gay adoption rage in finland

[cimorene]

So there's a bill in Parliament about same-sex adoption right now. Don't get excited, though, it's only to allow adoption internal to registered partnerships. Registered partnership is legal (obvs by the word 'registered'), but it's illegal for partners to adopt one another's natural children right now. Well, last week a typical asshole from the right-wing "True Finns' Party" (nationalist/ anti-multilingual party) compared this to marrying dogs.

After discussing the matter with Oinonen on Thursday, Speaker of Parliament Sauli Niinistö came to the conclusion that there was no intention to cause offence.

YOU DON'T THINK ANY OFFENSE WAS INTENDED? I'M SO GLAD TO HEAR THAT, NIINISTÖ. Evidently Niinistö is fonder than previously suspected of his dogs. Or perhaps his wife? A horse. Or maybe he's been body-snatched! He's possessed by an alien who doesn't come from a culture which carries a prohibitive norm against bestiality! That's why he is able to view the comment as innocent.

Meanwhile, in the land of the Swedish Peoples' Party (originally a Swedish-speaker's special-interest group; now generally moderate, but way too conservative for us):

After a fiery debate, the Swedish People's Party voted to support full adoption rights for same-sex parents... "If we don't accept this, we cannot be called a liberal party," argued the Young Swedish. "This is political suicide. Now the Finns can call us the gay party," said their opponents.

Yeah, because that's the important issue here: whether Finns continue to use "gay" as an ethnic slur against Swedish-speaking Finns! And of course, there's nothing ironic in refusing to support someone else's human rights because you don't want to be compared to them by some random asshole in a bar fight.

Protip, non-Youthful SFP: a) Finns don't actually believe that all Swedish-speakers are literally gay; if they did, they would find it hard to explain how you continue to reproduce. b) Knowing this has not stopped them and will not stop them from calling you gay, because you are a small minority with a number of historically memorable (and visible) affluent members and a rather obvious connection with the larger and wealthier nation next door that used to count Finland as part of its empire and use it as a summer home. I know that you are not actually descended from the King of Sweden personally - unless you are, in which case, no offense meant - and that your ancestors have lived in Finland just as long as proto-Ugric speakers and since before the evolution of Old Norse, and that statistically you are not wealthier than the Finns, and that it is very hard to get service in Swedish even though it is required by law. Believe me, I feel your pain: unlike you, I don't actually understand Finnish. But suck it up. You can console yourself that your life expectancy is still longer. And if it gets too harsh, you could move to Sweden. But beware! Gay people have rights there!

Comments

[msilverstar]

so, basically, there's fail everywhere? not hugely surprising, just a little sad.

[cimorene]

I'm a little surprised - I mean, not in general, but that registered partnership would be legal, while intra-partnership adoption wouldn't be; it just seems like something that would go hand-in-hand with RP and which one would naturally assume was already part of the RP law, because the entire purpose of such partnerships is to confer the basic legal rights of cohabiting spouses on gay couples - it focuses on property, inheritance, power of attorney and medical next-of-kin, that sort of thing, so why would registering the partnership EVER suddenly make your partner the legal co-possessor and inheritor of all your worldly possessions and pets, but just not your children? And how did that variant of RP ever get through anyway with any sort of claim that it conferred the same basic legal rights as marriage (which is claimed about it, constantly)?

[anglepoiselamp]

Apparently Oinonen also worried about children being exposed to their gay parents having sex. Uh. What. In any case, like someone commented on the Helsingin Sanomat website, only a sick mind could see an instant connection between adoption and bestiality.

[cimorene]

No shit. - I think Bell posted about that last week: something like that one of the other MPs said something like that to him on the floor. Er, that he was sick.

[bluesbell]

The bill was passed on Friday, so adopting your partner's children is now legal. :)

[cimorene]

Oh, that's right. But really, I can't find that particularly exciting; it's just NOT taking away a right that should be completely basic and which it was ridiculously backward to ever have denied in the first place. I doubt it would occur to you that that was even illegal unless you were acquainted with the particulars of the families who were running up against it. And it's hardly what people are talking about usually when they talk about gay adoption rights.

[alafaye]

It continually surprises me how many people think that being gay is something dirty and animalistic and just plain unnatural. Did you hear about the arrests in Russia? One of the political people actually said--in a roundabout way--that allowing gays to have their rights would bring disorder to the citizens and crumble the moral foundations of society.

*headdesk* There's nothing wrong with people being gay and raising kids!!

...sorry...I totally agree with you.

[cimorene]

Hahhaha. I'm pretty sure stuff like that gets said all the time in the US, albeit usually by fundie radio commentators and not elected representatives. But then, the reps also say some ridiculous shit.

[alafaye]

There actually was a group that airs its shows on on-demand (you have to pay to watch it) and they had tried to snag some public air time in one of the states here to show an episode of why gays should not be allowed to have the rights that they do and that the gays are secretly conspiring to take over the government...like we're an evil cult or something x.x

Luckily it didn't air...but to know that there are shows like that and that there are people who believe that...

I'm not saying that they can't. They have full rights to...it's just that I don't understand how they can believe it. Because it's a passive-agressive hatred and didn't Jesus say love all? And honestly...if the JW's can let things be because the apocolypse is right around the corner (according to them at any rate)...and the Christian branches all believe that J.C. is returning at some point...why can't they let things be until he gets back here? Honestly...if we wanted to believe the way they did...we'd be there in the church, confessing our sins.

...I'm not trying to be offensive...it just gets me pissed off...