1/2015 | 31
society – polygony, for instance, was established in war times to ensure that a woman would not have to raise kids alone but could find a new husband instead. Among all these different kinds of arrangements one cannot forget the given fact that people fall in love, and people are sexually attracted to each other. And this can happen across and within genders. So if there is a society that claims to recognize the love marriage, or companionate marriage, as their main marital institution (like we do in western culture since approximately 250 years), one would naturally believe that it also considers other than heterosexual people, right? How come the time could be wrong to finally adjust our laws to our needs?
Does Change Need To Wait?
There has been a lot of discussion going on in Finland about a legalization of the same-sex marriage. Siriane, Bilawal, Marko, Matti K., Matti S. and Lena (not in the picture) met with Bianca to give their two cents to the topic.
fairs Committee and voted against turning down and thus for passing the law – tight, but twice with the same end result. While it officially looks like hairsplitting, it might seem understandable that same-sex couples claim the same rights as mixed-sex couples. We meet with a diversified discussion round to shed light on this topic: three Finns, one Ukrainian, one French and one Pakistani. By default, yet completely voluntary, Finns, French and Ukrainian sit on the left side of the room, opposing their fellow student from Pakistan on the right. What they say demonstrates this distribution. While Marko, Finland, suggests to rethink the whole concept of marriage altogether, as it does not seem suitable anymore at all for our modern society, Bilawal, Pakistan, sees it as the most natural thing in the world that a man and a woman get married and procreate, it is biologically predestined that way.
The Role of Children Logically, procreating becomes a bit more difficult once it is not a healthy, fertile woman oulunylioppilaslehti
and a healthy, fertile man trying to reproduce. There are ways to bypass those difficulties nowadays, and while it seems logical for one discussion participant that these ways should be eligible for any human being, not just those straight couples, another one might see it all differently. Can single persons make use of in-vitro fertilization? Can homosexual couples do that? Is it unethical in general, given the fact that there are numerous orphans who would be thrilled to be raised in a loving family? We find out that Catholics, even being young and open for same-sex marriage, might be against this in general: “If you want to procreate, do it in a traditional way – fall in love! If you want to raise a kid, but you cannot beget one yourself, you can adopt,” states our Catholic discussion participant while referring to his or her own religion. And while this same person is totally fine with adoption by homosexual couples, the Muslim one among our participants does not want to accept that whole “homosexual concept” per se, being raised in a cul-
ture where homosexuality is a taboo, it is “just too weird to even see a gay couple”.
Is the Time Right? Sebastian Tynkkynen, newly elected chairman of The Finns Party Youth who is said to have controversial ideas about samesex marriage, could unfortunately not be present in our discussion round. His blog, previous interviews and answers to our questions create some very interesting ground for our discussion, however. In Aamulehti on 2.11.2014 he says that “The time is not ready yet for the equal marriage act.” In his blog he depicts that this change would bring many more huge changes along. Well, homosexual couples certainly hope for more changes, for instance getting the adoption rights granted finally. When asked about these statements now, Tynkkynen clarifies: “The government should not see it as their task to define symbolic religious or cultural habits assigned to specific groups,” he explains. “Instead, there should be
one neutral way to register committed relationships before the law, equal for everyone, and it is then left up to the people to define how to celebrate it.” We agree that the concept of marriage the way we are used to it might be outdated for our modern society. Let’s wrap it up: Marriage can be seen as a contract. The purpose of this contract depends on the culture: It might be the most important thing to recognize the relationship in front of the law, or in front of God. Or the contract could ensure that the offspring is taken good care of, and legal matters are clarified. Rights, properties, family wealth might need to be defined and protected. There are monogamous (1 + 1 till eternity), polygamous (1 + many), polygonos (more than one legally recognized marriage in one’s life), polyandrous (1 woman + several husbands/several fathers), or polyarmous (many + many, like in the 60s) marriages. They can be fixed-term or shall last forever. It all depends on values, norms and habits of societies, and, more important, arises from the needs of that
Marko agrees that in certain cases, it might be that a country is not ready for that. He thinks it should not play a role when it comes to human rights controlled by the government: in front of the law, everyone should be treated equally. Siriane, France, can assure us that even though in her country same-sex marriage is legal since 2013, nothing has changed for her. Bilawal brings up the argument that a law should only be passed if it brings more advantages than disadvantages for a society, but none of the other discussion participants can see any effect on the heterosexual society here – they agree that legalizing same-sex marriage will affect same-sex couples only. Those who are not affected should not deny the affected group their human rights. Our group tries to discuss those changes that might come up for the rest of the population: In Ukraine, people are scared that an official recognition of homosexuality will encourage more people to “try out being gay”. Another argument is that homosexuality increases the spreading of diseases. While these statements clearly show a lack of enlightenment that seems “normal” for young people with Western values and a misunderstanding of the whole concept of sexual orientation, a barrier of understanding becomes visible even in the room. The needed change can only be promoted with the help of an appropriate education and enlightenment. If a younger generation is ready for it, it has to fight for adjusting its legal, cultural and societal environment to its already changed way of thinking. Change is a never-ending process. Waiting for each and everybody to get ready for it is utopian just as much as finding a right or wrong that is fine with every human being. ■