bad analogy, especially since the next sentence in my post says that government should be in charge of the safety of its citizens.  

As far as bullying, do you really think that controlling peoples names is going to change bullying?  Kids are going to bully each other, its the way of life.  My name is Greg, normal name right?  I was teased in elementary school with stuff about me wetting the bed, because it kind of rhymed.  "Greg eats bread and wets the bed."  Not clever, or true, but that is kids for ya.  

As far as how some parents are stupid and name their kids idiotic things, how many parents are guilty of this?  .0001% of the population?  So you are fine with regulating the other 99.999% of the population to prevent the other .001% from doing something stupid?  

This is not something the government should be involved in.  If the name is obviously malicious, like dog poop, sure, don't let them name them that.  However, to have any offical names list is ridiculous and an overstep of government.  I really don't see how you can even support this crap. 

it's better than doing nothing and yes I think it's a very good measure, since there is absolutely no harm in it. It's certainly the parents' fault if they can't find a name out of 2000 (depending on the list) possibilities.

Law makes complete sense. The government has to do at least something to protect children from their hippie parents' lunatic ideas. Lord knows they're far from the most responsible.

I'm not surprised at this girl's supposed real name, really. Light breeze? Lawl.

Yes it's a stupid name but it's really up to the people who name there kid that, surely?

well, I think the article this thread is based on shows that the list is in fact limiting.  Also, how is it better than doing nothing?  This is a perfect example of government digging at a problem that isn't there.  You're fine with not being able to name your child something that actually means something to you, even though the governments solution doesn't solve the problem at all?  

How can you say it is  VERY GOOD measure?  you said in your first reply that you should be able to change your name as an adult to whatever you want.  Obviously it is not a very good measure as the government is seeking to control all names, not just that of kids.  

Nope. Humans are morons. One would have thought the 20th century proved it pretty clearly... hell, simply turning your TV on does it. They need to be protected from themselves. 

Government has far more to worry about than some idiots names. A persons name should not be of any concern to the government at all, with big and important issues like war and the economy about

@italics
You can try it. Not standing on the list doesn't mean that you can't name your child that way. Although even if Disneyland means something to you, I doubt  you can get away with it.


@bolded
Because a guy wanted to have a name with the letter "C" that doesn't exist in that language. That guy is just too stubborn to change it to the closest Icelandic letter that sounds similar to "C".

But I must concede that my previous statement was not well formulated. Obviously you should not be able to change your name to anything after you've grown up, just much more than those ~2000 on the list (which I think is already possible).

Idiots are the ones doing the naming, if they chose a name like "Light Breeze".

I do get the girl's point though. She thought that really was her name. I wouldn't like it if someone suddenly told me my name is not *CENSORED*.

But it's the parents' fault. They shouldn't have been defiant and should have given her a proper, legal name in the first place. In legal terms, "Light Breeze" is nothing more than a nickname.

Actually, the standard term would be "neuter" for a grammatical gender (for example German has feminine/masculine/neuter genders).  The word "androgynous" would suggest having both male and female aspects, as opposed to lacking them which is what "neuter" connotes.