A gender neutral marriage law was recently affirmed in the Finnish parliament. This aroused some attention and controversy. There were arguments for and against it being presented. They were much the same as in this issue around the globe where ever it has become into focus. I do not even try to repeat them all here. There are a couple of concerns I would like to address about this discussion.
“Born this way.” The question wether, or not, homosexuality is a trait a person has from birth is not and should not be brought up in the entire discussion about marriage. It is totally irrelevant. Even the question, if someone chooses, or not, to be a homosexual is irrelevant to the question of marriage. We do not really know, if people are genetically caused to be homosexuals or wether it is a trait that developes onto the person. We do know that a lot of homosexuals would choose not to be homosexuals, if they possibly could. The reason to that is, that the society around them has trouble accepting them as they are and in respect to that some of them even learn to have similar cultural reasons of having trouble of accepting themselves as they are.
The real question is not what causes homosexuality, but wether we have any actually rational and sane reasons to think it is wrong on any level. We do not. The “reasons” presented to make the claim, that there is something wrong about homosexuality are presented as follows and often the path from one claim to a nother are presented on this line of thought:
Is it a sin? Now, sin is something determined to be some sort of violation of the will of some particular gods. Freedom of religion however dictates necessarily for a peacefull and mutually respectfull society to exist, that the beliefs about the divinities, or the supernatural in general, may not decide legal processes, or be used to step on the rights of a nother individual. Not even within a religious group that has accepted one doctrine or a nother. That is, even if the Catholic church and all the victims of rape by Catholic priests thought it was not really a crime, by the secular mutual standards of the modern soceity, they still are and should be treated as such. Therefore even if the majority of religions in any given country thought, that eating shellfish or being homosexual was a sin, they could not ethically make it illegal based on that imaginary guess on what their god supposedly thought was a sin.
Because the entire issue of marriage equality has been raised mostly in secular countries (and not in the Vatican or Iran), the question wether it is a sin is irrelevant. In modern democracies religions are a private matter and sin is something you discuss privately with your particular god, if you wish, who then redeems you from it, or judges you from it. Or you do not bring this or any other subjects to your god, if you even have one in the first place. This is why the people whose dislike of something like homosexuality often is derived from religious prejudices, often move to the camp of inventing seemingly secular “reasons” to justify their feelings about the issue.
Is it unnatural? There are people who try to frame sexuality into this tight box of reproduction. They have the right to do so in the privacy of their own homes, but not force the idea on others. No doubt that this line of argumentation appeals to all sorts of simpletons, as it seems simple. However, human sexuality is far from simple. I could discuss how a lot of animal species have homosexual behaviour, but from experience I know that this tends to lead down the rabbit hole of humans not being animals. Wich strangely often leads us back to the idea of sin. No, humans are not the same animals as those other animals that also engage in homosexual behaviour. That is there just to show you, that it is natural in the sense that it happens in the nature. But wether or not any animals engaged in homosexual behaviour does not in any way address wether it is right or wrong. Animals do not drive cars, but we do not try to ban driving a car because we see it as unnatural. Sex is as much just a form of reproduction and should be as much limited to that, as human transportation is all about walking and should be limited to walking. If you do not want to run or ride a bike, fine then don’t. But do not try to make running illegal. OK?
Gods are by definition unnatural. They are not part of nature, if they even exist beyond our natural brains. Should we ban gods because they are unnatural? Everything that happens in nature is natural. Salt is natural. Polio is natural. Homosexuality is natural. The only relevant question about homosexuality regarding laws is wether it is harmfull or not and if then to what extent. The entire question wether it is unnatural is ridiculous.
Is it harmfull? People see a lot of harm done to the homosexuals by people who feel justified in disliking, or even hating them for the “reasons” they give, that I listed abowe. There are also people who have been harmed by homosexuals. This works much the same way as with racism. When people are harmed by the representative of this, or that group of people, they make the connection between the group and the deed. Despite wether or not the group identity, or what ever makes the purpetrator of the harm part of that group – even skin colour, or sexual orientation – was actually the motive for the deed. If a homosexual rapes a child, it is not the homosexuality that caused the deed. Any more than, if a white man shoots a black man, him being white was his motive for the act. The rape of a child is the result of the rapist being a) rapist and b) pedophile not being homosexual. If the rapist was not a homosexual, he would simply have chosen his target differently. The white man shooting the black man may have been motivated by any number of reasons from theft to racism. But even if it was racism, the motive was not him being white.
As for the marriage equality, there have been a number of more, or less comic attempts to stop the change, that has now finally taken place. There is this notion, that a family unit ideally consists of a father, a mother and some children. The idea has been, that the reason why the society recognizes a marriage as a special status between two people is because they are able to reproduce and should be given social support to be better able to do this. It is a ridiculous notion, in that even if that could be proven to be some form of ideal family unit, it does not mean all families need to reach such an ideal. Especially not those families who do not find the arrangement ideal in any way. By the same token, people who can not have children should not be allowed to get married and old people whose children have grown to adulthood should divorce.
There is this claim, that there is some sort of harm done to adopted children in same sex marriages. This claim has not been confirmed in any scientific arena. But even if it could ever be proven that the children have it better in a heterosexual family than in a same sex family, that would be a moot point. It is like saying that since the rich families can better nourish the needs of their kids, than the poor ones we should ban the poor people from getting married, and/or from having children.
The picture abowe is from a “Genuine Marriage” demonstration at 24. september 2016 , that gathered almost a hundred demonstrators (wich is pretty few even in Finnish terms) in Helsinki to protest against the gender neutral marriage law. It seems they had more balloons than demonstrators.
Last but not least the most stupid argument against the gender neutral marriage must be the slippery slope argument. Wich is that if this is allowed, what next? Shall we allow polygamy, marriages with children and marriages with house pets? It shows the level of stupid from the political side that opposed the gender neutral marriage, that they themselves did not laugh at the representative who presented this ridiculous argument. Was it not the same as arguing that if we allow people to drive cars, we may have to allow people to drive tanks next? If you do not understand the difference between two consenting adults havign sex and sex with a child or an animal, never get any children or pets. As for the polygamy, where in any holy books ever does it even hint that, that was a sin? It is a separate discussion we may have in the future, but it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the gender neutral marriage law.
April 5, 2017 at 8:48 pm
The question wether, or not, homosexuality is a trait a person has from birth is not and should not be brought up in the entire discussion about marriage. It is totally irrelevant. Even the question, if someone chooses, or not, to be a homosexual is irrelevant to the question of marriage.
That’s it. That’s all that needs to be said on the matter.
Not sure what happened inside your parliament, but I’m reminded of this gem that happened in New Zealand after they passed a similar law
April 6, 2017 at 6:18 am
That was one of several good speeches from both the government and opposition benches during the third reading of the bill. Here’s the reaction after the bill was passed.
April 6, 2017 at 7:25 am
Thanks Barry, that is a moving moment. We Finns were only some 9 years behind you at Aotearoa/New Zealand and second in the world to give women the right to vote, now we once again drag behind on this human rights issue, but we are getting there anyway.
What are they singing?
April 6, 2017 at 10:42 am
It’s a love song composed around the time of the First World War. It’ so revered by Kiwis that it’s often referred to as our unofficial national anthem. So it was quite appropriate in the context of the passing of the marriage amendment bill. Here’s a version with English subtitles:
April 6, 2017 at 9:33 am
Now that’s great.
April 6, 2017 at 9:33 am
But Australia still invented the pavolova 😉
April 6, 2017 at 10:23 am
Just when I was getting to like you…
April 6, 2017 at 11:26 am
And don’t get me started on that great Australian, Phar Lap…
April 6, 2017 at 12:16 pm
April 6, 2017 at 7:22 am
Thank you John, that was a remarkable speech.
In our parliament we had a sort of referendum from the people. According to a few years old law here, if people can get 50 000 signatures for a cause and a bill, then the parliament has to discuss it and make a descision. Both the bill to pass and a referendum against it got that amount of signatures, so our parliament was forced to discuss the issue twice, exept that it did not. The parliament was so adamant in their acceptance of the bill that they decided, that they had already had the discussion and only voted for it the second time when the appeal to stop the bill from becoming a law came to the vote. I guess they were right. Not much new information had appeared between the two votes. In the original vote there were 105 for the bill, 92 against and two were missing from the vote. It is shamefull for us, that it passed with such a narrow margin. In the second vote against the bill just few months later the scales were at 120 for the bill and only 48 to stop it. All the socialists and the greens voted for the bill. Most of our official conservatives were divided (based on their conscience, or something) and against were the miniscule Christian Democrats and the abominable “immigration critical” populist True Finns Party.
April 6, 2017 at 9:30 am
A positive step, regardless of the margin. Now to the BIG challenge… producing good artificial (lab-grown) meat so we can end the live meat trade.
April 5, 2017 at 11:13 pm
Basically, what is all the fuss about? It shows how resistant to change humans are – all sorts of invented ‘concerns’ that reveal we don’t think it through, just try to rationalise a gut reaction to change.
April 6, 2017 at 7:33 am
Indeed. But it is somewhat hidious, when it is about the lives of other people. Especially so, when people are carefully explained what it is all about, all the known facts are laid down, and even then people still go against the rights of others, to the extent of inventing the most childish and ridiculous excuses.
I think there is this problem, that people who have never really learned the basic skills for critical thinking are all to easily led away from our shared ability for empathy, as mammals that we are, by appeals to fear. A nother reason behind this phenomenon seems to be equally connected to the lack of critical thinking skills, and it is that the people who have a poor mechanism to recognize reality from fancy stories, do tend to tie their identity to what ever was their first impression about anything. Once they have done that, any challenge to their world view is seen as an attack on their identity and persona. Nobody wants to give up their persona, so they defend their views with tooth and nail, no matter the facts, wich they have hard time to recognize in the first place, because the lack of basic critical thinking skills. What do you think?
May 2, 2017 at 6:10 pm
[…] Suggested further reading: Heartbreaking story of a gay in Christian upbringing LGBT discussion Homosexuality and marriage equality […]