HEREBY PUBLICLY DEFYING THE FAMILY: NOW BLOODY SUE ME!!!

Could anybody please, please tell me how I can publicly DEFY the family as "moral value." Because if I find out how to do that, I really would like to.

"Publically" is easy enough to interpret: I can stand on a street corner with a poster, or maybe a public blog post is more than enough? But what is it exactly to "defy the family"? Should I say that "the family" is a really shitty idea, or is it enough to say that the "old" concept of mother/father/children is outdated as the "only" concept of family. Tell me, because I really would like to know!

And then I would like the Lithuanian state to sue me!!

Family - such a beautiful thing..

The admirable MP Petras Gražulis, one of the most disgusting persons ever to set foot in a parliament, has proposed an amendment to the Lithuanian Code of Administrative Violations:

"In the revised amendment it is suggested to foresee administrative responsibility for public defiance of Constitution established family values by carrying out public speeches, demonstrating goods, posters, slogans, audiovisual means and other kind of actions.
The amendment foresees that such kind of actions will result in a fine from 1,000 up to 3,000 litas (290 – 870 euros). The repeated offense would result in a fine from 3,000 up to 6,000 litas (870 – 1,740 euros)."  (Source: lithuaniatribune.com).

Again according to lithuaniatribune.com:

"The Seimas Committee on State Administration and Local Authorities approves that it would be possible to punish for public defiance of family."

Which means - whether the draft amendment will be law or not is one thing, but it is a suggestion that is within the legal framework of the Lithuanian state.

Just the thought that such an idea could become law is not only idiotic, it is completely sickening. The idea is that the state should define what is "moral", and that any defiance of the state defined "morality" is illegal. How this could be combined with freedom of speech is beyond my understanding, and it is scary to think what a slippery slope this is:

If the state is to define moral, and opposition to moral is illegal, there is no saying where this could possibly end. It bears resemblance to Russia, where a law prohibiting "gay propaganda directed towards children" often is interpreted so widely that holding hands for a gay couple could be seen as a criminal offence. Even worse, it creates a public atmosphere where the public is "taught" to see certain groups as criminals - and the public will do the punishment so the state will not have to.

It bears resemblance to what is happening in Ukraine, where utterances defaming politicians are now illegal. Yes, it does bear resemblance, because this political censorship is also often disguised as "protecting the state moral".

For a state to define what is moral, and then to persecute those that oppose this moral, is an important sted towards a totalitarian system. Uncountable state crimes have been committed under the pretext of "moral," in nazi-Germany, in the Soviet Union.. And as a rule, the "moral" has always been turned against weaker social groups!

This is what it is about here also! It started as a moral crusade against homosexuals and gays, with futile, scandalous and half-violent attempts of stopping the gay parade in Vilnius. It has continued with attempts of creating laws similar to the ones in Russia, and it continues with this.

So, what about the family??

I really would like to defy the family from the roof-tops, just to piss Gražulis off. The problem is - I don't completely know how. I do not have bad family experiences, and I do strongly believe in the family as an important social nucleus. But the traditional family can also be a bad place, a dangerous place, a place where children get hurt, where they are given traumas that will follow them through a life time, where they are neglected, where they are brought up with values they should never have had.

FAMILIES - "NORMAL", TRADITIONAL FAMILIES CAN SUCK LIKE HELL!
(Now, did I defy them properly)

The idea that as long as you only stick to the traditional, heterosexual family you are morally safe, is as dumb as it gets. What children need is a small, tight network of people around them who love them, who understand them, who support them! Am I for gay adoption?  Yes, I most definitely am!! We are talking about people who are willing to take care of a child, to love a child, to protect a child as their own. Why cannot this be defined as a family? How on earth is it possible to think that a child is better off without ANY family than being adopted by a gay couple is beyond my understanding.

Yes, families are important! If the Lithuanian politicians - and society - would fight to support "normal" heterosexual families, families with gay parents, single-parent families - anyone that would act with the love and care of a family, THEN I would understand and support it.

If I claim that single `men or women and gay couples can be just as good parents and family foundations as a heterosexual-parent-couple, am I then defying the family? Would claiming this make me "eligible"  for criminal prosecution?

What is going on here is moral, it is as UN-MORAL as it can possibly become. Under the pretext of moral, children are taught to see "different" people as unnatural, as un-normal and as un-moral. Children are taught that it is ok to stand on the side and shout derogative slogans at homosexuals and other "different" groups. And people who do this dare to come to the parliament with draft amendments about "moral"?

Nothing can possibly be more un-moral than this. Nothing can be more false than using the word "moral" to hurt others.

Petras Gražulis himself should be more a person to laugh at, was it not for a couple of things:

There seems to be a considerable sympathy for him in certain segments of the population. The dream of a "morally clean" nation is simply too tempting to withstand, and there are certain segments of the Lithuanian society that are blatantly intolerant. It is an important "defence line" for many countries - big as well as small - that face social problems and social insecurities: The combination of consolidating around the "national morale" and at the same time choosing social minorities as enemies.

But even worse: Before one of the gay parades in Vilnius, I had a long discussion with some young friends - intelligent, highly educated. When I asked them if they supported the idea that the parade should be banned, they said YES: Because the parade was not necessary.

THIS is more dangerous than anything else: People - and there are surprisingly many of them also among the young generation - that are willing to turn and look away when someone else gets hurt, who do not understand that the best protection of democracy is fighting desperately for the rights of people that you do not necessarily agree with.. And the  thought that peoples rights can be taken away just because they - or their actions - are unnecessary is one of the most scary thoughts one could imagine.