Europe to destroy traditional family and sexual identity

What a load of bollocks. Will never happen.

Besides, "I want to be parent1", "No I'm going to be parent1 your parent 2", "Over my dead body, I'm parent 1 as I'm the man", "Now theres no man anymore lovey, I'm parent no.1", "Look you dumb ass, I'm parent 1" ..... etc etc and other row erupts and yet two two lesbians split leaving another child even more confused than before.

reply to post by LPWilletts


I agree, homosexuality is one backward direction

reply to post by daggyz


I agree with you on one thing - your signature.

With all the trolls, the woo-shunters, racists, homophobes, xenophobes and other bigots on here, not to mention all those who think David Icke's novels are non-fiction, that everyone has a muslim hiding under their beds waiting to kill them in the night, or that they are in regular contact with Beings from Uranus who are disguised as the Queen, it is rather hard to take a lot of what gets posted here too seriously.

I for one will no longer allow myself to get het-up over anything I see on here, and nor should anyone else. ATS is first and foremost FUN, and I intend to enjoy it.

Originally posted by LPWilletts
reply to post by daggyz

 

I agree with you on one thing - your signature.

With all the trolls, the woo-shunters, racists, homophobes, xenophobes and other bigots on here, not to mention all those who think David Icke's novels are non-fiction, that everyone has a muslim hiding under their beds waiting to kill them in the night, or that they are in regular contact with Beings from Uranus who are disguised as the Queen, it is rather hard to take a lot of what gets posted here too seriously.

I for one will no longer allow myself to get het-up over anything I see on here, and nor should anyone else. ATS is first and foremost FUN, and I intend to enjoy it.

edit on 15/10/11 by LPWilletts because: changed a few lines

whats a "homophobe"? Someone who doesn't agree 2 men in a relationship is absurd? So anyone that disagrees with the laws of God which I believe is now considered a "God-ophobe".

Not tryin to pick a fight, I just have a problem when so many people use a word in the same line with "racism" which is discrimiating against a certain race...and you are discriminating against those who believe in following the laws God set before us.

Homosexuality and our society agreeing with it is just as evil as our society believing that adultery is no big deal...its not the homosexual that I somehow would have a phobia of, its that like the adulteror they are turning from God's laws and I can't agree to it.

The word homophobia is throw around on these forums likke it is somehow a reality...and its just absurdity.

reply to post by goodday123


Personally I don't believe in a God, and what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms doesn't concern me. If you feel otherwise, that's your business, but if you are going further and advocating violence or persecution against them because of it, then I'm your enemy. If you are not doing that then I support your right to hold whatever view you like, even if I don't agree.

I agree with you about the word "homophobe". It is rather unsatisfactory a term, but I didn't invent the language, I merely inherited it. It just means someone who hates, persecutes or discriminates against gays. That may well not apply to you, but that's for you to decide. Personally I'd rather see people look past all the labels we like to stick on each-other nowadays and appreciate people as individuals
Me, I'm against religion. I don't approve of it, but as long as you're not trampling over anyone else's rights and freedoms, I would never tolerate anyone trampling over yours. Same with homosexuals. As long as they are not stopping you from living your life, you have no place stopping them from living theirs.

And that's about as much as I have to say on the matter.

reply to post by FejkNick


Dear FejkNick,

Europe to destroy traditional family and sexual identity? Errr did you even read your own post? Your own source link?

It is Britain, one country .. it is about one specific topic/subject, nothing to do with family and sexual identity.

I'm so sick of people posting sensationalistic titles just to get attention to their silly post. If you've got a point to make, make it, don't wrap it up in sensationalism to make it. Sad, pathetic and stupid.

T

Meanwhile back on topic...
Does anyone ever read the whole thread?
The source is EU Times which is just Sorcha Faal Mk 2. The so called Earl of Stirling is.. Wait a moment, I am not opening myself up to a libel charge. Just google the name. Sigh..

Originally posted by goodday123

Originally posted by LPWilletts
reply to post by daggyz

 

I agree with you on one thing - your signature.

With all the trolls, the woo-shunters, racists, homophobes, xenophobes and other bigots on here, not to mention all those who think David Icke's novels are non-fiction, that everyone has a muslim hiding under their beds waiting to kill them in the night, or that they are in regular contact with Beings from Uranus who are disguised as the Queen, it is rather hard to take a lot of what gets posted here too seriously.

I for one will no longer allow myself to get het-up over anything I see on here, and nor should anyone else. ATS is first and foremost FUN, and I intend to enjoy it.

edit on 15/10/11 by LPWilletts because: changed a few lines

whats a "homophobe"? Someone who doesn't agree 2 men in a relationship is absurd? So anyone that disagrees with the laws of God which I believe is now considered a "God-ophobe".

Not tryin to pick a fight, I just have a problem when so many people use a word in the same line with "racism" which is discrimiating against a certain race...and you are discriminating against those who believe in following the laws God set before us.

Homosexuality and our society agreeing with it is just as evil as our society believing that adultery is no big deal...its not the homosexual that I somehow would have a phobia of, its that like the adulteror they are turning from God's laws and I can't agree to it.

The word homophobia is throw around on these forums likke it is somehow a reality...and its just absurdity.

Not everyone thinks that the laws of God are what you say they are.

No one is discriminating against you following whatever laws of God you believe in - they are simply objecting to people who spread negative behavior or comments against anyone else. I think most Christianity is incredibly stupid, but I don't go around insulting Christians to their faces or indirectly. If I did, I'd expect people to be pissed off at me for it.

You think people are turning from God's law? I think you are turning from God's law as I believe it. In normal circumstances, why would I bother telling this to you or anyone else?

Oh, and don't forget that the bible has been translated many times. It's been proven that the word homosexual or the description of it has NEVER appeared in the original Hebrew or Aramaic versions.

A couple of other interesting tidbits for those who follow God's law as described in the Bible:

1. You're not supposed to wear clothes made of more than one fabric. Leviticus 19:19

2. You're not supposed to cut your hair or shave. Leviticus 19:27.

3. People who have flat noses, are blind or lame cannot go to the altar of God. Leviticus 21:17-18

4. Don't plant a variety of crops in the same field. Leviticus 19:19

There are many other laws like this. Are you following them all? If not, maybe it's not so much the laws of God you are following more than it's that you use "the laws of God" as an excuse for your own discrimination.

Originally posted by AnonymousFem
reply to post by MorbiSemper

 

Don't listen to others in here. You be whom ever you want to be. I do not know you, but to me you are as special as any other human being in this world. Don't you ever forget that okay. You are not a freak, as some have posted in here. Which I find disgusting to say the least.

They can call me a freak all they want, they can look DOWN on me all they want, While they were sitting on their butts staring at a computer screen, I was out doing my job protecting them, as I called myself to do three years ago .

That is, if they're American.

Originally posted by AnonymousFem
reply to post by Walkers

 

And your biased views shows. So what if children of Gay couples are allowed to have their parents names on their passports, what harm does it do to you? Answer None.

Harm?

For a start, how about devaluing our status?

How about heterosexual parental rights? Gays have the right to adopt or otherwise have a family, i don't personally agree with two same sex partners bringing up children, but that's just my opinion.

I don't care what hetero's or homo's get up to as adults, it's their business, but this move is just about undermining the traditional nuclear family, not giving anyone rights. It's actually undermining the masculine and feminine, in favour of a homogeneous, vague title of parent.

If gays want 'parent 1 and parent 2', fine go for it, they can opt to have it listed on their documentation. But i am a Father and my wife is a Mother, as were our Fathers and Mothers before us, and i am proud to be a Father, because that is exactly who and what i am...it defines me.

Parent 1 or Parent 2, is like some kind of Stalin - esque state designation. It's grey, ambiguous, dis-personalised, and Orwellian.

And it's totally unacceptable. I am a Father and my wife is a Mother. That is how it shall stay, regardless of what some PC twat in temporary officialdom dictates i am or should be.

Gays can refer to themselves as they wish, Father 1 and Father 2 or Mother 1 and Mother 2, or Parent whatever, i don't care...i start caring when they don't want to change the status quo for themselves, but try to change it for everyone else too.

I s'pose my wife is now my Partner 1, and not my wife anymore either!

reply to post by spikey


No one is devaluing your status as you put it. Heterosexual couple will still have their same rights. No one is going to force them to change their titles on their children's passports. If you think that they are then you are being paranoid. It is just administrative move is all.

As for the rest of your comment, well seems to me you do have a problem with homosexuals/lesbians/transgender couples, going by what you have posted on here.

Originally posted by spikey



If gays want 'parent 1 and parent 2', fine go for it, they can opt to have it listed on their documentation. But i am a Father and my wife is a Mother, as were our Fathers and Mothers before us, and i am proud to be a Father, because that is exactly who and what i am...it defines me.

If thats what you think then what are you getting wound up about? For what you have described is all thats happened. Nothing at all that would have any effect on anyone else. And, for the record, nobody seems to have actually asked for it, even 'the gays'. It was a departmental administrative decision.

""I don't care what hetero's or homo's get up to as adults, it's their business, but this move is just about undermining the traditional nuclear family, not giving anyone rights. It's actually undermining the masculine and feminine, in favour of a homogeneous, vague title of parent.""

Good! Rules and models of what is "proper" with what a family should be composed of are ridiculous. I've never understood why "the classic nuclear family" feels so threatened. It's still what most families are.

But these expectations or rules - legal or moral - have always sucked. I mean, if a women got pregnant in the 50's or 60's, and even 70's, and was not married, it was considered horrible, embarrassing, immoral. It ruined a lot of women's lives. They would be sent off somewhere to have the baby quietly so as not to disgrace their families.

And if it was an adult couple having a child who happened not to be married - very well near the same thing. Thankfully, that's all changed.

And let's not forget a black person marrying a white person and the blasphemy that used to be.

And the most hilarious part? The classic nuclear family doesn't really work! Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. Of the remaining marriages, at least half of those SHOULD end in divorce because they're too afraid, or bound financially to each other, or worst of all "stay together for the kids." Talk about ruining a child's upbringing in a house devoid of love, or filled with arguments, or the silence of the absence of love. What does THIS do to a child? What does divorce do to a child?

I'm not trying to denigrate the classic family, but hey, I'm just saying it ain't perfect either! Because of its supremacy, people continue to adopt it even though it's been clear for decades that it doesn't work for everyone.
In fact, a child growing up in a "non-average" type of family would probably have no problems if he/she weren't constantly comparing their situation with what is "the coveted norm."

Whether you believe in Atlantis or not: it's said that in ancient Atlantis, children were not reared by their parents. They stayed with their birth parents for one year, and then were moved to a community where they were raised with all the other children. This community was run by men and women of all walks of life. No child had to suffer through seeing their parents divorce; no child had to suffer through the specific problems any one parent would have - because these children had MANY parents in this community.

Sounds good to me.

reply to post by spikey





I agree with you for the most part. In that if gay people want the parent 1 and 2 thing, cool. Go for it. But I agree it is a disturbingly Orwellian move. The title and status of "mother" and "father" whether biological or adoptive, are things so ingrained into the human species that, every culture, from the most primitive to the most advanced throughout history, have always used these terms to identify the two biological participants in reproduction, both male and female. Because biologically, only an egg and sperm can join for reproduction. And an egg and a sperm require a male and female parent, in some manner. In otherwords, a mother or a father.

Thus, the two terms can never truly be eliminated. In the case of adoption or using a sperm donor/surrogate mother, biologically, that kid will need to have a mother and father to exist. This will have to exist somewhere. And parent 1/parent 2 might work for same sex couples, it sure as hell ain't going to fly for hetero couples. I don't think any mom or dad, or grandma or grandpa, is going to like being called "parent 1 or 2" in any fashion.

I totally support the option for same sex couples to have alternate boxes filled with "parent 1 and parent 2". In fact, such designations could work beyond gay and lesbian couples. There are a number of children who are in the legal custody of grandparents, aunts, and uncles who could also utilize the designation, since they are not technically "mother and father". So it is a good idea in addition to the traditional designations of "mother and father".

But to completely eliminate them? Piss off. It's insulting. If I had a child, whether I gave birth to it or adopted it and fullfil a maternal role for it, I am not the child's "parent 2" or "parent 1". I am the child's legal "mother".

Remember, tolerance goes ALL directions, folks. Let's show everyone in our society respect and consideration for all orientations and walks of life. And many people really have no desire to ditch the ancient and biological terms for our parents completely.

When it comes time to renew my passport, I swear to whatever god you worship, if I have to put that "parent 1" is deceased, and "parent 2" currently lives in Nevada, when I have to provide my birth certificate and proof of citizenship, I will headbutt the person that hands me the application. I mean it.

reply to post by FejkNick


Changing mother and father to parent 1 and parent 2 do absolutely nothing to the rights of mothers and fathers.
There is no damage being done to the old way except that it is being inclusionary which, of course, means that people filled with hate and fear will be upset because now people different than themselves will enjoy the same rights they used to have exclusive reign over.

Traditional family though lost nothing real. They can continue to be exactly as they were before the change and nothing will be different for their own families.

It drives me crazy how every time gays are given anything it somehow turns into an attack on the rest of us heterosexual people. There is no attack. There is no degradation.. what do you honestly care if now that when one gay parent dies the other one can resume custody and keep raising the child in the environment they are familiar with instead of yanking them out into some hell of a child welfare system that will ruin their childhood and possibly raise them to be drug addicts and criminals as is so often the case with foster children?

This is crazy, and this does not give gay people any rights or make anyone even, if anything this takes away from it all - "parent 1 parent 2"??? wtf dat like some robot ish, its crazy. This is proof they are starting to make adjustments for the new world order.

So, what does Child 1 and Child 2 call the Female that gave birth to him/her, previously known as 'Mother', "One" or "Two"?
And the male that copulated with the female and sired the children, previously known as 'Father'?

If Parent 1 divorces Parent 2 (or v.v.), which will be granted custody of child 1 and/or 2, will that be Parent 1 or 2, even if Child 2 is 3 months old and breast fed?
If Parent 1 divorces Parent 2 (or v.v.), gets custody of Child 1/2, and lives with a new 'partner', will that be Parent 3?
And after divorced Parent 2 gets access rights to Child 1/2, and takes a new partner, will that be Parent 4?

Only burocrats could produce a 'solution' like numbering parents. They solve the 'problem' for their all-important forms and records, without considering what is liable to happen next in the real world, hiding behind walls of 'political correctness'. I wonder how many of them have children of their own?

Kids just want a 'Mom' and 'Dad', not a unisexual numbering system.

Not sure how deciding to refer to something with a different name can destroy it. Regardless of whether it is called Parent 1 and Parent 2, Mother and Father, Mother and Step-Father or whatever, what matters is what YOU call YOURS.

Originally posted by Abrihetx
Not sure how deciding to refer to something with a different name can destroy it. Regardless of whether it is called Parent 1 and Parent 2, Mother and Father, Mother and Step-Father or whatever, what matters is what YOU call YOURS.

Yes until a baby learning to talk says "papapapapapapapaarentwwwwwwwwwon. Give me a break.