National Assembly Term 7

[unmerged(24249)]

]No I believe that humans can be tolerant, however let's face the fact that most of the parents will simply teach them in a way of predjustice, yes the bill would help a little but parents would still teach children in spirit of predjustice, and I doubt such a child would believe school teacher that tells him all the time tha homosexuality isn't bad instead of his parents.


You don't answer my questions and twist my words so I will repeat it once again.


What would you do with heterosexual orphan in age of 12 that was upbringed in religious family, and is about to be adopted by homosexual couple. Again, why it isn't called partnership but marriage? Marriage if I recall correctly is religious insitution (mostly) and the term is now used even for non-religious insitution, but still I would prefer name partnership, in a case that they are supposed to be able to adopt children. I will support the part of the bill about homosexual partnership, all I ask for is to separate this part.

 

[unmerged(20844)]

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.

You have obviously reached to demagogy.

Politics is also about providing the best for people. You mentioned you are ready to sacrifice a generation (i do believe it may will take more than one). Well, that's the difference between you and us. We wont.

You are taking our words and twisting them against patterns of generally accepted values. Well, for your information, I'm not speaking in general, I put this bill into practice. And you keep hiding behind pompous abstract words like "Progressiveness", "Discrimination", "Emancipation".

I hold similar views on these topics, but the difference is I am realistic.

 

[unmerged(20844)]

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.

Talk about tolerance.

 

[unmerged(24249)]

You have obviously reached to demagogy.

Politics is also about providing the best for people. You mentioned you are ready to sacrifice a generation (i do believe it may will take more than one). Well, that's the difference between you and us. We wont.

You are taking our words and twisting them against patterns of generally accepted values. Well, for your information, I'm not speaking in general, I put this bill into practice. And you keep hiding behind pompous abstract words like "Progressiveness", "Discrimination", "Emancipation".

I hold similar views on these topics, but the difference is I am realistic.

I am most offended sir. You are the one mentioning and hiding progressivnes discrimination and Emancipation, sir! I think you are the one twisting words here. Please split the bill in two, and I feel we will support the first part. Also you are the one breaking moral values here. You haven't answered my question and I want answer now.

What would you do with heterosexual orphan in age of 12 that was upbringed in religious family, and is about to be adopted by homosexual couple. Again, why it isn't called partnership but marriage? Marriage if I recall correctly is religious insitution (mostly) and the term is now used even for non-religious insitution, but still I would prefer name partnership, in a case that they are supposed to be able to adopt children. I will support the part of the bill about homosexual partnership, all I ask for is to separate this part.

Answer please answer, not childish twisting words.

 

[unmerged(20844)]

I am most offended sir. You are the one mentioning and hiding progressivnes discrimination and Emancipation, sir! I think you are the one twisting words here. Please split the bill in two, and I feel we will support the first part. Also you are the one breaking moral values here. You haven't answered my question and I want answer now.

I am sorry to have caused this misunderstanding, I was referring to the dear ESPR member who so honestly believes in my backwardness.
I think we hold very similar opinions, Mr Marine.

[OOC: I think misunderstood me for Dunderdon I'm not proposing this bill hence I cannot split it my mistake i didnt quote or mention a name ]

 

[unmerged(24249)]

Ah, my deepest apology then sir.

 

[unmerged(20844)]

No offense taken or given, I hope.

 

[Estonianzulu]

Relatives, friends of the parents or whoever takes responsibility and decides, I suppose.

Unless I am mistaken, a friend has no legal power in such a case. A relative would, but there are cases when they do not live.

I would however, like to make a proposition. I see we strike Clause III from the bill all together. This section, as you can tell, has caused great conflict within this assembly, and within this country. I feel that it is too important to be stuck with the other clauses. It is acting as a "rider" in American politics. Frankly, the two topics are different, marriage does not mean adoption rights. We need to examine them differently.

 

[Dunderdon]

Politics is also about providing the best for people. You mentioned you are ready to sacrifice a generation (i do believe it may will take more than one). Well, that's the difference between you and us. We wont.

When have I mentioned that i am ready to "sacrifice a generation"???

You are taking our words and twisting them against patterns of generally accepted values. Well, for your information, I'm not speaking in general, I put this bill into practice. And you keep hiding behind pompous abstract words like "Progressiveness", "Discrimination", "Emancipation".

This very much seems like an empty accusion. I do not see a concrete connection to anything I said.

Am I taking your words and twisting them? I'm sorry if I do so, but I got the question that you are not ready to set concrete steps to improve the situation for homoesual people not only in legal cases but in everyday's life.

I keep hiding behind pompous abstract words? Well, probably contrary to you, emancipation is not an abstract word for me.

What would you do with heterosexual orphan in age of 12 that was upbringed in religious family, and is about to be adopted by homosexual couple. Again, why it isn't called partnership but marriage? Marriage if I recall correctly is religious insitution (mostly) and the term is now used even for non-religious insitution, but still I would prefer name partnership, in a case that they are supposed to be able to adopt children. I will support the part of the bill about homosexual partnership, all I ask for is to separate this part.

I believe that in any adoption institutions see that the future parents fit to the child, right? Why would that not be the case if the future parents were homosexuals?

Why I call it marriage instead of partnership? Because I do not want two different classes of bondage. If we differ from legal partnership and holy marriage, it will be easy to advantage one from the other. I do not want a situation where we have a marriage only for heterosexual people, who can access family benefits etc. and a registry office partnership for everyone with which less regulations come along.

I hope that answered your questions.

Answer please answer, not childish twisting words.

My dear colleagues, I also do have the impression that you tend to avoid answering my questions. like this..

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?


It won't be of any good if we continue to accuse each other of things... and lets switch to a bit more productive way of discussion, right? I trust that all of us generally are not childish and do not try deliberately to twist someone's words, ok?

To avoid any misunderstandings I will try to sum up what the concrete problems are that you are facing with my bill. If I got it wrong, correct me.

1. First of all you seem to only have problems with the adoption part of the bill.

- I may remind you that I generally agreed on splitting the bills but wanted to have the discussion because it seemed imporant to me to clarify the position of the government on this issue.

2. You seem to believe that it is bad for the mental developement of a child to be confronted with homosexuality (and that heterosexuality then would seem strange to the child as homosexuality seems strange for children with heterosexual parents).

- so my answer to this would be that to my mind homosexuality would not seem strange to children with heterosexual parents if no kind of discriminating against them would be presented to the child[/I] and thus the other way round would also be no problem if discrimination against heterosexuals is not presented.

I do not know why else the presence of homosexuality would be bad for the developement of a child. If there are further problems, I believe that we should try to find solutions (and not try to forget about the emancipation affords, which I got the impression you are doing in face of the problems, please correct me if I am wrong about that, I would be very glad if so.)

3. You seem to believe that children who are confronted with homosexuality will be treated bad by peers, which will again be bad for mental developement. You also seem to believe that nowadays it is impossible for to stop that anti-homosexual impressions will be collected by the child.

That is a valid point. But I do believe that politics and can influence public opinion on homosexuality. The only thing I heard about this is that

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.

Which might actually be the position for a compromise.

But you see, I would be very unhappy if we now decided that the world is bad and we unfortunately can't do anything to allow homosexual people to enjoy the experience of bringing up children. And this is not hinding behind the word of emancipation or progression now, it is a very important topic for us socialists.. and I actually don't like it if you seem to not take it serious or believe that I am hiding behind those words.

Now, what can we do?

Do you basically agree that we generally approve of having a society that makes it possible for homosexual couples to adopt children?

If you say no, we can save all the discussion. then the bill will be split and the adoption part will not find a majority.

If you say yes, then we will work out a program that covers all the problems that you and I see that could arise in such a situation. As a good program it will not be extreme (thus will not make everything possible right now and will not redirect social problems to santa claus). it will not ignore input, provided that it is not just biased prejudices like "families are holy and god only allows heterosexuality".

So, what do you say?

 

[unmerged(24249)]

Ah very well then, start splitting the bill please.

 

[unmerged(20844)]

When have I mentioned that i am ready to "sacrifice a generation"???


This very much seems like an empty accusion. I do not see a concrete connection to anything I said.

Am I taking your words and twisting them? I'm sorry if I do so, but I got the question that you are not ready to set concrete steps to improve the situation for homoesual people not only in legal cases but in everyday's life.

I keep hiding behind pompous abstract words? Well, probably contrary to you, emancipation is not an abstract word for me.


I believe that in any adoption institutions see that the future parents fit to the child, right? Why would that not be the case if the future parents were homosexuals?

Why I call it marriage instead of partnership? Because I do not want two different classes of bondage. If we differ from legal partnership and holy marriage, it will be easy to advantage one from the other. I do not want a situation where we have a marriage only for heterosexual people, who can access family benefits etc. and a registry office partnership for everyone with which less regulations come along.

I hope that answered your questions.


My dear colleagues, I also do have the impression that you tend to avoid answering my questions. like this..



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?


It won't be of any good if we continue to accuse each other of things... and lets switch to a bit more productive way of discussion, right? I trust that all of us generally are not childish and do not try deliberately to twist someone's words, ok?

To avoid any misunderstandings I will try to sum up what the concrete problems are that you are facing with my bill. If I got it wrong, correct me.

1. First of all you seem to only have problems with the adoption part of the bill.

- I may remind you that I generally agreed on splitting the bills but wanted to have the discussion because it seemed imporant to me to clarify the position of the government on this issue.

2. You seem to believe that it is bad for the mental developement of a child to be confronted with homosexuality (and that heterosexuality then would seem strange to the child as homosexuality seems strange for children with heterosexual parents).

- so my answer to this would be that to my mind homosexuality would not seem strange to children with heterosexual parents if no kind of discriminating against them would be presented to the child[/I] and thus the other way round would also be no problem if discrimination against heterosexuals is not presented.

I do not know why else the presence of homosexuality would be bad for the developement of a child. If there are further problems, I believe that we should try to find solutions (and not try to forget about the emancipation affords, which I got the impression you are doing in face of the problems, please correct me if I am wrong about that, I would be very glad if so.)

3. You seem to believe that children who are confronted with homosexuality will be treated bad by peers, which will again be bad for mental developement. You also seem to believe that nowadays it is impossible for to stop that anti-homosexual impressions will be collected by the child.

That is a valid point. But I do believe that politics and can influence public opinion on homosexuality. The only thing I heard about this is that

Which might actually be the position for a compromise.

But you see, I would be very unhappy if we now decided that the world is bad and we unfortunately can't do anything to allow homosexual people to enjoy the experience of bringing up children. And this is not hinding behind the word of emancipation or progression now, it is a very important topic for us socialists.. and I actually don't like it if you seem to not take it serious or believe that I am hiding behind those words.

Now, what can we do?

Do you basically agree that we generally approve of having a society that makes it possible for homosexual couples to adopt children?

If you say no, we can save all the discussion. then the bill will be split and the adoption part will not find a majority.

If you say yes, then we will work out a program that covers all the problems that you and I see that could arise in such a situation. As a good program it will not be extreme (thus will not make everything possible right now and will not redirect social problems to santa claus). it will not ignore input, provided that it is not just biased prejudices like "families are holy and god only allows heterosexuality".

So, what do you say?

I have been trying to convey a couple of ideas that you dont seem to understand...

1. You DID say that you wanted this bill now, even if it means mental harm to the first generation of children. It was explicit and had only one meaning. If that was not what you meant, be more responsive to your words

2. Yes, I did say that a child who confronts homosexuality will be troubled, and i mentioned numerous times why i think so (not because of homosexuality itself but because of society's attitude.)



Now for the productive part, as you probably see it...

I generally believe homosexual couples should have the right to adopt children, but only if it will not bring harm to the children. Thus the current stance means I will not support this part of your bill. I will, however, support programs and anything that can lead to a change in public opinion. Only after this has gone through and has been successful, I will vote Yes for gay adoption.

There is another topic I would like to address. Have you collected more information on psychology or social studies? It seems to me that information is very important in this case and Mr. Marine and I have been pointing to various issues in this bill. You didnt indicate to accept most of them, so was it because of lack of information, disgreement, or something else?

Additionally, you have spoken about politicians changing society several times. Here's my view.
Society changes naturally, gradually, any forceful change will sooner or later be rejected, or will lead to bad side effects. Thus I think the only good way for us to guide public opinion on such issues is by being socially responsible, not by being politicians. These two things can live together, so I am not implying we cannot do anything. Everyone can do something, and THAT is how changes happen. By being policians alone, we cannot force people to believe in something, we must convince them. And hurriedly imposing bills that do not correspond to public opinion is not the right way.

 

[Dunderdon]

I have been trying to convey a couple of ideas that you dont seem to understand...

1. You DID say that you wanted this bill now, even if it means mental harm to the first generation of children. It was explicit and had only one meaning. If that was not what you meant, be more responsive to your words.

Please quote me.

2. Yes, I did say that a child who confronts homosexuality will be troubled, and i mentioned numerous times why i think so (not because of homosexuality itself but because of society's attitude.)

Correct me if I am wrong, but that is what i wrote in point 3 of what I think that troubles you with that bill? Now what did I not understand?

I will, however, support programs and anything that can lead to a change in public opinion. Only after this has gone through and has been successful, I will vote Yes for gay adoption.

Great!

There is another topic I would like to address. Have you collected more information on psychology or social studies? It seems to me that information is very important in this case and Mr. Marine and I have been pointing to various issues in this bill. You didnt indicate to accept most of them, so was it because of lack of information, disgreement, or something else?

The information that I base my beliefs is that homosexuality is naturally and can occur independent from the way the child was raised or educated.

I am also convinced by the fact that the society can be changed.

Additionally, you have spoken about politicians changing society several times. Here's my view.
Society changes naturally, gradually, any forceful change will sooner or later be rejected, or will lead to bad side effects. Thus I think the only good way for us to guide public opinion on such issues is by being socially responsible, not by being politicians. These two things can live together, so I am not implying we cannot do anything. Everyone can do something, and THAT is how changes happen. By being policians alone, we cannot force people to believe in something, we must convince them. And hurriedly imposing bills that do not correspond to public opinion is not the right way.

I do not quite get what you mean by that.

I said that politics can change lives, and you oppose it by saying not politicians as politicians can influence, but politicians by being socially responsible? That does not sound like a counter-argument to me.

I think that even the natural change of society is also done by people. We are also people. So I do not see your point.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

not to interupt but.... where is the speaker?

 

[unmerged(20844)]

Here is the long-yearned for quotation:

"The result would be that homosexuality would have to be regarded as not abnormal, if so, the children would indeed have problems"

Do you not realize the whole point? I have the feeling you agreed that such a law would cause social problems. This itself means that by proposing the law now, you are ready to sacrifice a generation (meaning the partthat will eventually be adopted by gay couples).

"Correct me if I am wrong, but that is what i wrote in point 3 of what I think that troubles you with that bill? Now what did I not understand?"

From your numerous speeches I gathered you misunderstood me. I've been trying to clear it up.

"I do not quite get what you mean by that.

I said that politics can change lives, and you oppose it by saying not politicians as politicians can influence, but politicians by being socially responsible? That does not sound like a counter-argument to me.

I think that even the natural change of society is also done by people. We are also people. So I do not see your point."

Of course we're people, of course we can change society! But we do so by CONVINCING others that our beliefs are right. Not by imposing on them a bill that they do not like. Of course it is good to prove to people there is nothing wrong in general, but to impose a law on them, when they are not convinced in it, is simply force. By this bill you do not propose to change society, you propose to drag it into a belief, to force it to follow something they do not agree with. And that is definitely not the main pupose of politicians

 

[Dunderdon]

Here is the long-yearned for quotation:

The whole paragraph was:

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!

And to my mind, this describes rather the way how to cope with problems. I said that it only works if homosexuality is regarded as not abnormal and will cause problems otherwise.

You DID say that you wanted this bill now, even if it means mental harm to the first generation of children. It was explicit and had only one meaning.

I wonder how you can see any reference to the time when the law is applied in the paragraph above.

I also do not see how I deliberately risk harming a generation of children in the paragraph above.

If that was not what you meant, be more responsive to your words.

Ahh! I think that its ok to read something wrong that someone else said, but I believe that its a bit narrowminded if you say that it has to be the others fault. I believe that it was clear that there was no explicit statement of accepting mental damaged in my that paragraph or that this law has to be passed now, and if you think different then I really can't help you.

Do you not realize the whole point? I have the feeling you agreed that such a law would cause social problems. This itself means that by proposing the law now, you are ready to sacrifice a generation (meaning the partthat will eventually be adopted by gay couples).

I have already said that homosexuality would have to be regarded as not abnormal for the law to work out. I did this because you pointed out a lot of problems and I agreed that they are valid problems, so they have to be adressed. After agreeing to that (and rather because of it) I never said that the law has to be passed now!! I repeatedly said that my point was that those problems have to be adressed and not the whole program cancelled because of that! where is your problem, colleague? I am sure we can agree if you don't try to put whatever words in my mouth! Its better to ask a few more times if I really mean it like that than having an useless debate, especially because I would never have thought that you see (see above) in my paragraph!

From your numerous speeches I gathered you misunderstood me. I've been trying to clear it up.

I still do not understand why you seem to think that I do not understand that you believe that children who have homosexual parents will face problems with the rest of the society who partly could have prejudices against that.

I understand that.

And I do want to solve that problem.

In the same time.. not now.. but as the process of tolerance towards children of homosexual couples goes on I want to legalise adoption for them.

We will never reach 100% tolerance so you will probably agree that we do not have to wait until really nobody has a prejudice.

Now don't say I am whatever evil kind of letting-children-being-adopted-by-homosexuals-and-deliberately-exposing-them-to-social-problems-criminal!

Of course we're people, of course we can change society! But we do so by CONVINCING others that our beliefs are right. Not by imposing on them a bill that they do not like. Of course it is good to prove to people there is nothing wrong in general, but to impose a law on them, when they are not convinced in it, is simply force. By this bill you do not propose to change society, you propose to drag it into a belief, to force it to follow something they do not agree with. And that is definitely not the main pupose of politicians

There lies truth in this statement. However, I am sure that some laws have to exist although they are unpopular. (For example I would even outlaw discrimination against jews if 60% of the population were in favour of discriminating against them.)
This is why I want the legal emancipation for homosexual marriage. (the first paragraphs of my bill) and as you agreed to that I see we have no problem here.

 

[unmerged(20844)]

Well, we have been engaged in this unproductive discussion for too long. None of us has moved an inch from their initial position. Obviously one says something and the other rejects it. I cant go like this. Split the bill and you get my Yes and No.

 

[Dunderdon]

Well, we have been engaged in this unproductive discussion for too long. None of us has moved an inch from their initial position. Obviously one says something and the other rejects it. I cant go like this. Split the bill and you get my Yes and No.

I have adapted my position already...

You probably just did not notice. Didn't you read it?

... that homosexuality would have to be regarded as not abnormal for the law to work out. After agreeing to that (and rather because of it) I never said that the law has to be passed now

So. As you actually said that

(we have to) educate the publicity on the matter, to convince people that in general, there is nothing wrong with (homosexuals adopting children)

I will work out a bill that includes emancipated rights for homosexual partnerships equal to any marriages as well as a campaign to make homosexuality publically accepted.

 

[Dunderdon]

Homosexual partnership emancipation program, second version

1. Homosexual partnership emancipation bill

I. It is possible for couples of the same sex to get married in a registry office, provided that both partners have reached the age of majority.

II. Same sex partnerships are legally equal to other marriages in aspects of family aid benefits, inheritance laws, etc. and all other legal cases.

III. This law of course applies to gay and lesbian couples.

2. Homosexual adoption resolution

I. The Eutopian National Assembly agrees that it is generally a good idea to let homosexual partnerships adopt children, provided that the social problems that this could cause are eliminated.

II. In order to achieve that, the MECT will found an Eutopian les-bi-gay-club that will offer every kind of services to sexually non orthodox oriented people and will found the committe for public tolerance towards homosexuality that will start campaigning in order to make homosexuality poblically accepted.

III. The club as well as the committee will receive public funding as of ___(OOC: I am not so familiar with our cucurrency, what do you say fits?)

I hope you can agree on this.

[OOC: I don't mind if the club and the committee remain NPCs]

 

[unmerged(20844)]

Well, adoption is also a legal matter, so i guess it should be stated in the bill "except for adption of children". otherwise it can be considered legal.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

now that the great debate is over, 2 problems i got. 1 small 1 big.

1. can workers refuse to handle a ceremony and refuse to deal with gay marraige without being fired/disciplined.

2. public money to fund a pro-gay campaign? and just how much money do you speak of and where will it come from? there is a lot there i dont like.

passing a bill allowing it is one thing, providing large sums of the publics money to "re-education" them is another. if people dont like the way you live its their right to disaprove. taxing people and spending their money to try and force a change of views on them is way wrong.