23 October, 2009

Sweden likes equality

The Lutheran Church of Sweden approved same sex weddings yesterday. The government legalized it last May. Yay, Sweden!

DC recognizes same sex marriages from other states, and is hopefully not far from performing them in the District. Wish we could say the same of about 40 other state governments...


  1. Wow, what a hot topic. Why do you think this a good thing? Is marriage just a law or an arbitrary set of conventions? Is "family" arbitrary? What do we gain or lose by changing the law? Are you saying that it is alright then for one to force or legislate morality on others? Because on either side of this issue that's what it would be. Lawmaking is almost always legislation of morality. The question is, which set of morals matches nature (i.e. reality)? For example, slavery and civil rights are often sited in support of gay "marriage" because slavery is unnatural, it impinges on intrinsic human dignity (and where does that innate dignity come from?). What is the support for changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex partners? I actually would like to know. If I am wrong to disagree with the concept that the definition of marriage should be changed, on what grounds are we basing that morality? Who's to say? Should morality be guided by the concept of "as long as it doesn't hurt anybody (to the best of our definition of hurt)"?

  2. To my view the laws against gay marriage are like the miscegenation laws. Check out the link in the post. And we're not really trying to debate the issue, so I'll send you some more links if I find them.

  3. Nah, not trying to debate it with this post, just acknowledge Sweden's open-minded politics. News of the day, I guess.

    I personally think one should be able to marry anyone they want (as in human, let's not get into wanting to marry your pet goat, or whatever.) So male, female, old, young, any race or culture. As long as they are old enough to make a reasonably mature decision.
    Even more divisive, maybe, is that I think one should be able to marry a *family member* if they want. Not that I ever would or really even understand one wanting to actually marry their cousin, and too close a family connection might lead to the royal crazies, but you know what I mean. Don't tell me who I can or cannot marry, basically.

    As far as arguments for legally recognizing gay marriage, think about the relationship you have with your wife. If she gets sick or there is an emergency, *you*, as her chosen life partner and the person who knows her best, legally have the duty to make decisions on her behalf. Switch it, so now you are a homosexual couple. If your wife were a man (or you were a woman!) *you* as her chosen life partner and the person who knows her best, DO NOT have the legal ability in the US to care for her in her best interests. If you have a house, a family or pets together, your rights as a spouse are not recognized by the state, and if your partner were to pass away, you would not only lose the love of your life, but you could have your house or family taken away from you. Family is family, it doesn't become arbitrary because of a change in the law. Its not just an issue of agreeing with homosexuality...its an issue of human beings getting the same treatment under the law regardless of their sexual orientation.

    As far as a moral issue, I think morals are taken in to account in law-making, but because of the legislated separation of church and state, the morality isn't always that of a King James' brand.

    I have no idea what this guy's creds are, but I very much like his points on the gay marriage debate and his bibliography at the end: http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

    It might be an interesting read. Check it out, think about it, and blog about it on your Truth Seekers blog. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts after having considered both sides objectively. You can still disagree ;)

  4. Yeah, I am not much for debates anyway, and I think a blog post of my own might be what's coming of my recent searching and talks with others regarding this issue. I really do appreciate your bringing it up and answering me so well. I'm gunna have to munch on Stu's comment more because my answer got too long (so a future blog post no doubt). I have been able to duck this issue most of the time, since I live in Korea, though it seems clear to a westerner that this issue is "coming soon" in a big way here. Gays are still fighting for tolerance here, something that has been won for some time in North America and perhaps Europe. No one's "in their bedroom" or stopping them from having a life long, committed relationship. The having one's house taken from them is a bit extraordinary. It's the first I've heard of that, but the hospital situation (I've heard) can be solved by signing powers of attorney or a will. I don't think marriage is necessary for that so it seems a bit off topic.

    The topic and main hope for advocates of legal same-sex unions (not that they're illegal but that a law will be written at all) seems to be the forcing of morals ("values" is a bit too arbitrary here, since we both agree conventions surrounding marriage aren't arbitrary). One side is insisting that the gay lifestyle is (at least) an abnormal sexual deviancy which should only be (at most) tolerated, and the other side is insisting that it should be not only tolerated but universally approved of. Because of these two ideals clashing, it makes for hot tempers and tensions on either side. Complex issue to be sure. Both cannot be right because there doesn't seem to be a third option. If it were "live and let live," that's one thing (and they seem to have that already), however since it's "approve or disapprove" it limits our options to a moral choice. I really like your observation and use of the term "moral compass". You're right, they aren't pointing in the same direction and that leaves us both pushing (though gently thankfully) for one view being better (i.e. who's the more "open-minded" as you put it). And "not that there's anything wrong with that!" We -should- push because in this case, relativity is out the window. Moral compasses can be accurate, close, or off point. How should we go about correcting faulty compasses? Can it work out for our good that moral compasses can just be individual or even societal? Is that truth or believing what we want to? How can we set what's "old enough" to marry for sure to prevent some special interest groups from trying to legalize mutual pedophilia? Should we even try?

  5. Who knew we were so topical? There's been a rash of comments...