Internet polls on ‘homosexual propaganda ban’

16 03 2007


Should headteachers be punished for inviting homosexual organisations?
Yes – 85%
No – 15 %
number of votes: 36,246


Does promoting ‘gay lifestyle’ in schools cause your concern?
Yes – 39%
No – 58%
No opinion – 2%
Number of votes: 25,743

Both polls were conducted on March 13th 2007. Results from 23:45 Warsaw time.


If you enjoyed this post why not visit Polandian, a collaborative blog on Poland.




4 responses

29 08 2007

Polishpress, here you go. That’s how I feel the society may feel. Nothing not too obvious, I’m afraid. (The list of reasons is by no means exhaustive.)

(1) The bottom level thinking may be:
“Homosexuals are a new thing to some / many. They are a source of many feeling uneasy or afraid, and for that they should be discouraged from the public view (activity?).”

(2) The politicians’ – much opposed to business’ – way of thinking may be:
“Politically, it’s more profitable to have the ayes of the straight than the support of the homosexual.”

(3) The higher level thinking may be:
“Homosexuals are a minority. Democracy is simply about majority rules. So, if a majority tells a minority to shut up, a minority shuts up. It’s not uncommon that minorities are told to shut up. E.g. a Nazi minority in Germany that would like to form their party would be told to shut up. The state has the right to decide which minorities should shut up – the dangerous ones. What is dangerous is for the voter to decide / define.”

(4) The state- / nation-ward way of reasoning may be:
“Homosexuals are deemed dangerous. Their being dangerous consists in their natural disability to have (bear) children. The straight can bear children. It is in the state’s interest to promote the straight male-female family because it offers more chances to produce offspring than a gay couple does. Children are our social insurance system’s future. It’s not just that a gay earning 1000 units pays smaller taxes than a parent of five earning 1000 units.”

(5) The longer-term-future-based way of thinking may be:
“Homosexuals are a minority that deserves respect within the rule of majority (that democracy is, by definition). True. But where does respect for minorities start – and where does it end? In 50 years time it may appear that paedophiles or necrophiles call themselves a minority that deserves respect. We may think that paedophiles or necrophiles are considered socially dangerous NOW – but give them enough media and pubilicity and they can change / twist the mind of the voter (whereas the voter decides what’s dangerous, see point (1)). If we give a finger to homosexuals, other minorities might join in the chorus and want the whole hand. For safety’ sake then, let’s keep gays / les down. This way we defend ourselves against paedophiles or necrophiles or other perverts’ future call for attention and rights.”

30 08 2007

Ad 3) In my opinion, it’s a great difference between private people who want to choose their life-style freely and who need to be protected from violence and discrimination and a political minority who doesn’t agree to the German constitution, tries to gain power and receives tax payers’ money they can use to recruit bored and unoriented juvenils from the streets.
Nevertheless I am against banning the nationalist party, because I am of the opinion that a good democracy has to find other ways to deal with people who hold different opinions. Ban is no solution. But that’s another question.
Why do you compare gays and lesbians with German Neo-Nazis? I just don’t get that!!!
Ad 5) Well, perversion was always something that was socially defined. And we won’t get around to reconsider our definitions from time to time.
In Berlin a programme was launched a few years ago which offers professional help for paedophiles before they get delinquent for the first time. A lot of paedophiles volunteered to take part to get therapeutical treatment which helps them find ways to deal with their problem. The programme seems to be very successful, although it will take some time to prove the long-time success. Perhaps it is simply wrong to define paedophiles as dangerous. So, why don’t give them the whole hand?! Perhaps they just need a helping hand? I am not so sure about necrophils, though. πŸ˜€

30 08 2007


31 08 2007

Silke, no offense πŸ™‚ I wrote about Nazis and G/L under one point, which does not mean I compare them. And yet, the two groups have at least one thing in common — they are minorities. So, either we state there *are* minorities that do *not* deserve respect and rights (such as Nazi) – or we think out how to justify the ban on a neo-Nazi party (the task as hard as justifying why a ban on a gay parade).

Somewhere else I wrote that I’d take an argument and a half of the above list as mine, and I meant there’s something valid in points 4) and 5).

4) I think the idea of people with offspring enjoying fiscal solutions friendlier than people without offspring (the latter including both heterosexuals without kids and homosexuals without kids) is just. And remains just *as long as* social insurance premiums are compulsory, or at least non-hereditary.

5) My point exactly! “If we won’t get around to reconsider [[our definitions (of perversions]] from time to time” – that means we have to reconsider from time to time what’s dangerous / evil and what’s not. I’d have nothing against such redefinitions – provided they come up naturally (whatever it means in detail). If if a perversion were to be “SOCIALLY defined”, it could sound OK to me. But I’m afraid “social definitions” are not “definitions of a society’s inner natural ethical feelings” but may rather appear to be “definitions as suggested by the businessworld and such”. A natural way of redefining perversions seems impossible in the world with pressure groups and and marketing and publicity the rich few may buy to influence the masses. But the subject deserves a separate discussion, I guess.

By the way, I often like to stick to the non-pejorative meaning of “perversion”, i.e. something that simply is not orthodox. Under this meaning, a perversion was the behaviour of Sophie Scholl or, later, von Stauffenberg, within the orthodox pro-Hitlerite way of living.

Oh, and pardon my sincerity, but you’d be lynched by any parent in Poland for the sentence “Perhaps it is simply wrong to define paedophiles as dangerous”. In Polish view (is it different in Germany?) paedophiles are dangerous, period.
If a paedophile can be cured, (s)he does not have to be reckoned as one (just like we don’t have to talk about successful AA’s when talking about dangers from the alcoholics. So, when I talk paedophiles or necrophiles or else, I mean those who escape treatment (if there is a treatment at all).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: