NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.thelocal.se/17050/20090121/

Three of the parties in the four-party governing coalition have tabled a motion that is expected to pave the way for gay marriage in Sweden from May 1st this year.

The Alliance government has been split on the issue, with the junior partner Christian Democrats opposed to the use of the word "marriage" for homosexual unions.

However the three other parties, the conservative Moderates, the Liberals and the Centre Party, are in favour of a gender neutral law that eliminates the current reference to marriage as something between a man and a woman.

"Regardless of sexual orientation, people in stable couple relationships have a need to manifest their feelings and their desire to live together," the motion reads.

While heterosexuals in Sweden can choose to marry in either a civil ceremony or a church ceremony, homosexuals are only allowed to register their partnerships in a civil ceremony. But this could all change, with parliament likely to pass new legislation on the matter.

The opposition Social Democrats [and their supports the Left Party and the Green Party, ed.], the country's biggest party, also support such a law, and together the parties would garner enough support to adopt the legislation in parliament.

Civil unions granting gays and lesbians the same legal status as married couples have been allowed in Sweden since 1995.

If the new legislation is adopted, Sweden, already a pioneer in giving same-sex couples the right to adopt children, would become the first country in the world to allow gays to marry within a major church.

The Lutheran Church, which was separated from the state in 2000, has since January 2007 offered gays a religious blessing of their union. It has previously said it wants the word "marriage" reserved for heterosexual unions.

Pastors who do not want to perform a gay wedding ceremony may however have the right to refuse, something gay rights' activists have criticized.

In 2007, 74 percent of Swedes were members of the Lutheran Church.

The vote is now but a formality, what with 6 of 7 parliament parties supporting the legislation, so May 1 is wedding day it would seem. Interestingly enough, the motion abolishes civil unions/partnerskap, but allows people who already have one to either continue living with that status (no different legally from marriage), or to apply to have it converted to a marriage. Did I write interesting? I meant bizarre.

Oh, that whole thing about the Lutheran church? SVT conducted a poll among 2800 priests (http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=1414519&lid=puff_1414176&lpos=rubrik), 1700 of whom replied. 68% are willing to wed gay couples, 21% are not, so even with the unfortunate discrimination exemption they are granted in the motion (pointless deference to poppycock religion irking me), it seems weddings before your magical creature in the sky won't be a problem, either.

With all the bad news in the world going on, it's so nice to see at least the agenda is progressing according to plan. So, uhm, the next issue would be finding someone to marry. Oops. But maybe all the wedding splurges might help the economy. Yeah, that's the ticket...

The vote is now but a formality, what with 6 of 7 parliament parties supporting the legislation, so May 1 is wedding day it would seem. Interestingly enough, the motion abolishes civil unions/partnerskap, but allows people who already have one to either continue living with that status (no different legally from marriage), or to apply to have it converted to a marriage. Did I write interesting? I meant bizarre.

Very bizarre...what about those who wouldn't want a 'marriage' and would have preferred a civil union?

Very bizarre...what about those who wouldn't want a 'marriage' and would have preferred a civil union?

They won't be able to have one after this law comes into effect, if it reads as it does today. So, for all those people who want to be unique and have something few others are going to have, I guess they should hurry up. The talk was that the law would automatically convert all partnerskap into marriages, but I suspect that those dastardly Liberals/Folkpartiet with their ideas of individuality and "alternative forms of cohabitation" just couldn't help themselves, even with the paradox it creates.

My friend next to me has never been on NS and he still understood exactly what I meant when I said, "Fassitude posted something about being gay...big surprise."

My friend next to me has never been on NS and he still understood exactly what I meant when I said, "Fassitude posted something about being gay...big surprise."

And RhynoD posted something utterly inconsequential and off-topic, going for a failed attempt at a peculiar ad hominem, peculiar (in the stupid sense) in that it sought to point out as impugnable the fact that a gay person would post about something that affects him as a gay person in his own country, as if that were supposed to be something impugnable to anyone who was actually gifted with logic and analytical prowess... big surprise, there, also.

May 1 is also my birthday. Why is that not news?

Congratulations by the way. Unless you were looking for someone to play devil's advocate... Damn those sexual deviants and their wanting to marry even though it has no bearing on how I live my life.

And RhynoD posted something utterly inconsequential and off-topic, going for a failed attempt at a peculiar ad hominem, peculiar (in the stupid sense) in that it sought to point out as impugnable the fact that a gay person would post about something that affects him as a gay person in his own country, as if that were supposed to be something impugnable to anyone who was actually gifted with logic and analytical prowess... big surprise, there, also.

Ad hominem is an attack on a person in an attempt to disprove or discredit their argument. I have not done this; I merely pointed out an amusing occurrence.

You, however, seem to be claiming ad hominem in an attempt to create a argument of pathos in which you gain sympathy from the audience by claiming to be the victim of a [fictitious] personal attack.

So, Fass...

Do we hear wedding bells in your future?

Will you wear white?

Ad hominem is an attack on a person in an attempt to disprove or discredit their argument. I have not done this

Of course you haven't. Actually disproving or discrediting someone's argument in any way, even with the use of fallacies, remains habitually out of your reach, and I already did write that your attempt at ad hominem failed - so indeed, you did no such thing, because you failed to do such a thing. Miserably, at that. So, if that off-topicness is all you're gonna bring, I'd kindly ask you not to bore me and take it elsewhere, to your oh, so intriguing thread about depressed poodles, perchance? I would be quite appreciative of that.

Wait, you mean Sweden didn't have gay marriage already? I find that quite surprising actually, I thought that if any nation allowed gay marriage, it would be Sweden.

So, Fass...

Do we hear wedding bells in your future?

You'd think I'd marry in a church, if at all? Hah.

Will you wear white?

White suits are seen as a circus-like fashion faux pas here. I imagine I'd wear attire appropriate to the venue and part of day.

My friend next to me has never been on NS and he still understood exactly what I meant when I said, "Fassitude posted something about being gay...big surprise."

fass is gay!?1?!

May 1 is also my birthday. Why is that not news?

maybe you should get married and have a double cake!

Congratulations by the way. Unless you were looking for someone to play devil's advocate... Damn those sexual deviants and their wanting to marry even though it has no bearing on how I live my life.

their shouldn't be a need for the government to approve someones love as legitimate or not...something like that anyway

actually come to think of it surely they should just have a database where you decide the next of kin instead of it being automatically listed as your partner...surely?

So, Fass...

Do we hear wedding bells in your future?

Will you wear white?

I wonder what a fass wedding would involve? *picks up a toastie machine*

White suits are seen as a circus-like fashion faux pas here. I imagine I'd wear attire appropriate to the venue and part of day.

surely a gay wedding would have everyone standing out and stuff? maybe you could come dressed as a closet and jump out after the vows!

Wait, you mean Sweden didn't have gay marriage already? I find that quite surprising actually, I thought that if any nation allowed gay marriage, it would be Sweden.

There hasn't been any real impetus for changing the law as partnerskap are identical to marriages, except in name. A lot of people were in fact working for partnerskap becoming the norm and not marriage, so there was also splintering. Added to that the current coalition's junior partner, its use of several delaying parliamentary tactics, more pressing matters being dealt with first (adoptions, inseminations, cohabitation (more important to young people that marriage), discrimination and so on)... it sort of wasn't prioritised even by the LGBT movement. So, meh.

May 1 is also my birthday.

No its mine. Give it back you theif.

So, Fass...

Do we hear wedding bells in your future?

Will you wear white?

If you do decide to 'tie the knot' with your life partner (assuming you have one), let me congratulate you, Fass.

Did I write interesting? I meant bizarre.
I don't get it... Why is it bizarre?

Oh, that whole thing about the Lutheran church? SVT conducted a poll among 2800 priests (http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=1414519&lid=puff_1414176&lpos=rubrik), 1700 of whom replied. 68% are willing to wed gay couples, 21% are not, so even with the unfortunate discrimination exemption they are granted in the motion (pointless deference to poppycock religion irking me), it seems weddings before your magical creature in the sky won't be a problem, either.
Only if someone's magical creature in the sky happens to be Lutheran. Mine isn't. Also he isn't magical. Also it isn't a thing so much as an object, because it is the moon.

My friend next to me has never been on NS and he still understood exactly what I meant when I said, "Fassitude posted something about being gay...big surprise."

So you talk about Fass with your friends who have never been on NS?

Oh and congrats to Sweden.

Of course you haven't. Actually disproving or discrediting someone's argument in any way, even with the use of fallacies, remains habitually out of your reach, and I already did write that your attempt at ad hominem failed - so indeed, you did no such thing, because you failed to do such a thing. Miserably, at that. So, if that off-topicness is all you're gonna bring, I'd kindly ask you not to bore me and take it elsewhere, to your oh, so intriguing thread about depressed poodles, perchance? I would be quite appreciative of that.

Maybe you shouldnt answer him, he seems obsessed with you, dont encourage that.

Of course you haven't. Actually disproving or discrediting someone's argument in any way, even with the use of fallacies, remains habitually out of your reach, and I already did write that your attempt at ad hominem failed - so indeed, you did no such thing, because you failed to do such a thing. Miserably, at that. So, if that off-topicness is all you're gonna bring, I'd kindly ask you not to bore me and take it elsewhere, to your oh, so intriguing thread about depressed poodles, perchance? I would be quite appreciative of that.

You misunderstand: I never attempted ad hominem, so the fact that it failed at ad hominem is not my failure but rather my success at not personally attacking. Furthermore, I fail to see how anyone can fail to personally attack someone. I can see how someone could fail do it well or elegantly. I can see how it would fail to be effective. Nevertheless, I don't understand how someone can fail to personally attack someone.

I have, however, just been informed by a friend of how someone can fail to personally attack someone: which is, to attempt to but unintentionally compliment the individual instead.

Aside from that, it was not an attempt at personal attack, so it couldn't have failed. On the other hand, your statement about my inability to provide intelligent discussion and debate was a personal attack against me. I would appreciate it if you refrained from personal attacks against me, mostly because I abhor hypocrisy.

So you talk about Fass with your friends who have never been on NS?

I do often discuss the antics of several NSG regulars with friends, yes.

Fass, RhynoD, please abandon your discussion of each other's stylistic peculiarities and stick to the topic.

Which is intriguing.

Was the May 1 date just serendipity, or did they choose it?

The real question is, do you have anyone lined up?;)

Congratulations to Sweden. We will follow in your footsteps...slowly but surely, we will. I am certain of it. The only uncertainty is how long it will take.

The vote is now but a formality, what with 6 of 7 parliament parties supporting the legislation, so May 1 is wedding day it would seem.
They're not good with math, it seems. To have May 1 as your labour day, you need to have August 1 as your wedding day.

remeber tis also a day for morris dancing

I read the title, and my first thought was 'Wait, isn't Labor Day in September?' and then I realized you were probably referencing a Swedish holiday. Here in America, the May holiday is Memorial Day. It commemorates fallen soldiers and is generally regarded as kicking off the summer.

(from the article):"Pastors who do not want to perform a gay wedding ceremony may however have the right to refuse, something gay rights' activists have criticized."

That seems like an odd thing to criticize. Why would you even want to give such an important part of the ceremony to someone who didn't want to be there? Seems like it would be easier and less trouble for everybody concerned if you were to just look around for someone who had no trouble performing the ceremony, instead.

(from the article):"Pastors who do not want to perform a gay wedding ceremony may however have the right to refuse, something gay rights' activists have criticized."
And rightly so. It should be mandated by Presidential order that all gay marriages would have to be performed by the Phelps family.

And rightly so. It should be mandated by Presidential order that all gay marriages would have to be performed by the Phelps family.

I don't think Sweden has a President. Nor are they overly concerned with Fred Phelps. You may want to go back and read the original article.

I don't think Sweden has a President. Nor are they overly concerned with Fred Phelps. You may want to go back and read the original article.

Well, they have constitutional monarchy.

I don't think Sweden has a President. Nor are they overly concerned with Fred Phelps.
By the PotUS order, of course. It's not like Sweden would refuse to comply, they'd be ostracized as bigots, racists and rebels if they tried.

Or by Swedish Royal (Konig's?) order.

Very bizarre...what about those who wouldn't want a 'marriage' and would have preferred a civil union?

Really though whats the differance?