That's more or less exactly what he said, that children from non-"perfect" families would have "mental issues"
Even accounting for a bit of a language barrier, he's made it clear that anything less than that is not an ideal family.
Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Gannicus
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
That's more or less exactly what he said, that children from non-"perfect" families would have "mental issues"
Even accounting for a bit of a language barrier, he's made it clear that anything less than that is not an ideal family.
Why not just admit you want to shag your mum?
@unchanged_lineup do you remember that I talked yesterday that the people against tried to push for the law which would give the gay people all rights they don't have already but they didn't wanted to accept that.
Well there is a silent confirmation (of course they will not admit that they pushed for the law which give gay people more rights and that because they could just say goodbye to politics after that) from the leader of the NSi:
Ga. Novak : Act reg . same-sex Communities . "It was accepted in 2005. If something was wrong, it could be repaired. We tried, but the ZL hurried"
I said before last reply, but just wanted to add evidence that I am not bullshiting.
Also you can google translate that article:
http://www.casnik.si/index.php/2012/03/21/zakaj-je-druzinski-zakonik-nesprejemljiv/
Especially the fourth paragraph is interesting:
Well there is a silent confirmation (of course they will not admit that they pushed for the law which give gay people more rights and that because they could just say goodbye to politics after that) from the leader of the NSi:
Ga. Novak : Act reg . same-sex Communities . "It was accepted in 2005. If something was wrong, it could be repaired. We tried, but the ZL hurried"
I said before last reply, but just wanted to add evidence that I am not bullshiting.
Also you can google translate that article:
http://www.casnik.si/index.php/2012/03/21/zakaj-je-druzinski-zakonik-nesprejemljiv/
Especially the fourth paragraph is interesting:
WE RECEIVED. Before I say its position to the Code, I want to emphasize that I distance myself from any kind either pro- or counter-gay or other activism. I personally, from what I can remember, so strongly that nobody should be in their human rights to be discriminated against because of sexual orientation. In its assessment of the Code is therefore solely on objective, logical, moral and professional reasons. From these it is clear that the Code, as proposed, can not be accepted.
Let me emphasize something that is extremely important. About the Code shall not act in this way that we will be aggregated its good and bad sides. If it is only one serious deficiency, then your state can not and should not afford to take the law was passed. Here the arguments for and against can not be equal. It may be thousands of really good things, and one really bad, but the law can not be accepted. The problem lies in the fact that the law but may not be poor or in one point, but must be good at all. Our moral and civic duty is that it does not accept, if we consider that a single serious mistake.
I think it would not be right if the Code, such as it is, accept it. I have several reasons why, but each is itself sufficient for concluding that the Code is unacceptable. These reasons are as follows:
1. The general conceptual reasons that general human and transdisciplinary nature
These include inadequate definition of the family, which defines the family as a community with the child while the child does not speak of generational point of view, but only by age (under Article, which says that a child is a person under 18 years of age). So the family ceases to be a family when the child completed 18 years. With this law the huge number of families who care for children (aged 18 years) denied the status of families. Such a slip is cardinal in nature, no state law you can not afford and should be corrected before the law is adopted.
from the definition of the family onwards is not clear what is the type of family on which the reproduction of society and mankind and this is what we can have the basic cell of society (ie, a family of two sexes and two generations) and had to be so specifically to protect, for all forms of family which are covered by the new definition, this condition does not meet the
and if we ask what form families should be self-sufficient, so universal, thereby enabling reproduction of this it is of course only the core family and its extended forms, but in any case it can not be the same-sex community
Equalization of one and the other forms of the Code, therefore, in essence, means that the Code does not note these fundamental differences, and that in some way indifferent port on condition that leads to ruin and extinction of society and humanity
2. undefined key terms of the Code and contradictory provisions of the Code
nowhere in the Code it has not defined the concept of separation, which is the code which otherwise persists in all its basic provisions; can anyone say but everyone knows what a community, but not both - if you ask people and professionals to quickly encounter a different and even conflicting interpretations
This concept should be defined, namely the fact all the fundamental provisions of the law are left hanging in the air
3. disregard the fundamental rights of the child, and (here) implicitly favoring Wish partners
Code to be derived from the "principle of the child's interests," but this is not and does not protect sufficiently precisely those rights that, in terms of family life, the most essential (priority right, you might say), it's right to live with their parents, the right to She lives with her mother and father. By their own definition of family deprivation parenting as a constitutive element of the family, it degrades the Code as a family as children's rights. From the wording of the Code, therefore, there is no difference between the entitlement of parents to live with the child, or the entitlement "others";
On the other hand, the Code seeks to find equated same-sex partners with the right parents, while creating the impression that it actually is more of a desire as partners for children's rights;
while stressing that children's rights are a legitimate part of human rights, the "right to a child" as a human right or the right of law in any context does not exist.
4. psychological and other professional reasons
all scientifically relevant summaries of the results of several studies in which they compared the psychological effects in children from heterosexual community with children from the homosexual community or with children of homosexual parents warn that the results so far do not provide a basis for konkluzivne conclusions and generalizations (so eg. the report APA undoubtedly the largest and most authoritative global association of psychologists, as well as the recent pan-European report); these summaries also (and usually also the research itself) warn of serious methodological flaws research.
Research findings therefore do not prove either that the differences in these effects are, or that they can not; This is understandable, because it is so far impossible to carry out crucial methodological study that would sufficiently large comparative group selected from a random sample of the population and to cover 40-50 years of age accompanying long period;
at least we would expect is a study that showed how children are performing rainbow community in relations with the opposite sex and their own parental role - but such studies simply can not,
but this study clearly show one thing: that is the children of the rainbow community in a much greater feel discriminated against because of sexual orientation of parents than children of heterosexual parents - the percentage of 47 to 0 (so eg. known "Bamberg" study Marine Rupp);
and if there is something psychologically damaging to our personal integrity, then this feeling from discrimination;
even less clear it studied the question of whether homosexuality to a greater extent than heterosexual associated with child sexual abuse, pedophilia, efebofilijo, hebofilijo and also promiskuitivnostjo; statistically it is shown that around 90 per cent of perpetrators of sexual abuse of children and women also has been shown that around 30 per cent of children who are victims of sexual abuse, male. So by no means impossible that the perpetrators of sexual abuse of children disproportionately high percentage of gay men, which is according to the latest statistics podatkiv in the developed world, about 3 percent; progejevskih movements in history it is known that some of the protagonists of these movements (between them zlsti Thorstad) openly advocated pedophilia. In this area, the results of the study also totally inconclusive, because other than the aforementioned data, nothing is firmly established. For now, therefore, we can not say that homosexuality represents a greater risk for sexual abuse and pedophilia, as well as we can not say it does not.
As long as the risks described are not definitely identified as unfounded, the Code in any case should not expand the rights of same-sex partenrjev to educate their children; especially because the base of the Code is definitely interests of the child, not the benefit of persons who are acting as parents. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the "right to a child" no legitimate human right - just do not fall into the category of rights guaranteed.
Research studies also show that both the absence of the mother as the absence of the father in the family can have a negative impact on the psychological development and psychological well-being of the child.
5. The ethical and moral reasons
Adoption of the Code would have consequences that are extremely problematic from the point of view of ethics, morals and values. Thus, for example. after the famous golden rule but also the no less famous Kant's categorical imperative can not be regarded as morally something that can not be the universal rule of conduct. If, for example. I am thinking of the family and its shape, then for example. core family with the right parents and children withstand this criterion is easy to imagine the existence of mankind on such families, it is difficult to you to present themselves at the gay community.
Therefore, I very much agree with the Commission of the Republic of Slovenia for Medical Ethics, which points to ethically problematic aspects of the Code and the consequences if it were adopted. Also, the Commission considers that quote, "we have no evidence that all the diverse communities of adults and children equally successful and equally safe for the child's development as favorable."
Steering Committee on Bioethics of the Council of Europe considers that the right to have a child as a universal right there.
dr. Janek Musek, psychologist
Let me emphasize something that is extremely important. About the Code shall not act in this way that we will be aggregated its good and bad sides. If it is only one serious deficiency, then your state can not and should not afford to take the law was passed. Here the arguments for and against can not be equal. It may be thousands of really good things, and one really bad, but the law can not be accepted. The problem lies in the fact that the law but may not be poor or in one point, but must be good at all. Our moral and civic duty is that it does not accept, if we consider that a single serious mistake.
I think it would not be right if the Code, such as it is, accept it. I have several reasons why, but each is itself sufficient for concluding that the Code is unacceptable. These reasons are as follows:
1. The general conceptual reasons that general human and transdisciplinary nature
These include inadequate definition of the family, which defines the family as a community with the child while the child does not speak of generational point of view, but only by age (under Article, which says that a child is a person under 18 years of age). So the family ceases to be a family when the child completed 18 years. With this law the huge number of families who care for children (aged 18 years) denied the status of families. Such a slip is cardinal in nature, no state law you can not afford and should be corrected before the law is adopted.
from the definition of the family onwards is not clear what is the type of family on which the reproduction of society and mankind and this is what we can have the basic cell of society (ie, a family of two sexes and two generations) and had to be so specifically to protect, for all forms of family which are covered by the new definition, this condition does not meet the
and if we ask what form families should be self-sufficient, so universal, thereby enabling reproduction of this it is of course only the core family and its extended forms, but in any case it can not be the same-sex community
Equalization of one and the other forms of the Code, therefore, in essence, means that the Code does not note these fundamental differences, and that in some way indifferent port on condition that leads to ruin and extinction of society and humanity
2. undefined key terms of the Code and contradictory provisions of the Code
nowhere in the Code it has not defined the concept of separation, which is the code which otherwise persists in all its basic provisions; can anyone say but everyone knows what a community, but not both - if you ask people and professionals to quickly encounter a different and even conflicting interpretations
This concept should be defined, namely the fact all the fundamental provisions of the law are left hanging in the air
3. disregard the fundamental rights of the child, and (here) implicitly favoring Wish partners
Code to be derived from the "principle of the child's interests," but this is not and does not protect sufficiently precisely those rights that, in terms of family life, the most essential (priority right, you might say), it's right to live with their parents, the right to She lives with her mother and father. By their own definition of family deprivation parenting as a constitutive element of the family, it degrades the Code as a family as children's rights. From the wording of the Code, therefore, there is no difference between the entitlement of parents to live with the child, or the entitlement "others";
On the other hand, the Code seeks to find equated same-sex partners with the right parents, while creating the impression that it actually is more of a desire as partners for children's rights;
while stressing that children's rights are a legitimate part of human rights, the "right to a child" as a human right or the right of law in any context does not exist.
4. psychological and other professional reasons
all scientifically relevant summaries of the results of several studies in which they compared the psychological effects in children from heterosexual community with children from the homosexual community or with children of homosexual parents warn that the results so far do not provide a basis for konkluzivne conclusions and generalizations (so eg. the report APA undoubtedly the largest and most authoritative global association of psychologists, as well as the recent pan-European report); these summaries also (and usually also the research itself) warn of serious methodological flaws research.
Research findings therefore do not prove either that the differences in these effects are, or that they can not; This is understandable, because it is so far impossible to carry out crucial methodological study that would sufficiently large comparative group selected from a random sample of the population and to cover 40-50 years of age accompanying long period;
at least we would expect is a study that showed how children are performing rainbow community in relations with the opposite sex and their own parental role - but such studies simply can not,
but this study clearly show one thing: that is the children of the rainbow community in a much greater feel discriminated against because of sexual orientation of parents than children of heterosexual parents - the percentage of 47 to 0 (so eg. known "Bamberg" study Marine Rupp);
and if there is something psychologically damaging to our personal integrity, then this feeling from discrimination;
even less clear it studied the question of whether homosexuality to a greater extent than heterosexual associated with child sexual abuse, pedophilia, efebofilijo, hebofilijo and also promiskuitivnostjo; statistically it is shown that around 90 per cent of perpetrators of sexual abuse of children and women also has been shown that around 30 per cent of children who are victims of sexual abuse, male. So by no means impossible that the perpetrators of sexual abuse of children disproportionately high percentage of gay men, which is according to the latest statistics podatkiv in the developed world, about 3 percent; progejevskih movements in history it is known that some of the protagonists of these movements (between them zlsti Thorstad) openly advocated pedophilia. In this area, the results of the study also totally inconclusive, because other than the aforementioned data, nothing is firmly established. For now, therefore, we can not say that homosexuality represents a greater risk for sexual abuse and pedophilia, as well as we can not say it does not.
As long as the risks described are not definitely identified as unfounded, the Code in any case should not expand the rights of same-sex partenrjev to educate their children; especially because the base of the Code is definitely interests of the child, not the benefit of persons who are acting as parents. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the "right to a child" no legitimate human right - just do not fall into the category of rights guaranteed.
Research studies also show that both the absence of the mother as the absence of the father in the family can have a negative impact on the psychological development and psychological well-being of the child.
5. The ethical and moral reasons
Adoption of the Code would have consequences that are extremely problematic from the point of view of ethics, morals and values. Thus, for example. after the famous golden rule but also the no less famous Kant's categorical imperative can not be regarded as morally something that can not be the universal rule of conduct. If, for example. I am thinking of the family and its shape, then for example. core family with the right parents and children withstand this criterion is easy to imagine the existence of mankind on such families, it is difficult to you to present themselves at the gay community.
Therefore, I very much agree with the Commission of the Republic of Slovenia for Medical Ethics, which points to ethically problematic aspects of the Code and the consequences if it were adopted. Also, the Commission considers that quote, "we have no evidence that all the diverse communities of adults and children equally successful and equally safe for the child's development as favorable."
Steering Committee on Bioethics of the Council of Europe considers that the right to have a child as a universal right there.
dr. Janek Musek, psychologist
I'll need more context than that to understand what you're trying to explain here.
This is what is in the public record. Political machinations, nothing to do with any imaginary gay lobby.
Edit: Also, your twitter only has 1000 followers and when I go to the main site it looks suspiciously like a very catholic site. Doesn't seem like a mainstream news source of record
Edit edit: Yup
I see also that they are NOT registered as a news source under the Media Act of your country.
Last edited:
Ok, describe me how that discredit that they have interviewed the leader of the NSi (Novak) or that they got the opinion of the psychologist who is written under the article. FFSI'll need more context than that to understand what you're trying to explain here.
This is what is in the public record. Political machinations, nothing to do with any imaginary gay lobby.
Edit: Also, your twitter only has 1000 followers and when I go to the main site it looks suspiciously like a very catholic site. Doesn't seem like a mainstream news source of record
Edit edit: Yup
I see also that they are NOT registered as a news source under the Media Act of your country.
Catholics are the last people anyone's going to listen to when it comes to the wellbeing of children.
I do actually remember a phase when I was attracted to my mum but thankfully I have a Dad. 2013 was a strange year.
I don't have to. I just have to doubt that they are a credible news source because they're not a credible news source.
On the one hand, I have what is on the public record. On the other hand, I have your spy mystery story that noone can talk about out loud and that no real evidence exists for, apart from a "quote" from a low-level, highly catholic website. Hmm, which should I trust
It's always amusing to read an article saying they don't have a dog in the fight, only to outright promote one side over the other.
Oh by the way, it gets more interesting the more I read... so, this person that you say the quote comes from is from a minor party (5/90 seats, 4.8% of the national vote) which is Christian? How interesting
Interestinger and interestinger! They talk a good game, just so long as you're not gay
Haha, and here's where the mask slips
And I'm sure of course that they know best for everyone
And another gem:
And this....
Hmm, starting to see a pattern. Now, I wonder would there be any ulterior motive for Ms Novak to want to paint the gays as being the ones to blame for the collapse of that law....
Aha.
Haha, and here's where the mask slips
And I'm sure of course that they know best for everyone
And another gem:
And this....
Hmm, starting to see a pattern. Now, I wonder would there be any ulterior motive for Ms Novak to want to paint the gays as being the ones to blame for the collapse of that law....
Aha.
Last edited:
Whenever I hear or see someone refer to a gay 'lifestyle' my mind starts to wander, my ears subconsciously start to block their drivel and I can't listen to/read much more of what they have to say. Usually they're implying that being gay is a choice.
Check out my post above. Clearly shows the person he's quoting for what she is. Another one of these headcases who thinks there's a "gay lobby" who want to steal our children and destroy our countries.
Look at his sources and videos etc... Right wing, Christian (mostly Catholic), Slovenian, homophobic.
I mean, seriously, if you are claiming everything is biased, why bring up blatantly biased stuff? How close minded can one get?
I thought it was a "he", I guess it really doesn't matter as that poster is a straight up homophobe. He/She/it reminds of me the backward, uneducated GOP voters in the USA.
It took me, what, about ten minutes to discover how shabby those sources were? What kind of person in a debate doesn't check their sources properly and leaves themselves so open to looking like a total fool?
Unfortunately this topic is one of the few that you can't reasonably convince people most of the time by using facts and logic. It'll take something personal for most of those who share the same mindset as Jerch to come around.
Still, the amount of ignorance on display is staggering. I took one course of psychology back in high school and even then I was taught that Freud is now largely dismissed in academia, and here our friend is holding him up as an authority figure.
Precisely. And it will happen, not a doubt about it. Someone in his family or a close friend is going to reveal a certain deep secret to him some day
I'm back in Mauritius for the holidays and it's really hit me this time how backwards people's views still are around here.
Still reeks of casual racism, and homophobia seems to be the norm. I thought the younger generation would change things, but it seems the religious grip hasn't slacked one bit.
India is in such a weird place right now. A state high court struck off the (British-era) article criminalising sex "against the order of nature". The supreme court reversed the decision, with a judgement that included gems like "being gay is not criminal, only 'unnatural' sex is", "gays are an obscure minority so how many people's rights are being infringed", etc. They restored the act and said it is for parliament to repeal it.
On the other hand, the same Supreme court (different bench) passed a bunch of super-progressive orders on transgender rights, affirmative action, recognition...
Holy feck, I've just now seen the translated article he was talking bout... talk about covering all the bases Paedophilia insinuation, mudslinging, misrepresentation of source data, gross false equivalence, etc, etc... its got it all!
On my phone here but I'm more than happy to forensically examine it tomorrow when Im at my computer and find out more about this psychologist. Who wants to run a sweep on the typical background stuff I'll find
Paedophilia insinuation, mudslinging, misrepresentation of source data, gross false equivalence, etc, etc... its got it all!On my phone here but I'm more than happy to forensically examine it tomorrow when Im at my computer and find out more about this psychologist. Who wants to run a sweep on the typical background stuff I'll find
I like Mauritius and feel it is a society/family pressure rather than religious as such, but weird your lot are iffy on the mulattos and Chinese!
Not only is it fair but I consider it a duty when religion is the cause on such inequality.
How is this infringing on your rights? Nobody is forcing you to be gay or marry a man. Marriage equality is no different from the fight to end segregation in the US in the 60's or race discrimination everywhere.
Yeah this was pretty shit tbh. Much of the British ex-colonies kept and continue using the Indian Penal Code even after decolonization and we (Singapore) therefore have that same "order of nature" feckwittery. We're going through a similar process of public debate over legal gay rights here, and I had written a paper citing the fact that you guys had decriminalized gay sex (and have almost never enforced it, IIRC? unlike us) as one of the many reasons to remove our own ridiculous fecking provision. Then bang, reversed on appeal. The legislature-prerogative argument is complete stupidity.
This is absolutely the case I think. I'd go one step further and say that a good portion of society sees the marriage of two different kinds of people as the most stable place to raise kids in. Historically these two kinds of people have been a more nurturing, caring, motherly individual that passes down their attributes (the Mother), and another that would pass down the more gritty lessons of life (the Father).
I think both of these are important to pass down, however in the Western world the lines of which party in any relationship passes down each or any of the attributes is changing quickly. You can have a single Mother or Father who can pass down the majority on their own, with possibly one of their parents helping out with the rest. You can have a more stereotypically feminine Male and a more hard-nosed Female completely switching their historic roles.
Either of these situations is perfectly fine, likewise if you have two men or two women that can each pass down what we'd usually call the Motherly and Fatherly role. The only thing I would say is that because of history and the centuries that have gone by with these roles, a good percentage of people still tend to stick to them. This will slowly change but my view is that at the moment it is more difficult for same sex couples to pass down the rounded qualities that a child benefits from, because they are more likely to have both been moulded by society in a similar way. This isn't a slight on their situation, the same is true of single parents and couples who are similar; it just means you need to either work harder at embracing what isn't necessarily natural to you or make the effort to bring other people into the childs life who have the qualities you as a couple may lack.
I think the most surprising thing I've learned from these past few pages, is not that there are still people loudly shouting their backwards and bigoted views in public (as opposed to simply muttering quietly to themselves as they bang the walls of their caves with sticks), but that @Jerch has repeatedly mentioned the money spent by gay-rights activists on studies as opposed to the poor, penniless martyrs who are simply concerned with childrens rights, in some veiled attempt to discredit the enormous gap in legitimate studies between the two.
The anti-gay crew are backed by the Roman Catholic Church (research NOM or similar groups who have been involved in both the US and Ireland). In the history of mankind, there has been no organisation better able, or more inclined to spend money on discrediting progressive study. If there was a single creditable study to back up your horrible opinions, there is absolutely no doubt it would have been paraded loudly and unequivocally for the world to see.
Your attempts at righteous indignation in this thread are similar to me deciding that Slovenians make bad and bigoted parents, and calling for legislation in my country to ensure those marrying Slovenian immigrants do not get the same rights to rear children as the rest of us. I could cite your comments in this thread and have exactly the same amount of creditable data to support my claims as you do for yours.
The anti-gay crew are backed by the Roman Catholic Church (research NOM or similar groups who have been involved in both the US and Ireland). In the history of mankind, there has been no organisation better able, or more inclined to spend money on discrediting progressive study. If there was a single creditable study to back up your horrible opinions, there is absolutely no doubt it would have been paraded loudly and unequivocally for the world to see.
Your attempts at righteous indignation in this thread are similar to me deciding that Slovenians make bad and bigoted parents, and calling for legislation in my country to ensure those marrying Slovenian immigrants do not get the same rights to rear children as the rest of us. I could cite your comments in this thread and have exactly the same amount of creditable data to support my claims as you do for yours.
So I'm going down the rabbit hole a little here in response to what Jerch posted from that eminent psychologist. The question that came to mind was, why would this guy be posting this article in a low-distribution, super-catholic unregistered website? Why not a national newspaper? He's a professor with a long career, why such a minor, biased website for his opinion piece?
It didn't take too long to find out - the answer is that the vast majority of psychologists in Slovenia, much like around the world, agree that there is no difference between kids raised by straight or gay parents. Even further than that, their professional body was angry about misrepresentations of research by groups trying to paint them as different. Such as Dr Janek's piece, which misrepresents the APA studies. He is in a tiny minority of psychologists in his own country with the views he expresses. What a surprise.
http://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/psih...t-starsev-za-otrokov-razvoj-ni-kljucna/275580
http://casjeza.si/za-so-tudi-psihologi-andragogi-in-pedagogi/
Fine, so that's that put to bed. By the way, I found other stuff that said this Dr Janek's books are old-fashioned, out-dated, conservative, sexist and racist, but without proper sources and translations I'm going to leave that aside.
I wanted to take a look a little bit deeper at what I take issue with the article itself. This line was the first one that was particularly galling and strikes me as massive false equivalence:
How many perfect laws do we have in our countries? How do you make a perfect law at all, when a society consists of so many compromises? This smacks me as pretty airy-fairy stuff. You would deny a change that could create thousands of positives based on one potential bad side? That's what he's going for here. Pretty weak stuff and not real-world at all. For a comparison - look at the history of votes for women, which is recent history in the case of Saudi Arabia. Mired with comprimises and questionable facets along its path, but it was a path of progress towards equality that required little steps due to the times. Should those law changes have been rejected at the time because they were not perfect?
Really? Seriously? Ummmm.... Could have fooled me
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/03/same-sex-marriage.aspx
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/10/adopted-children.aspx
Here we have some pretty curvy circular logic. Research to date shows that there's no difference, but we should not trust it because it's the only research to date because it's the only research to date. Nice bit of subtle fearmongering with no basis too, I should add.
Here's the actual study:
https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Down...civil_partnerships.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
There's a few very interesting things to note here. The most interesting is that the report states in 25% of these bullying cases, an adult was present and acted as if they saw or heard nothing. Another 8% either just observed or actually rejected helping the child. That's an indictment of our society and the wrong-headedness of some people who would allow a child to be bullied due to the sexuality of our parents. This is something also that is bound to change as older points of view become more and more marginalised. Also, it should be noted that nowhere in the report does it say the figure of 0% he mentions. He's added that in all by himself
Also, this paper highlights that such tribulations for the child can have positive outcomes. Conveniently omitted by Dr Janek.
Dr Janek, how about this gem from the same report, hmm? What does this "clearly show?
Dr Janek's aptitude for cherry-picking is nearly as bad as Jerch's!
The next point was a massive paragraph about paedophilia which I don't even want to get into because of how absolutely vile it is. This says it all:
http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
The weakest argument of all. When he says from the point of view of ethics, morals and values, he means of course from the point of view of HIS ethics, morals and values.
Dr Janek's argument is an almost predatory form of academia. He's banking on the fact that noone is going to actually check his sources out, especially on that kind of website he's posted the opinion piece on. Away from this core audience, you would certainly find people who would delve a bit deeper and reveal the dishonesty behind it. Like me
It didn't take too long to find out - the answer is that the vast majority of psychologists in Slovenia, much like around the world, agree that there is no difference between kids raised by straight or gay parents. Even further than that, their professional body was angry about misrepresentations of research by groups trying to paint them as different. Such as Dr Janek's piece, which misrepresents the APA studies. He is in a tiny minority of psychologists in his own country with the views he expresses. What a surprise.
http://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/psih...t-starsev-za-otrokov-razvoj-ni-kljucna/275580
http://casjeza.si/za-so-tudi-psihologi-andragogi-in-pedagogi/
Fine, so that's that put to bed. By the way, I found other stuff that said this Dr Janek's books are old-fashioned, out-dated, conservative, sexist and racist, but without proper sources and translations I'm going to leave that aside.
I wanted to take a look a little bit deeper at what I take issue with the article itself. This line was the first one that was particularly galling and strikes me as massive false equivalence:
How many perfect laws do we have in our countries? How do you make a perfect law at all, when a society consists of so many compromises? This smacks me as pretty airy-fairy stuff. You would deny a change that could create thousands of positives based on one potential bad side? That's what he's going for here. Pretty weak stuff and not real-world at all. For a comparison - look at the history of votes for women, which is recent history in the case of Saudi Arabia. Mired with comprimises and questionable facets along its path, but it was a path of progress towards equality that required little steps due to the times. Should those law changes have been rejected at the time because they were not perfect?
Really? Seriously? Ummmm.... Could have fooled me
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/03/same-sex-marriage.aspx
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/10/adopted-children.aspx
Here we have some pretty curvy circular logic. Research to date shows that there's no difference, but we should not trust it because it's the only research to date because it's the only research to date. Nice bit of subtle fearmongering with no basis too, I should add.
Here's the actual study:
https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Down...civil_partnerships.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
There's a few very interesting things to note here. The most interesting is that the report states in 25% of these bullying cases, an adult was present and acted as if they saw or heard nothing. Another 8% either just observed or actually rejected helping the child. That's an indictment of our society and the wrong-headedness of some people who would allow a child to be bullied due to the sexuality of our parents. This is something also that is bound to change as older points of view become more and more marginalised. Also, it should be noted that nowhere in the report does it say the figure of 0% he mentions. He's added that in all by himself
Also, this paper highlights that such tribulations for the child can have positive outcomes. Conveniently omitted by Dr Janek.
Dr Janek, how about this gem from the same report, hmm? What does this "clearly show?
Dr Janek's aptitude for cherry-picking is nearly as bad as Jerch's!
The next point was a massive paragraph about paedophilia which I don't even want to get into because of how absolutely vile it is. This says it all:
http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
The weakest argument of all. When he says from the point of view of ethics, morals and values, he means of course from the point of view of HIS ethics, morals and values.
Dr Janek's argument is an almost predatory form of academia. He's banking on the fact that noone is going to actually check his sources out, especially on that kind of website he's posted the opinion piece on. Away from this core audience, you would certainly find people who would delve a bit deeper and reveal the dishonesty behind it. Like me
Last edited:
@unchanged_lineup well do you still remember when you called me out, when I said that people "against same sec marriage" had an offer to give gay people evrry right except right to adopt. Well they just offered it again if same sex marriage law fail publicly. Until today that offer was only behind doors so I couldn't give you a link.
Google translate:
http://m.24ur.com/novice/slovenija/...dumom-nasprotniki-napovedujejo-nov-zakon.html
Google translate:
Ok. Care to talk about what I posted above?
And will Ms Novak say again that DE GAYS will turn this down?
Hmm ok. Quick question: Who are this "Coalition for Children" and what power do they have to make new laws? Or are they just trying to spread some kind of last-gasp rumour?
I see there slogan is "It's not about adults! It's about Children!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
I see there slogan is "It's not about adults! It's about Children!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
I decided to go back through this thread. You should do the same, Jerch. This post is fantastic
It is coalition against gay marriage. They are supported by or better said part of it are 2 biggest oppisition parties and if the parties which accepted this law which is going to referendum would agree with it they can have "power" to make new laws.Hmm ok. Quick question: Who are this "Coalition for Children" and what power do they have to make new laws? Or are they just trying to spread some kind of last-gasp rumour?
I see there slogan is "It's not about adults! It's about Children!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
The slogan is great! Over and out, just wanted to show you that I wasn't writting bullshit, more inside info if you understand.
I decided to go back through this thread. You should do the same, Jerch. This post is fantastic
In the words of Antonin Scalia, 'it's pure applesauce I'm telling ya'
See the problem here?
It's got feck all with children, that's a straw man groups like this hide behind to promote their bigoted views.
Woah woah, you were writing loads of bullshit that you haven't accounted for at all mate
Still waiting to your response about Dr Janek..Give me the breakdown of numbers. How many votes in your parliament do they have. What *actual* power would they have to implement new laws? How many of the people actually saying these things are actual politicians? Just that I'd be suspicious that it's crowd-pleasing hot air, not that an opposition politician would ever stoop to that
Hmmmmm I've just thought of a pretty large flaw in your argument though. The law HAS been passed. This referendum is to REJECT the law, which came about due to a petition reaching a certain number of people. What's to stop groups who oppose gay marriage, emboldened from a win, creating another petition to have THIS new potential proposed law change voted on?
It's hot air nonsense, aimed at capturing a few floating voters who are having a hard time making up their mind, "ah it's ok, the gays will still get what they want even if I vote to reject, that's my conscience sorted so".
Last edited: