2022 Scottish Local Elections 5th May ** Official Match Thread**

[williemillersmoustache]

It is weird how a certain type of roaster will think that being polite somehow excuses what are demonstrably vile and backward opinions.

3 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Something tells me that if P&B introduced Marquess of Queensberry-type rules for discussions, it wouldn't end well. Pretty poor effort in declining to respond.... 'he was nasty to me, and used a bad word, so ah' m no playin' '.  

It's OK to leap back to the dark ages and directly discriminate on the basis of sexuality if you say please and thank you and put the seat down if you take a slash when at your birds.

[oneteaminglasgow]

Starting to think this c**t actually wrote the SFP manifesto 

[Albus Bulbasaur]

SFP are one of those groups that I have been vaguely aware of but have no interest in, thankfully I've only seen discussion of them on this forum, no candidates in my ward. 

I'm guessing they're heavy religious? 

[Salt n Vinegar]

10 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

That's not quite the sequence of events though, S&V.

I'm literally inviting him to debate, but it must be sensibly.

As long as you are the one defining "sensibly".

It's up to you, of course, who to interact with and on what conditions, but the point stands. The Party's view on adoption is, to me, insulting, homophobic and in light of the number of kids looking for adoption, likely only to increase the plight of the kids waiting for adoption. 

On fertility treatment, the policy is again, to me, homophobic.  Given the depressingly common mistreatment up to and including murder of children by what the Party would regard as a "stable" relationship, I really don't think the Party's view is in any way logical. 

I know long term married couples that I wouldn't trust to have a goldfish, and a same sex couple who I think would be well able to bring up adopted kids in a safe and caring environment and yes, if they wanted, kids resulting from fertility treatment.  You'll note that I'm not generalising. Would all "non-traditional" set ups be suitable? Obviously not. Equally, are all "traditional" ones suitable? Manifestly not. 

 

 

[Salt n Vinegar]

13 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

Starting to think this c**t actually wrote the SFP manifesto 

Where does that come from? Jacob Rees-Mogg's "What would Nanny like" think tank? 

[GNU_Linux]

Starting to think this c**t actually wrote the SFP manifesto 

Getting docked a universal credit payment cause yer shirt was untucked, some timeline.

[welshbairn]

Richard Lucas left UKIP to found the Scottish Family Party because they were too soft on homosexuals.

[Dawson Park Boy]

25 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

Starting to think this c**t actually wrote the SFP manifesto 

Can’t see much to disagree with in that.

Seems eminently sensible.

[Duries Air Freshener]

19 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

As long as you are the one defining "sensibly".

It's up to you, of course, who to interact with and on what conditions, but the point stands. The Party's view on adoption is, to me, insulting, homophobic and in light of the number of kids looking for adoption, likely only to increase the plight of the kids waiting for adoption. 

On fertility treatment, the policy is again, to me, homophobic.  Given the depressingly common mistreatment up to and including murder of children by what the Party would regard as a "stable" relationship, I really don't think the Party's view is in any way logical. 

I know long term married couples that I wouldn't trust to have a goldfish, and a same sex couple who I think would be well able to bring up adopted kids in a safe and caring environment and yes, if they wanted, kids resulting from fertility treatment.  You'll note that I'm not generalising. Would all "non-traditional" set ups be suitable? Obviously not. Equally, are all "traditional" ones suitable? Manifestly not. 

 

 

If their adoption stance is stats based then I’d see it as logical, as opposed to being driven by a phobia.  For me, the children are the most important here, not the adoptive couple or person.

I’d apply the above to their fertility policy too.

I agree with your last paragraph though, and also know of all sorts different types of relationships that seem to be caring and work well, on the face of it anyway.

Anecdotal evidence is all well, but if the stats showed something to the contrary then I’d be more inclined to go with that.

[Salt n Vinegar]

18 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

If their adoption stance is stats based then I’d see it as logical, as opposed to being driven by a phobia.  For me, the children are the most important here, not the adoptive couple or person.

I’d apply the above to their fertility policy too.

I agree with your last paragraph though, and also know of all sorts different types of relationships that seem to be caring and work well, on the face of it anyway.

Anecdotal evidence is all well, but if the stats showed something to the contrary then I’d be more inclined to go with that.

My reading of the policy statement is that it is precisely based on a 'phobia' . If you give "preference" - the word used in the statement - to husband and wife married couples, you are directly discriminating against those not fitting that definition.  Seems to me that the burden of proof (of likelihood of harm to children) would fall on those discriminating against certain types of relationships. 

[sophia]

27 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Richard Lucas left UKIP to found the Scottish Family Party because they were too soft on homosexuals.

I don't mind them as long as they don't shove it down my throat.

[Duries Air Freshener]

2 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

My reading of the policy statement is that it is precisely based on a 'phobia' . If you give "preference" - the word used in the statement - to husband and wife married couples, you are directly discriminating against those not fitting that definition.  Seems to me that the burden of proof (of likelihood of harm to children) would fall on those discriminating against certain types of relationships. 

I can't see anything about a phobia on it, but perhaps the whole attachment hasn't shown up for me?

I don't think it's discrimination, but what they deem best for the children.

If they have stats, or even sound argument, to back up their assertion that one man one woman in a marriage is best for children, then I have no problem with that being policy.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Looks like the hyperactive banned troll has this time returned as two personas: the “I’m really reasonable, honestly, just looking for discussion” one, which is supposed to look more reasonable next to the “I’m a right-wing screwball - look what I’m endorsing and how edgy I am” one. Both the same tiresome schtick, of course, and neither one worth directly interacting with. The only good thing is he can’t flood the boards as one when he’s dividing his efforts between two.

Noticed this as well - except he sometimes forgets which one he is.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Yet another shit Stormzy alias being thoroughly rinsed. Truly a pathetic dribbling puddle drinker

FTFY

[Salt n Vinegar]

20 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

I can't see anything about a phobia on it, but perhaps the whole attachment hasn't shown up for me?

I don't think it's discrimination, but what they deem best for the children.

If they have stats, or even sound argument, to back up their assertion that one man one woman in a marriage is best for children, then I have no problem with that being policy.

If.... 

I suspect that if that was the general view of practitioners in the field, we'd have heard about it as an issue of national concern. I might have missed it. 

As it stands, it is of no more force than "me and my mates think it", so I'll leave it there. 

 

[Duries Air Freshener]

10 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

If.... 

I suspect that if that was the general view of practitioners in the field, we'd have heard about it as an issue of national concern. I might have missed it. 

As it stands, it is of no more force than "me and my mates think it", so I'll leave it there. 

 

I suppose the best thing would be for people to ask the SFP why they think the way they do.

The phobia theory seems to be unsupported by evidence.

There's certainly evidence of a mum and dad being better than a single mum, but I can't see much about same sex couples.  Maybe it's not been around long enough.

Practitioners in the field have their jobs to think about..

Edited April 22, 2022 by Duries Air Freshener

[scottsdad]

5 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

I suppose the best thing would be for people to ask the SFP why they think the way they do.

The phobia theory seems to be unsupported by evidence.

There's certainly evidence of a mum and dad being better than a single mum, but I can't see much about same sex couples.  Maybe it's not been around long enough.

Practitioners in the field have their jobs to think about..

Go on, then. Provide it. 

[Duries Air Freshener]

4 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

Go on, then. Provide it. 

Here ya go buddy

43 Fatherhood Statistics Trends & Analysis - Parents Plus Kids

A Father's Impact on Child Development | Child Abuse Prevention, Treatment & Welfare Services | Children's Bureau (all4kids.org)

The Importance of Fathers in the Healthy Development of Children (childwelfare.gov)

Plenty more if you run a quick google search.  This isn't controversial.

[scottsdad]

2 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

Here ya go buddy

43 Fatherhood Statistics Trends & Analysis - Parents Plus Kids

A Father's Impact on Child Development | Child Abuse Prevention, Treatment & Welfare Services | Children's Bureau (all4kids.org)

The Importance of Fathers in the Healthy Development of Children (childwelfare.gov)

Plenty more if you run a quick google search.  This isn't controversial.

I guess we see evidence differently. These are all American. Two are websites with uncited statistics, or cited from dodgy sources. One is a report from the Bush administration from authors who promote Christian fathers, so have an agenda. 

All in all - no unbiased research here. Nothing peer-reviewed. 

But even so, the case that single people make poorer parents than couples is just a bit wild. I know people who grew up with both parents and had horrendous childhoods; and some who grew up with one and had a great one. And to take that further to say that single folk should be excluded or second choice in fostering, fertility or adoption decisions is just wild. 

 

[Highland Capital]

1 hour ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

SFP are one of those groups that I have been vaguely aware of but have no interest in, thankfully I've only seen discussion of them on this forum, no candidates in my ward. 

I'm guessing they're heavy religious? 

They seem to be a rebranding/takeover of the Scottish Christians or at least taken their policies but dropping the outright religious stuff to be more universally appealing.  They only seem to be really operating properly in the Highlands like the Christians did before them and the sudden appearance of this party and the sudden disappearance of the Christians seem to be too much of a coincidence.