Discussion:
Why gay marriage has been so successful in Scandinavia
(too old to reply)
shegeek72
2006-06-22 03:18:32 UTC
Permalink
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/document_print.asp?id=1443

Since 1989, gay marriage has been a reality in Scandinavia. And in
Scandinavia, just as is happening now in the U.S., many members of the
religious right predicted 'terrible consequences' for the institution
of marriage, and for society in general, as a result.

Yet now, 15 years after the first of these countries (Denmark)
legalized gay marriage in the form of registered partnerships, the
results are in: not only has gay marriage worked flawlessly in
Scandinavia, the institution of marriage may have benefited as a
result. Indeed, we now see that the main "consequences" of allowing
gays and lesbians to marry have been to create safety and security for
same-sex couples who have chosen to live their lives together.

Of course, the fact that gay marriage has been a positive force in
Scandinavian society, and has been accepted by the public at large, is
something that the right-wing in the U.S. doesn't want to hear, and
refuses to believe. In a recent article in the Weekly Standard,
right-wing academic Stanley Kurtz, associated with the conservative
Hoover Institution, attempts to make the argument that gay marriage in
Scandinavia has had a negative impact on marriage and a negative social
impact in general.

It borders on the ironic that Kurtz should choose to attack the social
culture of the Scandinavian countries, which have the lowest poverty
rates in the world, the highest education rates, and a greater level of
equality for women than any other set of countries. Yet the fact that
gay marriage in Scandinavia has been integrated and accepted into their
cultures without a hitch has created a great deal of fear among members
of the right in the U.S., who worry, with good reason, that such
positive results will cast doubt upon their claims that allowing gays
and lesbians to marry in this country will have a negative impact on
the "sanctity of marriage".

[...]

It is interesting to note that, in Scandinavia, just as in the U.S.,
those on the right predicted that passage of gay marriage legislation
would lead to the downfall of the institution of marriage. However, in
looking at statistics from the 1990s, we see that in the years after
the passage of gay marriage legislation in Denmark, the rates of
heterosexual marriage went up, and the rates of heterosexual divorce
went down, completely contrary to the predictions of conservatives.

Tara
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem
B.G. Kent
2006-06-23 03:42:58 UTC
Permalink
We've had it here for a short while. Despite Harper's attempt at opening
up the debate and vote...it will not change... I totally believe that.

Adults should be able to marry the consenting adult of their choice I
believe. Those against it are only using "society" and "religion" to mask
their own prejudices as far as I am concerned.

There is no harm. There is no coercion.....there is only love.

May it be ever so.

Blessings
Bren from Canada
a***@gmail.com
2006-06-23 03:42:58 UTC
Permalink
It occurs to me that often people are hypocritical about why they
oppose gay marriage.Opposing gay marriage isn't really about protecting
the sanctity of marriage. If people were serious about protecting the
sanctity of marriage they should ban the Fox network or keep people
like Britany Spears from getting married (I mean the first time, not
the second).

But one tangible and non-trivial consequence of legal recognition of
gay marriage is that insurance companies would quickly have to extend
coverage to a lot more people. And it makes me wonder if right-wing
opposition to gay marriage is related to that fact. And
correspondingly, I wonder if the willingness to allow gay marriage in
certain parts of the world is related to the fact that Scandanavia and
other places have a national health care system.

Justa thought.

Abdul-Halim
www.planetgrenada.blogspot.com


----

[I know a number of evangelicals. Few of have any interest in
insurance companies. Many of them, however, believe that homosexuality
is contrary to Scripture.

Ad hominem arguments are not appropriate in this group.

--clh]
shegeek72
2006-06-26 02:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
[I know a number of evangelicals. Few of have any interest in
insurance companies. Many of them, however, believe that homosexuality
is contrary to Scripture.
The operative word here is "believe," as in faith. All faiths are
belief systems, which in and of itself isn't a bad thing until it comes
to the point of believing that a collection of writings is
"infallible," even though they were written, translated, edited and
transcribed by fallible human beings, then imposing that belief system
on others who do not believe as such, as in laws against same-sex
marriage.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Ad hominem arguments are not appropriate in this group.
I don't see where the poster made an ad hominem remark, he merely made
a valid analogy.

Tara
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem

----

[Ad hominem is an argument that does not engage the substance of someone's
view, but instead attributes it to unworthy motives.

The posting attacked the motives of those who oppose (and favor, for
that matter) gay marriage, suggesting that their opposition is not due
to the stated reasons, but is because it would increase insurance
costs.

--clh]
Matthew Johnson
2006-06-26 02:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
It occurs to me that often people are hypocritical about why they
oppose gay marriage.
True, but beware of being too sweeping in this accusation. Many of those who
appear to be hypocritical are just speaking somewhat irrationally in their very
great and understandable frustration.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Opposing gay marriage isn't really about protecting
the sanctity of marriage.
But perhaps the problem here is really on the inaccuracy of the slogan,
"protecting the sanctity of marriage". Slogans generally are inaccurate,
becausew they have to be short and memorable. More accurate would be, "last
ditch effort to slow down the tragic and extreme degradation of marriage that
has been going on for far too long already, and can only become even more
intolerable if so-called 'gay marriage' is allowed to be fraudulently called
'marriage'".

But that is WAY too cumbersome for a slogan.
Post by a***@gmail.com
If people were serious about protecting the
sanctity of marriage they should ban the Fox network
Now _there's_ an idea I like!
Post by a***@gmail.com
or keep people like Britany Spears
That's not how she mis-spells her name;)
Post by a***@gmail.com
from getting married (I mean the first time, not
the second).
But one tangible and non-trivial consequence of legal recognition of
gay marriage is that insurance companies would quickly have to extend
coverage to a lot more people. And it makes me wonder if right-wing
opposition to gay marriage is related to that fact.
But why so one-sided? Why aren't you wondering instead if that is the real
reason the _proponents_ of so-called 'gay marriage' are pushing for it? They
want the money that normally goes only to real spouses.

[snip]
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2006-06-26 02:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by B.G. Kent
We've had it here for a short while. Despite Harper's attempt at opening
up the debate and vote...it will not change... I totally believe that.
Adults should be able to marry the consenting adult of their choice I
believe.
Well, at least this time you remembered to include the cautionary "I believe".
But this is still side-stepping the issue: WHY do you believe they should?
Post by B.G. Kent
Those against it are only using "society" and "religion" to mask
their own prejudices as far as I am concerned.
But here is your error: it is not 'prejucide' to insist that just as it has
ALWAYS been in human history, 'marriage' can exist only between a man and a
woman.
Post by B.G. Kent
There is no harm. There is no coercion.....there is only love.
No, there is no 'love' there. There is only a tragic _counterfeit_ of love. And
it is all the more tragic that proponents of this travesty fool themselves and
others into accepting the counterfeit for the genuine article.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
B.G. Kent
2006-06-26 02:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
It occurs to me that often people are hypocritical about why they
oppose gay marriage.Opposing gay marriage isn't really about protecting
the sanctity of marriage. If people were serious about protecting the
...
Post by a***@gmail.com
But one tangible and non-trivial consequence of legal recognition of
gay marriage is that insurance companies would quickly have to extend
coverage to a lot more people. And it makes me wonder if right-wing
opposition to gay marriage is related to that fact. And
correspondingly, I wonder if the willingness to allow gay marriage in
certain parts of the world is related to the fact that Scandanavia and
other places have a national health care system.
B - That's something to think about. Personally I would suggest that the
more Socialized a country is (NOT COMMUNISM !) the more they care about
equality and kindness. We also have a national health care system in
Canada.
In North America it seems that the more right wing you are....the more you
delve into Fundamentalism and other very right-wing groups.


I.M.O
Bren
a***@gmail.com
2006-06-26 02:48:44 UTC
Permalink
***@gmail.com wrote:
Opposing gay marriage isn't really about protecting
Post by a***@gmail.com
the sanctity of marriage. If people were serious about protecting the
sanctity of marriage they should ban the Fox network or keep people
like Britany Spears from getting married (I mean the first time, not
the second).
[I know a number of evangelicals. Few of have any interest in
insurance companies. Many of them, however, believe that homosexuality
is contrary to Scripture.
I agree with you, but I would consider "homosexuality is contrary to
scripture" is different from "protecting the sanctity of marriage". If
Bob and Steve get married it doesn't really affect the sanctity of
Emily and Joe's relationship. Also, I would think that the "point" is
also that the homosexual acts are wrong in the first place, regardless
of whether the couple is "married" or not.

Gay marriage puts "salt" in the wound because homosexuals would be
gaining some measure of approval and saction for gay sex.
Burkladies
2006-06-27 00:31:10 UTC
Permalink
My kid will not know prejudice toward gay marriage. Im proud to say
the annointed one had nothing to say against gays & lesbians. Jesus
did not require procreation in marriage as Jehova does. Men with many
wives or mistresses need to repent their unchastity.
Noone can quote Christ with their homophobia. Matthew 19:6 (American
Standard Version) When asked about divorce by a pharasee Jesus
responded..."6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Gay
marriage also.
1 Peter 3:7 7 Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell with your wives
according to knowledge, giving honor unto the woman, as unto the weaker
vessel, as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life; to the end that
your prayers be not hindered.
Preachers confuse what love is in three forms with their own sins.
Many evangelicals are that way as well as the pope with his catacism.

peace in Christ
Post by a***@gmail.com
It occurs to me that often people are hypocritical about why they
oppose gay marriage.Opposing gay marriage isn't really about protecting
the sanctity of marriage. If people were serious about protecting the
Loading...