If you’re anti-gay you’re probably anti-immigration (or don’t understand what is at stake)

by , under Enrique

It is surprising that a country like Finland, which claims to be a Nordic democracy, we see so much opposition to gays not only from anti-immigration parties like the Perussuomalaiset (PS), but from other ones as well like the National Coalition Party. 

PS MP Mika Niikko, a fierce opponent of gay rights, echoed on Helsingin Sanomat what other PS politicians think about homosexuality.

Kuvankaappaus 2013-2-19 kello 9.17.02

”I made a question that if homosexuality was as normal as people want us to understand, why must this fact be hidden from the employer…” he said.

For some reason, Niikko believes that employers should know their worker’s sexual preference.

It’s nothing surprising that an anti-immigration party like the PS houses anti-gay sentiment as we have seen from MP James Hirvisaari and MP Pentti Oinonen, who refused to go to the annual December 6 independence day reception because there were gay couples.

Even if Christian Democrat (KD) Interior Minister P’ivi Räsänen may appear to voice the greatest objection in government to gays rights and marriage by claiming on a TV show that homosexuality to be a sin, she’s not alone.

One of the conditions for the KD to be in government was that gay marriage would not be brought up or promoted.

MP Anne Holmlund of the National Coalition Party and former interior minister appears to be against gay rights as well. She has reportedly sabotaged a petition as chairman of the legal committee to debate and legalize gay marriage.

It’s important to note that these types of MPs and their parties that oppose gay marriage are a reflection of the general intolerance that is raising its head and gripping Finland. Approving gay marriage would not only benefit such couples but have a positive effect on all minorities.

Advancing tolerance is good for ALL minorities. Promoting or maintaining intolerance is a bad matter for minorities.

MPs that opposes gay marriage are most likely to oppose the rights of immigrants  and are most likely against cultural diversity.

  1. Mark

    So he thinks that employers should know the sexual orientation of job candidates so that employers can judge if their ‘values’ align to the employers. In other words, he wants to be able to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation in the job market. What a nasty piece of work!

    • honrigue

      The majority of Muslims are most definitely anti-gay. Does this mean that most immigrant Muslims in Finland are anti-immigration? That would be sort of hypocritical, no?

    • Mark

      Honrigue

      The majority of Muslims are most definitely anti-gay.

      The same was most definitely true of a majority of Christians not so many years ago, and is still true of some prominent Finnish Christians today, such as Päivi Rässänen. Opinions can change. Societies are capable of becoming more tolerant and liberal in their attitudes and more respecting of equality of right the need to reject the evil that is discrimination, whether it’s racism or homophobia. No-one is asking anyone to like another person’s sexual orientation or lifestyle – but people should be tolerant to the point of understanding that just because they don’t choose that lifestyle or were ‘born that way’, they cannot deny rights to others who are different.

      Does this mean that most immigrant Muslims in Finland are anti-immigration? That would be sort of hypocritical, no?

      What on earth are you driving at, man! Can’t you express yourself properly?

  2. Joonas

    Hmm, didn’t MT have already a blog post about this back in 2011 when the original news was released? But I can’t agree with Niikko’s view about the subject. It shouldn’t matter whatever you do on your freetime, as long as it doesn’t damage company’s image or properties.

  3. Yossie

    As far as I understand gay couples can register their relationship and get similar legal statuses and rights between each other as married couples with the exception of adoption outside the family.

    Somehow I get the feeling the main problem seem to be if gay couple can call their relationship “a marriage” or not. Religious people seem to be all against this since in their view the marriage is sacred sacrament between man and a women.

    Can’t gay people live in a registered relationship and have tolerance for people who respect the marriage as a union between man and a woman?

    Personally I don’t care either way and would let the gay couples to have their church wedding if they so want but then again, i´m not really religious.

    • Mark

      Why should today’s religion, which has been around for a few millennia at most and which has no universal mandate whosoever to legitimise on human affairs, have a monopoly on a ritual that has been around since the dawn of man?

    • eyeopener

      Dear Yossie.

      According to your reasoning gay couples are NOT equal. your quote:….similar legal statuses and rights between each other ……the exception of adoption outside the family. Between themselves may be correct but is there an equality in the Finnish law COMPARED with marriage. Assumption or do you know??

      The second part of the quote already indicates an in-equality -but even that’s not precise. It says: ….outside the family. Can I correctly conclude that gay couples can adopt “within the family”?? If so, that would mean “within two families” doesn’t it?

      What’s the problem for adoption outside the two families? How far does this “within the family” go? I as a gay -having a registered relationship- can adopt a nephew/niece from the 8th line of the family? Am I correct??

      Apart from that legal issue. Why can’t gay couples adopt children?? What’s the problem?? Can’t men/women as couple raise children?? Happy to read some painstaking arguments!!

      Sure you have an open mind!!

    • Yossie

      Eyeopener

      in this context the “adoption within family” or “Perheensisäinen adoptio” means that one person in the family has a child of his/her own and his/her partner adopts the child so they both are also legally the child’s parents.

      When I have read articles about this, they usually say the only difference between registered relationship and marriage is the right of adoption and right of taking your partners last name. I have not checked the law books for it myself so thats why “as far as I know”.

      I do not have any problem with gay couples adopting children contrary to what you seem think.

    • Yossie

      Mark

      I suppose the problem is that the ritual has been pretty much the christian form or other form between man and a woman for centuries if not much longer.

      However the ritual has taking many forms and names over the millenias I´m sure. As such why shouldn’t the gay couples be satisfied with the registered relationship assuming it would be fully equal in parts of adoption and sharing ones name?

      Or what would you want Mark? Forcing priests and imams to marry people against their will? Or is having marriage at townhall with a name of marriage ok then? then why wouldnt the registered relationship be ok?

      I would imagine one would get less resistance if religion people dont feel that their sacred sacraments are being attacked against.

    • Mark

      Yossie

      As such why shouldn’t the gay couples be satisfied with the registered relationship assuming it would be fully equal in parts of adoption and sharing ones name?

      Because they are not satisfied. They don’t want to think of themselves as merely ‘registered’, they want to think of themselves as married, with all that that implies about a loving committed relationship. Marriage is important in that it makes one’s relationship public, but also gives social approval to the relationship. If gays have to make do with a ‘different’ status, then it merely underlines the fact that they are not accepted as equals. This ‘registered partnership’ is a crumb thrown from the table of heterosexual hegemony, and frankly, it is a shame that gays are told to ‘be satisfied’.

      Forcing priests and imams to marry people against their will? Or is having marriage at townhall with a name of marriage ok then? then why wouldnt the registered relationship be ok?

      For a start, there are priests that are gay. There are priests who are not gay but who are happy to give their God’s blessing to the ‘union’ of two people. Why do you assume that a gay person’s ‘spiritual’ needs cannot be taken care of by ‘religion’? Clearly some religious people are homophobic and some are not. There is likewise deeply entrenched institutional homophobia in many churches and faiths, but they are historical constructs. For the literalists, any sentence that condemns sodomy is taken as a liberty for them to practice their discrimination, but why should they have the monopoly on being ‘spiritual or religious’? Tolerant people have as much right to interpret this issue too and to maintain their religious and spiritual integrity.

      The difficulty in all cases of religious discussion is separating man-made authority and ‘divine’ authority. Until God turns up on the planet demanding to have a say, then we have to assume that we must take responsibility for the doctrine, and when a teaching is damaging to the rights of a great portion of individuals, then it is our duty and responsibility to challenge that, and in so doing, to draw on the key principles that inform our faith, tolerance, love, respect, honouring, and justice. These things are not incompatible with spirituality.

    • Yossie

      Mark

      “Because they are not satisfied. They don’t want to think of themselves as merely ‘registered’, they want to think of themselves as married, with all that that implies about a loving committed relationship. Marriage is important in that it makes one’s relationship public, but also gives social approval to the relationship. If gays have to make do with a ‘different’ status, then it merely underlines the fact that they are not accepted as equals. This ‘registered partnership’ is a crumb thrown from the table of heterosexual hegemony, and frankly, it is a shame that gays are told to ‘be satisfied’. ”

      It is unfortunate that you/they think that way. It isn’t “a crumb thrown from the table”. Why is it “merely registered”? What makes it worse than marriage? Seem the problem is that you don’t give registered relationship the appreciation it deserves. It is as much committed loving, public relationship as marriage. Or are you seeing gay couples registered relationship differently now than if they were married?

      their status might be different, but it wont be unequal, just different.

    • Mark

      Yossie

      their status might be different, but it wont be unequal, just different.

      That’s simply not true. it is not equal and if it were, then why are gays denied it? There is absolutely NO justification for having a different status.

      Marriage is a cultural universal. Denying that obvious shared and universal status to gay people is criminal in my mind. You have said nothing either about the spiritual aspects I brought up, considering that you started your defence of discrimination by asking us to think of the poor priests having to go against their own corrupted conscience.

    • Yossie

      Mark

      Suppose the justification would be to take in considerations those that believe the marriage is between man and woman and their feelings.

      If you would see the registered relationship as important as marriage, then should it make gays happy as much as marriage while still taking into consideration other people’s feelings.

    • Mark

      Yossie

      If you would see the registered relationship as important as marriage, then should it make gays happy as much as marriage while still taking into consideration other people’s feelings.

      What is that feeling? I am straight and therefore all other forms of marriage must also be straight otherwise I feel polluted? Sorry, I would rather spend my efforts trying to show these people that they are self-harming and in the process of trying to accommodate their neurosis, we have to take away equal rights from gays? Sorry, but not thanks.

    • Farang

      Funny to see how Mark has absolutely no understanding for those religious people who are offended by the idea that marriage should be also for same sex.

      Compared to how he react when muslims are offended from something which is against their religion. Then he is 100% on muslims’ side.

      Once again it’s so clear how biased Mark is. Hypocrate.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Compared to how he react when muslims are offended from something which is against their religion. Then he is 100% on muslims’ side.

      If I’m 100% on Muslim’s side, why do I support the rights of gays, which on the whole are opposed by most religious authorities within Islam? I’m 100% for them except when I’m against them? That sounds like Farang’s tunnel logic!

      I am against Muslims being vilified and discriminated against because of their religion. I am against homosexuals being denied the exact same civil rights as heterosexuals. It’s not hypocracy, it’s called defending human rights.

      Because I oppose the ‘right’ of Christians or Muslims to monopolise the institution of marriage, or even to institutionalise homophobia within the religion itself does not mean that I oppose their right to practice religion or to express their opinions, providing it does not become hate speech, as that is clearly a violation of other people’s rights.

      I am not denying the rights of religious people if I oppose their monopoly on marriage. I don’t think my sympathy or lack of it for Christians on this issue has much to do with it. I think it is the obligation of Christians to defend why they think they should have the right to tell other members of society, whether religious or non-religious, what should or should not constitute a marriage or what should or should not constitute a family. These elements are such cultural universals that no religion can be allowed to exercise a monopoloy over them or to impose a totalitarianism in regard to them.

  4. Farang

    I don’t agree with the complaining against Holmlund. If only minority of the members of parliament are have signed it, why should she proceed with it? It means majority is against it so there is no point to proceed.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      I think we’re talking about a petition signed by more than 50,000 people asking to legalize gay marriage.

    • Farang

      Enrique

      I think we’re talking about a petition signed by more than 50,000 people asking to legalize gay marriage.

      I think you have misunderstood something. There is no petition which has been signed by 50000 people. If there was, then it would ofcourse be handled in parliament.

      This case is about a petition that was initiated by members of parliament, which only 76 members out of 200 have signed. And that is the reason why Holmlund hasn’t proceeded with it, because it has under 100 signatures.

  5. eyeopener

    The distinction between legal relationship and marriage is a religious -and as historical consequence- a legal one. The denial in the past of same-sex relationships is still noticeable today.

    What have we learned?? Not too much I guess.

    Nevertheless, in my opinion this distinction is absolutely flawed and unjustifiable. There is no reason to uphold this distinction. There are no evidences -except for assumptions, biased research, biblical explanations- to conclude that realtionships -from whatsoever nature- differ intentionally.

    Living together relationships are based in trust-or if you want: love- Trust between people is independent of sexual liking.

    I dare to challenge everybody to come up with proof and evidence to show me that I should accept the above-mentioned distinction.

    I am not sitting and waiting for a biblical explanation. I refute religion as a source of evidence.

    My question to society is this one: Is there a fundamental difference in relationship between sexes?

    Please no BLABLABLA!! because I know these explanations already. And I have made clear that these are not convincing and conclusive.

  6. Farang

    To be honest, I really can’t understand this Niikko. Seems like he is lacking logical capacity.

    If sexual orientation does not matter, then why should it be mentioned. It’s like saying “It doesn’t matter how old you are, BUT you have to tell me your age”. Idiot!

    But it is obvious that he has something against gays. Could it be that he is just in the closet himself?

    • Farang

      Apart from that legal issue. Why can’t gay couples adopt children?? What’s the problem?? Can’t men/women as couple raise children?? Happy to read some painstaking arguments!!

      It’s the fact that adoption should be looked from the child’s viewpoint, not from parents’ viewpoint. Meaning it should always be 1st priority to care what is best for the child.

      There shouldn’t even be a question about “parents’ right to adopt”, because that should never even be considered. Adoption should always be about “childs rights to have parents”.

      And considering this, it is always better to give child both mom and dad, instead of just mom or dad.

    • Mark

      Rubbish. It’s important that a child experiences a wide variety of relationships. The important thing is that parents model a loving relationship and that they provide stability, love, care and resources for the child. The idea that that can only be provided by two people of different genders has no basis. Unless you want to dredge up a view of psychiatry that was rejected 30 years ago.

  7. eyeopener

    And dear Farang.

    “Adoption should always be about “childs rights to have parents”.

    Explain me the CONCEPT and the CONTENT of the CONCEPT “PARENTS”.

  8. Farang

    If I’m 100% on Muslim’s side, why do I support the rights of gays, which on the whole are opposed by most religious authorities within Islam? I’m 100% for them except when I’m against them? That sounds like Farang’s tunnel logic!

    That’s the reason why you dodge the discussion about that. Could you now on public bash muslims about their views on gays?

    • Mark

      It’s interesting how quickly you want to make this about Muslims. Only last week I reminded you that there are Muslim men who are gay and indeed, BBC published a story about an Afghan gay man who is fighting for rights by standing up publicly. Not all Christians oppose gay rights. So let’s not fall into the trap of thinking this is about the religious vs. the non-religious, because it isn’t.

    • Farang

      I didn’t make it about muslims, I made this about your hypocracy. You are bashing christians about their views on gays, but you never bash muslims about the same.

      This just proves that you are biased in favour for muslims. I never see you condemn muslims actions. Muslims are always the victim if you are asked. Even now you portrayed muslims as victims.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –I didn’t make it about muslims, I made this about your hypocracy. You are bashing christians about their views on gays, but you never bash muslims about the same.

      The story is directed at ALL homophobic people irrespective of their background. If you are an immigrant and are against gays demanding equal rights then you don’t understand what is at stake.

    • Mark

      Farang

      You are bashing christians about their views on gays, but you never bash muslims about the same.

      I never mentioned Christians specifically. That was Yossie. I guess you are too lazy to follow this thread with any kind of diligence, but very quick to call me a hypocrite. I’m flattered by your need to destroy my reputation, but I reckon you’ll have to do a lot better than that to convince anybody.

      In fact, in my earlier posts before Yossie asked about Christians I specifically said that:

      There is likewise deeply entrenched institutional homophobia in many churches and faiths…

      I have made it quite clear what the basis for my criticism is and, yes, I do oppose homophobia within Islam as much as I do within Christianity or any other institutionalised faith.

      This just proves that you are biased in favour for muslims.

      What is this obsession with Muslims, Farang? I am biased towards good honest people, many of whom are Muslims, many of whom are better people than they might otherwise be through their love of Islam and their path to faith. I respect that and the desire to better themselves.

      Some people turn religion, nationality and other strong bases for identity into a ‘team’ game, and it is my belief that this is where humanity invariably takes a turn for the worse.

      I never see you condemn muslims actions.

      That’s because you don’t pay attention to anything except that which you want to hear. I cannot make up for your laziness, Farang.

      Even now you portrayed muslims as victims.

      You brought Muslims into the conversation and I pointed out that there are Muslims who are gay. And for that you say I potray Muslims as victims. There is no way to have a normal conversation with you Farang.

    • eyeopener

      Hi Farang.

      By sliding into another field of the “gay-attitudes” which again is utterly one-sided you avoid to answer my question above.

      Lost your tongue or your brains??

      Still waiting for “Farang the Illuminato” 🙂

  9. Farang

    Hi Farang.

    By sliding into another field of the “gay-attitudes” which again is utterly one-sided you avoid to answer my question above.

    Lost your tongue or your brains??

    Still waiting for “Farang the Illuminato”

    If you seriously don’t understand what “gay being in closet” means, then it’s not worth explaining to you.

Leave a Reply