Browsing by Subject "avioliitto eduskunta"

Objectives The aim of this study is to research and analyse preliminary debates by Finnish Parliament about the citizens initiatives called "Tahdon2013" and "Aito Avioliitto". The themes that emerged from the debate are analysed and discussed in the light of literature and previous studies. The themes are quantitatively or qualitatively meaningful topics risen from the debate. Different voices are identified from the debates through the Bakhtin's (1991) polyphony theory and the model of the activity theory of speech by Ritva Engeström (1999). The purpose is to clarify what is being discussed about the renewal of marriage law and Rainbow Families in the Finnish Parliament and to analyse voices behind these opinions. The frame of reference is family research in Home economics science. Methodology Citizens' initiatives Tahdon2013, discussed in spring 2014, and Aito avioliitto, discussed in fall 2016, were used as material in this study. Citizens' initiatives can be found transcribed on the Parliament website. Findings and conclusions The analysis of both citizens' initiatives reveals that there was a clear dichotomy between those who supported and resisted the amendment to marriage legislation. From the literature it can be concluded that meaning of marriage has been changed in the society to the direction where marriage does not necessarily mean having children and people do not get married for safety. Getting married is more about love, not about having children. There has been a clear separation between a family and marriage, parenthood and sexuality. For those who resisted the change of legislation, marriage is still an old institution for starting a family. These arguments were related to Christian and more conservative values. For those who supported the change the main arguments surrounded around human rights and being able to marry the person who you love despite the gender of the other. Differences in opinions were caused from differences in values. Differing values inflicted different voices that members of parliament were using. Only a few personal voices could be found, but it can be concluded that certain rules were followed in conversations, which made it more difficult to find different voices. However, it was possible to adapt the polyphony theory in to this setting as well.