NationStates Jolt Archive

As Sweden moves closer to a same-sex marriage law, Left Party leader Lars Ohly wants to include a provision to force pastors to wed gay couples.

* Sweden sets date for gay church weddings (6 Nov 08)
* Government remains divided over same-sex marriage (5 Nov 08)
* Swedish lesbians in historic Taj Mahal wedding (3 Nov 08)

According to Ohly, the gender neutral marriage law currently under consideration is only a first step.

All political parties in the Riksdag, with the exception of the Christian Democrats, have given their support to a legislative proposal which would allow for same-sex marriages.

The current measure allows pastors or other officiates to refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples if they so choose.

The Left Party wanted to go further than the current proposal and remove the exception for pastors who wish not to wed same-sex couples.

“We weren’t able to get the others to go along with that and what’s most important now is to move forward with gender-neutral marriage,” said Ohly.

“In the long run it’s inappropriate to be allow discrimination like this. We don’t think that someone should be allowed to refuse to wed same-sex couples.”

If Ohly has his way, a pastor who says no to marrying a gay couple would lose the right to perform wedding ceremonies.

The three opposition political parties have presented their own gay marriage legislative proposal, while the centre-right Moderate, Centre, and Liberal Parties plan to present a separate proposal soon.

It remains unclear if the six parties will be able to come together around a single, common proposal while in committee.

“We have a proposal which we don’t plan on walking away from,” said Ohly.

Both proposals would allow homosexual couples the right to be married in Sweden starting on May 1st, 2009.

Naturally, this is not law (yet), however, due to all the nature of controversy over gay marriage and how ministers may be compelled to perform such weddings against their wishes was not entirely off-base.

If the left party in Sweden gets their way (and we'll see how that pans out), ministers will only be able to perform weddings if they agree to perform weddings that go against their ideological beliefs. I oppose forcing people to break their religious convictions, unless the religious convictions pose a hazard to the health and safety of the public at large.

That's a violation of Freedom of Religion, if you heathens have such a thing. It's also incredibly tacky.

That's a violation of Freedom of Religion, if you heathens have such a thing. It's also incredibly tacky.

One of the interesting things during the Prop 8 debacle was the insistence by religious groups that gays would do exactly this.

I'm for gay marriage - but it doesn't help to play right into propaganda that was asserted by gay rights groups in the US to be false.

So much for Sweden being the bastion of freedom and equality huh?

Plus, this is the kind of stupid shit that'll threaten to give Fred Phelps some credibility. Not a whole lot, just a sliver. But that's still too much.

It makes sense, from a certain perspective, but it can only work and remain consistent with freedom of religion if you make civil and religious marriage more clearly separate.

What I'd do is simply say outright that pastors should not perform civil marriages, and make it a purely legal, non-ceremonial process instead.

Also: link (http://www.thelocal.se/15612/20081111/).

Assuming this report is true, such a proposal is morally bankrupt, strategically unwise, and counter to freedom.

Assuming this report is true, such a proposal is morally bankrupt, strategically unwise, and counter to freedom.

I agree, unless pastors have the power to preform legal marriage ceremonies. In which case they should have to. (preform gay weddings).

Wait, the wording here is interesting.

For one, "pastors or other officiates"... who are the "other officiates"? Surely at least strictly civil officials in charge of performing marriages should not be allowed to discriminate.

Second, "remove the exception for pastors who wish not to wed same-sex couples"... why is this an "exception"? Is it general policy that a pastor vested with the authority to officiate at marriages must marry any opposite-sex couple? Sweden until recently had an established church; does that alter the circumstances here?

I agree with the OP. I´m for gay marriage, I´m for the right humans have to love whom the will and marry them. But I´m also for maintaining the right people have to profess the creed of their will. The state has no right to make someone break with their convictions, be them religious or civil, just because the state passes a law.

You can't force people to do what they disagree with.

I don't know how Sweden's laws treat marriage or the legal status of church marriages or how separate church is from state there, so I think it's premature to be judging this, since I can only do so by US standards. In the US, of course, such a rule would be grossly unconstitutional.

In terms of my own principles concerning religious freedom and secular government, I personally would disapprove of this very strongly. If the government is treating church rituals as a stand-in for government function (in terms of recognizing marriage), maybe it would be better to take that function back exclusively for government and let churches do as they like, but without legal ramifications. Forcing churches to potentially go against their beliefs goes against my sense of fairness. I think this is unethical.

How does it actually work in Sweden, when a pastor says your married in the wedding, is the couple officially married, or is it not official until you've signed your name on the registrars office?

This will just cause most Pastors to boycott marrying. Sticking to their convictions and refusing to marry anyone if that is how it is to be. Since what do Pastors have other than conviction?

This move is incredibly shortsight and one can actually use the term stupid. Since it causes the LGBT community a lot more harm than good. Since they will bear brunt to a heavy backlash. Often in the forms of;

"We couldn't get properly married because of those damn fags"

"We had to leave the country for a weekend to get properly married."

"My wife couldn't get her dream wedding in a Church because of them homosexuals."

Often then probably coming from people who were prior to this neutral or ambigouous towards LGBT people.

Government mandates on belief never turn out well.

The state has no right to make someone break with their convictions, be them religious or civil, just because the state passes a law.

If I am invested with a particular civil authority, that authority comes with certain responsibilities. One of them is (or should be) not to discriminate. If my personal convictions do not allow me to carry out these responsibilities, I should refuse the authority.

The difficulty here is that we do routinely (at least in the US) grant marriage authority to religious officials, and since as a consequence the religious and the legal aspects are brought together, to put non-discrimination requirements on the legal process is to potentially infringe upon freedom of religion.

But the solution to that is not to allow discrimination. It is to more clearly separate the religious from the legal.

If I am invested with a particular civil authority, that authority comes with certain responsibilities. One of them is (or should be) not to discriminate. If my personal convictions do not allow me to carry out these responsibilities, I should refuse the authority.

The difficulty here is that we do routinely (at least in the US) grant marriage authority to religious officials, and since as a consequence the religious and the legal aspects are brought together, to put non-discrimination requirements on the legal process is to potentially infringe upon freedom of religion.

But the solution to that is not to allow discrimination. It is to more clearly separate the religious from the legal.

And I agree with you. But this law (if passed in Sweden) seems to be infringing into the clear separation between church and state. Don´t you think?

well this won't help repeal Prop 8

I wish Fass was on. He probably could clear things up for the non-swedish, us poor people.

This is a big fear in the US. Even more so that it will be done through the courts rather then via the legislature. The most favored image is that of a small church having to give in because they cant afford the legal cost to protect themselves from a lawsuit.

Don´t you think?

I have no idea how it works in Sweden. Until I do, I'm reserving judgment.

I have no idea how it works in Sweden. Until I do, I'm reserving judgment.

True. Perhaps if Fass were here he could explain it a bit better.

If I am invested with a particular civil authority, that authority comes with certain responsibilities. One of them is (or should be) not to discriminate. If my personal convictions do not allow me to carry out these responsibilities, I should refuse the authority.


One could ask why? The important thing here is discrimination from the state, if it is possible to get married as a homosexual, then the state is not discriminating against you, only some state actors (pastors) will discriminate - but the fact that some state actors will discriminate is not that significant as long as it doesn't actually hinder your ability to get married. Since religion is a complex thing that you don't want to meddle with too much, I don't see the problem as allowing these particular state actors to discriminate, as long as not all are and it doesn't hinder your ability to get married. Forcing all state actors to be neutral in that respect is superfluous, and will likely do more harm then good.

No he'd just confuse us, give us a Swedish history lesson then insult us.

Sweden politics aside, I always thought this argument against same-sex marriage to be fear-mongering BS.

Pastors/priests/rabbis/etc have been free to refuse to marry couples based upon the couple's religion, beliefs, membership of specific sect or church, willingness to go through pre-marriage counseling, vow to raise/baptise future children in certain faith, etc.

Their right to decide which marriages they will or will not perform has not been revoked, even though religious descrimination is clearly frowned upon by Mr. Government. Likewise, even though same-sex marriage may be given the governmental green-light, I don't see the government forcing a religion to go against its beliefs as that would violate another right.


Plus, this is the kind of stupid shit that'll threaten to give Fred Phelps some credibility. Not a whole lot, just a sliver. But that's still too much.

As for this, it WAS used in the fight for Prop 8. Apparently some church sponsored some Swedish pastor to come over and tell his sob-sad story about how he was forced to perform same-sex marriages, and how this will happen to you too if duh ebil gays are allowed to marry.

No he'd just confuse us, give us a Swedish history lesson then insult us.

Regardless of that, Fass perhaps could explain his law system a bit better. After all, he´s Swedish and we´re not. That´s all I´m implying.

but the fact that some state actors will discriminate is not that significant as long as it doesn't actually hinder your ability to get married.

Really? So how many state officials should I have to go to before you decide that it passes the level of "hindrance"?

And it's not just a matter of convenience, it's also the principle of the thing: the state should not be giving its stamp of approval to policies of discrimination.

Since religion is a complex thing that you don't want to meddle with too much,

Then get religion out of it. Have some civil process that's sufficient, and let people add (or not add) whatever private, religious or otherwise, ceremony they want afterward.

I mean, we're already mostly there.

Forcing all state actors to be neutral in that respect is superfluous, and will likely do more harm then good.

Do you apply this logic to other cases? Should government officials, in general, be allowed to refrain from carrying out their duties on the basis of someone's race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, whatever--as long as there are alternatives potentially available?

Or is marriage something special for some reason?

Do you apply this logic to other cases? Should government officials, in general, be allowed to refrain from carrying out their duties on the basis of someone's race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, whatever--as long as there are alternatives potentially available?

Except, in the case of pastors and ministers, they are not government officials. They can act in an official capacity to marry someone, but they are not government officials.

From a promoting gay rights point of view, this is a horrible mistake and likely to cause one hell of a horrific backlash. In fact, I pretty much guarantee that anti-gay marriage blogs are already dishing hyperventilating about the "ultimate plans of the gay agenda" on the back of this.

Really? So how many state officials should I have to go to before you decide that it passes the level of "hindrance"?


By hinder, I mean if there is no state official near to your location that will perform a marriage to you.


And it's not just a matter of convenience, it's also the principle of the thing: the state should not be giving its stamp of approval to policies of discrimination.


If we're going by principle here, then what Sweden really SHOULD be doing is what you say below..


Then get religion out of it. Have some civil process that's sufficient, and let people add (or not add) whatever private, religious or otherwise, ceremony they want afterward.


Agreed.


Do you apply this logic to other cases? Should government officials, in general, be allowed to refrain from carrying out their duties on the basis of someone's race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, whatever--as long as there are alternatives potentially available?

Or is marriage something special for some reason?

No but religion is inherently more complex, added with the fact that marriage did evolve in Europe out of religious ceremonies and not from completely secular origin. What I'm saying is, either remove all secular authority pastors have, or if you really have to have the Church part of the state structure, then allow them this leeway, since you're already violating separation of state and Church principles, there's no point in limiting the freedom of religion more so.

If that's not infringing upon religious beliefs, I don't know what is.

And I do support gay rights. But that is way off base from a proper solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Church

Wiki is, of course, a great help.

On top of that, while a bit extreme, I don't entirely disagree. I think a better choice would be to require anyone with any problems marrying anyone (not just limited to homosexuals then) to instead direct the couple towards someone else, better suited.

That would be better for everyone involved. But then, what do you do when no one else is better suited and they still refuse?

Then you do this.

Well, they shouldn't be required to perform a ceremony for any couple that they do not wish to perform one for...

But I can see requiring them to sign off on the papers if they are given that authority in the first place. I don't see why you need to have the authority to perform a legally binding marriage to be able to perform the religious ritual.

Really, we just need a clearer distinction between ceremony and law.

Sweden has a state church, and pastors are, among other things, officials of the state. This only illustrates what is wrong with that whole system. Let church be church, and state be state. That used to be what the US believed in, although that seems to be sadly eroding.

Well, they shouldn't be required to perform a ceremony for any couple that they do not wish to perform one for...

But I can see requiring them to sign off on the papers if they are given that authority in the first place. I don't see why you need to have the authority to perform a legally binding marriage to be able to perform the religious ritual.

Really, we just need a clearer distinction between ceremony and law.

Actually, that's a good take on the issue also. Requiring them to do the religious ceremony has no legal or moral backing, I believe, where as there are good arguments for requiring them to do the paperwork etc...

Regardless of that, Fass perhaps could explain his law system a bit better.
I'm sure he could, but would he?

If the Church is part of the official structure of the government, and is, for many small villages and communities, the only way to gain a marriage certificate, I see no problem with this law.

I'm sure he could, but would he?

Not one bit. In fact I'm quite willing to be he will cheerlead this whole idea while going on his usual antithiest rantings.

If the Church is part of the official structure of the government, and is, for many small villages and communities, the only way to gain a marriage certificate, I see no problem with this law.

I think this is however extending beyond merely the Church of Sweden.

Sweden has a state church, and pastors are, among other things, officials of the state. This only illustrates what is wrong with that whole system. Let church be church, and state be state. That used to be what the US believed in, although that seems to be sadly eroding.
Indeed. If in fact, Swedish pastors function as officials of the state, then this is a very good argument in favor of strict and clear separation of church and state. It is obvious that one cannot serve a pluralistic society AND stay observant to one's own restrictive religious beliefs at the same time. In the interest of not violating freedom of religion while still maintaining equal protection of the law for all citizens, Sweden should remove all legally binding aspects of marriage away from churches and put them into the hands of state employed magistrates, registrars or similar officials. As long as church and state are melded in any functional way, then one group has to lose, either the churches or the gay citizens. Separate church functions from government functions, and both can win.

I think this is however extending beyond merely the Church of Sweden.

And? If these other Churches can also create a marriage legally, they're going to have to do it.

I see that Seathornia already posted a link to a Wiki article indicating that, in fact, the official "state church" status was abolished for the Lutheran Church in Sweden back in 2000. So, mea culpa. If the pastors are not state officials, then the state has no business dictating what they do or do not do. The Left Party apparently still has a hangover from the old days of church/state entanglement, and should STFU.

This is why we have separation of church and state in the U.S. The very concept of a state church is really, really unpleasant...I would never want to have those two share their power for any reason. We learned that firsthand back during the colonial era, and after the Revolution made sure that system would be eliminated. It took a while to eliminate it at the state and local level, but the 14th Amendment basically ensured we would never have to deal with state religion ever again.

Perhaps it's time for Sweden (and the UK, why not) to get rid of their state religion. Considering that only the oppressive Islamic theocracies and dictatorships in the Middle East and a few other places around the world have them, it's not exactly befitting a modern, developed nation to still retain such an archaic construct.

I'm sure he could, but would he?

Have a little faith in Fass! :tongue:

Truth is I don´t know if he would. But he´s the only Swede here, right? *shrugs*

Not one bit. In fact I'm quite willing to be he will cheerlead this whole idea while going on his usual antithiest rantings.

All the while talking about how much freer Sweden is than us poor, backwards Amerians even though Sweden, with this law, is about to take away one of the most fundamental of liberties.

I always said this whole "OMG Sweden is so free!" was crap. Looks like this little law just proves me right. Im all about pissing off Christians. I draw the line at taking away their freedom.

Truth is I don´t know if he would. But he´s the only Swede here, right? *shrugs*

No, there are a lot of swedes here. Many of whom are tolerable.

No, there are a lot of swedes here. Many of whom are tolerable.

Then I call upon those Swedes to come forth and talk about this to the Generalites.:tongue:

This kind of half baked proposal is what causes so many problems elsewhere

*Throws big tarpaulin over proposal to hide it from the Religious Conservatives*

Sweden, with this law, is about to take away one of the most fundamental of liberties.
It's not a "law", it's a proposal by ONE of their parties, a proposal which looks seriously unlikely to pass. It is also a proposal which should never have been made, I'll grant you that.

That is like asking KKK members to perform services for interracial couples.

That is like asking KKK members to perform services for interracial couples.

The only thing I ever ask KKK members to do is fuck off and die.

The only thing I ever ask KKK members to do is fuck off and die.

They are so psychotic that even their (obviously) bigoted founder quit--lynching, even of the hated Negro, was not a tactic to be employed by Southern gentlemen.

Have a little faith in Fass! :tongue:

Truth is I don´t know if he would. But he´s the only Swede here, right? *shrugs*

Fass has, in the past, helped clarified a few issues concerning Sweden. The two times I recall are, once there was something about people being forced to get jobs that appeared to imply that these people were coerced into jobs when that wasn't the case, and there was, more recently, some political propaganda from some far right party that the Swedish government was forcing minors to view sexually explicit art. This was untrue. The government did subsidize art to some degree but minors weren't made to view adult material.

Perhaps it's time for Sweden (and the UK, why not) to get rid of their state religion. Considering that only the oppressive Islamic theocracies and dictatorships in the Middle East and a few other places around the world have them, it's not exactly befitting a modern, developed nation to still retain such an archaic construct.

i don't know, it seems to me that having a neglected state religion until relatively recently in the post-industrial north has frequently led to a lot healthier religious attitudes than in the prime example of separation of church and state.

Uhu... on the other hand they're never going to win, will always be in a coalition government, and this proposal will be tanked.

Naturally, this is not law (yet), however, due to all the nature of controversy over gay marriage and how ministers may be compelled to perform such weddings against their wishes was not entirely off-base.

If the left party in Sweden gets their way (and we'll see how that pans out), ministers will only be able to perform weddings if they agree to perform weddings that go against their ideological beliefs. I oppose forcing people to break their religious convictions, unless the religious convictions pose a hazard to the health and safety of the public at large.

This is offensive to gays too. Personally I wouldnt care to force Xtians to accept me.

This is no different in principle than forcing racists to still do business with blacks and other minorities and not discriminate against them in commerce. I don't see what the fuss is about.

Fass has, in the past, helped clarified a few issues concerning Sweden. The two times I recall are, once there was something about people being forced to get jobs that appeared to imply that these people were coerced into jobs when that wasn't the case, and there was, more recently, some political propaganda from some far right party that the Swedish government was forcing minors to view sexually explicit art. This was untrue. The government did subsidize art to some degree but minors weren't made to view adult material.

That´s why I say that perhaps he might be able to clarify the OP, because he´s the only Swede of NSG I know.:wink:

That, or perhaps it´s better if we all google this. Maybe.

Uhu... on the other hand they're never going to win, will always be in a coalition government, and this proposal will be tanked.

They aren't even in government right now, coalition or otherwise.

They aren't even in government right now, coalition or otherwise.
Aye, I know. They probably will be in the 2010 elections where the Social Democrats are probably going to be back, and the left party's 8ish% of the vote is going to come in handy to forming a ruling coalition.

So the Swedes now want to force people to do things against their will.

So the Swedes now want to force people to do things against their will.
No, a party which generally nets around 6% of the national vote says that it will. Not actually the same.

This is no different in principle than forcing racists to still do business with blacks and other minorities and not discriminate against them in commerce. I don't see what the fuss is about.

No, I think it's more like forcing racists to marry people of other races.

Also, I didnt like your implicit racist remark that only whites can be racist against blacks and other minorities. See hate crime reports.

No, a party which generally nets around 6% of the national vote says that it will. Not actually the same.

Well let me correct it then;

So some Swedes now want to force people to do things against their will.

Well let me correct it then;

So some Swedes now want to force people to do things against their will.
Yes.

Umm... I highly doubt the OP, and why did no one question the source on the first page? What is the source by the way; Fox news?

Umm... I highly doubt the OP, and why did no one question the source on the first page? What is the source by the way; Fox news?

I think Soheran in his first post provided a link, but it wont load for me.

Naturally, this is not law (yet), however, due to all the nature of controversy over gay marriage and how ministers may be compelled to perform such weddings against their wishes was not entirely off-base.

If the left party in Sweden gets their way (and we'll see how that pans out), ministers will only be able to perform weddings if they agree to perform weddings that go against their ideological beliefs. I oppose forcing people to break their religious convictions, unless the religious convictions pose a hazard to the health and safety of the public at large.

Agreed, this is a bad idea.

I think Soheran in his first post provided a link, but it wont load for me.

The link still works for me. The source is The Local (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Local).

From the little I've seen, Sweden's parliament throws around the word "discrimination" a bit much. But that' besides the point.

Part of tolerance and pluralism is not imposing your beliefs on other people except when that difference in belief causes actual harm. Even when the people being imposed upon are supposedly evil Christians.

Do they not have civil marriage, or is it only a religious marriage ceremony there?
I vigorously oppose legislation forcing a religious institution to do anything if that institution is not actively harming people (like, starting a church of human sacrifice).

Wait, the wording here is interesting.

For one, "pastors or other officiates"... who are the "other officiates"? Surely at least strictly civil officials in charge of performing marriages should not be allowed to discriminate.

Second, "remove the exception for pastors who wish not to wed same-sex couples"... why is this an "exception"? Is it general policy that a pastor vested with the authority to officiate at marriages must marry any opposite-sex couple? Sweden until recently had an established church; does that alter the circumstances here?
As far as I know (and not of Sweden specifically), a religious officiant may decline to perform a service if he feels the marriage is not proper in some way -- for instance, if it appears that one or the other is not ready, being pushed, or if they are bickering and arguing through pre-marriage meetings...

Forcing a Minister to perform a marriage of two people of the same gender is just as bad as not letting two people of the same gender get married. End of story.

Forcing a Minister to perform a marriage of two people of the same gender is just as bad as not letting two people of the same gender get married. End of story.

does this judgment apply to pharmacists not wanting to give out certain prescriptions?

does this judgment apply to pharmacists not wanting to give out certain prescriptions?

Is there a viable alternative? Then yes.

If there is no alternative, then no.

No, I think it's more like forcing racists to marry people of other races.

Also, I didnt like your implicit racist remark that only whites can be racist against blacks and other minorities. See hate crime reports.

Oh step off!

Whites have historically in this country been the predominant bulwark of racism in the United States, and still continue to be. You don't get arrested for driving while white, or beaten up by the cops. If you're black that still happens.

Oh step off!

Whites have historically in this country been the predominant bulwark of racism in the United States, and still continue to be. You don't get arrested for driving while white, or beaten up by the cops. If you're black that still happens.

Excuse me...."step off"?


:)


Im sorry...that just sounds funny.

Excuse me...."step off"?


:)


Im sorry...that just sounds funny.

I felt the situation demanded a little bit of 80s urban slang. :p

Not quite ready to bring out the F-bomb yet.

i don't know, it seems to me that having a neglected state religion until relatively recently in the post-industrial north has frequently led to a lot healthier religious attitudes than in the prime example of separation of church and state.

Yeah, but other countries in the region don't have state religions and have similar attitudes. The only other ones I can think of that do are the UK and Greece, and they're not on the same level as Norway or Sweden in that regard.

Well if they decide to ignore the freedom of religion I guess they could force gay weddings. Whos in favour of stepping on the "right" (I hate that word) to choose your own religion? Personally I think we should avoid saying the word god or all simular meanings. Lets just put a fine on that word

It should get rid of that annoying phrase "Oh My GOD" whenever something minor happens.

It should get rid of that annoying phrase "Oh My GOD" whenever something minor happens.

But then what would teenage girls say when they see a bird fly past the window?

If they're offering a legal service then they should not be allowed to discriminate. If they don't like it they can find alternative employment.

I don't know the possibilities of non-church ceremonies in Sweden, and if there isn't then there needs to be the provision for non-religious marriage/partnership ceremonies. But just like someone who belongs to a religion that bans alcohol can't be a barman and refuse to serve beer, religion isn't a complete free pass to things like this.

If they're offering a legal service then they should not be allowed to discriminate. If they don't like it they can find alternative employment.

I don't know the possibilities of non-church ceremonies in Sweden, and if there isn't then there needs to be the provision for non-religious marriage/partnership ceremonies. But just like someone who belongs to a religion that bans alcohol can't be a barman and refuse to serve beer, religion isn't a complete free pass to things like this.

Here in the US, if you're not a member of that particular religion, it's unlikely that they'll marry you.

A Catholic priest, for instance, won't marry you unless you're both Catholics. On the other hand, a Unitarian will marry two people regardless.

Discrimination on this part has been held to be legal here (on the basis of religion). Largely because if you want to get married, you need only find a Justice of the Peace (easy), and take the form you filled out at the county courthouse and have him do the ceremony and sign the forms. You have plenty of alternatives to get married by someone else.

What they're asking for is more than having a Catholic priest (for instance) perform the ritual - they're asking the priest to not only subvert his own religion, but to bless the relationship (which runs completely counter to their long held and very public beliefs). Forcing a faith to accept something that is completely counter to their religion is an easy First Amendment violation here.

Since civil marriage is available already with no problems, and since other churches will marry gays, it's only an act of hostility to force those who don't believe in gay marriage to perform it.

Here in the US, if you're not a member of that particular religion, it's unlikely that they'll marry you.

A Catholic priest, for instance, won't marry you unless you're both Catholics. On the other hand, a Unitarian will marry two people regardless.

Discrimination on this part has been held to be legal here (on the basis of religion). Largely because if you want to get married, you need only find a Justice of the Peace (easy), and take the form you filled out at the county courthouse and have him do the ceremony and sign the forms. You have plenty of alternatives to get married by someone else.

What they're asking for is more than having a Catholic priest (for instance) perform the ritual - they're asking the priest to not only subvert his own religion, but to bless the relationship (which runs completely counter to their long held and very public beliefs). Forcing a faith to accept something that is completely counter to their religion is an easy First Amendment violation here.

Since civil marriage is available already with no problems, and since other churches will marry gays, it's only an act of hostility to force those who don't believe in gay marriage to perform it.

Well having priests performs a legal marriage ceremony is the root problem here, I fail to see how that ca. I agree it should be split up. But if you're going to have the power and offer a legal function then you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. If you want that power then offer ceremonial blessings instead.

Well having priests performs a legal marriage ceremony is the root problem here, I fail to see how that ca. I agree it should be split up. But if you're going to have the power and offer a legal function then you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. If you want that power then offer ceremonial blessings instead.

Here in the US, you get the paperwork at the county courthouse. Once it's signed by the two people, you're married. Having someone officiate is just gravy - you can have the Justice of the Peace do that and sign.

Sweden has a state church

No, Sweden doesn't have a state church. Kindly get a clue before you speak of things, but why would you ever start now, eh?

Anyhow, ministers in the Church of Sweden (and other congregations that have been delegated it, be they Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and so on) have a legally binding ability to wed couples - their act of wedding people is an act of government that they have been delegated.

The left party is of course very right in this issue: they shouldn't be able to have it both ways - demand a legal power endowed upon them by the state, but then at the same time wish to discriminate against portions of the populace. I as a doctor have several "powers" granted to me by the government (sick leave, attestation of certain legal documents and so on) and I would never be granted the "right" to discriminate against religious people because of my "convictions" (not that I ever would even if I dementedly could) - but someone religious is supposed to be granted that "right" towards me with respect to an official act because they believe in a sky fairy? Pure and sheer nonsense.

The current parties in government (the disgusting KD aside, as always) have a "compromise": the congregation would still be delegated the ability to perform legally binding ceremonies only if they would not discriminate, but individuals in the congregation would be allowed to decline to perform nuptuals. The congregation would have to find someone willing to accommodate in that person's stead. I don't like that, but it is a compromise.

The proper way is to of course completely strip the religious congregations of the legal wedding ability (something KD of all people suggested, but they coupled it with a demand that legal marriages would then not be called "marriages", naturally making it unacceptable linguistically as well as logically) and have it be a state matter alone. Alas, that is not the way the Riksdag is headed today. I hope the Lefts either get their way, or that their demands in the end lead to the end of this anachronism.

Naturally, this is not law (yet), however, due to all the nature of controversy over gay marriage and how ministers may be compelled to perform such weddings against their wishes was not entirely off-base.

If the left party in Sweden gets their way (and we'll see how that pans out), ministers will only be able to perform weddings if they agree to perform weddings that go against their ideological beliefs. I oppose forcing people to break their religious convictions, unless the religious convictions pose a hazard to the health and safety of the public at large.

Others have already said it, but I'll just add my own two cents here.

Given that this proposal is in another country, with different views and regulations concerning church and state, it doesn't really provide anything to back up claims that this would happen in the US. I don't know exactly what Sweden's protections on religious freedom are, but I wouldn't expect them to be exactly the same as those in the US.

Alas, that is not the way the Riksdag is headed today.

Which is a shame, since that solution is much more appropriate (barring the renaming of marriage of course).

No, Sweden doesn't have a state church. Kindly get a clue before you speak of things, but why would you ever start now, eh?

Or Fass, it could just be that his knowledge of the subject is just a little out of date...

Perhaps it's time for Sweden (and the UK, why not) to get rid of their state religion.

Sweden does not have a state church or state religion. Google isn't that hard to use...

No, Sweden doesn't have a state church. Kindly get a clue before you speak of things, but why would you ever start now, eh?

Anyhow, ministers in the Church of Sweden (and other congregations that have been delegated it, be they Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and so on) have a legally binding ability to wed couples - their act of wedding people is an act of government that they have been delegated.

The left party is of course very right in this issue: they shouldn't be able to have it both ways - demand a legal power endowed upon them by the state, but then at the same time wish to discriminate against portions of the populace. I as a doctor have several "powers" granted to me by the government (sick leave, attestation of certain legal documents and so on) and I would never be granted the "right" to discriminate against religious people because of my "convictions" (not that I ever would even if I dementedly could) - but someone religious is supposed to be granted that "right" towards me with respect to an official act because they believe in a sky fairy? Pure and sheer nonsense.

The current parties in government (the disgusting KD aside, as always) have a "compromise": the congregation would still be delegated the ability to perform legally binding ceremonies only if they would not discriminate, but individuals in the congregation would be allowed to decline to perform nuptuals. The congregation would have to find someone willing to accommodate in that person's stead. I don't like that, but it is a compromise.

The proper way is to of course completely strip the religious congregations of the legal wedding ability (something KD of all people suggested, but they coupled it with a demand that legal marriages would then not be called "marriages", naturally making it unacceptable linguistically as well as logically) and have it be a state matter alone. Alas, that is not the way the Riksdag is headed today. I hope the Lefts either get their way, or that their demands in the end lead to the end of this anachronism.

First, I was sad to learn that the land of absolute superiority doesn't already provide for same-sex marriages. :wink:

Second, your lack of respect for freedom of religion is duly noted. :eek2:

Is there a viable alternative? Then yes.

If there is no alternative, then no.

so should everyone be able to opt out of any part of their job because the pixies tell them to?

Second, your lack of respect for freedom of religion is duly noted. :eek2:

why should the religious be able to use state-delegated legal powers discriminatorily?

why should the religious be able to use state-delegated legal powers discriminatorily?

Because it was a function of the church before it was a function of the state?

First, I was sad to learn that the land of absolute superiority doesn't already provide for same-sex marriages.

In name alone. Partnerskapslagen provides all the privileges of marriages. This is a semantic issue easily solved legally, but KD has as a party that has the ability to make the current government fall (read up on parliamentarianism if you don't understand how) been very good at using its position to stall it for more than at least half a decade. Fortunately they seem poised at not making the 4% cut off in the next elections, so they have suddenly become very inconsequential.

Second, your lack of respect for freedom of religion is duly noted. :eek2:

There should be no "freedom of religion", as it is nothing but a special right for a certain type of opinion, giving that opinion the air of being more special, or more worthy of protection, than other opinions are. Regeringsformen provides protections for freedom of expression, information, assembly, demonstration and association. "Freedom of religion" is superfluous and discriminatory in a positive sense. I would very much like to see its explicit nature removed, as it causes the discussion we are currently having. No other opinion would even be given a second consideration if someone performing an official act called upon it for discrimination ("I'm a Nazi, so I should be allowed to discriminate against Jews!"), but when they say "I'm a Christian so I should be able to discriminate against homosexuals", all of a sudden that opinion is to be more respectable? Hardly.

Because it was a function of the church before it was a function of the state?

Actually not (you forget, ours is an old country), and there used to be no difference between church and state when they were incorporated. It has always been a function of the state, regulated by the state. The current situation of the delegation of the function is a vestige that still must be applied for, just as it is for civil servants.

Actually not (you forget, ours is an old country), and there used to be no difference between church and state when they were incorporated. It has always been a function of the state, regulated by the state. The current situation of the delegation of the function is a vestige that still must be applied for, just as it is for civil servants.

Actually, yes...
Christianity predates the Kingdom of Sweden.

Here in the US, if you're not a member of that particular religion, it's unlikely that they'll marry you.

A Catholic priest, for instance, won't marry you unless you're both Catholics. On the other hand, a Unitarian will marry two people regardless.

I think actually only one person in the couple has to be Catholic to get married in a Catholic church, but yeah...

Discrimination on this part has been held to be legal here (on the basis of religion). Largely because if you want to get married, you need only find a Justice of the Peace (easy), and take the form you filled out at the county courthouse and have him do the ceremony and sign the forms. You have plenty of alternatives to get married by someone else.

Here's the thing - all the forms are provided by the government. The government gives you permission to legally wed. If you actually choose to have a religious person officiate, they just sign off that you actually had a ceremony and you are considered married from that date onward. You choose to seek out the religious officiant - not the other way around.

To me, this is fine, particularly as it is convenient for those who do wish to have their marriage ceremony blessed by a religious official. That said, I don't think there would be any rights violated if the government did decide to revoke the ability of religious officiants to sign off on marriage licenses. It would just make it more inconvenient.

I do think that, if it is to be done, it should just be a blanket revocation, though. I don't think it should be "If you religion approves of all the same marriages as the government, you can still do it, but those other guys can't."

Actually, yes...
Christianity predates the Kingdom of Sweden.

You seem to think that Christianity in Sweden pre-dates Sweden. You may want to check that with the Vikings... that is if you know who those are. You obviously have little grasp of the history of Sweden in all other respects, so...

Actually, yes...
Christianity predates the Kingdom of Sweden.

Marriage predates Christianity.

so should everyone be able to opt out of any part of their job because the pixies tell them to?

Religious officials aren't employed by the government. As such, it is not the government that sets their job descriptions. Instead, it is their parishioners or, depending on the structure of the church, the church hierarchy that does so.

Marriage predates Christianity.

That's true. But it's not until Chritianity that it gets all the connotations it has today.

That's true. But it's not until Chritianity that it gets all the connotations it has today.

It seems pretty apparent that Judaism had the whole man/woman thing down 800 years before Christ.

Religious officials aren't employed by the government.

But they are in this case performing a legal action they have asked to have delegated to them from the government. Why should they then get to discriminate?

It seems pretty apparent that Judaism had the whole man/woman thing down 800 years before Christ.

Marriage, before Christianity, was a duty, devoid of any affection. I don't think marriage from pre-Christian times can be likened to marriage or what marriage between same-sex couples entails. It's not, IMO, the same thing.

Marriage, before Christianity, was a duty, devoid of any affection.

Marriage after Christianity, but before modernity, was a duty, devoid of any affection. It still is in many, many places.

You seem to think that Christianity in Sweden pre-dates Sweden. You may want to check that with the Vikings... that is if you know who those are. You obviously have little grasp of the history of Sweden in all other respects, so...

The Kingdom of Sweden has only existed since the end of the 14th century and christianity was introduced to Scandinavia in the 9th century, so who is lacking in knowledge of history of the Kingdom of Sweden?

In case that wasn't clear enough: Yes, christianity in Sweden pre-dates the Kingdom of Sweden.


Marriage predates Christianity.
True, but the discussion was about the Church of Sweden, which is a christian (specifically Lutheran) church.

Marriage after Christianity, but before modernity, was a duty, devoid of any affection. It still is in many, many places.

What I'm trying to say is that love is taken into consideration in the institution of marriage nowadays. That didn't happen in pre-Christian & Christian times, even all the way into Modern times. I know it still happens that way, but it's not the norm.

Religious officials aren't employed by the government

they are when they get to officiate legal matters like marriage. if the religious don't wish to take part, they can stop being involved with marriage and perform purely symbolic and utterly meaningless 'religious unions' all by their lonesomes.

The Kingdom of Sweden has only existed since the end of the 14th century

Nope. Sweden was a kingdom well before it became Christianised, in fact it is not known when and how the kingdom of Sweden came to be (but it is considered to have happened well before the 9th century). I believe you are confusing it with Sweden's becoming a nation state, which did not occur at the end of the 14th century, but in fact in 1523. Psst! That's the 16th century, you know...

and christianity was introduced to Scandinavia in the 9th century,

Sweden wasn't Christianised until well after that (something that can only be said with certainty around the 12-13th century), and it had marriages far, far before that. My dear, you so know little about our history, a third grader here would know more than you.

so who is lacking in knowledge of history of the Kingdom of Sweden?

In case that wasn't clear enough: Yes, christianity in Sweden pre-dates the Kingdom of Sweden.

Oh, look. Someone who doesn't know the difference between a country and a nation state. Marriage in Sweden pre-dates Christianity. Sweden itself pre-dates Christianity in Sweden. It's really that simple. And yes, you really are this ignorant about things you are trying to speak of. I am amazed, too.

What I'm trying to say is that love is taken into consideration in the institution of marriage nowadays. That didn't happen in pre-Christian & Christian times, even all the way into Modern times. I know it still happens that way, but it's not the norm.

My, how you ignore China and India and the Middle East and large swaths of Africa, they're just most of the people on the planet...

My, how you ignore China and India and the Middle East and large swaths of Africa, they're just most of the people on the planet...

I'm suscribing to Europe, Fassitude. That part is the one that, in views that it also contains Sweden, concerns me.

Actually, yes...
Christianity predates the Kingdom of Sweden.But Christian involvement in marriage does not: people are often surprised to hear this, but in the early Christian church, it was rare for a priest to visit a wedding and give his blessings, something that would only be done for a high-ranking personage. It did not become the usual custom until late medieval times.

Nope. Sweden was a kingdom well before it became Christianised, in fact it is not known when and how the kingdom of Sweden came to be (but it is considered to have happened well before the 9th century). I believe you are confusing it with Sweden's becoming a nation state, which did not occur at the end of the 14th century, but in fact in 1523. Psst! That's the 16th century, you know...



Sweden wasn't Christianised until well after that (something that can only be said with certainty around the 12-13th century), and it had marriages far, far before that. My dear, you so know little about our history, a third grader here would know more than you.



Oh, look. Someone who doesn't know the difference between a country and a nation state. Marriage in Sweden pre-dates Christianity. Sweden itself pre-dates Christianity in Sweden. It's really that simple. And yes, you really are this ignorant about things you are trying to speak of. I am amazed, too.

Meh, think what you like, I though it fairly obvious with my referring to Sweden by its Official name that I was referring to the nation state (As far as the date, so I misremembered one date... I had the time period of the Kalmar Union stuck in my head).
Also note that I said the introduction of christianity, not the christianization of Sweden (which actually some figures put as early as the mid 11th century).

Basically Fass you need to work on reading comprehension as well...

they are when they get to officiate legal matters like marriage.

No, they aren't. The government does not employ them to this purpose. It simply allows them to do it as a matter of convenience. They are already performing the, as you put it, "purely symbolic and utterly meaningless" ceremony so, to avoid the need for duplicate ceremonies, they get to sign off that such a ceremony was held and the couple is now married. The marriage license actually has to be obtained beforehand from the appropriate legal authorities - it cannot be provided by the church official.

The government actually employs justices of the peace. As such, people in that position should not be allowed to discriminate on religious grounds.

Meanwhile, I haven't seen you or anyone else calling for churches that currently do not to marry those of other faiths or divorcees to be forced to do so. Why not?

if the religious don't wish to take part, they can stop being involved with marriage and perform purely symbolic and utterly meaningless 'religious unions' all by their lonesomes.

That would be one way to go. I don't think there would be anything inherently wrong with the government deciding not to allow church officials to sign off on marriage licenses. It would make it less convenient for the majority of US citizens getting married, but that in and of itself is not a legal problem.

But Christian involvement in marriage does not: people are often surprised to hear this, but in the early Christian church, it was rare for a priest to visit a wedding and give his blessings, something that would only be done for a high-ranking personage. It did not become the usual custom until late medieval times.

I didn't realize that...

Sure churches can refuse hetrosexual couples, saying that they are rushing in to marriage or aren't members of the church.

No, they aren't. The government does not employ them to this purpose. It simply allows them to do it as a matter of convenience.

distinction without a real difference. the fact that they (presumably) aren't paid by the state to do it doesn't change the fact that they are acting in a governmental role.

Naturally, this is not law (yet), however, due to all the nature of controversy over gay marriage and how ministers may be compelled to perform such weddings against their wishes was not entirely off-base.

If the left party in Sweden gets their way (and we'll see how that pans out), ministers will only be able to perform weddings if they agree to perform weddings that go against their ideological beliefs. I oppose forcing people to break their religious convictions, unless the religious convictions pose a hazard to the health and safety of the public at large.
Agreed. I'm for gay marriage, and I find the reasons against it irrational, but in no way would that justify being this coercive about it.

Meh, think what you like,

Honey, facts, no matter how much you may wish them so, aren't about what one "likes". I'm sorry to have to break that news to you.

Of course, I am not. It's just a figure of speech.

I though it fairly obvious with my referring to Sweden by its Official name that I was referring to the nation state (As far as the date, so I misremembered one date... I had the time period of the Kalmar Union stuck in my head).

The official name of Sweden, if you want to suddenly play this little nitpicky game, is "Konungariket Sverige". And in fact it did not become "Konungariket Sverige" in 1523 - it was "Konungariket Sverige"... well, as far back as we can speak of Swedish as a separate language, which is of course far before we can speak of Sweden as a nation state. Even the archaic, Norse-flavoured form "Konungariket" instead of the more modern Swedish "Kungariket" should have tipped you off about that.

Also note that I said the introduction of christianity, not the christianization of Sweden (which actually some figures put as early as the mid 11th century).

But most do not, and so what if it was introduced in the 9th century? Christianity has been introduced in China, and India. So? Marriages there are suddenly the domain of Christianity and did not exist there before Christianity?

Basically Fjall you need to work on reading comprehension as well...

Fjall, and bolded even? Oh, dear, I grow so weary of your brand of pathetic.

But most do not, and so what if it was introduced in the 9th century? Christianity has been introduced in China, and India. So? Marriages there are suddenly the domain of Christianity and did not exist there before Christianity?

So why would a gay couple want Christians to officiate over their wedding anyway?

So why would a gay couple want Christians to officiate over their wedding anyway?

You seem to think there aren't gay Christians or gay priests. You should ask them, because you couldn't be asking a more wrong person as to their motives and ability to delude themselves.

So why would a gay couple want Christians to officiate over their wedding anyway?

You mean Catholics. There are many Christian denominations who accept gays and lesbians in their congregations and happily performs same-sex marriages. I can name at least two off the top of my head that operates here in Canada. Don't know about Sweden, though.

You seem to think there aren't gay Christians or gay priests. You should ask them, because you couldn't be asking a more wrong person as to their motives and ability to delude themselves.

Well, you're saying that being Christian is ridiculous. So it begs the question, "why would a gay man want to be married in a Christian ritual?"

Well, you're saying that being Christian is ridiculous.

Yes.

So it begs the question, "why would a gay man want to be married in a Christian ritual?"

You seem to think gay men can't be ridiculous. Or that I have claimed something to that effect. How... ridiculous of you.

Yes.

You seem to think gay men can't be ridiculous. Or that I have claimed something to that effect. How... ridiculous of you.

I guess I'll go with "gay men who want to be married in a Christian ritual (i.e., the people who want to force this) are being ridiculous".

We have proof on this forum than gay men can be ridiculous, I think.

distinction without a real difference. the fact that they (presumably) aren't paid by the state to do it doesn't change the fact that they are acting in a governmental role.

Only nominally because someone has to do it.

The marriage license isn't granted by the church official. They're just the ones who sign off on it to say, "This is when it happened."

Like I said, it's not really an official position of authority. It's more a matter of convenience.


So why would a gay couple want Christians to officiate over their wedding anyway?

Maybe because they might be Christian?

Perhaps a better question would be, "Why would a gay couple want a person opposed to their union to preside over their wedding?"

At the risk of appearing insistent, Christian =/= Catholic.

There is quite a wide palette of Christian beliefs, traditions, Churches and Denominations. Some of them chose to disregard the outdated crap in the Old Testament and focus solely on the Gospels, where it is clear to anyone who takes the time to read them that Jesus doesn't give a damn about who you fuck.

But yes, to a lesser extent there are gays with a "sadomasochistic streak" who insist in being part of a particular brand of Christianity that despises and insults them. Who says they have to be more intellectually consistent than the rest of humanity?

You mean Catholics. There are many Christian denominations who accept gays and lesbians in their congregations and happily performs same-sex marriages.

There are Catholics who do that as well. In fact, the Liberal Catholic church in Sweden does just that. They've even marched in Pride parades. Perhaps you mean "Roman Catholics", but even there, unofficially...

You seem to think there aren't gay Christians or gay priests. You should ask them, because you couldn't be asking a more wrong person as to their motives and ability to delude themselves.
Well, there is a church here in St. John's that does gay marriage... but isn't that a bit of a contradiction though, gay Christians? Doesn't Christianity's "holy book" the bible repeatedly condemn homosexuality? And why would they conform to Christianity that wouldn't be a reason to conform to homophobia?

There are Catholics who do that as well. In fact, the Liberal Catholic church in Sweden does just that. They've even marched in Pride parades. Perhaps you mean "Roman Catholics", but even there, unofficially...

Yes, I meant Roman Catholics. Here we usually don't need to make the distinction because they're the only Catholics around.

And yes, unofficially, there are gay men and women in that Church, although many only nominally. Technically, I'm a Roman Catholic myself, because I was baptized and never bothered getting my apostasy. I should really get around to doing just that someday...

I guess I'll go with "gay men who want to be married in a Christian ritual (i.e., the people who want to force this) are being ridiculous".

If you consider equality to be ridiculous, which of course you do. So, no surprises there.

We have proof on this forum than gay men can be ridiculous, I think.

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. Sure, you're risible at times...

Well, there is a church here in St. John's that does gay marriage... but isn't that a bit of a contradiction though, gay Christians? Doesn't Christianity's "holy book" the bible repeatedly condemn homosexuality? And why would they conform to Christianity that wouldn't be a reason to conform to homophobia?

The "Bible" differs greatly from denomination to denomination. It's all in what books the individual Churches decide to base their doctrine upon. Some of the more progressive Churches just disregard anything that isn't in the Gospels, figuring that being Christian was really about "being a follower of Christ". Therefore, they're not bound by the rest of the poorly-written drivel present in the Roman Catholic versions of the Bible, that contains several books of dubious historical and theological value.

Well, there is a church here in St. John's that does gay marriage... but isn't that a bit of a contradiction though, gay Christians? Doesn't Christianity's "holy book" the bible repeatedly condemn homosexuality?

It's as contradicting as "shrimp-eating Christians" or "more-than-one-fabric-wearing Christians" or "kind and loving Christians" and so on. You see, the ability to delude oneself is central to being religious. If you can delude yourself enough to think something as cockamamie as religion is worth your while, then all that other stuff is probably quite easy.

And why would they conform to Christianity that wouldn't be a reason to conform to homophobia?

Again, you should be asking them about how they manage to delude themselves as to Christianity being neat, not me.

The marriage license isn't granted by the church official. They're just the ones who sign off on it to say, "This is when it happened."

Like I said, it's not really an official position of authority. It's more a matter of convenience.
That's how it works in the United States, but apparently it is different in Sweden. Regardless of whatever the 2000 legislation did, it did NOT in fact abolish the "state church" status, if what Fassitude says about the law in Sweden is correct (and I will assume it is); they still need to abolish the state/church entanglement to avoid this kind of nonsense.
isn't that a bit of a contradiction though, gay Christians? Doesn't Christianity's "holy book" the bible repeatedly condemn homosexuality?
Not all Christians worship the Holy Book as some kind of infallible oracle. There is a predominance of bibliolaters around here, but in most places that is a minority variety of Christianity. There is nothing contradictory in believing in Jesus, and also believing that many of the biblical authors were primitive and wrongheaded on some issues.

The "Bible" differs greatly from denomination to denomination. It's all in what books the individual Churches decide to base their doctrine upon. Some of the more progressive Churches just disregard anything that isn't in the Gospels, figuring that being Christian was really about "being a follower of Christ". Therefore, they're not bound by the rest of the poorly-written drivel present in the Roman Catholic versions of the Bible, that contains several books of dubious historical and theological value.
Ah ok, I don't know much about the details of Christianity and the bible.. but still, what about the conformity point?

That's how it works in the United States, but apparently it is different in Sweden. Regardless of whatever the 2000 legislation did, it did NOT in fact abolish the "state church" status, if what Fassitude says about the law in Sweden is correct (and I will assume it is); they still need to abolish the state/church entanglement to avoid this kind of nonsense.

Not all Christians worship the Holy Book as some kind of infallible oracle. There is a predominance of bibliolaters around here, but in most places that is a minority variety of Christianity. There is nothing contradictory in believing in Jesus, and also believing that many of the biblical authors were primitive and wrongheaded on some issues.
Agreed there; according to Richard Dawkins, Jesus himself "was not content to derive his ethics from the scriptures with which he had been brought up;" kinda ironic huh?

Doesn't Christianity's "holy book" the bible repeatedly condemn homosexuality?

Not really. There are a few passages that might condemn homosexuality, depending on how they are translated, but there really isn't much in there about it.

If you consider equality to be ridiculous, which of course you do. So, no surprises there.

I'm in favor of legal equality.

But I also believe that people can be bigoted if they want to. And, while I may find those people's views despicable, I don't think any kind of forced association is really a proper role of the government.


That's how it works in the United States, but apparently it is different in Sweden. Regardless of whatever the 2000 legislation did, it did NOT in fact abolish the "state church" status, if what Fassitude says about the law in Sweden is correct (and I will assume it is); they still need to abolish the state/church entanglement to avoid this kind of nonsense.

Ah yes. I did say in my first post that I don't know how the Swedish law differs from that in the US on state/church entanglements and freedom of religion.

Regardless of whatever the 2000 legislation did, it did NOT in fact abolish the "state church" status

And with that you disclose the full extent of your ignorance of Sweden and its laws. Earlier, we just knew about most of it. Thank you.

Ah ok, I don't know much about the details of Christianity and the bible.. but still, what about the conformity point?

I the particular denomination they're a part of is gay-friendly and performs same-sex marriages as readily as opposite-sex marriage because they only follow the gospels, then your point is moot. In fact, they'd be compelled to conform to a "judge not lest ye too shall be judged" ethic, which clearly does not support homophobia, racism, xenophobia or any sort of the more stupid behaviors of humanity.

You don't have to conform to homphobia if you only care about what Jesus said. And Jesus doesn't give a damn who fucks who. In fact, the only part of sexual morals Jesus mentions is adultery. Basically, it amounts to "if you're married don't be a jerk and cheat on your spouse". Not a word on anything else. No "teh gays are ebil!", no "no sex before marriage", no "thou shalt not enjoy BDSM and other hot kinky shit!", or whatever.

Christians need to read the fucking gospels before they start getting preachy to others. SRSLY d00ds!

But I also believe that people can be bigoted if they want to.

Of course they can. That doesn't mean actions won't have consequences. You can be as bigoted as you want about black people, but attempt to refuse them the same service you offer others in violation of discrimination laws? Well, let's just say it's not gonna be overlooked.

Of course they can. That doesn't mean actions won't have consequences. You can be as bigoted as you want about black people, but attempt to refuse them the same service you offer others in violation of discrimination laws? Well, let's just say it's not gonna be overlooked.

I'd say that depends on the particular service.

The KKK may induct new members into their group. Should they be legally required to also provide that induction for someone who is black?

Should Jewish temples be legally required to perform a Bris or Bar Mitzvah for a non-Jew?

I the particular denomination they're a part of is gay-friendly and performs same-sex marriages as readily as opposite-sex marriage because they only follow the gospels, then your point is moot. In fact, they'd be compelled to conform to a "judge not lest ye too shall be judged" ethic, which clearly does not support homophobia, racism, xenophobia or any sort of the more stupid behaviors of humanity.

You don't have to conform to homphobia if you only care about what Jesus said. And Jesus doesn't give a damn who fucks who. In fact, the only part of sexual morals Jesus mentions is adultery. Basically, it amounts to "if you're married don't be a jerk and cheat on your spouse". Not a word on anything else. No "teh gays are ebil!", no "no sex before marriage", no "thou shalt not enjoy BDSM and other hot kinky shit!", or whatever.

Christians need to read the fucking gospels before they start getting preachy to others. SRSLY d00ds!
The relevant question, though, is why in particular are they Christian in the first place? Why not atheist, or even some alternative religion like buddhist?

The KKK may induct new members into their group. Should they be legally required to also provide that induction for someone who is black?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJkHykGRXrw

The relevant question, though, is why in particular are they Christian in the first place? Why not atheist, or even some alternative religion like buddhist?
That question is relevant for everyone with religious belief, ever, regardless of sexual orientation.

My guess is a mix of parental influence, personal longing for spirituality-themed activities, environment and critical thinking/faith.

Like I said, why would they feel compelled not to be Christian if they found a branch of Christianity that didn't behave like total contemptuous asses towards them on the basis of an arbitrary criterion like sexual orientation, but rather welcomed them with open arms?

You would have a point only if they'd find themselves being part of a branch that says they're evil sinners who will burn in hell should they not choose to live a life of endless solitude and be denied the companionship everyone else is allowed to get. And those, we covered under the "just because you're a guy who shags guys or girl who shags girls doesn't mean you have to be internally consistent any more than the rest of humanity".

That question is relevant for everyone with religious belief, ever, regardless of sexual orientation.

My guess is a mix of parental influence, personal longing for spirituality-themed activities, environment and critical thinking/faith.

Like I said, why would they feel compelled not to be Christian if they found a branch of Christianity that didn't behave like total contemptuous asses towards them on the basis of an arbitrary criterion like sexual orientation, but rather welcomed them with open arms?

You would have a point only if they'd find themselves being part of a branch that says they're evil sinners who will burn in hell should they not choose to live a life of endless solitude and be denied the companionship everyone else is allowed to get. And those, we covered under the "just because you're a guy who shags guys or girl who shags girls doesn't mean you have to be internally consistent any more than the rest of humanity".
That's precisely what I was saying, I wasn't saying the argument didn't apply to straight Christians. I was just saying that reasons to be Christian and not other religions like buddhism (presumably, things like conformity) would seem to me to be reasons to conform to homophobia, which I was guessing was part of why opposition to gay marriage is thought of as a religious thing.

The KKK may induct new members into their group. Should they be legally required to also provide that induction for someone who is black?

That depends on whether one could argue that that would fall under "discrimination that is associated with ethnic origin, religion or other belief, sexual orientation or disability is prohibited in connection with the professional provision of goods, services or housing" or under any of the other cases that discrimination is banned in. Membership of a club is iffy as a service, but say that club was hiring people? Clearly illegal. Requiring people to be a member to be able to be hired, but not allowing them to be members if they fall under one of the protected classes, thus constituting what the law deems "indirect discrimination"? Clearly illegal. So, it very much depends on what the KKK is doing...

Should Jewish temples be legally required to perform a Bris or Bar Mitzvah for a non-Jew?

Don't be silly, Jewish temples aren't allowed to perform circumcisions. Only licensed medical doctors or people who have been deemed to have the proper medical skills thereto and do so with the child anaesthetised (something only a doctor or licenced nurse is allowed to do) and under strictly hygienic circumstances, and have been granted a special permission thereto by the government, are allowed to perform circumcisions.

That's precisely what I was saying, I wasn't saying the argument didn't apply to straight Christians. I was just saying that reasons to be Christian and not other religions like buddhism (presumably, things like conformity) would seem to me to be reasons to conform to homophobia, which I was guessing was part of why opposition to gay marriage is thought of as a religious thing.

Except that you base your reasoning on the premise that Christianity is inherently homophobic, which it is not, as I have demonstrated in previous posts. Sure, the majority of Christian denominations might be, but not all of them.

You also forget that believers often don't just swallow all the crap Bishops and Cardinals try to shove down their throats. In Québec, for example, the Catholic Church's stances on abortion, gay marriage, contraception, and pretty much every other retarded political stance the Vatican takes is pointedly ignored by everyone, up to and including the Catholics who practice the religion actively and go to Church.

Being a member of a Church does not magically make someone a moron unable to use critical thinking. All of my friends who call themselves Christians or Catholics admit to picking the parts they like (the spirituality and values of love, generosity and all that jazz) and just disregarding the backwards bullshit entirely.

You assume that membership means endorsement of every piece of Church doctrine and dogma ever produced. That might be the case in places where people are less educated and thus easily manipulated by ill-intentioned clergymen, but it by no means holds true everywhere and for everyone.

And with that you disclose the full extent of your ignorance of Sweden and its laws. Earlier, we just knew about most of it. Thank you.You yourself have said that churchmen in your country also have governmental powers. It is not like that in the United States, where we have separation of church and state. Whatever your 2000 legislation did, if it still left churchmen with governmental powers, it did NOT do enough to justify saying that the "state church" status was abolished. The word "abolished" means "destroyed completely". Take away any and all governmental powers from the church, and THEN you will have "abolished", not just reduced, the "state" status of your church.

Oh step off!

Whites have historically in this country been the predominant bulwark of racism in the United States, and still continue to be. You don't get arrested for driving while white, or beaten up by the cops. If you're black that still happens.

Well, first of all, dont try to justify your racism.

Second of all, this tread is about Sweden, not US.

And white women and gays still face discrimination, and they compromise the majority of white population.

Honey, facts, no matter how much you may wish them so, aren't about what one "likes". I'm sorry to have to break that news to you.

Of course, I am not. It's just a figure of speech.
Meh
The official name of Sweden, if you want to suddenly play this little nitpicky game, is "Konungariket Sverige". And in fact it did not become "Konungariket Sverige" in 1523 - it was "Konungariket Sverige"... well, as far back as we can speak of Swedish as a separate language, which is of course far before we can speak of Sweden as a nation state. Even the archaic, Norse-flavoured form "Konungariket" instead of the more modern Swedish "Kungariket" should have tipped you off about that.
Fine, the translated official name...
So you are arguing that is the same country now as it was in, say 700 AD?
Norway & Finland disagree.
That is also as ridiculous as saying that France is the same country as it was in that time period.

But most do not, and so what if it was introduced in the 9th century? Christianity has been introduced in China, and India. So? Marriages there are suddenly the domain of Christianity and did not exist there before Christianity?
Not the sole domain

Fjall, and bolded even? Oh, dear, I grow so weary of your brand of pathetic.
I bold everyone's name, and it was a mistyping as I was conversing with him on another forum...

And white women and gays still face discrimination, and they compromise the majority of white population.

That word. It does not mean what you think it means.

The proper way is to of course completely strip the religious congregations of the legal wedding ability (something KD of all people suggested, but they coupled it with a demand that legal marriages would then not be called "marriages", naturally making it unacceptable linguistically as well as logically) and have it be a state matter alone. Alas, that is not the way the Riksdag is headed today. I hope the Lefts either get their way, or that their demands in the end lead to the end of this anachronism.

God, it's 2008 already, how do religions still hold such legal power? The world moves slowwww.

That word. It does not mean what you think it means.

It would be funny if it did, though. "Damn all them white gay women! Keepin' me down!"

You yourself have said that churchmen in your country also have governmental powers.

I have "governmental powers", and I work at a private health care centre. The fact that the government has delegated a function to me does not make me part of the government, not does it make the government a private entity. Your very simplistic claims aren't just simplistic... they're nonsensical and display a fundamental lack of knowledge as to what a "state church" or "national religion" is.

That word. It does not mean what you think it means.

Actually, no, it does:


5. trans. To compound for, make composition for. rare. (Cf. the n. sense 4b.)

http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50045914?query_type=word&queryword=compromise&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=2&search_id=yqdf-cML4W8-12048&hilite=50045914

Nobody insists on a constitutional principle of separation of state and medicine. We all accept that the government should have some role in regulating medicine, and that the medical judgments of licensed doctors should have some legal force.

By contrast, in the US we insist on a constitutional principle of separation of state and church. In fact we take it so much for granted that many have difficulty understanding what the issue even is. The entire problem arises because your church is still entangled with the state in a way that I consider entirely improper. On this we apparently agree: you said "The proper way is to of course completely strip the religious congregations of the legal wedding ability"; understand, in the United States they never HAD such an authority in the first place, so there has never been an issue of stripping it away. When you say that the 2000 legislation "abolished" the state-church status, that implies that the stripping away of legal abilities has already been accomplished, which is not so: only certain kinds of state-church entanglements were done away with; the status was not "abolished" but only "diminished".

Meh

That explains a lot.

Fine, the translated official name...
So you are arguing that is the same country now as it was in, say 700 AD?
Norway & Finland disagree.
That is also as ridiculous as saying that France is the same country as it was in that time period.

But you're the one stretching towards the past to somehow justify the present and future. You're trying to claim that because during one period of our country's existence the church (as part of the state, never solely on its own) had a monopoly on marriage, it is somehow to continue to be the domain of the church. The fact that before that, marriage existed in Sweden and had nothing to do with the church you... well, you don't deal with because you are incapable of it. But it is nice to see you undermine yourself by asking the question "So you are arguing that is the same country now as it was in, say 700 AD?" I am not. Sweden isn't the same country now as it was a mere century ago. A mere decade ago. Things change. You're the one clinging in utter ignorance of facts to the past with the historic role of the church during one period of Swedish existence in a stupid attempt to argue for how things should be now or in the future...

Not the sole domain

So you would claim that marriage didn't exist there before Christianity? And you would still, after your "So you are arguing that is the same country now as it was in, say 700 AD?" question wish to claim that what was the case in the past is to dictate what is the case now? My, how schizophrenic that would be.

I bold everyone's name, and it was a mistyping as I was conversing with him on another forum...

Well, it is apparent that you can't keep things separate, what with undermining your own arguments and all.

Actually, no, it does:

http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50045914?query_type=word&queryword=compromise&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=2&search_id=yqdf-cML4W8-12048&hilite=50045914

Then your usage of it is nonsensical. "To compound for, make composition for" doesn't make any sense in your sentence.

But you're the one stretching towards the past to somehow justify the present and future. You're trying to claim that because during one period of our country's existence the church (as part of the state, never solely on its own) had a monopoly on marriage, it is somehow to continue to be the domain of the church. The fact that before that, marriage existed in Sweden and had nothing to do with the church you... well, you don't deal with because you are incapable of it. But it is nice to see you undermine yourself by asking the question "So you are arguing that is the same country now as it was in, say 700 AD?" I am not. Sweden isn't the same country now as it was a mere century ago. A mere decade ago. Things change. You're the one clinging to the past with the historic role of the church during one period of Swedish existence...
I never said it was the sole domain though, something which you seem to be missing... Also to refresh:
why should the religious be able to use state-delegated legal powers discriminatorily?Because it was a function of the church before it was a function of the state?
I was simply providing a reason why they would be able to.

So you would claim that marriage didn't exist there before Christianity? And you would still, after your I]"So you are arguing that is the same country now as it was in, say 700 AD?"[/I] question wish to claim that what was the case in the past is to dictate what is the case now? My, how schizophrenic that would be.
Nope, I wouldn't and didn't claim that.
Well, it is apparent that you can't keep things separate, what with undermining your own arguments and all.
So I confused one Swede for another, mind you I owe him an apology for that...

By contrast, in the US we insist on a constitutional principle of separation of state and church.

Tell that to the people getting money for "faith-based initiatives" or all those tax-exempt and thus state-favoured churches, and allowing people to be sworn to testimony on Bibles, or swearing in the president on a Bible and having "In God we trust" as a national motto and so on... but of course, despite your complete failure to understand what "state church" means, those examples don't mean that the USA has a state church, as little does this delegation mean that Sweden in any sense of the compound word has a state church. You have got to start getting that clue, already...

But they are in this case performing a legal action they have asked to have delegated to them from the government. Why should they then get to discriminate?
What are the rules regarding civil marriage in Sweden? What options are available to non-religious people to get married?

In the US, regardless of whether you get a church wedding or not, you still have to get a marriage license from the state government. You still have to document your marriage in forms required by the state. Just a religious ceremony is not enough for your marriage to be legally binding and legally recognized by your state of residence and other states. For instance, you can't show a paper from a Catholic archdiocese showing that you were married in one of their churches and expect that to be recognized by an office or agency of a state government for, say, tax purposes, because the church is not an agency of the government. The states have their own paperwork that you have to file.

How does it work in Sweden? Are the churches actually acting as surrogates of the state so that what they do provides the legally binding documentation of a marriage that the Swedish government relies on for proof of marriage for all legal purposes?

If so, and that is how what you have said makes it seem, then, yes, it seems allowing churches an exemption to discriminate for religious purposes is creating a situation of injustice for citizens.

If that is the extent to which the government has delegated this function to the churches, and since I do believe that freedom of religion is a good thing for society, I think the solution would be to take that function back from the churches. Let the churches bless marriages, if they like (and refuse to as they like, too), but let the government directly control the legal aspects of marriage, equally for all citizens.

Then your usage of it is nonsensical. "To compound for, make composition for" doesn't make any sense in your sentence.

Then maybe you should look up compound and composition. I assume you know what "to", "for" and "make" mean.

You were complaining about people's lack of using google. Try it with "compromise the majority", the form I had used, for examples like this:

"blacks in fact compromise the majority in the Armed Forces"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1979/jun/01/zimbabwe.fromthearchive

I never said it was the sole domain though, something which you seem to be missing...

You somehow think that changes what what you were doing...

I was simply providing a reason why they would be able to.

... which was indeed, as you here profess, an attempt at using the past to argue for how things should continue to be, and then when I tried to turn that against you by using that very same demented logic, you turned around and asked basically "but why should things be as they were"? You've completely shot yourself in the foot, and I do admire your sad limping here.

Nope, I wouldn't and didn't claim that.

You are aware that we can go back and read what you've written thus far?

So I confused one Swede for another, mind you I owe him an apology for that...

There goes the pathetic again.

You somehow think that changes what what you were doing...
And what, according to you, was I doing?
... which was indeed, as you here profess, an attempt at using the past to argue for how things should continue to be, and then when I tried to turn that against you by using that very same demented logic, you turned around and asked basically "but why should things be as they were"? You've completely shot yourself in the foot, and I do admire your sad limping here.
Actually, no I didn't. You are the one who is trying to argue that Sweden has existed as a sovereign nation since before the introduction of christianity, I was simply pointing out the fact that you were mistaken.
You are aware that we can go back and read what you've written thus far?
Yup. Feel free to do so.
There goes the pathetic again.
If you say so...

Then maybe you should look up compound and composition. I assume you know what "to", "for" and "make" mean.

The thing is, honey, you don't seem to understand what "to compound for, to make composition for" mean. You probably know what "for" means, but when coupled with "compound for", you draw a blank.

You were complaining about people's lack of using google. Try it with "compromise the majority", the form I had used, for examples like this:

"blacks in fact compromise the majority in the Armed Forces"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1979/jun/01/zimbabwe.fromthearchive

And google gives me 133000 examples of the "word" "prsident", and many other examples of typos and misuses of words. Seemingly you have discovered that, too. Kudos, I suppose. How someone else's mistake is to support your usage of the word in that sentence remains cryptic, though.

What are the rules regarding civil marriage in Sweden?

I don't understand your question. The marriage isn't different legally in any sense - it is only the officiator that is different. The government delegates the officiation function to religious people as well as non-religious, to ministers/rabbis/whathaveyous and to butchers/bakers/candlestick makers. It doesn't change the marriage.

I don't understand your question. The marriage isn't different legally in any sense - it is only the officiator that is different. The government delegates the officiation function to religious people as well as non-religious, to ministers/rabbis/whathaveyous and to butchers/bakers/candlestick makers. It doesn't change the marriage.

Sounds a lot like the way it is in the US, then.

So, wit so many officiants around, why would anyone need to have a particular religious officiant perform the ceremony? Why would someone who could not get married under the particular religious definition of a given religion have any need to seek out a minister from that religion and have them officiate?

And what, according to you, was I doing?

Trying to use the past to justify why something should continue to be, and when someone else used the past to justify why something shouldn't be, you resorted to hypocrisy. "But is Sweden what it was then?" Nope, Sweden is not what it was then, and it isn't what it was in the period of its existence you're failing to grasp for.

Actually, no I didn't. You are the one who is trying to argue that Sweden has existed as a sovereign nation since before the introduction of christianity, I was simply pointing out the fact that you were mistaken.

And in that case you were exposing the not so hidden nature of how small a grasp you have of historical reality.

Yup. Feel free to do so.

Already done, and you continue to provide nice little gems of the "it's so sad, it's funny" kind.

Sounds a lot like the way it is in the US, then.

So, wit so many officiants around, why would anyone need to have a particular religious officiant perform the ceremony? Why would someone who could not get married under the particular religious definition of a given religion have any need to seek out a minister from that religion and have them officiate?

It's not about the need. It's about the principle. Blacks in the USA could use all the non-white drinking fountains they wanted and sit at the back of the bus, just not at the front - hey, they still got to where they were going, right? And had access to "separate but equal" services? So, why did they bitch so much about it? :rolleyes:

The thing is, honey, you don't seem to understand what "to compound for, to make composition for" mean. You probably know what "for" means, but when coupled with "compound for", you draw a blank.



And google gives me 133000 examples of the "word" "prsident", and many other examples of typos and misuses of words. Seemingly you have discovered that, too. Kudos, I suppose. How someone else's mistake is to support your usage of the word in that sentence remains cryptic, though.

Well, you have to google and look for reputable links and in this context, they are those which does probably not contain any typos or misuses of the words. I thought that was obvious. Usually, when you want to learn something or gather information about something, and you use google, you go for the reputable sources.

I guess the Guardian, after their checks on misuses of words before publishing, can be wrong and you can be right, but thats highly unlikely.

I'm not sure if you genuinely dont understand or just too stubborn.

Well, you have to google and look for reputable links and in this context, they are those which does probably not contain any typos or misuses of the words.

Aww, naiveté. Cute, if it weren't so grammatically challenged.

I'm not sure if you genuinely dont understand or just too stubborn.

It's not that I don't understand. It's that your English is repeatedly demonstrably... how do I say this as kindly as I can... limited.

Aww, naiveté. Cute, if it weren't so grammatically challenged.



It's not that I don't understand. It's that your English is repeatedly demonstrably limited.

Wow. And you actually claim my "English is repeatedly demonstrably limited".

Ok, here's an academic publication.

"The data indicate that general practitioners compromise the majority providing this care"
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/cp87syn.htm

Compromise here = make up. Making up is one of the definitions of composition, the noun. When you use it like to make composition for, it becomes a verb again.

Anyway, of course these are all minor points, but I'm surprised at your stubbornness and obsession with being condescending even when you are clearly wrong. Ok...

Wow. And you actually claim my "English is repeatedly demonstrably limited".

they are those which does probably not - if you really can't see the dishevelled state your English is in, even in that example, then you are beyond redemption.

Ok, here's an academic publication.

"The data indicate that general practitioners compromise the majority providing this care"
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/cp87syn.htm

Compromise here = make up. Making up is one of the definitions of composition, the noun. When you use it like to make composition for, it becomes a verb again.

Anyway, of course these are all minor points, but I'm surprised at your stubbornness and obsession with being condescending even when you are clearly wrong. Ok...

More examples of mistakes that are somehow supposed to become correct because I'm supposed to be impressed by who made them and where. More demonstrations of your inability to understand what a "phrasal verb" is. *yawn*

Trying to use the past to justify why something should continue to be,
Not really, I was providing a possible justification.
and when someone else used the past to justify why something shouldn't be, you resorted to hypocrisy. "But is Sweden what it was then?" Nope, Sweden is not what it was then, and it isn't what it was in the period of its existence you're failing to grasp for.
Except I didn't demonstrate any hypocrisy. Sweden has not been one sovereign nation since before christianization, let alone since the introduction of christianity, so your "points" about Sweden in the Viking era have absolutely no bearing, just like facts about Gaul have no bearing upon a discussion of modern day France.
And in that case you were exposing the not so hidden nature of how small a grasp you have of historical reality.
If you say so, all anyone has to do is do some very quick research and they'll see which one of us is stating things accurately
Already done, and you continue to provide nice little gems of the "it's so sad, it's funny" kind.
I'd say reread, but it would be pointless since you have already shown that you have no comprehension.

There should be no "freedom of religion", as it is nothing but a special right for a certain type of opinion, giving that opinion the air of being more special, or more worthy of protection, than other opinions are.

Thank you. The defense rests.

You seem to think there aren't gay Christians or gay priests. You should ask them, because you couldn't be asking a more wrong person as to their motives and ability to delude themselves.

Um. Isn't the argument you are making that religious figures should be forced to perform same-sex marriages regardless of their personal or religious views? That makes your "there are gay priests" point rather moot, if not contradictory.

Thank you. The defense rests.



Um. Isn't the argument you are making that religious figures should be forced to perform same-sex marriages regardless of their personal or religious views? That makes your "there are gay priests" point rather moot, if not contradictory.

None of this should surprise you TCT, it is Fass.

Except that you base your reasoning on the premise that Christianity is inherently homophobic, which it is not, as I have demonstrated in previous posts. Sure, the majority of Christian denominations might be, but not all of them.

You also forget that believers often don't just swallow all the crap Bishops and Cardinals try to shove down their throats. In Québec, for example, the Catholic Church's stances on abortion, gay marriage, contraception, and pretty much every other retarded political stance the Vatican takes is pointedly ignored by everyone, up to and including the Catholics who practice the religion actively and go to Church.

Being a member of a Church does not magically make someone a moron unable to use critical thinking. All of my friends who call themselves Christians or Catholics admit to picking the parts they like (the spirituality and values of love, generosity and all that jazz) and just disregarding the backwards bullshit entirely.

You assume that membership means endorsement of every piece of Church doctrine and dogma ever produced. That might be the case in places where people are less educated and thus easily manipulated by ill-intentioned clergymen, but it by no means holds true everywhere and for everyone.
Wrong. I base my reasoning on the premise that reasons people have for being Christian would tend to be reasons to be homophobic, not that Christianity itself necessarily is; I do realize that I myself implied the latter earlier on, but that's irrelevant to the point.

It's not about the need. It's about the principle. Blacks in the USA could use all the non-white drinking fountains they wanted and sit at the back of the bus, just not at the front - hey, they still got to where they were going, right? And had access to "separate but equal" services? So, why did they bitch so much about it? :rolleyes:

If water fountains and buses were clubs or churches, rather than public services, I wouldn't worry about how they choose to restrict their membership or the ceremonies they perform.

The only reason to seek out a religious officiant to perform a wedding ceremony is if you want a religious ceremony. And religions can refuse to perform such a ceremony for anyone who wasn't born on a Tuesday, for all I care.

I don't understand your question. The marriage isn't different legally in any sense - it is only the officiator that is different. The government delegates the officiation function to religious people as well as non-religious, to ministers/rabbis/whathaveyous and to butchers/bakers/candlestick makers. It doesn't change the marriage.
I was just looking for information to try to fill out my understanding of the situation in Sweden.

First I wanted to understand the relation of civil marriage versus religious marriage regarding options for Swedish citizens, which can be an indicator of just how much government authority over marriage has already been delegated to churches.

Then I wanted to understand how Swedish citizens establish legal recognition of their marriages, which could be another indicator.

Thank you. The defense rests.

You call yourself a lawyer and confuse defence with a very poor attempt at prosecution by you. My, my... maybe the words are used differently on the back of cereal packets.

Um. Isn't the argument you are making that religious figures should be forced to perform same-sex marriages regardless of their personal or religious views?

If they want the legal delegation to be handed them by the government, yes. They can rub their juju-bags and kneel in fellatio before their imaginary friends and chant their little magical words all day long for what I care, but once they come knocking on the government's door and ask to have the legal ability to officiate at marriages, then their religious drivel doesn't even begin to amount to an excuse as to why they should be let to have their cake and eat it, too. "Please, government, invest in me the power to announce people spouses, but also allow me to be able to do what no others invested with other powers the government can delegate are allowed to do and allow me to refuse to do so for those niggers/fags/kikes!" But, you support that last part, I suppose. As long as they can invent some numinous poppycock to back it up with...

That makes your "there are gay priests" point rather moot, if not contradictory.

How so? Gay priests shouldn't be allowed to legally officiate marriages either if they choose to discriminate against niggers/fags/kikes. What you just said is a non sequitur to what I posted, which dealt with gay Christians and their particular brand of self-delusion.

The only reason to seek out a religious officiant to perform a wedding ceremony is if you want a religious ceremony. And religions can refuse to perform such a ceremony for anyone who wasn't born on a Tuesday, for all I care.

But in Sweden at the moment, they do not just perform the ceremony. They perform the legal officiation as well if they have that delegation. It isn't about the ceremonies - it is about someone wanting a pass to discriminate and yet at the same time wanting to get to keep a legal function vested in them by the government. If they didn't seek that legal function, and only were content with doing the equivalent of dancing for some rain, then I wouldn't give a fuck. But that's not what they want. They want for their ceremony to be legally recognised as a marriage officiation, but at the same time be able to withhold the ceremony from swaths of the population they don't like. That shouldn't be allowed.

It's not about the need. It's about the principle. Blacks in the USA could use all the non-white drinking fountains they wanted and sit at the back of the bus, just not at the front - hey, they still got to where they were going, right? And had access to "separate but equal" services? So, why did they bitch so much about it? :rolleyes:
But if, according to Swedish law -- and this is why I was asking you about civil marriage and government procedure for recognizing marriages -- ALL marriages, civil and of all religions, have EQUAL weight in the law, then the many kinds of marriage are neither separate nor unequal. They are all the same thing -- marriage -- and they are all equal.

For example, here in the US, if I were to get married by civil marriage -- which would be what I would choose -- I would be just as married, under the law, as if I had gotten married in a church. There is no difference. Both carry the same legal rights, responsibilities, privileges and powers. And both also are subject to state-required documentation to be acquired and/or filed by me and my spouse in order to get the fact of our marriage recognized. In the US, regardless of who is permitted to officiate a wedding, the married couple still have to go to the government for legal recognition of their union. It's true that the US does allow some people to officiate weddings for closed private clubs (religions), but there are so many avenues for getting a wedding officiated that we can tolerate having a few closed clubs. Yes, officiants do have to be authorized by the state, but seriously, in the US, almost anyone can get that. You should see what gets to officiate weddings here. This is because the officiant does not matter. What matters is the documentation.

I'm just trying to understand how much and in what way Sweden differs from the US on this.

Except I didn't demonstrate any hypocrisy. Sweden has not been one sovereign nation since before christianization, let alone since the introduction of christianitye...

And with that, I can't even pretend to entertain your baseless nonsense any more.

But in Sweden at the moment, they do not just perform the ceremony. They perform the legal officiation as well if they have that delegation.

Do they provide the actual marriage license (or similar documentation)?

If not, it's much like the system in the US. In our case, ministers/etc. can officiate a wedding ceremony (ie. sign the final paperwork), not because they really carry any legal weight in determining whether or not someone can marry, but instead because it is a convenience to those who wish to undergo a religious ceremony in addition to obtaining a legal marriage.

If one is not interested in receiving a religious blessing on one's wedding, there is no reason to seek out a religious ceremony.

Do they provide the actual marriage license (or similar documentation)?

If not, it's much like the system in the US. In our case, ministers/etc. can officiate a wedding ceremony (ie. sign the final paperwork), not because they really carry any legal weight in determining whether or not someone can marry, but instead because it is a convenience to those who wish to undergo a religious ceremony in addition to obtaining a legal marriage.

If one is not interested in receiving a religious blessing on one's wedding, there is no reason to seek out a religious ceremony.
Precisely. In the US, you get your marriage license from the state, and then you just need someone authorized to sign marriage licenses to witness you and your spouse swearing your freely given oaths, and sign it for you. That can be almost anyone -- judge, clergy, ship's captain, all kinds of other minor officials or persons with various kinds of authority over this or that, who happen to have applied and qualified for marriage license signing powers from their state. This is how you can be legally married by an Elvis impersonator in this country. The only thing that matters is that license.

But if, according to Swedish law -- and this is why I was asking you about civil marriage and government procedure for recognizing marriages -- ALL marriages, civil and of all religions, have EQUAL weight in the law, then the many kinds of marriage are neither separate nor unequal. They are all the same thing -- marriage -- and they are all equal.

And if ALL the transportation systems got EVERYONE to the SAME destination, why did all those black people complain about not being able to sit at the front of the bus? What you fail to understand is simply this: if the priests want to legally be able to officiate at marriages they should not be able to discriminate because they are fulfilling a legal function. Not a religious one, but a legal one. And ours should not be a country that grants legal functions and authorities to people who discriminate. Just like it should not stand for bus drivers or companies that refuse to let Muslim women on the bus.

Do they provide the actual marriage license (or similar documentation)?

Swedish law doesn't separate the two functions. You can't just sign a marriage licence - you have to have someone officiate at the signing of it, sort of like a glorified notary public. The whole crux of the matter is that the Left Party doesn't want them to have that role if they continue to refuse to live up to its demands if they continue to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. It isn't about forcing them to perform ceremonies - it is about not giving them an official function with which to be able to discriminate against people. Think of it like them not wanting a notary public or a judge to be able to refuse to perform a function they have been vested with on the basis of the race or gender and so on of the person before them. What the Left Party is saying: "either they perform the legal officiation, or they should just get the religious ceremony." It's about not giving a pass to religion as an excuse for legal discrimination in an official function.

Swedish law doesn't separate the two functions. You can't just sign a marriage licence - you have to have someone officiate at the signing of it, sort of like a glorified notary public.

My question, though, is who provides the license?

That said, I do have a question. I've known people who specifically sought the ability to officiate at a wedding ceremony in order to officiate for their friends. Should they be legally required to also officiate for people they don't know?

And if ALL the transportation systems got EVERYONE to the SAME destination, why did all those black people complain about not being able to sit at the front of the bus? What you fail to understand is simply this: if the priests want to legally be able to officiate at marriages they should not be able to discriminate because they are fulfilling a legal function. Not a religious one, but a legal one. And ours should not be a country that grants legal functions and authorities to people who discriminate. Just like it should not stand for bus drivers or companies that refuse to let Muslim women on the bus.
I am not a Catholic. I do not consider the Catholic religion to be better than my own or better than no religion. Therefore I would not consider not getting a Catholic wedding to be a lessening of my legal rights, so long as my actual legal rights were the same as those for Catholics. Because my own religion has little to no representation in the US and, even more, because of bullshit religiosity in the US, I will refuse absolutely to get a religious wedding. I would only agree to a civil marriage. I can do that because in the US, I know that a civil marriage will give me exactly the same legal status as a religious marriage would. This is because religion is just window dressing to marriage in the US (regardless of what crazy religious bigots might claim). The legality of marriage is strictly a civil matter.

What is it in Sweden?

And before you get ready to jump down my throat, I remind you that I have already told you that I think the solution to this is not to force churches to go against their beliefs, but rather to remove the legal functions of marriage from church authority and give it back to the government. Now, I'm just trying to understand how much authority the government has delegated to the churches.

Thank you. The defense rests.

fass is right, though. we should only protect religious freedom in so far as we should protect freedom of thought and freedom of association, period. it isn't anything special and should not be treated differently than if we were dealing with any other sort of belief.

What is it in Sweden?

I do not know how I can explain this simpler. There are gay people in Sweden that want religious ceremonies. Just like there was a woman called Rosa Parks that wanted to sit at the front of the bus. One shouldn't stand for having a bus driver who refuses to drive her around because she is black and at the front of the bus, just like one shouldn't stand for a priest who refuses to perform something he has asked to be tasked with by the government because someone is gay. If you cannot get that simple concept... then I give up on you.

That said, I do have a question. I've known people who specifically sought the ability to officiate at a wedding ceremony in order to officiate for their friends. Should they be legally required to also officiate for people they don't know?

if they wish to retain the ability to officiate marriages, yes.

if they wish to retain the ability to officiate marriages, yes.

*shrug* That's consistency, at least.

I disagree.

I do not know how I can explain this simpler. There are gay people in Sweden that want religious ceremonies. Just like there was a woman called Rosa Parks that wanted to sit at the front of the bus. One shouldn't stand for having a bus driver who refuses to drive her around because she is black and at the front of the bus, just like one shouldn't stand for a priest who refuses to perform something he has asked to be tasked with by the government because someone is gay. If you cannot get that simple concept... then I give up on you.
If I recall correctly, it wasn't so much about Rosa Parks changing the segregation of which part of the bus you can sit on, so much as how that might have led to the dismanting of so many other much worse forms of segregation. I learned about it years ago, in school, and not in very much detail, but that's basically what I recall.

In any case, comparing someone who happens to be dark-skinned riding in the wrong part of the bus to someone marrying the same gender is a bit of a weak analogy. The belief that "marriage" isn't necessarily between a man and a woman but simply between two people is a cultural belief, not a circumstance of birth. Saying they can't marry two people of the same gender is cultural discrimination at worst, and as such, some airline company that wouldn't accept Muslim customers might be a more logical analogy...

I do not know how I can explain this simpler.
You mean "more simply."

There are gay people in Sweden that want religious ceremonies. Just like there was a woman called Rosa Parks that wanted to sit at the front of the bus. One shouldn't stand for having a bus driver who refuses to drive her around because she is black and at the front of the bus, just like one shouldn't stand for a priest who refuses to perform something he has asked to be tasked with by the government because someone is gay. If you cannot get that simple concept... then I give up on you.
In your apparent zeal to talk down to me and cast me as a villain in this drama, you are missing the point of my questions. I am not asking you about the churches. I am asking you about the law.

So let me see if I can explain this even more simply for you:

1) Yes, I understand that there are religious gay people.

2) Yes, I understand that they would like to be married by their churches.

3) Yes, I understand that, if the churches refuse them because they are gay, that is discrimination.

4) Yes, I understand that such discrimination is illegal in Sweden for non-religious groups.

5) Yes, I understand that some (perhaps many) people think that organizations that discriminate should not be allowed to perform legal services on behalf of the government, which is not allowed to discriminate.

QUESTION: Do you understand that, as I have told you twice before now, I agree that this is a reasonable argument?

QUESTION: Do you understand that I am trying to understand the following two points:

A) How much authority over marriage has the government delegated to the churches, for purposes of judging the feasibility of reducing that authority?

B) What is the legal process of marriage in Sweden, for purposes of judging the feasibility of reducing the authority of churches?

6) Finally, there is an additional question: Does Swedish law permit the government to restrict religion so as to force churches to do something that goes against their beliefs? The reason for this question is to determine if the proposed law that is the topic of this thread is a non-starter in the first place. In other words, does the Swedish government currently have the power to enforce the same rules on religious organizations as non-religious organizations?

By the way, if as you said in another post, the point of all this is to say that, if churches don't want to stop discriminating then they must give up their government-granted powers in re legal marriage, that won't help religious gays who feel hurt by being denied marriage in their church. If their church decided to give up officiating weddings altogether rather than officiate gay weddings, then their gay members would still have to get civil marriages.

he belief that "marriage" isn't necessarily between a man and a woman but simply between two people is a cultural belief, not a circumstance of birth. Saying they can't marry two people of the same gender is cultural discrimination at worst, and as such, some airline company that wouldn't accept Muslim customers might be a more logical analogy...

The belief that "riding at the front of the bus" is only for white people or that black people are filthy and inferior is a cultural belief, not a circumstance of birth. Your analogy is the weak one.

A) How much authority over marriage has the government delegated to the churches, for purposes of judging the feasibility of reducing that authority?

And as I have repeatedly stated: only officiation.

B) What is the legal process of marriage in Sweden, for purposes of judging the feasibility of reducing the authority of churches?

http://www.swedenabroad.com/Page____34994.aspx
http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/sweden/marriage/marriage.php

6) Finally, there is an additional question: Does Swedish law permit the government to restrict religion so as to force churches to do something that goes against their beliefs? The reason for this question is to determine if the proposed law that is the topic of this thread is a non-starter in the first place.

Religious reasons for discrimination have failed legal scrutiny before. It isn't the first time someone has called upon religion to attempt to excuse bigotry.

By the way, if as you said in another post, the point of all this is to say that, if churches don't want to stop discriminating then they must give up their government-granted powers in re legal marriage, that won't help religious gays who feel hurt by being denied marriage in their church. If their church decided to give up officiating weddings altogether rather than officiate gay weddings, then their gay members would still have to get civil marriages.

But the important difference is that they wouldn't be disadvantaged.

You mean "more simply."

"It's idiomatic, bitch!"

The belief that "riding at the front of the bus" is only for white people or that black people are filthy and inferior is a cultural belief, not a circumstance of birth. Your analogy is the weak one.
Do you have to be so condescending? The idea that people are inferior because of the colour of their skin is quite different from the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. If someone says that gays CAN do the same thing by marrying someone of the opposite sex, the discrimination is cultural.

It might help you to genuinely consider the arguments being made instead of just fighting them.

"It's idiomatic, bitch!"
"Idiomatic," aka wrong. :tongue:

And as I have repeatedly stated: only officiation.



http://www.swedenabroad.com/Page____34994.aspx
http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/sweden/marriage/marriage.php



Religious reasons for discrimination have failed legal scrutiny before. It isn't the first time someone has called upon religion to attempt to excuse bigotry.

But the important difference is that they wouldn't be disadvantaged.
Thank you. This is the information I was looking for.

The idea that people are inferior because of the colour of their skin is quite different from the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman.

how so?

Do you have to be so condescending? The idea that people are inferior because of the colour of their skin is quite different from the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Nope. Both are arbitrary bigotry. One because one deems whites better than blacks or more deserving of recognition/standing or whatever, and the other because one deems heterosexuals better than homosexuals or more deserving of recognition/standing or whatever.

It might help you to genuinely consider the arguments being made instead of just fighting them.

You aren't making an argument. You are failing at making an argument. Miserably, too.

Nope. Both are arbitrary bigotry. One because one deems whites better than blacks or more deserving of recognition/standing or whatever, and the other because one deems heterosexuals better than homosexuals or more deserving of recognition/standing or whatever.



You aren't making an argument. You are failing at making an argument. Miserably, too.
You condescending son of a bitch. The former segregates people because of something as superficial as skin colour (and though perhaps which side of the bus you could ride on might not have been that serious a segregation in and of itself, see my earlier point about challenging that leading to challenges of other segregation) whereas the latter is simply saying "marriage is between a man and a woman; gays are allowed to marry in that they can marry the opposite sex"; they can't marry who they love, but neither can people who are in love with their cousins...

For what it's worth, normally I'd be challenging such comparisons like this, but I'm trying to make the point as to why blacks on the bus is a weak analogy. I offered you an alternative one about Muslims, but you didn't use it at all, and instead proceeded to attack my criticism of your original analogy. And at this point in time, your insulting tone doesn't exactly make me feel good about having opinions similar to yours...

they are those which does probably not - if you really can't see the dishevelled state your English is in, even in that example, then you are beyond redemption.


LOL. I'm still correct tho.


More examples of mistakes that are somehow supposed to become correct because I'm supposed to be impressed by who made them and where. More demonstrations of your inability to understand what a "phrasal verb" is. *yawn*

To compound for is a phrasal verb, yes. However, some definitions are to explain the word, and not to be used interchangeably with the word in all cases. Duh.

To compound for explains how compromise can be used to mean making up (a part of something) as in compromise a part (of something) or compromise the majority (of something).

whereas the latter is simply saying "marriage is between a man and a woman;

"This water fountain is for white people." :rolleyes:

gays are allowed to marry in that they can marry the opposite sex";

So the relationships they actually desire to engage in are not recognized?

Yes, sounds like "inequality" to me....

they can't marry who they love, but neither can people who are in love with their cousins...

The problem is not that some marriages are not permitted; the problem is that the prohibition on same-sex marriage is founded in nothing but distaste for same-sex relationships.

That's bigotry. It is not in the slightest any more justified or respectable than bigotry against blacks. You should be ashamed of apologizing for it.

but I'm trying to make the point as to why blacks on the bus is a weak analogy.

For a legal system that condemns a class of people to social inferiority? Why?

"It's idiomatic, bitch!"No, asshole. It was ungrammatical.

The problem is not that some marriages are not permitted; the problem is that the prohibition on same-sex marriage is founded in nothing but distaste for same-sex relationships.


Hang on that does refute the point made by Hayteria, as he can just say that the prohibition on incestuous marriage is founded in nothing but distaste for incestuous relationships.

Hang on that does refute the point made by Hayteria, as he can just say that the prohibition on incestuous marriage is founded in nothing but distaste for incestuous relationships.

It's his slippery slope argument, not mine. If it is indeed the case that the prohibition is merely founded on distaste, then it should go. Why not?

If, on the other hand, he thinks incestuous relationships should be prohibited for some particular exceptional reason, then he is just indulging in a slippery slope fallacy and his conclusion does not follow.

so should everyone be able to opt out of any part of their job because the pixies tell them to?

On the pharmacist angle; If they believe that a certain prescription is not the best for the patient and there is another similar medication that they can give them that they prefer than they can go ahead and do so. If there is no alternative than they absolutely have to provide them with that specific prescription. They can't not give them a medication. I didn't say anything about skipping out on a job.

On the gay marriage angle; if a religion's tenants make homosexual marriages a sin than you can't force the priests or ministers of that religion to do it, because by doing it THEY are committing a sin. Its just as asinine as saying "You can't get married because you are a faggot."

See what I did here? Both of those things are wrong!

BTW, I don't even particularly like religions and in another thread am arguing that religion is the biggest obstacle in the way of gay marriages; and here I am arguing for the rights of the religious...

On the gay marriage angle; if a religion's tenants make homosexual marriages a sin than you can't force the priests or ministers of that religion to do it

No one is "forcing" anything. They don't have to officiate at civil marriages.

On the pharmacist angle; If they believe that a certain prescription is not the best for the patient and there is another similar medication that they can give them that they prefer than they can go ahead and do so. If there is no alternative than they absolutely have to provide them with that specific prescription. They can't not give them a medication. I didn't say anything about skipping out on a job.

apologies then, as i was thinking specifically of recent demands that pharmacists get to just not give things out if they don't feel like it

On the gay marriage angle; if a religion's tenants make homosexual marriages a sin than you can't force the priests or ministers of that religion to do it, because by doing it THEY are committing a sin.

if they don't want to officiate any marriages at all, that's fine. but if they do, they should have to do it without discrimination.

"This water fountain is for white people." :rolleyes:
That's not a definition-based approach, though, that's just an absurd unnecessary separation of who uses utilities where. You don't see people comparing having different genders use different washrooms to water fountain segregation, why compare the definition of marriage with respect to gender to water fountain segregation?


So the relationships they actually desire to engage in are not recognized?

Yes, sounds like "inequality" to me....
Where and when did I suggest that it wasn't inequality? Of course it's inequality, but whether or not fighting that kind of inequality justifies the coerciveness of saying pastors HAVE to perform gay marriages is another story. Disease and the prosperity gap are much worse forms of inequality, yet popular opinion seems to consider fighting those not justifying of the "coerciveness" of diverting some tax money towards it...

The point I was making was that since they're not RECOGNIZING the relationships, the discrimination is CULTURAL, and that's why I think it's different from racial discrimination. As I said earlier, I offered the analogy about Muslims on airlines, and people don't seem to be using it.


The problem is not that some marriages are not permitted; the problem is that the prohibition on same-sex marriage is founded in nothing but distaste for same-sex relationships.

That's bigotry. It is not in the slightest any more justified or respectable than bigotry against blacks. You should be ashamed of apologizing for it.
Apologizing for what? Being on the same side as fassitude? That had more to do with me not being so fond of his insulting tone...

While I too get the impression that opposition to gay marriage is motivated by anti gay beliefs, (though even then, the arguments should be looked at on their own merits rather than for the presumed motivations of who they're from) those are in turn motivated by religion and/or fear of the unknown, and they aren't the worst things to come out of those two factors. Those fighting for giving gays the right to marry the same sex don't seem to be fighting as hard for public funding of ESCR, for which the reasons for being opposed are also motivated by religion and/or fear of the unknown, (and the reasons for not funding it being that people think using tax money for it would be coercive) and the reasons for supporting it are more important...


For a legal system that condemns a class of people to social inferiority? Why?
Again, it's more so a notion of cultural "inferiority" than of class "inferiority"; I'd have figured that class implied whether one was rich or poor, etc. though I suppose it could be considered gender discrimination...

That's not a definition-based approach, though, that's just an absurd unnecessary separation of who uses utilities where.

Which is exactly what making marriage out to be "a man and a woman" is.

Simply saying that "Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman", without giving a reason why it should be so, is on the same rational level as saying "This water fountain has traditionally been reserved for white people." To the extent that it is true, it merely points to past cultural practice regarding the institution, and makes no real argument that past cultural practice actually treated people fairly.

You don't see people comparing having different genders use different washrooms to water fountain segregation,

This isn't a definition-based approach either. We do this for (questionable) reasons that have nothing to do with definitions.

Disease and the prosperity gap are much worse forms of inequality, yet popular opinion seems to consider fighting those not justifying of the "coerciveness" of diverting some tax money towards it...

I am not "popular opinion", nor is Fassitude, but even if this argument of yours were relevant, it would still be comparing apples and oranges. There is a difference between private and public inequality. People (not me) who make entitlement defenses of property rights against government interference can still insist that when the government delegates legal authority to some person, that person should not be allowed to discriminate in using it.

The point I was making was that since they're not RECOGNIZING the relationships, the discrimination is CULTURAL, and that's why I think it's different from racial discrimination.

Seems rather like a "distinction without a difference" to me....

Apologizing for what? Being on the same side as fassitude?

I'm using "apologize" in the old sense of "defend." Think "apologetics", or of what Socrates is doing in the Apology.

While I too get the impression that opposition to gay marriage is motivated by anti gay beliefs, (though even then, the arguments should be looked at on their own merits rather than for the presumed motivations of who they're from)

That's exactly what I do. I look at the merits, I realize they don't exist, I conclude that it follows that the arguments are advanced because of bigotry.

Those fighting for giving gays the right to marry the same sex don't seem to be fighting as hard for public funding of ESCR, for which the reasons for being opposed are also motivated by religion and/or fear of the unknown,

We all have our pet causes, but don't expect others to rally behind yours before they deal with their own. And the number of people who concentrate only on things that are most important are very few indeed.

No, asshole. It was ungrammatical.

So, you don't know what an idiom is? Unsurprising.

"Idiomatic," aka wrong. :tongue:

Another person who doesn't know the meaning of words. Not only was ignorance about Swedish law abundant, but also that. Like moths to...

Another person who doesn't know the meaning of words. Not only was ignorance about Swedish law abundant, but also that. Like moths to...
Look! A lingonberry mousse tart! Get it!


(That should keep you busy for a while.)

Oh, and you're still wrong.

Simply saying that "Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman", without giving a reason why it should be so, is on the same rational level as saying "This water fountain has traditionally been reserved for white people." To the extent that it is true, it merely points to past cultural practice regarding the institution, and makes no real argument that past cultural practice actually treated people fairly.
Well, I still think there is a bit of a difference between sexual orientation (especially when said sexual orientation is condemned by the holy book of the western world's most popular religion... not that I agree with said condemnation, mind you) and race, but I do agree with you that tradition is meaningless.


This isn't a definition-based approach either. We do this for (questionable) reasons that have nothing to do with definitions.
I didn't mean to suggest that it was based on definitions, but that it was a closer comparison since it involved utilities and was based on gender. In any case I wasn't saying I specifically agreed with it, (not sure what I think of it) and I was unaware that you disagreed with it...


I am not "popular opinion", nor is Fassitude
Fair enough, I guess I jumped to conclusions, but I tend to associate being condescending with claiming to speak for popular opinion, and even though you weren't being condescending, Fassitude was, and his similarity in opinion to yours made me jump the gun about your attitude... associating opinion with personality is a bad habit of mine, I guess...


People (not me) who make entitlement defenses of property rights against government interference can still insist that when the government delegates legal authority to some person, that person should not be allowed to discriminate in using it.
But churches aren't public services... IIRC, they get their revenue from collection plates, so aren't they more like businesses?


I'm using "apologize" in the old sense of "defend." Think "apologetics", or of what Socrates is doing in the Apology.
I don't know much about Socrates... I think I might have heard of a couple references to him in my first-year university courses, but I haven't heard of The Apology. I might look that up later...


That's exactly what I do. I look at the merits, I realize they don't exist, I conclude that it follows that the arguments are advanced because of bigotry.
Agreed, I was just saying the reasons given for distinguishing race discrimination from sexual orientation discrimination shouldn't be thought of differently because of the underlying reasons that tend to make people want to...

And for what it's worth, I think whether or not government intervention in discrimination is justified should depend on the service being provided, and how easy it is to find alternatives. If some convenience store is right next to another convenience store and one doesn't serve blacks, then that store will be cutting off its own revenue from black customers, as well as from white customers who refuse to buy from that store. (EDIT: To be clear, what I'm saying is that said harm to their own revenues might not have been the case if they had to adhere to anti-discrimination legislation...) If there are enough whites who would rather go to a convenience store that DOESN'T serve blacks than one that DOES to cancel out that revenue difference, that's more of SYMPTOM of racist attitudes that need to be addressed anyway than anything else, and even then, the worst that could happen is profit from discrimination... otherwise, the more racist manager will lose profits if he/she is stubborn about it.

Here in St. John's, about a year and a half ago, when my parents were looking around for a home for university, there was one landlord who wouldn't accept male customers because he/she thought that guys would be too noisy, despite that I'm probably quieter than my sister. It's a bit disturbing that landlords could so easily get away with such discrimination on such absurd grounds, but my parents eventually found an apartment for me elsewhere, and it feels better knowing that my parents' money isn't going to such people, even if someone else's is. In any case, would you think government intervention against that kind of discrimination is justified or not? After all, their arguments are advanced because of bigotry too, right?


We all have our pet causes, but don't expect others to rally behind yours before they deal with their own. And the number of people who concentrate only on things that are most important are very few indeed.
No doubt. All I'm saying is that their cause should send a message to them about the factors they're dealing with, and take into account that there are worse problems these things cause... I'd just wish that if only for consistency, they'd combat some of those other problems at least part of the time too. Realistically, I guess you couldn't expect them to...

In another topic a while back in which I compared and contrasted abortion and ESCR, I think one person hit the nail right on the head when he/she said "people just tend to be more concerned about things that affect them; methinks we're dealing with a think-for-today mentality"...

So, you don't know what an idiom is? Unsurprising.Yes, bitch, I do know what an idiom is. What you wrote was not an idiom. It was simply a grammatical error. You don't know what an adverb is?

Another person who doesn't know the meaning of words. Not only was ignorance about Swedish law abundant, but also that. Like moths to...

OOOPS! An article in Oxford journals made the same mistake as me. I guess its writers and editors dont know the meaning of words just like me, the Guardian and the Aussie journal:

"In addition, it is problematic why mothers having singletons only, who compromise the majority of the populations, do not generally seem to show an increased reproductive effort with age"
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/den305

Funny, you'd make an excellent fundie conservative with your extreme stubbornness and refusal to see your mistakes.

But hey, we must be all wrong, right? ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY MASTER OF ENGLISH :hail:

No, asshole. It was ungrammatical.

No need to stoop to his level...

Yes, bitch, I do know what an idiom is. What you wrote was not an idiom. It was simply a grammatical error. You don't know what an adverb is?

One definition of idiom is "an expression in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself grammatically". Yes, it was a grammatical error. It was meant to be a grammatical error. Because it was used idiomatically. So, you see, you claiming it a grammatical error actually changes nothing about it being idiomatic. So, run along now and learn English like the rest of us had to...

OOOPS! An article in Oxford journals made the same mistake as me.

Again, I have said that I am not impressed by the mistakes made by smart people (referring not to you, of course). Your appeal to authority fallacy remains just that - a fallacy.

Oh, and you're still wrong.

You still don't understand that an idiom is intentionally wrong, so your impugning me for being wrong when I was aiming at being wrong... is, well, outright stupid. I can't sugar coat it better for you. It's late here.

Well, I still think there is a bit of a difference between sexual orientation... and race

Why? A lot of people seem to hold by a sort of intuitive distinction between the two... why?

Is it just more of our society's prudishness, our reluctance to recognize that sexual and romantic attraction can define a discriminated-against group of people?

I tend to associate being condescending with claiming to speak for popular opinion

You shouldn't. Condescending people often delight in flouting public opinion.

But churches aren't public services... IIRC, they get their revenue from collection plates, so aren't they more like businesses?

Yes, they are. But the Left Party is not regulating churches as such; it is not saying, "You are forbidden to oppose homosexuality." What it is saying is, "If the state gives you this legal authority to marry people, you must not discriminate with it."

I don't know much about Socrates... I think I might have heard of a couple references to him in my first-year university courses, but I haven't heard of The Apology. I might look that up later...

Don't bother, not for this reason anyway. It was just an attempt to demonstrate the validity of my definition by reference to a fairly well-known work.

And for what it's worth, I think whether or not government intervention in discrimination is justified should depend on the service being provided, and how easy it is to find alternatives. If some convenience store is right next to another convenience store and one doesn't serve blacks, then that store will be cutting off its own revenue from black customers, as well as from white customers who refuse to buy from that store.

Prejudice is always irrational, but that does not stop it from having strong currency with employers and sellers, and prejudice is both common enough and reinforced enough by customers and workers of the dominant group that free-market competition does not stifle it alone.

Add that to the fact of information asymmetry (in deciding where to work, a worker doesn't know the prejudices of his or her employers) and the picture just gets worse.

In any case, while I'm willing to indulge you in this slight digression from the topic of the thread, it's worth noting, again, that we are not dealing with private-sector discrimination, we are dealing with public-sector discrimination: the civil authority to institute marriages. In such a case we should not be concerned with social consequences, but simply with principle. I don't care how easy it is to get an alternative: the government should not be in the business of legitimating discrimination, period.

If there are enough whites who would rather go to a convenience store that DOESN'T serve blacks than one that DOES to cancel out that revenue difference, that's more of SYMPTOM of racist attitudes that need to be addressed anyway than anything else,

And the economic consequences for minorities are somehow irrelevant, rather than being a problem in themselves?

I love this logic, which pops up so often in affirmative action debates: "It doesn't end the attitude, so it can't work." I'm concerned for the attitude, yes, but to be honest I'm more concerned for the material conditions of inequality--things like having to keep your sexual orientation and your relationship carefully hidden in the workplace for fear that your boss will fire you if he or she learns.

It's a bit disturbing that landlords could so easily get away with such discrimination on such absurd grounds, but my parents eventually found an apartment for me elsewhere, and it feels better knowing that my parents' money isn't going to such people, even if someone else's is.

That's nice. And what might have happened if all the apartments had forbidden you to rent? Or if the alternatives were worse in quality, or more expensive?

It is true that particularly minor, isolated cases of discrimination rarely cause significant problems. The trouble is that discrimination rarely is minor or isolated.

In any case, would you think government intervention against that kind of discrimination is justified or not?

Again, it's a different case. It's not government-sponsored discrimination (like the marriage case), it's private-sector discrimination.

Still, I'm inclined to ban it, too, if only because the nature of the way people's lives actually work means that the cost of finding alternatives can be significant.

One definition of idiom is "an expression in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself grammatically". Yes, it was a grammatical error. It was meant to be a grammatical error. Because it was used idiomatically. So, you see, you claiming it a grammatical error actually changes nothing about it being idiomatic.
No, bitch, what makes something an "idiom" is that it is a common expression, even if it does not make sense within the usual usage of the words.
So, run along now and learn English like the rest of us had to...
As a native speaker, I had no need to. As a non-native speaker, you ought to know better than to refuse correction when you have made a howling error. It just makes you look stupid, on top of ignorant ("ignorant" means "not knowing", which is excusable; refusing to learn better is "stupid").

You still don't understand that an idiom is intentionally wrong, so your impugning me for being wrong when I was aiming at being wrong... is, well, outright stupid. I can't sugar coat it better for you. It's late here.
And you still don't understand that I don't believe you made that mistake on purpose. You were wrong, and you got pissed off that your mistake got called out after (and because) you had been so pissy over the "compromise" thing, so you tried the "I meant to do that" act. Sadly, it turns out you're not good at that trick.

Here, have some herring bits in dill cream. It will make the hurt go away.

Well, Fass kindly posted that one set of links to the relevant Swedish law for our reference, and I think that's all the useful information we non-Swedes are going to get from him on this.

So, thanks for the info, Fass. 'Bye.

EDIT: And remember, when you are modifying a verb, you need an adverb, not an adjective. ;)

Again, I have said that I am not impressed by the mistakes made by smart people (referring not to you, of course). Your appeal to authority fallacy remains just that - a fallacy.

LOL. Of course you are going to appeal to authority when you are discussing language. It's what you do when you look up a definition in a dictionary published by an authority such as the Oxford University. Duh!

And the point is, einstein, the sources I have provided most likely have editors which screen for and correct linguistic mistakes before articles get published.

But of course your whining is not gonna change the facts. I dont even have to bother with trying to insult you back. You are doing a great job already.

You shouldn't. Condescending people often delight in flouting public opinion.
No doubt. I sometimes regard people as associating themselves with popular opinion when it isn't necessarily the case that they are.


In any case, while I'm willing to indulge you in this slight digression from the topic of the thread, it's worth noting, again, that we are not dealing with private-sector discrimination, we are dealing with public-sector discrimination: the civil authority to institute marriages. In such a case we should not be concerned with social consequences, but simply with principle. I don't care how easy it is to get an alternative: the government should not be in the business of legitimating discrimination, period.
Actually, I don't really know much about the legal details of the process of marriage, so I guess I must have been confused about this; I got the impression from the subjectline that it was about priests in their churches having to perform the ceremonies for gay couples if they perform them for straights; since I regarded churches as businesses, I regarded discrimination by churches as private-sector discrimination.


And the economic consequences for minorities are somehow irrelevant, rather than being a problem in themselves?
Not that they're completely irrelevant, but that they're more so symptoms of the underlying prejudice that would otherwise probably have more of the more covert effects. Mind you I don't know much about what the general effects HAVE been, I'm just going on more heuristic reasoning here, since I've thought similar things about political correctness; among other problems, by stifling expression of prejudice it makes it harder to tell who holds such prejudices and in turn who would covertly discriminate given the chance...


That's nice. And what might have happened if all the apartments had forbidden you to rent? Or if the alternatives were worse in quality, or more expensive?
Actually, for all I know the alternative my parents found might have been of lower quality than the other alternative... not sure though.


Still, I'm inclined to ban it, too, if only because the nature of the way people's lives actually work means that the cost of finding alternatives can be significant.
As in, inclined to ban discrimination against males for apartments? If so, good... at least you're being consistent...

Actually, I don't really know much about the legal details of the process of marriage, so I guess I must have been confused about this; I got the impression from the subjectline that it was about priests in their churches having to perform the ceremonies for gay couples if they perform them for straights; since I regarded churches as businesses, I regarded discrimination by churches as private-sector discrimination.

Note the "punishment": they are deprived of the legal power to marry. They can still carry out all their religious functions, such as (religiously) marrying people.

Not that they're completely irrelevant, but that they're more so symptoms of the underlying prejudice that would otherwise probably have more of the more covert effects.

Being fired from a job because you out yourself as gay, or being denied promotions because you are a woman, or not being hired because you are black... all of these are not particularly "covert", but they are real, harmful, and somewhat alleviated by anti-discrimination legislation.

Mind you I don't know much about what the general effects HAVE been, I'm just going on more heuristic reasoning here, since I've thought similar things about political correctness; among other problems, by stifling expression of prejudice it makes it harder to tell who holds such prejudices and in turn who would covertly discriminate given the chance...

I think people should be open about their beliefs in their private lives. But it does not follow that they should be allowed to discriminate in employment or provision of services, or even that their speech should not be restricted in school or on the job.

As in, inclined to ban discrimination against males for apartments? If so, good... at least you're being consistent...

For what it's worth, laws against sex discrimination apply to discrimination against males as well as discrimination against females.

That's wrong. The government is forcing them to be hypocrites. "Gay marriage is wrong. By the way, come by today after the service to witness John and Ben's marriage." See?

apologies then, as i was thinking specifically of recent demands that pharmacists get to just not give things out if they don't feel like it.

I knew what you were getting on at. I guess I didn't explain myself good enough.


if they don't want to officiate any marriages at all, that's fine. but if they do, they should have to do it without discrimination.

Its forcing people to do something they think is wrong. I'm strictly opposed to that.

pastors are for cows. churchianity has no monopoly on belief sanctioned merrages.

But in Sweden at the moment, they do not just perform the ceremony. They perform the legal officiation as well if they have that delegation. It isn't about the ceremonies - it is about someone wanting a pass to discriminate and yet at the same time wanting to get to keep a legal function vested in them by the government. If they didn't seek that legal function, and only were content with doing the equivalent of dancing for some rain, then I wouldn't give a fuck. But that's not what they want. They want for their ceremony to be legally recognised as a marriage officiation, but at the same time be able to withhold the ceremony from swaths of the population they don't like. That shouldn't be allowed.

I think I would have to agree with this. As long as they perform the legal officiation after having been delegated the authority from the government, they should either be barred from discriminating or refuse the authority / hand it back. That should be their choice.

I don't see how this is turned into a question about Freedom of religion.

I think I would have to agree with this. As long as they perform the legal officiation after having been delegated the authority from the government, they should either be barred from discriminating or refuse the authority / hand it back. That should be their choice.

Would you also argue that people who get the power of officiate specifically to preside over the wedding of close friends should have to do the same for complete strangers?

Should someone who will only officiate for a couple who have undergone some sort of counseling be made to remove that requirement?

What about someone who restricts her officiation to people who have never been married before?

Its forcing people to do something they think is wrong. I'm strictly opposed to that.

i doubt you are in all cases. after all, some people think not torturing people is wrong.

Would you also argue that people who get the power of officiate specifically to preside over the wedding of close friends should have to do the same for complete strangers?
If they get the power for a "once-off" officiation, then I wouldn't argue that. If they get the power to officiate over one specific situation, than by the very nature of that delegation would mean that they couldn't and shouldn't be expected to officiate for strangers.

But that's not the case here, since the priests are given a general delegation, and, to my knowledge, specific one-time delegations doesn't happen in Sweden.

Should someone who will only officiate for a couple who have undergone some sort of counseling be made to remove that requirement?
Like what sort of counseling?

(Mind you, without knowing more about what you're thinking about, I'm already leaning towards answering yes to your question :tongue:)

What about someone who restricts her officiation to people who have never been married before?
I think that shouldn't be allowed either, and I feel the same way about someone who refuses to officiates for couples where the man is impotent. (Yes, that has happened and was justifies through the scripture. (In Italy, mind, but still...) )

If they get the power for a "once-off" officiation, then I wouldn't argue that. If they get the power to officiate over one specific situation, than by the very nature of that delegation would mean that they couldn't and shouldn't be expected to officiate for strangers.

But that's not the case here, since the priests are given a general delegation, and, to my knowledge, specific one-time delegations doesn't happen in Sweden.

Specific one-time delegations don't happen in the US, either. Once you get the authority to officiate at a wedding ceremony, you've pretty much got it for good.

However, many people do it because close friends wish to have them, rather than an unknown justice of the peace or religious leader, be the officiants. They may never officiate at another wedding. They might have other friends who also choose them. But they don't really go around officiating at weddings all the time.

Like what sort of counseling?

(Mind you, without knowing more about what you're thinking about, I'm already leaning towards answering yes to your question :tongue:)

Pre-marriage counseling. I'm not aware of any states that require it (although some will lower the cost of a marriage license if you have it), but some religious leaders do. Often, it is a series of meetings they require you to have with them, to discuss why you want to get married, the meaning of marriage, how to deal with marital problems, etc.

I think that shouldn't be allowed either, and I feel the same way about someone who refuses to officiates for couples where the man is impotent. (Yes, that has happened and was justifies through the scripture. (In Italy, mind, but still...) )

Ok, so you're consistent here.

The thing is, I look at officiants less as government representatives and more as a matter of convenience. It basically keeps those who get married from needing to make multiple trips to an actual government official - because the government allows some random proxy to do the second part. And since that random proxy isn't really a government official, it doesn't bother me if they choose to be a proxy only in certain circumstances.

How would you enforce the rules you're talking about, anyways? If I found out that the guy two offices down was legally able to officiate weddings and he refused to do so at mine - for whatever reason - could I sue him? Would we have to put up a list somewhere of anyone and everyone who has received that authority? How much of their time would they be required to give up officiating at random weddings?

And, given the fact that such rules would likely mean that the only people who would ever be able to legally officiate at weddings would be actual government officials (since no one else would likely want to sign up for it any more), how would we soak the extra cost of all the new government employees we'd need? What would we do with those who receive marriage licenses in the US but travel abroad for their actual wedding? Send a US government official along with them?

Note the "punishment": they are deprived of the legal power to marry. They can still carry out all their religious functions, such as (religiously) marrying people.
Ah, I guess I must have misinterpreted the issue then.


Being fired from a job because you out yourself as gay, or being denied promotions because you are a woman, or not being hired because you are black... all of these are not particularly "covert", but they are real, harmful, and somewhat alleviated by anti-discrimination legislation.
No doubt, though I don't think being denied marriage by churches is as serious as being denied employment by what in some cases may be the only option of employer, but as I said earlier I've probably misinterpreted the issue.


I think people should be open about their beliefs in their private lives.
But what about the public speech? Like with Don Imus, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt with respect to the "racism" of calling black female basketball players hoes, (though when I first heard of the issue I thought the complaint was about sexism... and that probably would've been the primary complaint if they were white) but when people were saying it was a racist thing to say and therefore he shouldn't have said it... maybe it was a dumb thing for him to say, but if you actively try to discourage people from expressing such things how can you know who thinks such things and who doesn't?


For what it's worth, laws against sex discrimination apply to discrimination against males as well as discrimination against females.
Then why did that landlord get away with discriminating like that?

with Don Imus, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt with respect to the "racism" of calling black female basketball players hoes
The phrase was "nappy-headed hoes".

Specific one-time delegations don't happen in the US, either. Once you get the authority to officiate at a wedding ceremony, you've pretty much got it for good.

However, many people do it because close friends wish to have them, rather than an unknown justice of the peace or religious leader, be the officiants. They may never officiate at another wedding. They might have other friends who also choose them. But they don't really go around officiating at weddings all the time.
That would make it different. In Sweden, it follows from being a religious leader, and, as far as I've understood it, it's not something that the ordinary Joe can do. One would have to be connected to a religious community in some way, shape or form.


Pre-marriage counseling. I'm not aware of any states that require it (although some will lower the cost of a marriage license if you have it), but some religious leaders do. Often, it is a series of meetings they require you to have with them, to discuss why you want to get married, the meaning of marriage, how to deal with marital problems, etc.
Hmm... I'm not sure, but I think I could let that requirement slide. After all, it seems like a minor thing, something you can sit through just to get through it. You can't be expected to change your sexuality, in comparison.


Ok, so you're consistent here.
I try to be :p


The thing is, I look at officiants less as government representatives and more as a matter of convenience. It basically keeps those who get married from needing to make multiple trips to an actual government official - because the government allows some random proxy to do the second part. And since that random proxy isn't really a government official, it doesn't bother me if they choose to be a proxy only in certain circumstances.
It bothers me, because the way I see it, when you accept to perform some of the responsibilities of the government, you have to adhere to the non-discriminatory rules of the government. Especially when it has legal implications.


How would you enforce the rules you're talking about, anyways? If I found out that the guy two offices down was legally able to officiate weddings and he refused to do so at mine - for whatever reason - could I sue him? Would we have to put up a list somewhere of anyone and everyone who has received that authority? How much of their time would they be required to give up officiating at random weddings?
It doesn't have to be that complex. First of all, the government should enforce the rules. You should be able to complain to the government, and if the church in question didn't fix things the government should revoke their authority.

Secondly, while you may not be able to demand that individuals do it (The guy two offices down) you should be able to demand that the church provide the necessary people, since they provide this service for you. That would also mean that no list would be necessary.

And, given the fact that such rules would likely mean that the only people who would ever be able to legally officiate at weddings would be actual government officials (since no one else would likely want to sign up for it any more), how would we soak the extra cost of all the new government employees we'd need? What would we do with those who receive marriage licenses in the US but travel abroad for their actual wedding? Send a US government official along with them?
Well, this isn't about the US, so I won't go too deeply into that. I wil only say that there wouldn't be a need for more government officials, as far as I can see. I mean, you could just demand that they get married at the same place they get their marrieage license - after signing the papers, they're legally married. Then they can have whatever ceremony they want wherever they want...

But what about the public speech?

Why would I be concerned, when it comes to public speech, for the personal opinions of the speaker? I don't care what such people think; I don't live with or around them, and the people who do can hear their private speech. More important to me is the absence of open public bigotry. But we are getting even further afield.

Like with Don Imus, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt with respect to the "racism" of calling black female basketball players hoes,

Where is the "doubt" when he called them "nappy-headed hoes"? I give him nothing. It was a disgusting thing to say.

(though when I first heard of the issue I thought the complaint was about sexism... and that probably would've been the primary complaint if they were white)

The comments were attacked for being both racist and sexist.

maybe it was a dumb thing for him to say, but if you actively try to discourage people from expressing such things how can you know who thinks such things and who doesn't?

I can't. Why do I care what Imus thinks, though? I'm not a friend or a family member; I'm not concerned for his personal opinions. That's his own life to lead. Perhaps I am interested in his views insofar as they contribute to a productive democratic public discussion, but bigotry can never do that.

Then why did that landlord get away with discriminating like that?

How do you expect me to know anything you don't know about a situation I only know about through your depiction? All I can tell you is what the law is.

That would make it different. In Sweden, it follows from being a religious leader, and, as far as I've understood it, it's not something that the ordinary Joe can do. One would have to be connected to a religious community in some way, shape or form.

I think it nominally does in the US as well, but you can claim to be a member of any religion, or just of a general non-denominational religion. I know you can fill out some stuff online and then be able to officiate at weddings.

It bothers me, because the way I see it, when you accept to perform some of the responsibilities of the government, you have to adhere to the non-discriminatory rules of the government. Especially when it has legal implications.

That's just it, though. I don't really see it as performing a responsibility of government. It's really more that the government has agreed to trust you that some sort of ceremony occurred.

Granting the marriage license is the function of the government. They just need someone to sign off that it happened on such and such day. Since many people are married by religious officiants as well as getting the legal marriage, the government lets those officiants do so.

It doesn't have to be that complex. First of all, the government should enforce the rules. You should be able to complain to the government, and if the church in question didn't fix things the government should revoke their authority.

What I'm saying is that, under these rules, no one would bother getting the authority to officiate at marriages. No church is going to suddenly start holding marriage ceremonies opposed to their teachings. So, with the possible exception of Unitarian churches, they are all going to lose status. No one is going to go out and get that authority just to be nice to their friends, because they aren't going to want the hassle of having to perform other marriage ceremonies.

So, in the end, the only place most people would be able to find an officiant would be at a government office - a justice of the peace. That would require more government employees and thus greater cost to the government.

Secondly, while you may not be able to demand that individuals do it (The guy two offices down) you should be able to demand that the church provide the necessary people, since they provide this service for you. That would also mean that no list would be necessary.

Wait....you claimed that, if someone gets authority to provide the service for their friends, they should be required to perform it for other people as well. That means that the guy two offices down, if he did so, should be required to perform it for me if I ask.

Well, this isn't about the US, so I won't go too deeply into that. I wil only say that there wouldn't be a need for more government officials, as far as I can see. I mean, you could just demand that they get married at the same place they get their marrieage license - after signing the papers, they're legally married. Then they can have whatever ceremony they want wherever they want...

I don't think there's always a JoP at every courthouse, so there probably would be a need for more employees (here, anyways, I can't speak for Sweden).

I suppose you could require the actual beginning of the marriage to happen at the same place, but people are kind of funny about ceremony. You'd have an awful lot of friends and family members trying to cram into the office to watch the "official" marriage begin.

I think it nominally does in the US as well, but you can claim to be a member of any religion, or just of a general non-denominational religion. I know you can fill out some stuff online and then be able to officiate at weddings.
I've seen the Simpsons :tongue:


That's just it, though. I don't really see it as performing a responsibility of government. It's really more that the government has agreed to trust you that some sort of ceremony occurred.
But it is. It's a verification on the terms of marriage, that they're filled and all OK. There's no requirement for a ceremony, that's up to the churches to provide and organize.

Granting the marriage license is the function of the government. They just need someone to sign off that it happened on such and such day. Since many people are married by religious officiants as well as getting the legal marriage, the government lets those officiants do so.
Hence it would also be easier if they just did it all on the same office. Get the license and sign of on the terms of marriege. Done and done.


What I'm saying is that, under these rules, no one would bother getting the authority to officiate at marriages. No church is going to suddenly start holding marriage ceremonies opposed to their teachings. So, with the possible exception of Unitarian churches, they are all going to lose status. No one is going to go out and get that authority just to be nice to their friends, because they aren't going to want the hassle of having to perform other marriage ceremonies.

So, in the end, the only place most people would be able to find an officiant would be at a government office - a justice of the peace. That would require more government employees and thus greater cost to the government.
You just need a notary public, and it could easily be done as I've described above - and that wouldn't lead to a greater cost to the government, I don't think.

And I'm in favour of having all the churches lose status anyway ;)


Wait....you claimed that, if someone gets authority to provide the service for their friends, they should be required to perform it for other people as well. That means that the guy two offices down, if he did so, should be required to perform it for me if I ask.
Well, no, I said: "If they get the power to officiate over one specific situation, than by the very nature of that delegation would mean that they couldn't and shouldn't be expected to officiate for strangers."

However, since people don't get that authority on an individual basis in Sweden, but get it through their position as a priest, the church in which the priest is hired should be forced to provide the service non-discriminatingly. And if there were no other priests, the priest should be forced to do it - or the church would forfit it's authority.

Hence, suing they guy two offices down would be pointless.


I don't think there's always a JoP at every courthouse, so there probably would be a need for more employees (here, anyways, I can't speak for Sweden).

I suppose you could require the actual beginning of the marriage to happen at the same place, but people are kind of funny about ceremony. You'd have an awful lot of friends and family members trying to cram into the office to watch the "official" marriage begin.
I don't think that would be a problem either - at least, not one I've encountered. If you'll forgive the anecdotal evidence, I can tell you about a couple of friends of mine who got married at the courthouse first with just two friends present, while they had 30-40 guests at the ceremony that was held in their local church :wink:

But it is. It's a verification on the terms of marriage, that they're filled and all OK.

Actually, it isn't. That's all figured out by the local courthouse.

All the officiant is signing off on is that they were wed on such and such day. Even after that happens, the courthouse has to sign off on the document and send the official marriage license - and they won't do so if the requirements are not met.

The officiant has no part whatsoever in determining whether or not the legal requirements for marriage are met (in the US, anyways - and Fass has led me to believe this is also true in Sweden). They're just the people saying "They made it official on this particular day and I witnessed it."

You just need a notary public, and it could easily be done as I've described above - and that wouldn't lead to a greater cost to the government, I don't think.

Ah, this must be where Sweden and the US differ. I don't think a notary public here can actually sign off on a marriage license.

And I'm in favour of having all the churches lose status anyway ;)

I'm "meh" on that. It's not something I would think was some sort of evil violation of rights or anything. But I do think it would make things less convenient for a lot of people.

Well, no, I said: "If they get the power to officiate over one specific situation, than by the very nature of that delegation would mean that they couldn't and shouldn't be expected to officiate for strangers."

But that isn't how it works. The government doesn't say, "Ok, you can officiate for this one particular wedding and then your authority is revoked."

I don't think that would be a problem either - at least, not one I've encountered. If you'll forgive the anecdotal evidence, I can tell you about a couple of friends of mine who got married at the courthouse first with just two friends present, while they had 30-40 guests at the ceremony that was held in their local church :wink:

Anecdotally, I think it would be a problem. If I had done that, both sides of my family would likely have had a conniption over being excluded from the actual official ceremony. And, while my family is large, my husband's is very large. It would have been ugly.

Maybe it's a difference in society, but it seems to me that many families in my area would have that sort of problem.

Anyhow, ministers in the Church of Sweden (and other congregations that have been delegated it, be they Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and so on) have a legally binding ability to wed couples - their act of wedding people is an act of government that they have been delegated.

Well, that's me satisfied. If you want to act on behalf of the government then you're going to have to act without discriminating against anyone. Your religion tells you that you have to? Then leave your religion or leave your government position. Simple as that.

Actually, it isn't. That's all figured out by the local courthouse.

All the officiant is signing off on is that they were wed on such and such day. Even after that happens, the courthouse has to sign off on the document and send the official marriage license - and they won't do so if the requirements are not met.

The officiant has no part whatsoever in determining whether or not the legal requirements for marriage are met (in the US, anyways - and Fass has led me to believe this is also true in Sweden). They're just the people saying "They made it official on this particular day and I witnessed it."
That's not the way it works here, at least. The priest here has the duties as I described above, and needs to verify that the legal requrements to be married are met. Of course, it'll be different in different countries.


But that isn't how it works. The government doesn't say, "Ok, you can officiate for this one particular wedding and then your authority is revoked."
Hmm... Maybe I'm not being clear, because we agree on that point. I posed a hypothetical, to try to answer your previous question.

So nevermind. We agree that that's not how it works. We also agree that it works differently in the US and in Sweden, as in the US individuals can be granted the authority, while in Sweden it follows the position (priesthood) and not the person. Right?


Anecdotally, I think it would be a problem. If I had done that, both sides of my family would likely have had a conniption over being excluded from the actual official ceremony. And, while my family is large, my husband's is very large. It would have been ugly.
Even if that first part would just entail signing some papers, while the second part would be the ceremony in the church and the following wedding party, where you exchange wovs, rings and whatnot?

I can see that happening, but for my part, I would rather be there for the ceremony and party than for the bureaucratic paper-pushing.

Maybe it's a difference in society, but it seems to me that many families in my area would have that sort of problem.
There might be a huge cultural gap here. :wink:

That's not the way it works here, at least. The priest here has the duties as I described above, and needs to verify that the legal requrements to be married are met. Of course, it'll be different in different countries.

I think this is why Murvayets and I both tried so hard to get Fass to explain exactly what the duties of the officiant were in Sweden. =)

I got the impression that they were pretty much the same as those in the US.

Ah well.

Even if that first part would just entail signing some papers, while the second part would be the ceremony in the church and the following wedding party, where you exchange wovs, rings and whatnot?

Pretty much. Some people are weird. I'm related to some of those weird people. =)