National Assembly Term 7

[unmerged(20844)]

Seeing other members' opinions, I'd like to dwell more on the issue of adoption.

Firstly, do you realize what the effects on a child's mind will be when he grows up without a mom? What'll happen when his friends in the kindergarten talk about mommies? He's gonna say "my mom's name is Jack"?!? If a child grows in such an environment, it will have a lot of problems later on. Firstly, there is a high chance it'll be gay as well. This itself does not worry me, because everyone is free to be what they want. The problem is that such a child will be continuously abused in all ages and we know what childhood problems result in later on.

Some may argue that it's the same if a child grows in a family of narcotic addicts. But it's not. Because we didnt hand this child to the people, we didnt know they would be addicted to drugs. With gay adoption it's an entirely different case. If it were allowed, the state would be giving away children, with the absolute conviction that it is right to ruin their life. Dont fool yourself with words like "It may not happen so" or hide behind the mask of progressiveness. It's not a matter of progressiveness either, it's a matter of a person's psychological health.

 

[Estonianzulu]

I must state my opposition to this bill, not because of its purpose but because of its procedure. My collegue brings up two good points. Firstly, why five years?

This is a rather abitrary time, is it not? Why is this number there? Why not six or four or seven? Many relationships are no better after five years then they were after one. This needs to be explained to me.

His second point is also valid. Let us say a conservatively religious mother and father die, and thier child is forced to be put up for adoption. If this child goes to a homosexual family then the wishes of the family would not be followed. But there is no documentation saying it isnt what the parents wanted. No one expects to die.

My third point is new. While we here can conlcude that this bill will imply the same restrictions on gays as straits concerning adoption, it does not say. This would need to be included if this bill were to pass.

Also, what exactly are you referring to as the age of "majority"?

 

[unmerged(20844)]

Perhaps he meant age of maturity...

Could you give your reasons for allowing gay couples to adopt children? And not just some "We must be pregressive" words.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

under its current draft, i cant support this bill. it also seems like 2 bills lumped into 1.

 

[Dunderdon]

I am absolutely against family benefits for same sex couples, since benefits are gived to couples because they are suposed to have children, or at least they often have, and make it possible for them to have them at least from economical side of thing

Correct me if I am wrong, but family benefits are for families and childresn benefits are for families with children?

also I am against adoptions of children by same sex couples, since this could influence child in it's upbringing, and having two daddies since 4 years isn't the best for them.

Firstly, do you realize what the effects on a child's mind will be when he grows up without a mom? What'll happen when his friends in the kindergarten talk about mommies? He's gonna say "my mom's name is Jack"?!? If a child grows in such an environment, it will have a lot of problems later on. Firstly, there is a high chance it'll be gay as well. This itself does not worry me, because everyone is free to be what they want.

The result would be that homosexuality would have to be regarded as not abnormal, if so, the children would indeed have problems. But I think the way to go is not, "oh fine, there are lots of prejudices, so lets forget our emancipation attempts" but rather finding a way to make it possible for adopted children of homosexual parents to have a normal and accepted life!

The proposed bill should be what we want society to look like.

Also, what exactly are you referring to as the age of "majority"?

I believe its 18, right?

Hmm what everything do you mean by legal cases? And why should they be married at least 5 years? Does that make them equal in your eyes? That proposal is rather sketchy, could you be more elaborate? What if adopted child is heterosexual orphan? Do you think that would do him good, to be in family with 2 mommies?

I proposed a time span because statistics show that homosexual relationships fall apart much more likely than heterosexual ones. However, a shorter time span might be better.

If the adopted child is a heterosexual orphan? Well, in the society that I want, it is no problem that heterosexual and homosexual people live together without convincing each other from one side or abusing each other.

But I suppose we have laws against discrimination and child abuse already.

The passus about legal cases comes from my urgent dissapointment with the current situation that, for example, homosexual partners will not be allowed to see their loved ones when they are in hospital and only relatives or husband/wife may see them, or that it is harder for them to inherit what belonged to the partner.

I tried to find an expression to generalize those situations.

I think, Mr. Zuba, at one point you use the word "abortion" instead of "adoption" though.

Sorry. Misspelled.

Some may argue that it's the same if a child grows in a family of narcotic addicts. But it's not. Because we didnt hand this child to the people, we didnt know they would be addicted to drugs. With gay adoption it's an entirely different case. If it were allowed, the state would be giving away children, with the absolute conviction that it is right to ruin their life. Dont fool yourself with words like "It may not happen so" or hide behind the mask of progressiveness. It's not a matter of progressiveness either, it's a matter of a person's psychological health.

The problem is that such a child will be continuously abused in all ages and we know what childhood problems result in later on.

I do not know what you mean. Are you saying that every children of a homosexual couple will be abused, braindamaged or psychical ill? If so, I really question your definition of psychical ill, which seems to mean "not having an archconservative view of the world" in your implication.
I belive that a couple of whatever sexual orientation that is ready to take the troubles of adoption will probably try to be good parents.

Oh, and regard it as homosexual relationship emancipation bill if the name worries you.

 

[unmerged(20844)]

I dont consider myself conservative at all. I am neither conservative, nor progressive, instead I am a realistical person.
Allowing adoption NOW will cause great social problems for an entire generation of such children. I will not sacrifice so many people for the sake of some empty cause. Obviously gay adoption is not about progressiveness, I tried to emphasize on this.

In the future, public pinion will inevitably change, then this issue can be addressed again, and if I'm alive, I'll support it. Now, it is absolutely inapplicable.

You also address my words about physochological health. Do you really think that a child which has grown in a homosexual family will one day be healthy? It will undoubtedly be ridiculed, far more than if he/she was fat, for example

We can prevent this, but you propose to allow it. I see yur point about changing society's view on homosexuality, but right now it is not good for the children to do this to them.

 

[unmerged(20844)]

Do split the bill, however. I will support equal rights for same-sex couples, nothing wrong with that.

 

[Dunderdon]

In the future, public pinion will inevitably change, then this issue can be addressed again, and if I'm alive, I'll support it. Now, it is absolutely inapplicable.

I doubt that its inevitably.

You also address my words about physochological health. Do you really think that a child which has grown in a homosexual family will one day be healthy? It will undoubtedly be ridiculed, far more than if he/she was fat, for example

I do not think so. I believe that if a children has good homosexual parents, it will be "healthy", if it has bad heterosexual parents, it will have some distortions. And same about homosexual parents.

We can prevent this, but you propose to allow it. I see yur point about changing society's view on homosexuality, but right now it is not good for the children to do this to them.

Then propose something better than capitulating in face of prejudices and sacrificing emancipation.

 

[unmerged(24249)]

Predjustice? My dear friend, every child copies behavior of their parents, that's how they learn about world around, and that's how they start to comunicate with society, I doubt it would be good if these kids would start to copy their homosexual parents in their behavior. Also there are several teories of excellent man named Freud, so if they would be adopted in very young age of, say, 2 years I wonder what would Freud perdict about their behavior in future, if his theories are correct. Also the bill should be named Partnership not marriage. And I demand to split the bill in two.

 

[unmerged(20844)]

I doubt that its inevitably.


I do not think so. I believe that if a children has good homosexual parents, it will be "healthy", if it has bad heterosexual parents, it will have some distortions. And same about homosexual parents.


Then propose something better than capitulating in face of prejudices and sacrificing emancipation.

You are wrong on the last 2 points, the first I simply cannot comment, they're just personal views on society.

So, about damage, my problem with you bill is not the parents' attitude to wards their child, or about the child's beliefs about his parents. I am worried by the harassing and embarrassment the child will take from peers. You must have no experience at all to state that it will not be damaging. So let me "educate" you more...
When a child (esp. very young) sees that something is ridiculed, it adopts the attitude. In this aspect you can even expect most children in homosexual families to hate their parents since early age. They will see their parents as something that hinders them and makes them unwanted among other children. There is a lot of breeding ground for problems if a kid is risen in such frustrating environment. ou must realize this, I thought it was obvious.

I am not prejudiced at all and I'm not sacrificing anything/anyone. This is exactly my point! I will not willingly sacrifice children for the cause of modernizing. Modernization must come naurally! When the people are ready to accept gay couples adopting children, I will back such a bill. Right now, an immense majority will be against it.

Why do you think I am capitulating? Must something be done in ALL cases? Why is it mandatory? The only way to deal with this for me is to not allow gay adoption, educate the publicity on the matter, to convince people that in general, there is nothing wrong with it, and finally, wait until people are favourable towards children of gay couples (and by people i also mean other children in all of above references).

 

[Dunderdon]

Predjustice? My dear friend, every child copies behavior of their parents, that's how they learn about world around, and that's how they start to comunicate with society, I doubt it would be good if these kids would start to copy their homosexual parents in their behavior. Also there are several teories of excellent man named Freud, so if they would be adopted in very young age of, say, 2 years I wonder what would Freud perdict about their behavior in future, if his theories are correct. Also the bill should be named Partnership not marriage. And I demand to split the bill in two.

First: the prejudices that you ar referring to in order to decline the bill are the ones that peers have, if i unsterstood you correctly.

Second: Explain me how homosexual behavior appears if children copy the parents. hmm. Suppose most children copy sexual behavior, then you would still not have the homosexuals taking over, which might be what you are afraid of (?).

Also I may say that most children in at a very young age of, say, 2 years, are not aware of sexuality thus can hardly copy informations about its parents that it does not have.

I am not prejudiced at all and I'm not sacrificing anything/anyone. This is exactly my point! I will not willingly sacrifice children for the cause of modernizing. Modernization must come naurally! When the people are ready to accept gay couples adopting children, I will back such a bill. Right now, an immense majority will be against it.

Why do you think I am capitulating? Must something be done in ALL cases? Why is it mandatory? The only way to deal with this for me is to not allow gay adoption, educate the publicity on the matter, to convince people that in general, there is nothing wrong with it, and finally, wait until people are favourable towards children of gay couples (and by people i also mean other children in all of above references).

Why don't we outlaw non-smoking then? And don't you think that this attitude generally lets homosexual people down? (We will only help them legally when there is no problem anymore?)
There also exist homosexuality that is not caused by having homosexual parents.

 

[unmerged(20844)]

Well to me it seems that you dont get my thoughts.

Firstly, the children dont know anything about sexuality and wont have the chance to copy their parent's' behaviour when 2 years old, and that is EXACTLY the problem. They will face cruel jokes and harrassment wihout knowing the reasons for it or being able to fix them. Seeing that this attitude is caused by their parents, they will inevitably develop hatred either for them, or for society. Neither is a good option for me!

And yes, I AM willing to address the issue when the people have no problem with it. Right now it means causing social problems and individual and familiy crises.

Dont you see the problems of communication a child will have with homosexual parents?

 

[unmerged(24249)]

Ah please, how they would copy it? Kissing people with the same gender for example. They would feel in their inside that being homosexual is the right way, while heterosexuals are just strange people that accidentaly have majority, though they wouldn't feel that on "outside" they would feel it from inside, since it would be part of their personality, just like people who are afraid of something aren't afraid of it because it's logical for them but because they most likely had some bad experience with it. Do you understand me? There are some interesting theories of mr. Freud that I would love to explain but that would take too long.

 

[Dunderdon]

I do not agree to your analysis saying that whatever children do not have in their surrounding will seem alien to them.
In fact, children do not develope a fear from spiders if they do not see grown ups being afraid from them. Children do not develope hate against different skin coloured people by themselves as well.
So if children are brought up by homosexuals I do not think that they will regard heterosexuality as abnormal. They see other people kissing too, no? they will have heterosexual relatives and see heterosexual people on the streets.

I also wonder why you regard it as impossible to save children from homosexual couples from discrimination. Where exactly is the difference between homosexual people with heterosexual and homosexual parents? Why do you say the one is ok and the other has to be avoided?

 

[unmerged(20844)]

Think about what i said before.
One does not make little children psychologically ill, and the second does, though not directly.
I most agree with you in your latest words. And this exactly what I have been speaking about. Children will take it normally themselves, but they will get a negative attitude from others, thus thy will begin to think their parents are bad, leading to more extremities.

Leave it aside, and you still have the problems of a troubled child. Any child will know it's different when growing in a homosexual family. Any problems it faces will result in greater problems later on when it grows up. Notice that by problems I dont mean homosexuality or anything of the sort, I mean problems in behaviour, in their attitude towards other people.

 

[Estonianzulu]

Mr. Zuba, I believe you may have missed my arguments, I will rephrase them.

This is a rather abitrary time, is it not? Why is this number there? Why not six or four or seven? Many relationships are no better after five years then they were after one. This needs to be explained to me.

His second point is also valid. Let us say a conservatively religious mother and father die, and thier child is forced to be put up for adoption. If this child goes to a homosexual family then the wishes of the family would not be followed. But there is no documentation saying it isnt what the parents wanted. No one expects to die.

My third point is new. While we here can conlcude that this bill will imply the same restrictions on gays as straits concerning adoption, it does not say. This would need to be included if this bill were to pass.

 

[Josephus I]

Predjustice? My dear friend, every child copies behavior of their parents, that's how they learn about world around, and that's how they start to comunicate with society, I doubt it would be good if these kids would start to copy their homosexual parents in their behavior. Also there are several teories of excellent man named Freud, so if they would be adopted in very young age of, say, 2 years I wonder what would Freud perdict about their behavior in future, if his theories are correct. Also the bill should be named Partnership not marriage. And I demand to split the bill in two.

Right prejudices exist. But prejudices are an old way of thinking. As part of the evolution of Eutopian society, this Bill is the first step in eliminating these prejudices. It might not work in the first generation, but give it time and no one will think twice of a kid having two male parents.

Josephus

 

[unmerged(24249)]

What predjustice? It's about morality and proper upbringing of a child. I wouldn't like to see him come to mental harm because communisitc, oh my deepest apology, socialistic goverment wants to look good on public. This will lead nowhere.

Sure it won't work with 1st generation, but also not with second or thrid because their parents will teach them again in spirit of predjustice.

Oh yes I think I will love to see all these little boys and girls who's mom will be named Jake and daddy Laura, and see the other ones bullying them. Do you really think this will help?

Why won't you split the bill in two? Are you too afraid that your adoptions will not come throught?

 

[Dunderdon]

What predjustice? It's about morality and proper upbringing of a child. I wouldn't like to see him come to mental harm because communisitc, oh my deepest apology, socialistic goverment wants to look good on public. This will lead nowhere.

No, we do not try to pass this bill because we want to look good. We want to have this law because we want a society without discrimination!

Sure it won't work with 1st generation, but also not with second or thrid because their parents will teach them again in spirit of predjustice.

Oh yes I think I will love to see all these little boys and girls who's mom will be named Jake and daddy Laura, and see the other ones bullying them. Do you really think this will help?

Do you believe that human beings are too stupid to be tolerant? This seems to be your only argument.

Why won't you split the bill in two? Are you too afraid that your adoptions will not come throught?

We might split it in two bills. Some of your points are valid, but I very dislike the conclusions that you draw from the fact that it is not going to be easy to fully emancipate homosexuals.

But it is important to have this discussion! Because I don't want parlamentarians in here who believe that if prejudices exist then oh sorry we can do nothing but as soon as homosexuality is accepted we will maybe not have homosexuals disadvantaged.

You know what probably is the difference between us and you?

We think that politics can change the lives of people.

 

[Dunderdon]

Mr. Zuba, I believe you may have missed my arguments, I will rephrase them.

Which point did I miss, colleague?

I have the impression I answered on the time span.

The second point - parents could not want their child to be adopted by homosexuals but they die and the child is adopted by homosexuals - seems to be very abstract. I believe that we have laws that tell what happens with children when their parents die, no? Relatives, friends of the parents or whoever takes responsibility and decides, I suppose.

You could however bring any inheritance law to fall with that argument.

Your third point: Yes, the usual restrictions would of course apply. Why not?