I probably should say something about this. First thing when I heard about Päivi Räsänen writings[alt] from 2004 being under police investigation I decided to read it. I think this is called the Streisand effect. The text I can summarize as that homosexuality is not a mental illness nor physical sickness but a psychosexual development disorder, god of the bible thinks gays should die, and the church should realize this. I am surprised that there is scientific no citation argument. I agree with Päivi that the the bible says that gays should die. Thank spaghetti that smart people know that there isn't any evidence back the claim that the bible was written on behalf of god. But that is a different topic let's focus on Päivi's scientific arguments and claims. Lengthly quote from the pamphlet:
Lääketieteellisissä tutkimuksissa ei ole saatu mitään todisteita väitteille, että homoseksuaalisuus olisi geneettistä, periytyvää tai synnynnäistä. Puheet homoseksuaaligeenien löytymisestä ovat osoittautuneet poikkeuksetta vääriksi. Toisaalta on totta, että homoseksuaaliksi harvoin tietoisesti ryhdytään. Seksuaalisesti poikkeava tunne-elämä on harvoin tahallinen, ihmisen itsensä valitsema tai aiheuttama tila. Sen taustalta voidaan löytää niin varhaislapsuuden kuin murrosiän psykoseksuaaliseen kehitykseen liittyviä häiriöitä. Esimerkiksi seksuaalisesti hyväksikäytettyjen lasten riski kehittyä homoseksuaaliksi on muita suurempi. Homoseksuaalinen taipumus ei ole sinänsä mielenterveysongelmaan tai fyysiseen sairauteen verrattava ominaisuus. Sen sijaan tieteellinen todistusaineisto osoittaa vastaansanomattomasti, että homoseksuaalisuus on psykoseksuaalisen kehityksen häiriö. Ne, jotka väittävät homouden olevan luonnollinen, “terve” seksuaalisuuden variaatio, mitätöivät perhetaustatutkimusten todistusarvon poliittisista syistä. Homoaktivistien painostuksen ansiosta poliittiset tavoitteet ovat syrjäyttäneet tieteelliset faktat. Seksuaalisen orientaation muutos on myös mahdollinen.
Huomattavaosa lesboista on elänyt aiemmin heteroseksuaalisissa suhteissa. Lesboaktivisti Paula Kuosmanen on todennut artikkelissaan “Lesboäidit ja lapset=lesboperhe?”: “Suomessa tyypillisin lesboperhemuoto on uusperhe, jossa lasten biologinen äiti on hankkinut lapsensa perinteisessä heteroliitossa ja vasta myöhemmin perustanut uusperheen toisen lesbonkanssa.” Jos taipumus voi muuttua heteroseksuaalisuudesta homoseksuaalisuuteen, miksei se voisi muuttua toiseenkin suuntaan? Seksuaalisen identiteetin eheytyminen kohti normaalia heteroseksuaalista tunne-elämää on mahdollista, jos ihminen on itse motivoitunut ja halukas hoitoon.
Seksuaalisten vähemmistöjen tasa-arvoa ajava yhdistys SETA ei edusta kaikkia homoseksuaalisesti tuntevia ihmisiä, sillä eräät homoseksuaalit kokevat sen ideologian kovin vieraaksi itselleen. Monet homoseksuaalit henkilöt ovat saaneet elämäänsä tukea ja rohkaisua sielunhoidossa ja terapiassa tapahtuneen seksuaalisen identiteetin eheytymisen kautta.
In medical science research, no evidence has been found to claim that homosexuality would be genetic, heritable, or innate. Talk about the discovery of homosexual gene have turn out without expectation as incorrect. Otherhand is true that no one becomes homosexual with knowledge. Sexually deviant emotions are rarely on purpose through a human's choices or caused state. Its background can be found so early childhood even puberty psychosexual developmental disorder. For example, sexually abused children have a risk of developing homosexuality is higher. The homosexual tendency is not per se comparable to mental illness nor physical sickness. Rather scientific evidence undisprovable shows that homosexualism is a psychosexual development disorder. Those how to say that gayness is natural, "healthy" sexual variation vacate parental background research for political reasons. Because gay activist's pressure political reasons have displaced scientific facts. Sexual orientation change is also possible.
A notable part of lesbians have lived in heterosexual relationships. Lesbian activist Paula Kuosmanen has stated articles “Lesboäidit ja lapset=lesboperhe?”: "In Finland, most typical lesbian family form is a blended family where children's biological mother has had children in a traditional straight relationship and later established blended family with another lesbian." If the tendency can change from straight to homosexual then why can't it change another way round? Sexual identity can be made whole towards normal straight emotions is possible, if a person is self-motivated and willing to get treatment.
Organization advocating for equality of sexual minorities SETA doesn't represent all homosexual feeling people, because some homosexuals see its idealogy as rather foreign. Many homosexual individuals have got support in their lives and encouragement throughout making whole sexual identity in pastoral care and therapy.
Where to start. I guess I could mention that I did not find the book that article “Lesboäidit ja lapset=lesboperhe?” is in. I did find Google Scholar mentions of it, so it does seem to exist, but I don't know how Paula Kuosmanen explains this. My guesses are that: lesbian how had the kids was bisexual (lesbian family just means that parents are female), that lesbian really tried to be straight because being gay is icky, or there was some other environmental factor where gay ended up to straight sex (drunken party for example). I don't really buy that sexuality change was the only possible cause. Also, a short note that Päivi's "therapy" sounds like "start to be Christian" more than any actual medical treatment.
On main meat of the psychosexual development disorder. The example Päivi gives is unconvincing. Let's say,(since someone didn't link the study), that sexual abuse of a child implies a higher change of homosexuality for that child. So? It doesn't mean that genes couldn't cause someone with no abuse history to be gay. It does not imply that all homosexuality is because of sexual abuse. Later you do quote the bible alright so I don't know what is your problem now having source material. But an interesting claim is that science on this issue is as settled as evolution is and equal marriage advocates should shut up. I don't know what was the state of science on homosexuality back in 2004 so let's just read 10 pages of abstracts from Google Scholar before 2004.
Let's search by cause of homosexuality and use SJR to say how high-quality journal paper is from (at the time it was written). If there isn't quality information (because old age of the study) then I will use the oldest quality marker.
Q3 enviromental: I
Q2 enviromental: II
Q2 genetic: IIII
Q1 genetic: IIIII
Not clear: IIIII
I do not know how much Google has played on these results but it seems like Räsänen is talking out of her ass. Even if all not clear would be environmental factors then I would still have to conclude that genetics is a good hypothesis and science isn't settled. Of course, this doesn't tell the quality of the studies so I still can be wrong but long as Räsänen doesn't provide more sources I don't care. But now that we have shown to be critical of Räsänen's claims let's give her that you can "make gay whole". There is this one part from the pamphlet I would like to address:
Eräät piispat ovat raamatun tulkinnassaan vedonneet siihen, että nykyisin homoseksuaalisuuden synnystä tiedetään enemmän kuin Raamatun kirjoittamisen aikoihin. Totta, tiedämme sen olevan psykoseksuaalisen kehityksen häiriö. Alkoholismin taustalta on puolestaan löydetty geneettistä alttiutta, haitallisia ympäristötekijöitä ja käyttäytymismalleja sekä rikollisen taipumuksen taustalta esimerkiksi yhteys tarkkaavaisuushäiriöön. Tulisiko rikollisuus sallia, jos siihen on pakottava taipumus?
Again, My translation:
Some bishops are in their interpretation of bible motion that right now we know more about how homosexuality is born than when the bible was written. True, we know that it is a psychosexual development disorder. Behind alcoholism is, for one, found genetic receptivity, harmful environmental factors and behaviour models and the criminal tendency is for example connected to Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Should criminality be legal if one has a tendency for it?
One, alcoholism is legal. You just should get help if you have it, but it is legal. Two, to answer the question. No, criminality shouldn't be legal just because one has a tendency, but what is the crime of homosexuality? How is the other person that is the victim of one's homosexuality? You assert there is one how are they? Do you mean children now don't have "other side" parents? Could one parent children just need another parent rather than another parent with specific sex? The only reason why she is comparing homosexuality to crime is that bible wants them dead. Also, Räsänen speaks a lot about that no gay marriage since the government should encourage children making. It is not a crime not to have children. So even if I give her that homosexuality is just a "tendency" it doesn't follow that gays wouldn't have the case for equal rights.
Now that Räsänen is proven absolute dirtbag on her view of homosexuality I tell you why she should have the right to be an absolute dirtbag. Prosecutor general Raija Toivanen's info[alt] about an order for police to investigate Räsänen doesn't have much information. It just says the prosecutor did try to balance free speech, religious freedom, and non-discrimination basic right and human rights. First of all non-discrimination laws shouldn't overrule someones right to speak. How can pure speech discriminate? Do my mind there has to be other aspects like bullying of an individual. Can scientists even study homosexuality since some would make the argument that it may lead to a "cure" hence it would cause discrimination? But if Räsänen wins this because of religious freedom it would still be bullshit since how about the rest of us that aren't "delusional". It would be clear inequality if that would happen. This isn't a lot to me go by trying to understand what the fuck is prosecutor-general has been smoking. Luckily Helsinki times interviewed[alt] her. It is pretty nice article.
Toiviaisen mielestä Suomessa on unohdettu, missä sananvapauden rajat kulkevat.
Kiihottamispykälä on luotu turvaamaan nimenomaan vähemmistöjä. Historiasta löytyy monia synkkiä esimerkkejä siitä, miten vähemmistöjen ihmisyyttä riisuva puhe on luonut maaperää heihin kohdistuvalle väkivallalle.
You know how translated?:
According to Toiviainen Finland has forgotten, where borders of free speech are.
The agitation section is created to safeguard specifically minorities. In history, you find multiple dark examples about how speech stripping minorities from their humanity have created ground for violence against minorities.
To me, free speech stands for the idea that society can't limit speech based upon its popularity. And yes, I said society not government since I don't really see much of a difference but that is another post topic. Replace society with the government if you disagree. The problem for me here is that, yes history has dark moments. Most of which happened when defending homosexuality would be sinful hence unpopular speech. Now that being against homosexuality is unpopular speech the government starts to limit speech against them. You see my issue Toivanen. You are over correcting! Please give actual evidence that the big group even remembers Räsänen's writings. I mean it didn't do shit against equal marriage which the biggest problem was the parliament's mechanics.
”Nyt ei usein tahdota muistaa tai ymmärtää, mitä ihmisyydellä tarkoitetaan. Tai sitten on ihmisiä, jotka aidosti ajattelevat, ettei kaikilla ole samaa ihmisarvoa.”
Not your neighbors translation:
"Usually now it isn't wanted to remember or understand what humanity means. Or then there are humans how really think that not everyone has same human value."
Alright, I have to tell you that I don't like the word humanity. It is a vague term that doesn't really answer the question of what it is like to be human. In fact, human rights are to my mind complete opposite. They are us noting that we have shitty tendencies but for overall society, it would be better to have something fight against that. Also, if I would use it, I would have a hard time telling myself later was a talking ironically. But anyway, how about Räsänen's human rights? Like really doesn't she have the right to express herself? Why don't Toiviainen think people should have the same value to express options on a topic? Ow right, because gays can't talk because of Räsänen. If you can't handle ideas of Räsänen you don't have anything in value to say in the first place since Räsänen is the person you disagree with! There is no disagreement over gay marriage if Räsänen isn't allowed to talk.
Toiviaisen mielestä pykälä on melko selkeä. Uhkaaminen liittyy selvästi esimerkiksi ruumiilliseen koskemattomuuteen. Solvaaminen on Toiviaisen mukaan ”haukkuvaa puhetta, halventavia sanoja”. Panettelu taas on kieltä, jolla pyritään riisumaan tietyn ryhmän ihmisyyttä.
”Esimerkiksi sitä, että rinnastetaan tai väitetään toisia rikollisiksi tai pedofiileiksi. Tai puhutaan tietyn ihmisryhmän edustajista vähä-älyisinä, tauteja levittävinä, sairaina, kehityshäiriöisinä, syöpäläisinä, loisina, torakoina, imbesilleinä, sikoina.”
Your wife's translation?:
Toiviainen thinks that section is rather clear. Related to threat is clearly for example physical immunity. Insult in Toiviainen's eyes is "lambastic speech, disparaging words". Aspersion is language whereupon attempts to strip humanity from the group.
"For example that we contrast or claimed others to criminals and paedophiles. Or certain groups members speak about as low intelligent, disease-ridden, sick, mental disorder, cancer, parasites, cockroaches, imbeciles, or as pigs."
Okay, the threat I am fine in theory at least. I don't know what case law is but in theory sure. Maybe I would be colder about it than the current law. But then isn't illegal threat its own article... Well aggravated circumstance. Insult I don't know based upon this what it is. I don't know is translation even correct. But sure bullying is more than just speech so in theory, yes I agree. Again, maybe I would be colder about this. These two aspects I don't think are what Räsänen violated. It is the aspersion that Räsänen violated if any. I have to say yes and no. Psychosexual developmental disorder certainly would be on that list but again Räsänen would just be wrong about the science of homosexuality. Is misunderstanding now illegal if it happens to drop the political volatile matter? I think yes. She doesn't speak like there would be some kind of way Räsänen was speaking that is the problem. Rather it is the idea that is the problem. If ideas are the problem then I have problems. If I say homosexuality is by part explained by genes and psychosexual developmental disorder then I would do wrong thinking? I am pretty damm close. Again free speech is saying that your ideas don't have to be popular hence not correct.
Toiviaisen mukaan laki sallii ”erittäin rajunkin” arvostelun ja keskustelun. Esimerkiksi maahanmuuttoa voi arvostella siitä, että se tuo rikollisuutta. On kuitenkin eri asia väittää, että kaikki maahanmuuttajat ovat rikollisia, tai käyttää vielä rajumpaa kieltä.
Translation isn't official:
According to Toiviainen law allows "rather fierce" critic and dialogue. For example, you can critic immigration for bringing criminality. However, it is a different thing to claim that all immigrants are criminals or use even more fierce language.
This is an interesting idea. I could see that for all quantifiers careless use is annoying and at least in the example, you could say it is a way of speaking that is the problem and not the idea itself. But implement this for Räsänen. There is a problem. How one would say "homosexuality is psychosexual developmental disorder" without having all quantifiers. Well, if this wouldn't be for all then what is the rest? I don't think Räsänen would able to say this other way because that question would be unanswerable in mind of Räsänen. Sometimes you just have to be able to say for all. Also, it isn't just the for all. It is that for all and negative statement. So by saying that all religious people are "delusional" I'm making an unlawful statement even though I don't think I am wrong. I just think it is fact that religion is ignorance of facts of reality but it is a negative statement. So should I say religious are hard lookers of their god then I am not? No, I think I am still doing unlawful things. So again it is the idea, not the way it is said. Then again, if I would say most religions are "delusional" then I'm not using the for all and edge cases are far less a problem. My speculation it would still be an unlawful opinion. But that is just speculation. The article didn't have anything I could base that on. It just there still is negative meaning so high degree that person could find that offensive.
Konteksti on sana, johon Toiviainen palaa toistuvasti haastattelun aikana. Sananvapausrikokset ovat hyvin kontekstisidonnaisia eli asiayhteydestä riippuvaisia.
Muun muassa seuraavilla seikoilla on väliä: onko puhe esitetty tahallisesti, onko puhe tarkoitettu syrjiväksi ja onko puheen esittäjä yhä samaa mieltä siitä, mitä joskus tuli sanottua tai kirjoitettua.
EU translator would do better translation:
Context is a word which Toiviainen returns, again and again, during the interview. Free speech crimes are very context-dependent meaning subject dependent.
Among other things following are circumstances that matter: is the speech made intentionally, is speech meant to discriminatory, and is the speaker still agreement on what was he spoke and wrote back then.
These sound aspects would have more ways of speaking or aggravated circumstance making the statement more than just speech. So do they apply in the case of Räsänen? Well, we know that she still thinks that she is right. Also, the article later talks about case al-Taee which even after he rejects his previous views is under investigation. So no that context wouldn't save Räsänen. I don't think Räsänen has the aim of being discriminatory. I think she is just being stupid because of her religion. Intentionally is a bit weird in the sense that one would think you "always" speak with intentions but I think she is saying that one has malicious intent but where is evidence for it. Maybe I could give her that it is policies job to find that fact out but still. Räsänen writes that there should be shame about being gay. But again in her mind shame would prevent the "crime of homosexuality" so I don't think there is malicious intent. Again there is just intent to be stupid. I have to point out that this is not a full list based upon the quote so maybe the prosecutor general knows something I don't. I know that there is at least one more exemption. Criticism of government in the sentence. I think I can use that context for my examples earlier.
I think that is enough. I don't really disagree with taking up old sentences long as historic preservation is not made hard. I think that would be one of the context exemptions. It is a bit hairy I can agree. I at begin didn't like her line about art being special but now that I think about it may have been the reason some old comedies aren't deleted from the index. People handle facts differently in art. Still, if the court agrees on this I don't have to look back in history to make the option is there free speech in Finland. Anyway, I try to write a non-political post over Christmas. I am getting tired of politics... Even though I almost want to make a celebration post about Rinne coming down and fact that the new prime minister doesn't have a punchable face.