[quote] being a modern American family, they decided to give him both of their family names <hr></blockquote>
"Modern" I almost puked when I read this. It's unfortunate however but their probably doing that kid a favor. McGilvray-Redmond doesn't exactly roll of the tongue easy.
<strong>I have a better idea. Let the people decide when they have kids and get married how they wanna do it and not legislate anything.</strong><hr></blockquote>You mean Noah isn't your government-assigned name?
This is 073847144, son of 318293811 and 267100942, saying goodbye.
<strong>Guess who wears the pants in that family? Sheesh...But I guess they should be able to choose... even if it is the wife "choosing" for the pansy-ass husband</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think we need to keep the naming how it has been traditionaly, take the man's name. Here's why: Let's say Jane Smith marrys Bob Jones. They have a kid named Billy Smith-Jones. Billy goes and marrys Anna Schmitz-Gaye. Their kid is then Sam Smith-Jones-Schmitz-Gaye!!!!!! This gets pretty complicated really quick
It's weird. Naming your own child according to the way you like it become an illegal matter?
Anyway. While I think that parents should be able to choose the name of their child (as long that it won't confused anyone), I think that Margaret McGilvray and Dan Redmond should just follow the rule of the state, IF they want to get a birth certificate while their child is still an infant. I mean that, this kinda thing could get worse, in the future their child might be already in kindergarten but doesn't have any birth certificate.
Okay. Back to last name / family name / surname.
Traditionally, last name / family name / surname is always after the parent's name. To designate that the person is a child of a particular person (?_son of_? / ?_daughter of?). It could be the father/grandfather/etc's name and/or the mother/grandmother/etc's name. So it could be ?child son of father? and ?child son of mother?. Both are correct and acknowledged by the community.
Though traditionally, populary and regulary people always refer it by the father's name. Since that the father is the head of the family, and that you always refer a family by the name of the head of the family, and NOT the helper of the head of the family. I mean that people regulary refer the current administration of the United States of America as the Bush administration and NOT the Cheney administration.
If last name / family name / surname wasn't based on the parent. The origin of last name / family name / surname are usually named after the name of a community, a place, a profession, and so on.
For example, a German family might have the family name of ?van Houten?, which means, ?from/of the shepherd/guard?. Perharps that in the past, their ancestor were shepherds, or maybe the family are still shepherds.
Yeah, too many syllables in a name is too complicated for my very simple primate brain!! Let's just make it a law to keep names SIMPLE, and the way they are.
And while we're at it, free speech, free press, and religious freedom just make everything more complicated. Screw all of that shit, too hard. It would be so much easier deciding what church to go to if the government told me!
Damn churches, they would probably have shorter and easier to remember names that way, too.
I think that parents should be able to choose the name of their child (as long that it won't confused anyone), QUOTE]
Screw that! If my babies name confuses anyone thats their problem...what gives with rules about names? I can't believe that anyone would post in support of the idea.
<strong>I think we need to keep the naming how it has been traditionaly, take the man's name. Here's why: Let's say Jane Smith marrys Bob Jones. They have a kid named Billy Smith-Jones. Billy goes and marrys Anna Schmitz-Gaye. Their kid is then Sam Smith-Jones-Schmitz-Gaye!!!!!! This gets pretty complicated really quick
Woah! Talk about slippery slope. We 'need' to force couples to name their childeren after the man, to prevent rampant, epidemic, name hyphenation?
Get real, dude.
Who cares if your baby is called Schmitz-Gaye, or even Smith-Jones-Scmittz-Gaye, not that any right minded people would choose that. This is a situation of some idiot bureaucrats mindlessly enforcing a 19th century law, like the ones that make fellatio a felony, or indicate that a man can only legally beat his wife with a stick thinner than his thumb (ok.. that last one is an urban myth.. but you get the point)
Hmm, you seem to have missed the I had in that post somehow...
The "pansy-ass" comment wasn't completely serious, although I do find it strange that a man doesn't mind his son taking his wife's last name. I know that I would never do that, but that's just me I guess.
I do think that being told how to name your child is complete bullshit. We're told how and what to do in enough areas of our life - as if something this minor needs to be enforced like this.
Comments
That'd be the day one of my kids wouldn't have my last name.
But I guess they should be able to choose... even if it is the wife "choosing" for the pansy-ass husband.
[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: murbot ]</p>
Here's a solution:
Girls take mom's last name, boys take dad's last name.
When you get married, you get hyphenated.
So when Julie Smith marries Sam Jones, they become Julie and Sam Smith-Jones.
Then, their little girl Emily will be Emily Smith, and their little boy Porthos will be Porthos Jones.
Then, when they get married, their names will be hyphenated, etc.
"Modern" I almost puked when I read this. It's unfortunate however but their probably doing that kid a favor. McGilvray-Redmond doesn't exactly roll of the tongue easy.
<strong>I have a better idea. Let the people decide when they have kids and get married how they wanna do it and not legislate anything.</strong><hr></blockquote>You mean Noah isn't your government-assigned name?
This is 073847144, son of 318293811 and 267100942, saying goodbye.
<strong>Guess who wears the pants in that family? Sheesh...But I guess they should be able to choose... even if it is the wife "choosing" for the pansy-ass husband</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're kidding, right?
[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: G4Dude ]</p>
Anyway. While I think that parents should be able to choose the name of their child (as long that it won't confused anyone), I think that Margaret McGilvray and Dan Redmond should just follow the rule of the state, IF they want to get a birth certificate while their child is still an infant. I mean that, this kinda thing could get worse, in the future their child might be already in kindergarten but doesn't have any birth certificate.
Okay. Back to last name / family name / surname.
Traditionally, last name / family name / surname is always after the parent's name. To designate that the person is a child of a particular person (?_son of_? / ?_daughter of?). It could be the father/grandfather/etc's name and/or the mother/grandmother/etc's name. So it could be ?child son of father? and ?child son of mother?. Both are correct and acknowledged by the community.
Though traditionally, populary and regulary people always refer it by the father's name. Since that the father is the head of the family, and that you always refer a family by the name of the head of the family, and NOT the helper of the head of the family. I mean that people regulary refer the current administration of the United States of America as the Bush administration and NOT the Cheney administration.
If last name / family name / surname wasn't based on the parent. The origin of last name / family name / surname are usually named after the name of a community, a place, a profession, and so on.
For example, a German family might have the family name of ?van Houten?, which means, ?from/of the shepherd/guard?. Perharps that in the past, their ancestor were shepherds, or maybe the family are still shepherds.
And while we're at it, free speech, free press, and religious freedom just make everything more complicated. Screw all of that shit, too hard. It would be so much easier deciding what church to go to if the government told me!
Damn churches, they would probably have shorter and easier to remember names that way, too.
Screw that! If my babies name confuses anyone thats their problem...what gives with rules about names? I can't believe that anyone would post in support of the idea.
<strong>I think we need to keep the naming how it has been traditionaly, take the man's name. Here's why: Let's say Jane Smith marrys Bob Jones. They have a kid named Billy Smith-Jones. Billy goes and marrys Anna Schmitz-Gaye. Their kid is then Sam Smith-Jones-Schmitz-Gaye!!!!!! This gets pretty complicated really quick
[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: G4Dude ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Woah! Talk about slippery slope. We 'need' to force couples to name their childeren after the man, to prevent rampant, epidemic, name hyphenation?
Get real, dude.
Who cares if your baby is called Schmitz-Gaye, or even Smith-Jones-Scmittz-Gaye, not that any right minded people would choose that. This is a situation of some idiot bureaucrats mindlessly enforcing a 19th century law, like the ones that make fellatio a felony, or indicate that a man can only legally beat his wife with a stick thinner than his thumb (ok.. that last one is an urban myth.. but you get the point)
...and Murbot.. i'm surprised at you. tsk tsk
-robo
The "pansy-ass" comment wasn't completely serious, although I do find it strange that a man doesn't mind his son taking his wife's last name. I know that I would never do that, but that's just me I guess.
I do think that being told how to name your child is complete bullshit. We're told how and what to do in enough areas of our life - as if something this minor needs to be enforced like this.
[ 05-19-2002: Message edited by: murbot ]</p>