3 per cent of men saying they were gay compared with 0.6 per cent of women who described themselves as lesbian.

Some 94 per cent said they were heterosexual, 4.3 per cent declined to answer the question or said they did not know, and 0.4 per cent said their sexuality was ‘other’.

Protect the Pope comment:  This is subjectivism gone mad! Gay activitists , who represent 1.5% of the UK population, claim that use of the natural, accepted terms for parents, ‘father’ and ‘mother’ discriminates against them and the government decides to change our passports without a general consultation, just imposes it on everyone.  How has this tiny group in society become so powerful?

Why has their aberrant way of looking at life become the arbiter of how we all have to live our lives? Primary school children are branded homophobic for using the word ‘gay’ in playground arguments.  Old people in care homes are interrogated about whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.  Christian cafe owners are ordered by the police to stop displaying the bible because of complaints of homophobia. An elderly Christian couple are interrogated in their own home by police for complaining about the local council promoting homosexuality. A Christian couple are banned from fostering children because they don’t think homosexuality is natural or normal. A Christian couple are taken to court because they don’t want homosexuals sharing a bed in their bed and breakfast.

It is now obvious that Stonewall’s long term plan has been to change the way we all live our lives bit by bit. Like all revolutionaries they know that the way to change people’s thinking is by changing their language. The trouble with revolutionaries is they don’t stop with banning words, they soon start banning people, as we can see is already beginning to happen.

35 comments to UK Government bans ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’ from passports due to pressure from homosexuals

  • Brian

    Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

  • Karla

    Why is this being done to satisfy a tiny minority, most who probably don’t have children.

    It is incredible to me what control 1.5% people have in this country to influence.

    • Rob

      The change to the form is either right or wrong. Percentages have absolutely nothing to do with it. I thought that Catholics might be able to understand this as they are a minority themselves in many places (including, I imagine the UK). Saying that we can forget accomodating Gay people because they are only a percentage or so of the population is nasty (exchange “gay” for “jew” or “black” and see what I mean). You will no-doubt be championing the rights of tiny minorities when the tiny minority happens to be Catholic.

      • Karla

        If homosexuals want a passport that says ‘parent 1′ and ‘parent 2′ then there should be that option for them, but the main passport should stay with the terminology ‘mother’ and ‘father.’

  • Karla

    Contraceptive may double risk of HIV in Africa:

    Also backed by two previous more limited studies.

  • Lisa

    I do not care what they do. If I get a form with ‘Parent 1′ and ‘Parent 2′ I will cross them out, write ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ in their place, and then will add ‘shame on you’ on the form.

  • Gerry

    Think about this folks. It may be a Daily Mail ‘larf’but do the words really matter? Not to most people. Who on earth actually reads their passport.Sense of proportion needed on all sides perhaps.

    Again, think of the reverse situation. If PTP got the Govt. to change something, how would you react to a site saying [something like] ‘minority cult headed by foreign charismatic changes UK law’…;)

  • ms catholic state

    I think it is broader than just gay activists. It is a cabal of left wingers, anti-family and anti the natural order of things that is at work here too. I think the gay agenda is being used as a battering ram to dismantle the traditional biological family….the backbone of society. When they have destroyed that….they have destroyed the nation. Satan’s agenda is always one of destruction.

    • Rob

      “dismantle the traditional biological family” indeed. That is paranoid nonsense. We can change as many official forms as we want and re-write our lanaguge completely and give gay people special rights and status and indoctrinate people as to the moral SUPERIORITY of gay marriages (BTW I am not advocating any of these things) and most people will still fall in love with and have children with the opposite sex.

      Gay families do not harm straight families.

  • This is being introduced because the government – particularly the minority Lib/Dem ‘controllers’- are blindly obsequious to the demands of the ‘homosexual’ lobby, numerically miniscule though it is, on the grounds that to refuse any of its demands would represent a breach of the ‘Equality’ laws, nonsensical though many of these are. We must not forget that ‘equal rights’ for everybody regardless, is very much the Lib/Dem’s baby. My own Lib/Dem MP was not interested when I personally asked him to support proposed legislation to protect the unborn child, but was very quick to emphasise his pride in the ‘Equal Rights’ legislation in the UK, in which apparently he had been involved. ‘Equal Rights’ as we now experience it, is not ‘equal rights’ at all, for it is based on the false premise that every person and every lifestyle, good and evil regardless, must have equal rights. This is folly indeed, and we hope that our political leaders have the sense and the moral courage to remedy this destructive state of affairs.

  • Ioannes

    Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius.

  • Toby

    This sounds crazy and I object to same sex couple adoption as contrary to natural law.

    However, is mother and father being removed? From the statement quoted it doesn’t sound like it:

    “Currently,the application form provides the relevant boxes of “mother” and “father” to be completed. The new form to be introduced by December 2011 will in addition provide for “parent 1” and “parent 2”.”

    Unless it’s weasel words, the wording suggests the addition of two new categories rather than the extinguishing of the current ones.

    Either way same sex couples need to realise that their argument for adoption rights breaches the rationale behind their argument for legal marriage. If they claim that in being a same sex couple they are doing what is natural to them, then they must acknowledge that children could never have arisen from their relationship naturally and so for them to adopt children results in a family that is unatural in every sense.

    • Ioannes

      And Benedict XVI does not mince his words; placing children with same-sex ‘couples’ is “gravely immoral”.

      • gerry

        October 4,2011 at 5:29 pm ·Reply
        And Benedict XVI does not mince his words;placing children with same-sex ‘couples’is “gravely immoral”.’

        No, really, its not. Its his POV, unless he can never be wrong by virtue of his position.

        Sam has put things more bluntly than I would, but I think he’s got a few fair points in there. Everyones entitled to a say in things, even ‘homosexuals’ ;)

  • ms catholic state

    Eventually the children of gay ‘parents’ are going to realise they have been duped and used. They are going to realise they have a biological mother/father out there somewhere. And no doubt they are going to want to find them in many if not most cases. The truth always outs in the end.

    • Rob

      all of that applies to straight adoptive parents too.

    • gerry

      ‘ms catholic state
      October 4,2011 at 6:06 pm ·Reply
      Eventually the children of gay ‘parents’are going to realise they have been duped and used. They are going to realise they have a biological mother/father out there somewhere. And no doubt they are going to want to find them in many if not most cases. The truth always outs in the end.’


    • Teresa

      They may even one day realise that they have been pawns in the equalities game played out by the gay rights activists. I know I would be angry if I thought I had been placed with adoptive same sex parents just to make a point!

  • sam mace

    I haven’t seen any evidence which says that homosexual couples adopting is bad for the child, If a child is in a care home and a gay couple want to adopt that child and will love it, give it a stable home what is wrong with that? i haven’t heard any gay couple say that they can naturally produce children, would you on the same basis stop people who cannot reproduce because they are infertile adopt children? after all they could never naturally have kids could they.

    Some of these comments are just plain ignorant and bigoted simple as, adam and eve not adam and steve, first of all there never was an adam and eve, since adam and eve are relatively new western names i doubt the first humans 88,000 years ago would have been called adam and eve, secondly a tiny minority yes it is, however that tiny minority deserve rights, just like how your faith is in the minority in this country deserve rights, and the 4% population who are muslim deserve rights, just because there are a few doesn’t mean they don’t deserve rights. Karla that is a hormonal contraceptive and not condoms, mrs catholic state no one is dismantling the natural biological family, we are just being more inclusive into what we consider to be a family from parson’s theories about 60 years ago, there is a difference. Lisa, write shame on you but i doubt they would care what you think in honesty and would probably not validate your passport because you had defaced it.

    • A, Nicot

      Adam and Eve are simply modern names that are derived from the names originally in the Old Testament, part of the Judaic tradition. Language changes, and so in a vernacular translation of the Bible, so would the names, to suit the language. For example, Henry in German is Heinrich. They’re the same name, but in different languages. Also, the story of Adam and eve is not literal, but I don’t want to get into it now, there is an abundance of talk on that elsewhere.
      I’ll let the other people you address respond if they want to the points you made for them, but this was a general issue.

    • ms catholic state

      Then Sam you will have no objections to three people or more adopting children and giving them a loving home?! Or is it just all to do with being gay?! Children should be placed with a mother and father figure….as it is from such a couple that children are begotten. And children crave stability and a mum and dad. Give it to them then.

      By declaring that all kinds of combinations and permutations are equal to the biological Traditional married family…when they are not….you are undermining natural marriage. The Church must state continue to state that the married heterosexual family is unique and best, as it is the living self perpetuating natural heart of a society.

    • Lisa

      I often write ‘shame on you’ on council forms as they tend to have the same PC nonsense as what the passport agency is planning to do. :) I never had any form invalidated so I will keep on acting as my conscience tells me. I am afraid I disagree with you. Each child deserves a mother and a father. Two men or two women cannot give what they have not got – femininity in the first case and masculinity in the second. I do not think we should plan to give children second best only because ‘we want to’. We should think of the children first. And it is in the interest of a child to have both a mother and a father. Of course you may find examples of people who grew up with only one parent and did well. Hands off to single parents, they have the toughest job in the world. But I am sure that those children (and the single parent itself) know that the ideal is to have a mother and a father, both ideally sane and caring individuals. Women and men are not the same. We are profoundly different. This does not mean that people who have same sex attraction cannot be good role models. I had a teacher in primary school who experienced same sex attraction and he was a great teacher. So single people and people in same sex relationships can still be good role models for children, but I do object to any of the people in these situations adopting children.

    • Teresa

      sam mace – The Adam and Eve story is allegorical so no need to sweat over trying to disprove its historicity!

      I do not like the “Adam and Steve” cliche either, but at the end of the day Adam plus Steve do not equal baby for crying out loud!! You cannot call Truth a bigot! You have to mess with the natural order in order to obtain one.

      The lifestyle choice of a same sex couple precludes children -simple as!

    • Karla

      Yes sam, we now have evidence contraceptive hormones and condoms don’t work in Africa.

  • Serge

    Homosexuals are struggling with all means to change laws by changing the language and vocabulary to eradicate the normality of heterosexuality in order to justify their abnormality and make it look and sound like the de-facto normality. Pushing heterosuality «in the closet» as a mere cultural sub-product from which everyone should eventually be free and proud enough to run away from.

    See for instance this :

    Where it is clear how intolerant the G&L lobby can be in schools in order to eradicate heterosexual «biases», using and twisting meanings and pursposes of laws in order to make normal claims look like intolerance and all of their claims tolerable…

    And also see this :

    Whereby we see how far the G&L political and Media power has gone to take children and indoctrinate them in order to become like them, pushing and pressurizing the children in order to believe they should undergo sex change, with the «divine» approval of psychiatrists (of course the psychiatrists that think like they think – because it is really not the scientific consensus that approves of that).

    That is the reign of a minority of abnormal behavior advocators over a majority of normal human beings.

    Taken from a French Canadian Blog Post at :


    where you can see the very happy face of the boy-girl child! (Sorry for the irony)

    How come in a society that is supposed to be democratic, is there such a hindrance to normal life perpatraded by such a minority??? Definitely not a democratic one! On the other hand how could we call the majority as a “normal human being majority” if it does not even react normally to such abhorrent monopoly? Maybe that majority is no more human than that minority anymore ? It has lost a very human and necessary sense, the sense of indignation which leads to proper reaction and action. Without that basic human sense, humanity gets de-humanized. Wake up before it’s too late!!!

    We’ve heard and seen the Arab Spring. I think there should be a Spring for normal humanity! A humanity that respects God’s Law which is everyone natural law and strive to live according to it. Will we see at last a humanity that is proud of following that law and that will raise against that barbarian minority so agressively abusive of the majority?

    Democratically, I mean, of course, and peacefully.

    As a matter of fact, in Canada something could change :

    In Canada the section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is at the origin of all the successful outcomes of lobbies such as the G&L one that prosecute anyone that hurt their feelings. And by twisting words meanings they are successful to get their ways. 100% of the people prosecuted under that section since 1977 were white and Christian and 90% were too poor to defend themselves.

    But now in Canada the government is about to introduce a Bill : C-304, to repeal that section which was used abusively up to a point where it became illegal to hurt someone else’s feelings! But usually only onsided, of course.

    Hopefully other countries will take the same steps!

  • Serge

    I should have written ¨all of their claims as basic and fundamental human rights¨as opposed to what I wrote: ¨all of their claims tolerable¨to be more to the point.

  • Ioannes

    Homosexual adoption being a recent phenomenon, there will not be any evidence of the long-term effects on children. In the present climate I can’t see who would fund such research, and if the results turned out to be unfavourable they are likely to be suppressed. We have seen this in the case of anthropogenic climate change, another openly political agenda which has a momentum of its own.

  • Sam Mace,
    The reality is that if two people of the same sex choose to live an actively homosexual lifestyle, then they have no ‘intrinsic right’ to parenthood, as it is naturally impossible for them to conceive a child from such a relationship.
    Cohabiting active homosexuals are fully aware that it needs male and female to procreate, and it is no good pretending that they have the same natural ‘right’ to parenthood as a normal male/female relationship.

  • Lisa

    I recommend this academic article ‘What is marriage?’ by Princeton University Professors: Click on ‘one click download’ at the top of the page to download it and read it.

  • Gerry

    I’d suggest that you all sit back and think very hard about what you’re saying.

  • gerry

    Or to put it another way, ‘natural’ is many things including dirt, disease and very early death. Think hard about how ‘natural’ anyones life is,then consider that the concept of live and let live [no abortion comments please] has a lot going for it.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>