Europe to destroy traditional family and sexual identity

Originally posted by Annee
Homophobic children are put on a register in the UK

Reply:-

Good..

You were refering to the following incident.

Are you sure that it is good that a 10 year old boy should be put on a 'homo-phobic' register for calling another boy 'gay bay'?

You think that is good?

The scale of the effort to stop children using homophobic or racist language was revealed after the parents of a ten-year-old primary school pupil in Somerset, Peter Drury, were told that his name would be put on a register and his behaviour monitored while he remained at school.

The boy was reported after he called a friend 'gay boy'.

His parents fear the record of 'homophobic bullying' will count against him throughout his school career and even into adulthood

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Originally posted by AnonymousFem
reply to post by thebtheb

 

Are you telling me that my brother was never born gay?

All though he knew it, when he was at a young age, His words not mine.

And that he was a mistake in the so called Gods Design?

edit on 14-10-2011 by AnonymousFem because: (no reason given)

I'm not telling you your brother was not born gay - I'm sharing my opinions.
If you read my post, you would realize that no, no gay person or straight person was a mistake in any design.

My post in no way is trying to negate or judge being gay, but to more fully define it. Everyone likes to be able to label everything and put it in a neat little box, but I really don't think human consciousness is that simple.

It's all my opinion - you yourself can believe whatever you like!

If you believe in reincarnation (I do, but this is just an example), you're born into this life, and here you are, unaware of any of your other lives. It doesn't mean they don't exist or that you can't become aware of them. Consciousness is not a closed system, nor is any aspect of it, including sexuality.

Adding to my whole, apparently upsetting, post on not being born gay, I'd like to say the following:

Fine, if it upsets some people to be told that they're not born gay, that's okay. But it upsets me to be told that I WAS born gay.

To most people, at this point, the debate about being born gay or not has been reduced or tantamount to "is it okay to be gay or not?" and "did I choose to be gay or not?" or "is it natural to be gay or not." It seems to be all about proving to the world one thing or the other. But to me, it's not about that at all. I don't mind being gay, and I'm not terribly concerned if people don't like it.

I understand the point people are trying to make in saying that one is born gay, and I thank them for it. I just don't believe it's true. I'm not 100% sure about what I say. But it interests me, and I'm about 80% sure.

But to me, if it's true that we're not born gay, it doesn't make it any less natural. It's not an aberration. I was talking about the variations in sexuality across BOTH heterosexual and homosexual people, and how at this time, this may be what's happening.

Are you, in turn, saying that all the acceptance some people show is based upon the idea that I was born gay? That if I was NOT born gay, that that acceptance would change?

Originally posted by Annee
I am raising a 3 1/2 year old grandson and an 11 year old granddaughter. The father of the grandson died. If anything happens to my daughter - - I will become legal guardian. Why would I want to take extra time and go through unnecessary explanations when I can just mark Parent 1.

So stupid to try to make this into a big deal.

But you wouldn't be parent 1 in the UK, you would be a mere grandparent.

If you had a medical condition, you would perhaps be stopped from adopting your grand children and they could be taken from you, at the discretion of social workers, and put up for adoption.

You would however be allowed to see your grandchildren twice a year as long as you didn't object to the choice of adoptive parents.

Remember, what is paramount is the interests of the children, as decided by the social workers, unless you have the money to fight the local government through the courts for a number of years.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Annee
Homophobic children are put on a register in the UK

Reply:-

Good..

You were refering to the following incident.

Are you sure that it is good that a 10 year old boy should be put on a 'homo-phobic' register for calling another boy 'gay bay'?

You think that is good?

I think the parents should be held responsible.

Are the parents in any way concerned about the child their son called "gay bay"? NO.

They're whining how it will affect their child if he is put on a registry for bullying.

Does it make parents think about what they are teaching their children? It certainly does.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Annee
I am raising a 3 1/2 year old grandson and an 11 year old granddaughter. The father of the grandson died. If anything happens to my daughter - - I will become legal guardian. Why would I want to take extra time and go through unnecessary explanations when I can just mark Parent 1.

So stupid to try to make this into a big deal.

But you wouldn't be parent 1 in the UK, you would be a mere grandparent.

Thank you for the self-explanatory response.

Maybe now it will sink in.

Originally posted by Annee
I think the parents should be held responsible.

Are the parents in any way concerned about the child their son called "gay boy"? NO.

They're whining how it will affect their child if he is put on a registry for bullying.

Does it make parents think about what they are teaching their children? It certainly does.

Years ago, gay meant happy.

Now it means, well, gay.

Originally posted by Annee
Are the parents in any way concerned about the child their son called "gay boy"? NO.

I'm sure he will be scarred for life.

wow this is absolutely insane! if they start with parent 1 and parent 2 whats stopping them from adding 3 and 4? whats next? are they going to make it illegal for people to portray a family with a "mom" and "dad" in movies, coloring books, whatever else?

also, i think its a little harder for a babies first word to be "parent 1" or "parent 2". i wonder how they will work that out.

Originally posted by ollncasino
If you had a medical condition, you would perhaps be stopped from adopting your grand children and they could be taken from you, at the discretion of social workers, and put up for adoption.

My objection would be religion not gay parents.

I've read may articles on this particular story. The grandparents objection was religious based because the adoptive parents were gay.

If it were me - - I would do everything I could to make friends with the adoptive gay parents - - to make the transition as happy as possible for the child/children. It would be about the child's happiness - - not mine.

I applaud the UK for what they have done for equality. If gay parents are next in line - - they do not get shoved to the back of the bus.

Originally posted by UnrelentingLurker
wow this is absolutely insane! if they start with parent 1 and parent 2 whats stopping them from adding 3 and 4? whats next? are they going to make it illegal for people to portray a family with a "mom" and "dad" in movies, coloring books, whatever else?

also, i think its a little harder for a babies first word to be "parent 1" or "parent 2". i wonder how they will work that out.

Seriously?

This is a serious post?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Annee
Are the parents in any way concerned about the child their son called "gay boy"? NO.

I'm sure he will be scarred for life.

Your compassion for the gay boy is over whelming.

Originally posted by Annee
My objection would be religion not gay parents.

So tolerance for gays but no tolerance for religious beliefs?

So, it isn't really tolerance of different views you are a believer in, only tolerance of views that are the same as your own?

Originally posted by Aeons
You confuse the entire matter, for everyone and distinctly for them, by not seeing that.

No - I am not confused or confusing anything.

I fully understand the simplicity of making a form easier.

That is all this is about. What some of you keep adding to this is silly.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Annee
My objection would be religion not gay parents.

So tolerance for gays but no tolerance for religious beliefs?

So, it isn't really tolerance of different views you are a believer in, only tolerance of views that are the same as your own?

You confuse people's rights with belief.

Gays are people. They are not a belief.

Originally posted by Annee
You confuse people's rights with belief.

Gays are people. They are not a belief.

Yet you seek rights for one group (gays - you have no objection to gays adopting) but not for others (Christians - you do object to Christians adopting, very strongly).

I do admire the strength of your convictions.

I'm just not so sure they are based on a desire for equity and fairness as much as a desire to see the world moulded in a shape that fits your own biases.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Annee
My objection would be religion not gay parents.

So tolerance for gays but no tolerance for religious beliefs?

So, it isn't really tolerance of different views you are a believer in, only tolerance of views that are the same as your own?

Yeah that holds no water - if we're talking rights, both religion and groups of people deserve them.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Annee
My objection would be religion not gay parents.

So tolerance for gays but no tolerance for religious beliefs?

So, it isn't really tolerance of different views you are a believer in, only tolerance of views that are the same as your own?

Oh, brother. Give me a break.

You're going to tell me that, in the Bible, it says that you can't put "Parent 1" and "Parent 2" boxes underneath "Mother" and "Father" on a passport form? That's morally repugnant, eh? Who is that harming? You? Families? Get real.

Sorry, that's not religious belief, that's religiously absurd scripture-warping at best.

There is so much lack of personal thought in your post I'm not even going to get into all of the ways that you should be embarrassed of even saying something so blatantly -- colorfully -- ignorant.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Annee
My objection would be religion not gay parents.

So tolerance for gays but no tolerance for religious beliefs?

So, it isn't really tolerance of different views you are a believer in, only tolerance of views that are the same as your own?

You can chose your religion, you can't really chose whether or not you're gay. Two entirely different things.

And how is giving gays equal rights intolerant against Christians? How are gay people having the same rights you have somehow negatively impacting your life?

This whole thing is so silly...and people do it with tons of other groups, for similarly silly reasons.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Annee
You confuse people's rights with belief.

Gays are people. They are not a belief.

Yet you seek rights for one group (gays - you have no objection to gays adopting) but not for others (Christians - you do object to Christians adopting, very strongly).

I do admire the strength of your convictions.

I'm just not so sure they are based on a desire for equity and fairness as much as a desire to see the world moulded in a shape that fits your own biases.

So you think "equity and fairness" is not giving gays/lesbians the very same rights you expect, simply because it goes against your faith??? And you have the nerve of talking about tolerance