Europe to destroy traditional family and sexual identity

I will sue them for inequality. "Parent 1" sound more important than "Parent 2". I demand fairness for all the "parent 2"'s out there.

reply to post by AnonymousFem


It's still Political Correctness Gone Made, though.

It should either have the biological Father and Mother or use the word "Guardian" instead. This "Parent 1, Parent 2" thing is nonsense.

Gay couples shouldnt have any kids, not because of morality of it but because of the merciless bullying the kids will have to go through in school.

Its extremely selfish to put their happiness ahead ahead of a kids.

reply to post by Dark Ghost


No it is not. It is giving same sex couples the same equal rights as Heterosexual couples. There is nothing wrong in doing this.

reply to post by Flyer


Children with Heterosexual Parents are bullied at school. Your making an assumption out of nothing. Those teenagers who committed suicide over the past couple off months were bullied for being homosexual. It had nothing to so with their parents what so ever.

Originally posted by Flyer
Gay couples shouldnt have any kids, not because of morality of it but because of the merciless bullying the kids will have to go through in school.

And kids whose parents are straight don't get bullied, right? EVERY kid gets bullied. Being straight doesn't prevent that.

I love the idea of listing the parents regardless of gender. It's about time.

The OP and the source make a claim that this "destroys traditional family"... but neither states how that will happen. Do you think that SEEING the words "Parent One and Parent Two" will cause some sort of explosion and the family will be destroyed in a ball of fire or what?

HOW does this destroy traditional families? The same way gay marriage destroys traditional marriage? That, too, has NEVER been explained...

Love, Live and Let Live...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Flyer


HOW does this destroy traditional families? The same way gay marriage destroys traditional marriage? That, too, has NEVER been explained...

I've yet to see a valid point raised that across this whole site that can explain this.
The act of separation and divorce does more harm to the 'traditional family unit' yet it will be totally wrong to say people can't do it.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


It corrupts the State's view of what constitutes "Marriage" and "Family".

reply to post by Flyer


IMO it's all about the environment. My kids are fine, never had a problem with bullying because they didn't put up with it. They were prepared for that sort of ignorance and knew how to deal with it.

~Keeper

Biological, traditional, reasons of political opportunism, bringing science in to explain inexplicable...
Worse, lawyers deciding what is the appropriate language. Take some text written by lawyers and see what kind of freak language it is!

The problem here is change in social structure which now has very little if anything to do with biological.
Religious reasons are totally outdated and calling upon Bible will soon be outlawed and punishable. And it should be so.

Even Plato predicted this, though at those times it was not really possible to apply. Church did have some control of the part of children population in times where there was so much calamity and destruction, from wars, brutal lords or plague - seminaries etc. Then, it was the school system which isolated children and the role of family was diminished in favor of the social differentiation. School and preparation for particular function in society was more important than family membership.

Now we have digitized world with its own needs which will by far outweigh all other needs. The need to process formal physical connection of children with their closest care givers is predominant. Gender doesn't matter at all. This is not about giving rights to the gay population, they may just fit nicely into it, but are not the cause for this measure.

The attack on the language protocols is also for the same reason. This is more visible in English (the youngest and most modern language of all), because there already are words which don't precise gender - like "friend" or "relative" (there is no friend-in or colleague-in), and many family positions don't exist in English "son in law, father in law" etc, those are not "words", those are constructs. "Uncle" applies to both father's and mother's brother, etc. This is also result of the bureaucratic needs to dominate and adapt all other spheres of human domain to its own needs.

This kind of language adaptation is visible from Shakespeare times. Especially in his sonnets (God knows who actually wrote them, Pope?). Some of those sonnets are introducing legal language, and they are mostly about how a man should create family so he can have a "heir". Pretty much accurately anticipating Henry VIII little "problem"

The Age of Informatics probably has much more in stock for us. This is just the beginning. These changes are never to suit personal needs. They are always to suit the needs of the latest technological phase of processing people in an impersonal way.

WHAT THE HELL???!!!

Ok first things first, many of you have mentioned gay parents liking this: I am gay and this may be the most stupid thing I have heard in a long time

I dont want to be known as "Parent one" When and if I adopt children! I want to be known as [childsnamehere]'s Dad not Parent one. That I so stupid!! This will destroy so much of our culture if this becomes normal talk. On SOME forms they do this in america, but we dont say "Oh, go tell haylees parent one to have a parent teacher confrerence with me" No! We say "go tell haylees DAD/MOM to have a parent teacher confrerence with me"

What has this world come to???

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
It corrupts the State's view of what constitutes "Marriage" and "Family".

What does that mean? It "corrupts the State's view"? The State's view of marriage and family is a LEGAL contract and a LEGAL unit. HOW is it corrupted by which organ goes where in bed?

reply to post by spw184


Hm, I don't think the purpose is to change the names"Mother and father". It's for legal purposes, ya know, passports, filling out forms.

I don't think it will catch on in the household!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The State's view is supposed to reflect what the majority of the people living within it feel and desire. Also remember that Marriage is seen as a Social - not just Legal - unit by the State.

What benefit to the state is a legal union between two people who cannot procreate?

Isn't the eutimes a Sorcha Faal hangout? You sure this even real?

Originally posted by spw184
WHAT THE HELL???!!!

Ok first things first, many of you have mentioned gay parents liking this: I am gay and this may be the most stupid thing I have heard in a long time

I dont want to be known as "Parent one" When and if I adopt children! I want to be known as [childsnamehere]'s Dad not Parent one. That I so stupid!! This will destroy so much of our culture if this becomes normal talk. On SOME forms they do this in america, but we dont say "Oh, go tell haylees parent one to have a parent teacher confrerence with me" No! We say "go tell haylees DAD/MOM to have a parent teacher confrerence with me"

What has this world come to???

Well, for one, you have radically misunderstood what this is to be used for- not normal speech and not on all papers. Only on the most official ones, like passports, and in special cases.
Which brings us to two-
If you adopt one day, your partner may be fine being called a Mom, but many men, even though gay, do not want to be called a Mother. It also becomes confusing on those official papers which would say "mother" and then the offical expects a female to come into the room or be before them, and it's not. I can imagine the mix ups when the male partner catagorized as "mother" is not present to be seen!

Gay couples shouldnt have any kids, not because of morality of it but because of the merciless bullying the kids will have to go through in school.

You know, I think you underestimate how far kids have come socially. Have you watched MTV lately? Read any YA fiction? Have you actually seen what is popular with kids today in fashion? Gay is no longer the social pariah it once was.

Even when I was a teenager ( the fabulous 80s), it was starting to be more socially acceptable. And no, I' didn't grow up in San Fran, but in the deep south USA.


Any child that has two parents is damn lucky. We can feel nostalgic all we want for the days when it was mom dad and 2.5 kids, but those days are over, it's time we accepted that, by and far our kids have.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
The State's view is supposed to reflect what the majority of the people living within it feel and desire.

Is that your opinion or an official position of the State? If it's your opinion, you're welcome to it, but if it's the State's official position, I'm going to need more than your word. By the way...

Majority of Americans Support Gay Marriage

For the first time in Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages.

Also remember that Marriage is seen as a Social - not just Legal - unit by the State.

OK. Agreed. Marriage is many things to many people. Legal, social, religious in some cases... Convenient, economically savvy, friendly and companionable... Still not seeing the destruction of the traditional family... Can you explain?

What benefit to the state is a legal union between two people who cannot procreate?

Childless couples can be as stable, committed, and operate as productive members of society just as breeders can be. Whether or not they have children is irrelevant. It's not a requirement of marriage to procreate. Never has been. Many straight couples adopt in lieu of direct procreation or remain childless by choice. Should they be prohibited from marrying because they cannot or choose not to procreate? In fact, I am in a legal union between two (opposite gender) people and we cannot procreate. Are you suggesting that my marriage is destroying the family, too?

Please bring some REAL reasons to the table instead of repeating platitudes and GOP sound bites. Thanks.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

The State's view is supposed to reflect what the majority of the people living within it feel and desire. Also remember that Marriage is seen as a Social - not just Legal - unit by the State.

What benefit to the state is a legal union between two people who cannot procreate?

edit on 12/10/2011 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)

Times change, it's now fully socially acceptable to be gay. Only bigots lose sleep over it now. I couldn't care less if someone's straight, gay, or in love with a rock...as long as they're happy and not hurting anyone that should be enough. Of course for some bigots, that's not good enough, and they prefer infringing on the freedoms because of their outdated notions about the world.

Welcome to the 21st century, stop being a bigot

Also, let's not forget the majority in the US is actually SUPPORTIVE of gay marriage. But who cares about this little fact, right?

reply to post by solargeddon

As a mother for as long as I can still be named on a passport as "Mother" then I have no problem with it, if I were to be referred to as "Parent 1" then I would not support it, to be termed as anything but, I find deeply offensive, and would infringe upon my equality, to be recognised as the mother of my children.

Well, bully for you! You are the biological mother of your child and proud of it. Nice for you. But there are many others out there who, tho not a biological progenitor, are indeed a loving, caring parent in every other sense of the word. The term "mother" may not apply to them. Same with "father". Why should they be forced into accepting a label that clearly does not apply?

The term "parent 1" or "parent 2" on the other hand does not stop you from being a mother at the same time. It may trim your bragging rights a bit, but I am sure you will compensate for that every chance you get.

My only question is in cases where both parents are the biological ones, who gets to be #1, and who #2?