Homosexual Marriage in Scandinavia
Once again, secular humanist moonbats are spinning the state of affairs in Scandinavia. This time, it is a book showing that homosexual marriage isn't bad for hetero sexual marriage.

Seventeen years after recognizing same-sex relationships in Scandinavia there are higher marriage rates for heterosexuals, lower divorce rates, lower rates for out-of-wedlock births, lower STD rates, more stable and durable gay relationships, more monogamy among gay couples, and so far no slippery slope to polygamy, incestuous marriages, or "man-on-dog" unions.

Both Instapundit and Eugene Volkh have linked to an op-ed on the book, and Instapundit seems to have accepted it completely uncritically. Volkh at least adds in the caveat that correlation is not causation. Neither however ask the obvious question. How much of these effects are due to the growing population of muslims? You know, those monogamous, no sex before marriage, against divorce religious beliefs, with the Imam's wielding real authority over their members.

In missing this point, Volkh's comment that "it is at least possible from these numbers to say that gay marriage has not led to any significant harm to marriage as an institution (pace Stanley Kurtz)." is completely wrong. As any statistician should be able to tell you, there can be factors that can mask significant harm.

Of course, I am completely skeptical about the research that has gone in for this book. Why? Because of the comment about having no slippery slope to polygamy. I seem to recall a little whilst back that the first polygamous union was done in the Netherlands.

Even more interesting, author David Spedale is a gay marriage advocate (no surprise), but it seems that the Scandinavian countries do not actually have 'gay marriage' but instead have a partnership register. Just another bit of spin that causes questions about the authors objectivity.

I also found this other article by David (which again uses the in correct term 'Gay marriage' for Scandinavia - so much for a lawyers attention to detail). In this article he, like other deluded secular humanist moonbats, holds Scandinavia as a model of a great society saying

It borders on the ironic that Kurtz should choose to attack the social culture of the Scandinavian countries, which have the lowest poverty rates in the world, the highest education rates, and a greater level of equality for women than any other set of countries.

It's a pity that this 'greater level of gender equality' is an out and out lie. Spedale contradicts his books finding (both assumedly based on his 2 years of 'empirical' research) when he says

Certainly, it is true that, over the past several decades, many couples in Scandinavia have chosen to live their lives together without actually going to city hall or church and signing official marriage documents – thereby living together as what we would call ‘domestic partners’ – permanent partners without a marriage certificate. This trend began decades ago, starting in the 1960’s, and has continued to grow (both in Scandinavia and all other western countries, including the U.S.).

It seems that Spedale has used modified his definitions of marriage in order to be able to conclude that marriage rates for heterosexuals has increased.

It seems my suspicions are correct. David is indeed a secular humanist moonbat. Check out this paragraph.

What is important to note here is that in the Nordic countries, where religion does not play the role in politics that it does in other countries, tolerance and respect for people’s choice of family structure is a key component of the culture. In Scandinavia, family laws are created to reflect the way that people actually choose to live their lives, and to provide support and protection for those family structures, such as choosing to live together as a permanent couple without getting a marriage license.

This differs drastically from the United States, where family law has been often used to reflect the religious values of politicians in office (which may reflect the views of their constituent majority, as opposed to their constituent minority), and as a punitive force to enforce the personal values of this group. That is, U.S. family law is often written in such a way to reward those who choose to create a family structure that is in line with the personal values of those in office, and to punish those who choose to create a family structure that such legislators personally disapprove of. (It is ironic to note that many American politicians, who in decades past attacked gay rights on the basis of the alleged promiscuity of gay men, now attack gay rights for on the basis of gay couples’ desire to make a permanent and legally enforceable commitment to one another.)

Yep. moonbat.

See also Stanley Kurtz's response to David Spedale's study.
- posted by Alan Grey @ Thursday, November 02, 2006