I was thinking of putting this in another forum, and indeed refer to it in this BBQ Pit thread, but figuring this would turn into a GD or Pit thread anyway, I thought I’d put it right here.
This article claims that the institution of marriage in certain portions of Europe, particularly Scandanavia, has been effectively killed, or at least severely weakened, by the legalization of gay marriage. Its numbers and such come from a study I can’t seem to locate online.
I’d like to specifically ask any Dopers who live in the areas mentioned in the article, and/or those who might have seen this study: is there anything, ANYTHING in that study, or in your personal experience living in Scandanavia, to support any of the assertions in this article? Is this just yet another case of correlation/causation? Even if it weren’t, what relevance would it have on America? How could so much damage have been done so quickly?
And sane conservatives on this board who DON’T believe in legally disenfranchising entire groups of people based on just “ick” factor: I hope this article gives you a better understanding why some liberals on this board get so upset and frustrated (if you didn’t have that understanding already).
From what I understand, Scandinavians were never really big on marriage to begin with. It has nothing to do with gay unions; in fact, it’s probably the other way around: they were the first to legalize same-sex marriages because they never actually considered the institution to be all that sacred.
…is technically incorrect. Sweden instituted same-sex marriage only over the last year or so. One can also wonder at the author’s rhetorical use of the phrase, “Not coincidentally,” since these trends are almost certainly examples of “co-incidents,” if you know what I mean.
Next paragraph: the author attempts to link out-of-wedlock births with the legitimization of same sex unions. Preposterous. It is taken for granted that “marriage” is somehow the most natural or desirable state, but from my experience, it just isn’t really all that important over here. Sweden has been undergoing a profound trend towards secularization over the last 40 years or so, and the drop in marriages is at least partially a reflection of that trend. To me, it’s a sign of a more enlightened society: for most Swedes, arguing about placing a monument to the Ten Commandments in a courthouse seems really baroque.
These are “disturbing trends”? Why?
I doubt this line of reasoning holds in Sweden. There is a disturbingly high rate of “family dissolution” here, however, in my opinion.
He’s assuming that the increased dissolution rates for cohabiting couples can be generalized to Sweden without an empirical basis. Like I said, that seems doubtful to me.
It’s ridiculous to try to tie gay marriage to these trends, but even then, so the fuck what? Adults can decide to marry or not as they see fit – why does this asshole think it’s his business?
Yeah, I would probably agree with that. I have a hard time seeing how same sex unions would affect heterosexual marriages significantly in either direction.
Whoa. That’s about the nuttiest pile of crapola I’ve ever read. Do people really take this stuff seriously?
Name one.
Like I said. And what does this have to do with the assumed link between gay and heterosexual marriage?
This is the core theoretical proposition of this article. I suspect that the correlation between gay marriages and high rates of cohabitation are primarily the result of a single underlying factor, namely, secularization. Here the author and I are in agreement. But he cannot go on to posit gay marriage as “a cause” of the trend as well without some sort of empirical basis. Very tricky proposition, so he tries to skirt it by proffering a logical inference: “It follows that blah blah blah….” But does it follow, necessarily? I wonder.
There’s no logic to this assertion, nor does the author provide any evidential backing for it.
Marriage has never functioned as an effective “protective shield” for children. At least, not to my knowledge.
I’m not sure what the author means by “de facto” marriage, but again, I’m pretty sure that state recognition of same-sex unions here in Sweden is a relatively new phenomena.
I don’t have much to say about his views on Norway’s “problems” with gay marriage. The Norwegian prince eventually married his girlfriend and they were quite recently blessed with a daughter. Everybody up there is real happy about that; Norwegians dig their royal family, boy.
Oh, good grief.
This is an assessment for which the author has thus far produced absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever. Why not simply interview cohabiting couples and ask them if gay marriage affected their decision to live together outside of wedlock?
Not only is he stupid, he’s also insulting.
In Europe, “liberals” inhabit the right side of the political spectrum. Dagbladet is almost certainly an organ of the Norwegian right, but I’ll have to double check that and get back to you.
I would just like to finish off here by stating my contribution to the family decline in Sweden. His name is Isaac, the sweetest little two-year-old you done ever laid your eyes upon, and born boldly and proudly out of wedlock. He also happens to be my son.
I married my SO a few months after his birth, but that’s neither here nor there, really. Thit article is one of the most insulting pieces of shit I’ve ever read, and heartily recommend the author to go fuck himself.
Excuse me now, if you don’t mind. I think I need to take a shower.
There’s a word for it, but I can’t recall it just now. But the OP’s article displays a fundamental flaw of logic.
Just because A is increasing as B decreases is not evidence of any relationship between the two. For instance; Levels of internet fraud increased, as car crash fatalities decreased last year. There is no relationship between the two.
And, indeed, this is exactly what the article fails, or even attempts, to do; establish a relationship between the fall of one type of marriage on the rise of another. It is relying on the reader not questioning the fundamental premise of the entire article by simplying producing the figures.
This does not prove anything. Remember that this only takes a look at a relatively short span of six years after gay marriages had been made possible for the first time. During those years, numbers rose steadily, but this might just be an initial increase to a “normal” level of gay marriages that has not yet been reached; after some time, this steady increase will stop and numbers will get more or less stable. It’s similar to the effect that poor countries very often have higher economy growth rates than rich ones - it’s easier to improve a low level, percentage-wise, than a high one that is already there.
The authors of the article refuge to this argument when trying to argue that increasing heterosexual marriage rates don’t prove anything:
Exactly. So why do they interpret increasing gay marriage rates as meaningful? I googled around a bit, without success, but I’m fairly sure the number of heterosexual marriages is way higher than the gay weddings, even now, even in Sweden.
Alessan got it. I have no clue what’s going on when I watch an American movie (last: My Fat Greek Wedding) and see all those big wedding traditions and parties (what the heck’s with the same dresses?) Or read about the astronomical expenses. We married only because we were planning an extended vacation to the USA and I had been that some hotels only let you rent double rooms if you could produce a valid marriage certificate or had the same family name (thinking about it now it sounds crazy, probably I was just duped, also we changed plans and went to New Zealand / Australia instead). We never had a party or anything - what a bore I am! but she’s never complained. Well she has but not on that account.)
My take:
Very few people marry for religious purposes, and marriage has been emptied of most legal and financial benefits. It used to be so you could only get an apartment if you were married, and your employee would automatically give you a raise, etc. Nearly all these benefits are no gone (except for some very minor tax benefits, which are more than balanced by some social security help downsides). And following a general loosening up of society, there’s no longer any moral stigma attached to unmarried couples (on the contrary even) or children born out of wedlock. Also there’re far fewer children born, and women have possibilities in life beyond landing a good man.
This (kinda scary) site which I just accidentally surfed by think it has more to do with marriage (and family in general) been emptied of all financial benefits and traditional functions which have been usurped by a welfare state client state model, while marriage retain the financial burdens. Yak! Sounds yucky to me. Anyone have some sound refutations to this?
Never heard it had anything to do with gay marriage. Don’t know many gays and just a few lesbians, none that are married. I’m not a gay advocate, mostly I’m just disinterested in gay issues, but this theory sounds pretty whacky.
The author goes on to explain why this is an aberration saying that couples are getting married after their second child.
If couples are getting married later what does this have to do with gay marriage? The author did not do a very good job linking the decline in marriage rates (at least in Sweden) and legalizing gay marriage.
What I got from the article (after you get past all the crap) was that for a veriety of cultural and political reasons (not necessarily because of gay marriage) the marriage rate is decreasing in Scandanavia.
Corrilation does not necessarily imply causation.
One wonders how much marriage reality television is avalible in Scandanavia.
Both links provide interesting reading, WinstonSmith.
The article makes independence sound undesireable. It would be interesting to see the affect this has had on the number of women who choose not to remain in abusive situations – a big problem in the US. Also, how is someone “supported by the state” if she or he is working?
The author has mischaracterized de Beauvoir whose dream was of responsibility. The author apparently thinks that a woman working outside the home is androgenous and yet he or she does not address what “pushes” the men from the home. Would they be androgenous if they stayed home with the children? Has the author been living under a rock for the last forty years?
I thave some gay and lesbian friends who would argue that point. They are being denied those institutionally strong marriages because of “religiosity.”
I lost one of the quotes that I wanted to comment on. But it was one that almost seemed to take the position that marriage has always been about reproduction and that gay marriages are changing that. That will come as news to those couples who cannot have children or choose not to.
The last article I don’t find frightening at all – just extremist. The Scandanavian countries are the last place that I would expect to abolish child labor laws and state sponsored education.
The choice not to marry does not signal a lack of committment. Old age pensions don’t mean that families don’t look after their elderly. State sponsored education is for the good of the entire family – not just the good of the state.
WinstonSmith, do you believe there as been any lessening of the stability of Danish society in the last thirty years? I know there have been a lot of changes since I was there.
Im an american, but my wife is a Swede and Ive been there a few times and lived worked/there for around 8 months (though not really in a kosher fashion, as I came back here for two weeks every 2 1/2 months to avoid having to get a work permit).
Sweden is like anywhere else; different than its reputation makes it out to be. There is Sweden of the cities and Sweden of the countryside, just like here, and just like here they are two very different worlds.
If youre a homosexual and in Sweden, you had better stick to places like Stockholm or Gothenburg, or your risking getting stabbed/beaten, in the same way that a gay couple that can walk around perfectly fine in downtown SF probably wouldnt want to walk around the same way in a burg in the midwest.
The linked article tries to give the impression (like many liberal publications do for opposite reasons) of Sweden as some kind of Liberal holy land or something, which is silly as hell. Most of my time in Sweden was/is spent in smaller towns in the countryside, and I often find myself being the most live-and-let-live person around.
I would say the high rate of unwed pregnancy exists there because there really isnt any reason for it not to. There is no necessity to get married, if one doesnt want to. Yes, the fact that the state (other taxpayers) takes care of you ~does~ have something to do with it. But its economics, not something as irrelevent as religon. The young tend to see no problem with it; the old, who pay most of the taxes, bitch and grumble about it very much I can assure you; only in private because thats the way Swedes bitch and grumble.
One thing that bothers me about Sweden is that the main parties adhering to ideology rather than practical reality is driving a huge backlash in Sweden that otherwise may not be there. NAZI’s of various stripes are huge in Sweden; there have been at least two that I know of (though I didnt see it in the news) robberies of weapons caches kept by the Home Army, and the weapons were not recovered as of a few months ago anyway. The rise of NAZIism anywhere is usually a sign of something deeper askew.
Im not predicting an armed revolution no, but I very much predict a political upheaval of major proportions within the next 10-15 years, in a decidedly conservative direction (hopefully economically conservative only), especially once the effects of rejecting the euro are more deeply felt.
Sweden reminds me of a volcanoe just waiting to go off, and one thing that makes me nervous that it might is the fact that so many middle/upper middle class Swedes pretend it isnt there, that everythings all fine and dandy. Its a smoldering country, and when or if it goes, its gonna go hard. Its got nothing to do with religon or gay marriage; its got to do with lack of opportunity (first and foremost), lack of buying power, and an overall feeling of things not being under ones own control, of powerlessness.
But all things considered, Id rather be a gay person in Sweden than a kosovo-albanian or a gypsy.
Maybe people just choose to be “Sambos” instead of marrying. Sambos have some legal protection/rights, not sure how they compare to marriage laws though…
This article is not much more than a steaming pile of bovine feces IMHO. It’s the same situation here in Iceland (admittedly we don’t quite have the population of Sweden, but nonetheless…), but it has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriages, nothing at all. I wouldn’t quite say marriage is dead, though, it just smells like it did. I fail to see the problem here, why is it so bad if people don’t want to marry?
“Confusing Correlation with Causation”. But I’m not sure this study is even a good example of that Logical Fallacy. Gay marriage is a relatively recent phenomenon, while marriage has been in decline for quite some time. Is there really even a correlation going on? If one were to postulate that the “Sexual Revolution” of the 60s/70s was a cause for the decline in marriage, that might be more believable.
Point of information – to my knowledge, Sweden does not have same-sex marriage per se, nor do any other countries besides the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada (BC and Ontario). By “same-sex marriage” I mean that marriage, as such, is available to all couples regardless of their sex.
It seems here that what Sweden has is registered partnership, which basically is a status equivalent to marriage for same-sex couples. That’s also what we have in Quebec (civil unions), and in France, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Germany, and Zurich, Switzerland (to varying degrees of equivalency to marriage).
That article was kind of funny as a reminder that people will write about things they neither know or understand. Gay marriage responsible for the decline in marriage! Hah!
That message wasn’t driven home by the gay movement, knumbskull, they wanted the right to marry, why would they argue it is outdated? The message is out, and many if not all agree with it, but the gay movement had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Well yeah. Isn’t that a good thing? I don’t think that people staying in a bad or abusive marriage just because they wouldn’t be able to make it on their own is a good idea, does this guy?
Amen to that! One of our proudest achievements as a nation, in my opinion, is our welfare state. It is my understanding that “welfare state” is a negative word in the US, here it has a very strong positive meaning
What more is a marriage then cohabitation? It’s not seen as a “contract before god” here or whatever, it’s just a more serious promise that you will stick together. Legally, there is little if any difference between ‘sambos’ (people living together for some time) and married couples.
Oh my god… TO BE EQUAL WOMEN MUST WORK!! Guess what, most Swedish women don’t fantasise about being home-wifes, they want a job and career. Sweden is the most equal country in the world in most aspects, but we can still do plenty to improve that, and we’re working on it. The author seems to want the man as provider and the woman as homemaker, well go live in the US in the 50’s then, we’ve evolved a bit here.
Snuh? I find the authors use of ‘this’ to be exciting and new, since they never relate back to anything that actually supports the stupid statement that follows the ‘this’.
You got it, Bubba! ANd guess what, most of the clergy like it how it is. There’s a few crazy ones screaming about how the woman should stay at home and please her husband etc, but mostly priests here function as helpers in traumatic times and organising charities and taking care of refugees. And they’re well respected for it. I, as an atheist, am now a member of the Swedish Church just because I like all the good non-religious work they do. Thumbs up to Swedish priests!
You forgot to mention that we also lead the race in divorces. 65% of people getting married end up divorced. Which is good, since it means they move on from a bad relationship most of the time. I’m happy my parents got divorced. There’s also no stigma to it, maybe because our priests aren’t ranting about it, which is nice.
This author doesn’t like gays, and likes religion and marriage. So he decided to write an article proving how something he doesn’t like is hurting something he likes. It had the positive effect of reminding me how lucky I am to live here, the author should probably move to Afghanistan, he’d like it there. What a jerk-off.
Pffft. I live in a fairly small town (120k), we have several openly homosexuals here. I know at least 6 of them and nothing like this has ever happened. I’ve lived in smaller towns (15k and 10k) as well as on the country-side, no problems there either. Sure, there are people (more the further from town you get) that don’t like homosexuality, based on the ‘ick’ factor. I think that’s natural, if a bit unfortunate, and it is getting better all the time. At least they don’t ‘hate’ homosexuals, and they don’t do it because the bible said so, which is a lot better in my eyes. Actually, anyone going out and saying “Homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God!” would be labelled a lunatic.
Yeah, and this is awesome. I wish it would b like this everywhere:)
This is actually mostly bogus. There is a small fringe movement of nazism, which is mainly teenage kids with problems acting out. They aren’t very many, but they are loud and the newspapers like to give them attention because it’s ‘exciting’. The stolen weapons are used by veteran criminals, some of which associate with or to some extent are nazis, but they are criminals first and last, and the guns are used for robbing cash transports, not waging wars on jews or whatever.
Just for clarification: the Netherlands became the first nation to permit same-sex "marriage.
Married homosexuals in the Netherlands enjoy the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts, including custody of children, inheritance of property and hospital visitation rights should their partners fall ill.
Hetero-sexual marriage is on the rise again. Not for religious reasons, couples seek a reason to party. And why not?
*Stoneburg, again you’re awfully fast to declare [posted by Stoneburg] :
I’m not waging war… maybe I wrote something the wrong way?
My point was that yes, there are nazis here, but very few, and generally troubled teens. The stolen weapons were stolen for non-political reasons, to be used for robbing cash transports etc, not for any ‘nazi’ purposes (such as killing jews, or whatever would be on their agenda, killing jews was just what popped into my head as the number one priority of nazis). I thought that was an important distinction to make.
I am a tad anoyed that it takes me up to 30 mins to open this dang thread though, other then that I’m good, not troubled, but thanks for asking. Anyway, hope that cleared it up, have to get to bed.
More instability? I don’t know what you mean Zoe. Life in Denmark, like the rest of Europe and America I suspect, has today more opportunities and more insecurities than thirty years ago. Life has definitely become more stressful. Can’t see where gays or gay marriage tie in. I do think children have come out as the losers in the new family structures. Women has entered the labour market nearly 100% and men has not decreased their work load any, on the contrary. Children are now spending more and more time in day care centres and kindergartens even babies as young as six months - and up to 9 hours a day is not uncommon. Also there are many more single mothers, robbing the children the opportunity of the fathers, and of course these children have even less parental contact because the single mothers have to work so much to let ends meet. I believe we’ll begin to see real instability in 10-15 years when the pension system will buckle under the load of growing pensioners and dwindling workers. (do tell me if you want to come by again, we’ll swap flats for a holiday then)
True, the vicar in homosexual church marriages do not say the same words over the bride and bride as in if it was bride and groom. I do think the marriages have the same legal status though. I may be mistaken, as I said not a subject that interests me a lot. The premier of the Danish government (right wing) just announced last Friday that he thought it was about time gay and lesbian marriages in the Danish Lutheran church (state church) should be normalised to that of heterosexuals. I don’t really understand why they gays/lesbians would want to, but sure no problem by me.
I must respectfully disagree. The welfare state is like cancer; growing, growing, growing, always growing, eating us up from the inside, sucking us dry. Soon nothing will be left except dependent clients and one big motherly state embracing us all in loving deadly embrace. Argh! I’m suffocating! Ack! Air! Urgh! Help!
WinstonSmith, your response is greatly appreciated.
I don’t want to detract from the topic, so I hope this isn’t too far out of bounds.
Socially, do you see much difference in Denmark and Sweden as it is described in the article?
I know that you are taxed extremely heavily. Are there other ways in which you feel the Danish state “smothers” you?
I ask because I have never known people as pleasant, friendly, clean, kind, bright, funny and hard-working as the Danes. But, as I indicated, that was thirty years ago.
I would dearly love to exchange flats. Unfortunately, my house would come with a husband who had sooner see me sacrificed to a volcano than return to the Vikings who stole my heart.
(I once danced with a Danish knight – although he wasn’t knighted then. His name Is Peter Martins and he is with the NYC Ballet Co. Do you know of him?)
Well, no need to get defensive; I love Sweden. Maybe your definition of Nazi and mine are two different things, but as far as Im concerned you can be a Nazi without ever saying ‘8-8’ or hanging around Carl XII’s statue. Nationalists are just Nazis with manners.
But I stand by what I say; Sweden has a very great many undercurrents broiling neath the surface. Swedes arent nearly as outgoing as Americans; you normally have to get them drunk to hear what they really think, and then they wont shut the hell up. But get enough of em drunk in a comfortable setting, and just talk, and pretty soon its clear that quite a bit is bottled up, much of it being resentment and frustration. And no, this isnt kids Im talking about, but people in their late 30s and 40s. Or was it all kids who voted no on the euro?
