網頁

2013年1月22日 星期二

弱勢群體凡是主義


資料來源: 關啟文博士


        港台製作的《 同志、戀人 》特輯受廣管局勸喻事件餘波未了。3月12日,立法會資訊科技及廣播事務委員會通過動議,認為廣管局的裁決屬於性傾向歧視,要求該局撤銷裁決。裁決當天二十多個團體狂轟廣管局,六個團體則表示支持該局,媒體報道卻把重點放在反對陣營,支持聲音不是輕輕帶過,就是乾脆不提。大部分媒體的立場之鮮明可見一斑。
        我感到整件事有點滑稽,而且批評者的論點欠說服力但卻出自「精英」之口,那純是因為認定同志社群就是弱勢群體,無論如何也要支持吧。
        扶助弱勢社群是美事,但慎防把這演變為「弱勢群體凡是主義」─ 凡是弱勢群體所做的都不可批評;凡是弱勢群體提倡的都是正確。對那些受現代精神洗禮的文化人和傳媒精英而言,弱勢群體頭上儼然有一個光環,而反對弱勢群體的人士則無可置疑是惡棍。
        難道,弱勢群體的理據如何牽強,他們最終都必然有理,而反弱勢群體的人縱使滔滔雄辯,所說的也必然是歪理?就像今次這件事,同志團體不斷控訴廣管局打壓他們,連訴苦的機會也要剝削,但這顥然曲解了廣管局裁決,該局只是說:「有關香港公共政策…而又具爭議的…題材,必須…持平。」沒有禁止同性戀心聲報道,也沒有遏止他們對公共政策的意見,很多這類性傾向歧視的罪名都是「莫須有」。
        只是勸喻在性小眾聲音之外加一些持平討論就是打壓,但剝奪市民聆聽不認同同志運動的聲音,則是主持公道?只要對「弱勢群體」有絲毫不敬(更遑論批評),就犯了性傾向歧視的天條,頓成過街老鼠,但卻可隨意謾罵和標籤反對同志運動的市民為偏見、恐同、歧視、胡言亂語,甚至直斥為「刁民」?(這像不像以前衙門官動不動就對平民百姓大喝:「如此刁民,竟敢狡辯!來人,重打八十大板。」)
        雖然雙方陣營同樣發動一人一信到廣管局,但支持弱勢群體的就是真民意,反對弱勢群體的則是假民意?維護弱勢群體的權利就是人權,但扼殺反對弱勢群體的人的權利則沒有問題?或許所有人都平等,但弱勢群體比反對他們的人更平等?多元社會中,弱勢群體的價值觀不可以不尊重,但反對弱勢群體的價值觀則可以任意踐踏?
        那些「弱勢群體」既是媒體和文化精英、人權組織以及尊貴議員的寵兒,又得國際大趨勢之助,再經此《 同志、戀人 》一役,媒體更可理直氣壯把反對他們的聲音邊緣化,那請問他們的「」究竟「」在哪裡呢?

2013年1月9日 星期三

離譜教材 要小學生做「口交膜」(2013/0109)






離譜教材 要小學生做「口交膜」

《認識同志》附SM網址 將追究教部失責


  





教育部給國中小老師的兩性教材《認識同志》,竟有SM網站連結。資料照片

【賴又嘉、劉嘉韻╱台北報導】真愛聯盟成員批評教育部編印《認識同志》等國中小教學手冊內容不當,遭編者告誹謗,北檢發現部分教材涉指導學生製作口交膜,並將墮胎合理化,還在內容附註SM性虐網址,恐搧惑未成年男女性行為犯罪,因此認定聯盟合理評論無罪,反將教育部移送監察院究責。
真愛聯盟發言人齊明昨說:「不起訴是理所當然,我們從沒誹謗編者,但對教育部遭移送感到遺憾。」教育部次長陳德華昨說,性平教材手冊是供老師教學的補充教材,非直接給學生,且爭議內容已修正,新版預定下學期發放,教育部也未收到監院調查公文。 

遭批評竟反控誹謗

教育部為方便國中、小教師教授性別平等教育課程,五年前委託學者編寫《性別好好教》、《我們可以這樣教性別》、《認識同志——教育資源手冊》三本教材,內容竟出現「在親密關係的性生活中,沒人會被強迫性交、口交」、「墮胎是一項合法、合理的選擇」,還建議老師積極教導學生「正確使用保險套、指套、製作口交膜」、「性玩具應保持乾淨」等內容。
真愛聯盟成員連署批評手冊倡導性解放,恐混淆兒童性別認知,卻遭教材編者卓耕宇、游美惠、洪菊吟等人控告妨害名譽。 

教育部送監院究責

檢方認定,聯盟針對教材內容提出質疑,屬於合理評論範疇,並非惡意誹謗,反而供國中、小教師教學的教材,卻提及「你們要如何做愛」、「正視青少年也有性行為的事實」,還詳述同志專有名詞,甚至提供國外SM網站連結,不但「太離譜」,還恐搧惑未成年男女性行為,教育部卻沒人願扛責,只好移送監察院追究官員行政疏失。
據悉,三本教材中,《認識同志——教育資源手冊》已發給中小學老師,另兩本則臨時喊卡,未發出。 

認識同志教育資源手冊

◎出版單位:教育部
◎編印時間:2008年
◎用途:各級學校教師參考用書
◎主題:認識多元性別、尊重多元性別
◎爭議內容:
.積極教導學生正確使用保險套、指套,製作口交膜及使用水性潤滑液
.為了保持性玩具乾淨,不與他人共用
.應正視青少年也有性行為的事實
.設計「誰說不能搞GAY」的教案,並提供SM網站連結
資料來源:《蘋果》資料室

2013年1月6日 星期日

道德懸崖該怎麼辦?(劉屏專欄)

劉屏專欄

資料來源:2013-01-03 中國時報

摘錄
     美國參議院、眾議院相繼通過議案後,「財政懸崖」有驚無險度過(左圖為歐巴馬事後發表談話,法新社)。然而美國的有識之士更擔心的,是美國的「道德懸崖」該如何化解。
     稅賦要減,福利要加,政府唯有編列赤字預算,於是不但債台高築,而且債留子孫,焉得不出現懸崖。嚴格說來,財政懸崖的成因之一是追求享樂、不顧後果;而道德懸崖的成因又何嘗不是?貪圖一時的罪惡之樂,卻全然不顧可怕的後果;不但以各種美好的詞彙加以包裝,而且無休無止的要求「提高上限」(就像各種津貼),從放寬,放肆,放蕩,以致放縱,最終只得放棄,落入萬丈深淵。
     美國先祖懷抱著對宇宙至高主宰的無上敬畏,所以喬治.華盛頓總統在誓詞中加上了一句「上帝,請幫助我」,成為傳統。但是今天愈來愈多人不再如此敬虔,甚至不給敬虔出路,例如,社會上只有主張同性戀的自由,卻不再有反對同性戀的自由。彷彿支持同性戀才是寬容、平等、多元,不支持同性戀就是歧視、迫害、落伍。尤其是把「反對同性戀行為」抹黑為「反對同性戀者」,因而將之視為迫害人權。

2013年1月5日 星期六

Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting

Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting


Loren Marks 




Louisiana State University

October 3, 2011


摘要:
In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting. This brief included the assertion: ―Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents‖ (p. 15). The present article closely examines this assertion and 59 published studies cited by APA to support it. Seven central questions address: (1) homogenous sampling, (2) absence of comparison groups, (3) comparison group characteristics, (4) contradictory data, (5) the limited scope of children’s outcomes studied, (6) paucity of long-term outcome data, and (7) lack of APA-urged statistical power. The conclusion is that strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted. Recommendations for future research are offered.


引言:

Over the past few decades, differences have been observed between outcomes of children in marriage-based intact families and children in cohabiting, divorced, step, and single-parent families in large, representative samples. Based on four nationally representative longitudinal studies with more than 20,000 total participants, McLanahan and Sandefur conclude:

Children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents. . .regardless of whether the resident parent remarries.

Differences have recurred in connection with myriad issues of societal-level concern including: (a) health, mortality, and suicide risks, (b) drug and alcohol abuse, (c) criminality and incarceration, (d) intergenerational poverty, (e) education and/or labor force contribution, (f) early sexual activity and early childbearing, and (g) divorce rates as adults. These outcomes represent important impact variables that influence the well-being of children and families, as well as the national economy.

By way of comparison, social science research has repeatedly reported no significant differences between children from gay/lesbian households and heterosexual households. These recurring findings of no significant differences have led some researchers and professional organizations to formalize related claims. Perhaps none of these claims has been more influential than the following from the 2005 American Psychological Association (APA) Brief on ―Lesbian and Gay Parenting‖:

Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.

Are we witnessing the emergence of a new family form that (unlike cohabiting, divorced, or single-parent families) provides a context for children that is equivalent to the intact family? Many proponents of same-sex marriage contend that the answer is yes. Others are skeptical and wonder—given that other departures from the intact family form have been correlated with less-desirable child outcomes—do children in same-sex families demonstrably avoid being ―disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents‖ as the APA asserts? This is a question with important implications, particularly since the 2005 APA Brief on ―Lesbian and Gay Parenting‖ has been repeatedly invoked in the current same-sex marriage debate.

How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study




Mark Regnerus

Department of Sociology and Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station A1700, Austin, TX 78712-0118, United States

Abstract

The New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a social-science data-collection project that fielded a survey to a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18–39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements. In this debut article of the NFSS, I compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when compared with six other family-of-origin types. The results reveal numerous, consistent differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents. The results are typically robust in multivariate contexts as well, suggesting far greater diversity in lesbian-parent household experiences than convenience-sample studies of lesbian families have revealed. The NFSS proves to be an illuminating, versatile dataset that can assist family scholars in understanding the long reach of family structure and transitions.

What is Marriage?

ROBERT GEORGE, SHERIF GIRGIS, & RYAN T. ANDERSON

Marriage understood as the conjugal union of husband and wife really serves the good of children, the good of spouses, and the common good of society. The arguments against this view fail while the arguments for it succeed.


I. ................................................................................248 

  A. Equality, Justice, and the Heart
      of the Debate .........................................................248

  B. Real Marriage Is – And Is Only – The
      Union of Husband and Wife........................................252 

        1. Comprehensive Union ........................................253 
        2. Special Link to Children ......................................255 
        3. Marital Norms ...................................................259
  C. How Would Gay Civil Marriage 
      Affect You or Your Marriage? ......................................260 

        1. Weakening Marriage ............................................260 
        2. Obscuring the Value of Opposite‐Sex
            Parenting As an Ideal ..........................................262 
        3. Threatening Moral and Religious
            Freedom ...........................................................263

  D. If Not Same‐Sex Couples,
         Why Infertile Ones? ...............................................265

        1. Still Real Marriages..............................................266 
        2. Still in the Public Interest......................................268

  E. Challenges for Revisionists .........................................269 

        1. The State Has an Interest in
            Regulating Some Relationships? ............................269 
        2. Only if They Are Romantic?....................................271 
        3. Only if They Are Monogamous? ..............................272

  F. Isn't Marriage Just Whatever 
         We Say It Is? ........................................................274
II . ...............................................................................275

  A. Why Not Spread Traditional Norms 
         to the Gay Community? ..........................................275 

  B. What About Partners' 
         Concrete Needs?.....................................................280 

  C. Doesn't the Conjugal Conception 
         of Marriage Sacrifice Some 
         People's Fulfillment for Others'? ................................281 

  D. Isn't It Only Natural?...................................................284 

  E. Doesn't Traditional Marriage 
         Law Impose Controversial 
         Moral and Religious Views
         on Everyone?.........................................................285
         Conclusion.............................................................286

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Joslin v. New Zealand Communication No. 902/1999


HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE

Joslin v. New Zealand
Communication No. 902/1999
17 July 2002
CCPR/C/75/D/902/1999

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

大綱摘要

VIEWS

Submitted by: Ms. Juliet Joslin et al. (represented by counsel Mr. Nigel C. Christie)

State party: New Zealand

Date of communication: 30 November 1998 (initial submission)

The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Meeting on 17 July 2002,

Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 902/1999, submitted to the Human Rights Committee by Ms. Juliet Joslin et al. under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Having taken into account all written information made available to it by the author of the communication, and the State party,

Adopts the following:

Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol

The facts as presented by the authors
The complaint

The State party's submissions on admissibility and merits
Comments by the authors
Supplementary submissions by the State party
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
Consideration of the merits

Notes
Appendix

CASE OF SCHALK AND KOPF v. AUSTRIA


FIRST SECTION

CASE OF SCHALK AND KOPF v. AUSTRIA

(Application no. 30141/04)


JUDGMENT


STRASBOURG

24 June 2010

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
大綱摘要

PROCEDURE
THE FACTS
I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND COMPARATIVE LAW
  A.  Austrian law
  B.  Comparative law

THE LAW
I.  THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF THE COURT'S LIST
II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONVENTION
  A.  Admissibility
  B.  Merits
       1.  The parties' submissions
       2.  The third party interveners' submissions
       3.  The Court's assessment
            a.  General principles
            b.  Application in the present case

III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
  A.  Admissibility
      1.  Exhaustion of domestic remedies
      2.  The applicants' victim status
      3.  Conclusion
  B.  Merits
      1.  The parties' submissions
      2.  The third parties' submissions
      3.  The Court's assessment
          a.  Applicability of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8
          b.  Compliance with Article 14 taken together with Article 8

IV.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1

Admissibility

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
1.  Dismisses unanimously the Government's request to strike the application out of the Court's list;
2.  Declares by six votes to one admissible the applicants' complaint under Article 12 of the Convention;
3.  Declares unanimously admissible the applicants' complaint under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention;
4.  Declares unanimously inadmissible the remainder of the application;
5.  Holds unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 12 of the Convention;
6.  Holds by four votes to three that there has been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 June 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

CASE OF GAS AND DUBOIS v. FRANCE (Application no. 25951/07)

CASE OF GAS AND DUBOIS v. FRANCE
(Application no. 25951/07)


 JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

15 March 2012

FINAL
15/06/2012

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.

全文閱讀下載(英文)


  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
全文閱讀下載(法文)

ANCIENNE CINQUIÈME SECTION

AFFAIRE GAS ET DUBOIS c. FRANCE

(Requête no 25951/07)


ARRÊT



STRASBOURG

15 mars 2012


2013年1月3日 星期四

The refusal to allow a woman to adopt her same-sex partner’s child was not discriminatory

The refusal to allow a woman to adopt her same-sex partner’s
child was not discriminatory


In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Gas and Dubois v. France (application no. 25951/07), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, by six votes to one, that there had been:

No violation of Articles 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The applicants are two cohabiting women. The case concerned the refusal of Ms Gas’ application for a simple adoption order2 in respect of Ms Dubois’ child.

The Court saw notably no evidence of a difference in treatment based on the applicants’ sexual orientation, as opposite-sex couples who had entered into a civil partnership were likewise prohibited from obtaining a simple adoption order.