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.

Kuvahaun tulos haulle aito avioliitto mielenosoitus

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.


A new Finnish parliamentary representative of The Finns Party (formerly known aslo as The True Finns Party) Laura Huhtasaari has come out as a creationist. It remains to be seen how this affects her political career, but I did not know people in Finland could be this ignorant. I am not only referring to her, because a single idiot, religious extremist, or other tin foil hattery are not so rare anywhere. Rather I refer to the voters. Granted she did not campaign on this subject, but over 9000 people voted for her. Were they ignorant of her ignorance, or only concerned about the issues she capaigned with, wich were basicly education, keeping the roads in her voting district in good condition and getting more severe punishments to the sexual offenders?

It is surprizing, to say the least, that such a person with these very limited skills in evaluating reality is actually a professional teacher. How did she pass the university? It would be ridiculous, if we were not talking about such a serious matter. Her being a teacher of course explains why she lists education as an important issue. I wonder how she, or more importantly her voters now feel about her, when she has exposed herself to have such a limited understanding on science, and as the government part of wich her party is, has been cutting with a heavy hand from the funding of education, wich pretty much equals to pissing in your pants when it is sub zero. It might save you some money now and make you feel less cold for a second or two, but quite soon you are going to feel the sting of the cold. Especially this is so to a small nation like Finland, that has no other natural resources, than the high rate of education of it’s citizens.

She has since defended her views on evolution, though she first claimed not to comment the subject any further, no doubt in the fear that she actually could not defend such a ridiculous position. However, now as this made some headway in publicity, she made the effort to say, that even if she was not a Christian, she would find it hard to believe, that a man and an ape share common ancestry and that even science grows through doubt. Indeed, it does. Yet, the way she has expressed her reasons not to believe in evolution demonstrate how poorly she has understood the arguments for evolution. She has not put up a single scientific reason why evolution might not be true. She is simply referring to the small number of early human fossils, as if that had anything to do with the theory of evolution in grand scale not to be true. Why is it, that the creationists have so hard time to understand, that the evolution is not something that exists just for the human being to appear? That we are just one more by-product among so many others. Is it because their religious values set humans at the center of “creation” that they have developed this andropocentric and egocentric view?

It shocks me how such a person who has this bad skills in evaluating reality might be there to decide over national issues. This is not the only field where she has shown total and utter lack of understanding and knowledge. She has also claimed that the Roman empire fell because of decay of moral values. Famous pagan writers Cato and Tacitus who lived centuries before the fall might have agreed with her. Is she perhaps referring to the fact that the Roman empire had adopted Christianty as the sole religion just prior to it’s fall? Of course not, she is a devout Christian herself.

Laura Huhtasaari has also suggested brilliantly, that Finland should house the Finnish prisoners in Estonia. Apparently she thought this might be more economic, than to house them here. How shipping prisoners to across the sea would save any money and what the Estonians might think about this quite original suggestion had not crossed her mind before she went public with it.

This bright new political talent has lived in the US and clearly she has absorbed quite a lot from the political and religious life there. Sadly, it seems, only from the stupid end. It did not take long for the Finnish media to name her the Sarah Palin of the Satakunta  Рthe area from wich she was elected from. (Just for curiosity sake, Satakunta is an ancient name referring to the stora hundare Рa hundred and twenty, or so, men of the voluntary leidang fleet of the early Swedish kings). This was not so much in admiration as it was about Sarah Palin seen as a symbol of political right wing stupidity and ignorance.

I guess, this goes to show that not all evolution, is for the better. It is the survival of the “fittest”, not the best. Even in social and cultural respect of the word and not only in biological. She is clearly not the best choise for a parliamentary representative, but I guess she fitted well to her voters…