Europe to destroy traditional family and sexual identity

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The sperm donor is the father, and the egg donor is the mother.

The child may be raised by 2 people that aren't the child's parents, I've heard them called "guardians".

Normally avoid these threads but ... I'm not sure it matters? This just seems to be semantics.

It's being filled out on a form for passports not in a human biology book as far as I can tells. Who put their genitals inside who, who adopted who, or which gender they are seems mostly irrelevant for passport application, and the term 'guardians' could refer to grand mothers, or baby sisters in some situations.

Does a person really need to highlight the fact they were abandoned as a child and adopted by surrogate parents on a passport form? Do we need a whole extra section that says 'if you're unfortunate enough not to have a parent then fill this part out instead'? I agree with the sentiment shown by the postered name Masqua.

Far as I'm concerned parent 1 and parent 2 is a step in the right direction ... it doesn't invade my personal life, I don't have to put a female name under 'mother', I don't have a 'special' section on my form because I'm 'special'. I don't know why anyone at ATS would have a problem with a government recording less information about them.

Also I really don't think the 'family unit', our understanding of biology, or out instinct to be 'parents' is going to collapse on the basis of adding some words to a form.

Originally posted by spw184
I want to be known as [childsnamehere]'s Dad not Parent one.

Will your partner be OK with being [childsnamehere]'s Mom? Or would he prefer Parent 2? Or would you like a special place on the form just for 'Unconventional' Families? Or perhaps a special section for Gay People? You know... separate but equal... Like Dad 1 and Dad 2 OR Mom1 and Mom 2?

Parent One and Parent Two makes it generic and applies to all families with 2 parents.

This will destroy so much of our culture if this becomes normal talk.

OMG. This will "destroy our culture"??? You sound just like those who have been persecuting you for years! I don't get it. You're talking like people are going to use this in normal conversations. DID YOU READ THE OP?

Originally posted by Pinke
I don't know why anyone at ATS would have a problem with a government recording less information about them.

This is what doesn't make sense to me. People are so wrapped up in their prejudices that they cannot see straight or think straight. :shk: Or read straight...

While i don;t agree with sexual discrimination i do not think that these laws were made for this purpose. Remember these people often use several laws working together to achieve their purpose. Beware the government or orgonisation that tries to depersonalise people. Hitler used these sort of tricks. It makes it easier to treat people inappropriately or even kill them as they are not seen as people just numbers. It is also worth considering that children are much easier to indoctrinate than adults. Those adults whose views are not shared by the state may end up losing their children. by putting parent one and parent two on documents does it make it easier to change the names on these documents. The Swedish kindergarten using "it" is very depersonalising as "it" is usually used in referring to a thing not a person

reply to post by AnonymousFem


Why?

The term mother and father usually implies biological mother and father, or at least male and female. You could not have anything other than mother or father on a birth certificate, for example. While I have no problem with same sex couples and feel they probably make better parents than some of their heterosexual peers, I do have a problem with being called "parent 1/2".

I am a father. These proposals (if true) are just pandering to a tiny minority who alienate themselves by being so picky.

Regards

Thing One and Thing Two?

Dr. Seuss could write a humdinger of a parody on this one, lol!

You know that in the future there will be no more separation of people and that is one of the roots established early on in our societies. When we can love all children as our own and raise them according to their hearts and their needs rather than through birth and biological auto selection, the planet is going to rise and love will blossom for the first time.

Personally I am so attached to my children/grandchildren but that's my problem my conditioning.

reply to post by paraphi


Until same sex couples are giving the same rights, the discrimination and lack of equality will continue. And it is not a tiny minority.

Why should same sex parents be refused for say adoption when they can give us much love to a child, as much as heterosexual parents.

It will not infringe on any other couples rights.

The vernacular; Or how they state parenthood, or refer to the family in their documents change nothing. There is almost nothing to change; It is already here. This isn't just a European thing. I am in my 60s now. As a family we sat down at the dinner table, and ate as a family. We did things as a family. We were a family. Dad worked, mom did not for the longest time, until we left home and she wanted to.
The family has become a lost art. Some by design, some because it is required financially. Now if both parents don't work the children may not have a good college education. We are far too busy with our own business to concern ourselves with a Family. Shame, America and the world was much better off then, than today. Don't believe me? Look around you. Just look at this mess!
We don't bring our children up right now. Haven't for a very long time. It began in my generation, and sadly to say I was part of it. The family hasn't disintegrated because of the government. It happened because we did this to ourselves. Any society that gives up the family, is sure to loose it's heritage and its sovereignty. The family is gone: We did this to ourselves, the governments are just giving us what we want. They record the disintegration of ourselves for our own prosperity.

Originally posted by paraphi
I am a father. These proposals (if true) are just pandering to a tiny minority who alienate themselves by being so picky.

Don't think anyone is eroding your choice to be a father.

The change, as I've read it, is primarily because there are different reproductive choices among other things these days. It keeps the form simple and accurate and is for a large number of situations. Gay people didn't change your passport forms.

There's nothing picky about wanting at least semi-accurate information on a form. Yourself seems to enjoy it. I'm being a little over the top, but under race perhaps we should have a multiple choice like this:

Asian [ ]

Since 1 in 5 people on the planet is approximately Chinese, and we wouldn't want to pander to the minority of caucasians on the planet.

Originally posted by Qspeedyrock
The Swedish kindergarten using "it" is very depersonalising as "it" is usually used in referring to a thing not a person

FYI, the word they use does not mean "it". It's a made-up word (hen) used as a gender-neutral pronoun. Han and hon mean him and her. We have gender neutral pronouns in our language, too: You, them, they.

And here is their reasoning. It may interest you:

Girls develop faster than boys. When they stay in one group, girls, being genetically and spiritually older, always suppress boys. The majority of teachers are women, so it just so happens that boys are forced to take the female model as behavior as the more correct one, the scientist said. All manifestations of the male model of behavior are therefore suppressed.

This intrusion of the alien behavioral stereotype affects the psyche of the children very seriously. As a result, boys suffer from gender self-identification disorder. They develop the feeling of inadequacy and impairment, they become highly suspicious, lose the ability to overcome difficulties and show less social initiative. Masculinity gives way to aggression, and creation gives way to destruction.

Source

Originally posted by AnonymousFem

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.

A tiny minority of kids with hetero parents will be bullied. Every kid with gay parents will be bullied.

How can you not see that they are guaranteeing their kid will have a miserable school existence?

Originally posted by antonia
Isn't the eutimes a Sorcha Faal hangout? You sure this even real?

edit on 12-10-2011 by antonia because: darn autocorrect

Yeah, its not a legitimate source anyway so its all rubbish.

reply to post by Flyer


Sorry to call you out on this but, a lot of teenagers nowadays who are committing suicide, have Heterosexual parents. Have been bullied over their sexuality So I really advise you read up on this before placing such false statements.

reply to post by Flyer


So it's gays fault for existing and wanting to raise children? We should not encourage a more open society? Punish the bullied instead of speaking against bullying?

Originally posted by Flyer
A tiny minority of kids with hetero parents will be bullied.

BS. Kids get bullied for being chubby, skinny, short, tall, for wearing glasses, for appearing weak, for wearing the wrong clothes or for being smart or dumb or rich or poor or for any number of reasons! Some kids are bullies and will use WHATEVER piece of information they have to bully other kids.

Originally posted by AnonymousFem
reply to post by Flyer

 

Sorry to call you out on this but, a lot of teenagers nowadays who are committing suicide, have Heterosexual parents. Have been bullied over their sexuality So I really advise you read up on this before placing such false statements.

Shall I name just a few of those teenagers for you?

Its not false, every kid with gay parents will be bullied, a tiny minority with straight parents will be bullied.

A kid gets adopted by gays = 100% chance of bullying
Kid gets adopted by straight parents = ~.01% chance of bullying.

So by adopting you are going to make thats kids life a misery. Leave him/her to someone else and theres a 99.99% chance he/she wont be bullied.

reply to post by Flyer


Can you provide a source for these numbers, please?

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Flyer

 

So it's gays fault for existing and wanting to raise children? We should not encourage a more open society? Punish the bullied instead of speaking against bullying?

Thats never going to work if you know what kids are like.

Kids with stupid names shouldnt be bullied but call your child Mike Hunt or Richard Head and his life will be made hell.

How is the kid being punished? He wont be bullied and I bet virtually all kids would rather be adopted by straight people.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Flyer

 

Can you provide a source for these numbers, please?

www.bullypolice.org...

Whatever the results, a less than 100% chance of being bulling.

I did a quick check and didnt see any state with over 2% ratio.

reply to post by Flyer


It can work and does. If your child is a bully you have done something wrong as a parent or the child is having some issues that aren't being recognized and dealt with. You teach your children kindness and love, you be a good example for them by not being a bully yourself, you interract with other humans in a polite way, whether you like them or not. You teach your children not to pick on other kids for being different. If we do this is as a society we will have less bullies. We do not turn around and say well, don't do anything to get bullied for.

reply to post by AnonymousFem


I really like this part,"children of gay couples".
When these "gays" are able to physically produce
a child with NO outside help,then I will consider this
trash.
Remember,it takes a male and a female to produce
a baby,of course there is test tubes,turkey basters...
Bottom line...two men can not make a baby,two women
can't either,you need something from each.