NationStates Jolt Archive

We see alot of talk about gay-marriage rights these days as apparently its more important than our 12.5% poverty rate (US), curing diseases, and ending world hunger.

That being said, many people in the US are against homosexual marriages, would it make a difference if the word, "marriage" was not there but instead "union"; a union which would confer the same legal rights and titles as a marriage?

I realize that many people are against gay-marriage because it fouls the "sanctity of marriage"--which is historically a religious (Christian?) concept.

I personally think that the government should change all its "marrige" laws into union laws, then give marrige to religion to do as it wishes.

if only it werent a theocracy...

I don´t know US law. But in many countries is does make a difference. Why? Because their constituition gives marriages and families a special protection by the state. That means on the other hand that other institues CAN`T be given the same benefits and rights as marriages. So they have to be much more limitted. That is for example the case in Germany which passed a civil union law with limitted rights - for example excluding tax benefits and the right of adoption. The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 decision that it was constituitional but unanimously stressed that a distance to marriages need to be kept.
Just to make things clear: I´m against this civil union law as well. However it is of course not as bad as allowing gay marriages, although it is of course an attack on the institutition of marriage as the three judges correctly pointed out.
So it makes a legal difference. That is also the case for France by the way. That is also the reason why the gay fundamentalists in Europe are hoping for the US. I hope you stand firm on that issue and prevent gay marriage which is an attack on the sanctity of marriage. After all: Everything you do swaps over here some day. If the US falls into the hands of the gay lobby I fear that we couldn´t stop their outrageous demands either in the long-run.

The thing about Civil Unions is that they're a marriage-lite. Most have prohibitions on the ceremony even being held in a religious building. The one in Britain as proposed is rather hazy on pension rights, and I'm sure that the 1049 marriage rights you have in America are widely mirrored in other national laws, but not in any single civil union law.

To get these rights, and not spending the rest of our naturals trying to get something properly equal, not to mention the problem of making sure any new law that proposing something new for marriage has "and civil unions an' all" tagged on, extending existing marriage to gay couples is the only sensible option. The sheer extent of the legislation regarding marriage procludes any mirror legislation, and don't let the religious argument sway you, which is in no way a united front in any case.

well, did it really matter that black people weren't allowed in the same schools as white people?

i mean, they're both beign taught the same things, right?


and also, marriage served a civil purpose before religions got to mucking about in it.

I don´t know US law. But in many countries is does make a difference. Why? Because their constituition gives marriages and families a special protection by the state. That means on the other hand that other institues CAN`T be given the same benefits and rights as marriages. So they have to be much more limitted. That is for example the case in Germany which passed a civil union law with limitted rights - for example excluding tax benefits and the right of adoption. The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 decision that it was constituitional but unanimously stressed that a distance to marriages need to be kept.
Just to make things clear: I´m against this civil union law as well. However it is of course not as bad as allowing gay marriages, although it is of course an attack on the institutition of marriage as the three judges correctly pointed out.
So it makes a legal difference. That is also the case for France by the way. That is also the reason why the gay fundamentalists in Europe are hoping for the US. I hope you stand firm on that issue and prevent gay marriage which is an attack on the sanctity of marriage. After all: Everything you do swaps over here some day. If the US falls into the hands of the gay lobby I fear that we couldn´t stop their outrageous demands either in the long-run.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage, if gay people want to get married, then I don't see any reason to stop them. I also don't see any reason for withholding the same tax and inheritance benefits that the rest of us get if married.

So, just out of interest, so I can understand, why is it you are so against gay marriage? What are the outrageous demands of the gay lobby you speak of? As far as I can see, for the most part they are simply trying to secure equality with the rest of society and their human rights.

Yes it makes a difference.

Civil union could be legally denied to same-sex couples, by private organizations such as insurence carriers as well as by the government. Civil union or civil marriage is a legal contract that comes with certain financial benifits. It could be argued that the purpose of a family being the orderly propogation of the species, that therefor such benifits can be reserved soley for hetero couples (even though not all are fecund).

Marriage is a religious ritual. While churches et al can restrict its usage, the government, in the U.S.A. under the Bill of Rights, cannot legally do so.

Of course, when has our government ever been thourough and vigilent in its own obedience to the law?

I personally think that the government should change all its "marrige" laws into union laws, then give marrige to religion to do as it wishes.

if only it werent a theocracy...

I'm in total agreement. Was going to make the same suggestion. (It is a theocracy, a mild one, but still a theocracy.)

I think brittian has a pretty good odea to make every one happy. gay coupes can't marry but they can join in a union with grants simpliar right and benifiets to the couple. That way both the church going anti homo-marrage peolpe (because the sacinty of marrage is prevered) and the gay and pro-gay marry people (because they get a thing where the main diff. is name) are happy. Although i'm personaly pro-gay marrage (but not gay my self) this is indeed a good solution to the issuse.

Traditionocracy.

well, did it really matter that black people weren't allowed in the same schools as white people?

i mean, they're both beign taught the same things, right?


and also, marriage served a civil purpose before religions got to mucking about in it.
exactly
"seperate but equal" is and was a sham.
its marriage for everyone or its discrimination

I think brittian has a pretty good odea to make every one happy. gay coupes can't marry but they can join in a union with grants simpliar right and benifiets to the couple. That way both the church going anti homo-marrage peolpe (because the sacinty of marrage is prevered) and the gay and pro-gay marry people (because they get a thing where the main diff. is name) are happy. Although i'm personaly pro-gay marrage (but not gay my self) this is indeed a good solution to the issuse.

A difficult comparison since the church and state there are linked. Also it denies religious freedoms, so it would not be good enough for here (U.S.A.).

Traditionocracy.

i like that one

well, did it really matter that black people weren't allowed in the same schools as white people?

i mean, they're both beign taught the same things, right?


and also, marriage served a civil purpose before religions got to mucking about in it.
Race is not the same thing as homosexuality. Homosexuality is a choice, and the government can legislate regarding such choices as it sees fit.
Religions made marriage too. They didn't just show up and start "mucking about in it."

I don't have a problem with gay marriage, if gay people want to get married, then I don't see any reason to stop them. I also don't see any reason for withholding the same tax and inheritance benefits that the rest of us get if married.
So, just out of interest, so I can understand, why is it you are so against gay marriage? What are the outrageous demands of the gay lobby you speak of? As far as I can see, for the most part they are simply trying to secure equality with the rest of society and their human rights.
My view on marriage - but not just mine also the traditional view - is that it is between one man and one woman.
A man has a right to marry any woman and a woman has the right to marry any man. There is no discrimination in that principle.
Marriage is designed for a long-term relationship of a man and a woman.
And that includes mostly the potential ability that children do come out within this relationship. This can however only happen in a relationship between a man and a woman. Of course it isn´t mandatory and there are cases were people decide against that. But still: it has the potential ability for it. So therefore it is completly justified to differentiate between a heterosexual and a homosexual relationship.

That is not discrimination that is on the conterary fair and balanced and justified. Simular things ought to be treated the same way different things ought to be treated differently - that are the TWO SIDES of the equality principle according to german law. Most people only know the first but forget the second. But it is logical that it has two sides - because not all things in this world are simular after all. If we allow gay marriage the next thing would be polygamy or pedophilia or other things.
We have to remain a clear position and a consequent position: and that is given by the definition of marriage as to be between one man and one woman. And as I´ve pointed out this definition is completly justified and in no way discriminating. And therefore I see the argumentation and the demands of the gay movement as outrageous.

We see alot of talk about gay-marriage rights these days as apparently its more important than our 12.5% poverty rate (US), curing diseases, and ending world hunger.

Oh, I do support the 'cure world hunger and disease in a day' bill. I hope it passes so we can all be happy.

And it does make a difference what you call it. Calling them different things make them separate. Future legislation can be for one or another, so it threatens separate being equal. The best way to do it is separate religious and secular marriage, call all legal marriages civil unions.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage, if gay people want to get married, then I don't see any reason to stop them. I also don't see any reason for withholding the same tax and inheritance benefits that the rest of us get if married.

So, just out of interest, so I can understand, why is it you are so against gay marriage? What are the outrageous demands of the gay lobby you speak of? As far as I can see, for the most part they are simply trying to secure equality with the rest of society and their human rights.
The problem is, we (the religious groups against gay marriage) believe that homosexuality itself is wrong. It is a choice, but the wrong one to make. If you want to understand why we believe it to be wrong you would have to research into the groups themselves for their reasons.

Why should homosexuals be treated like second-class citizens? Why should the church have a hand anywhere near the government?

I say this: let homosexuals marry, and condemn anyone who doesn't let them.

Just legalize it and let's got on with life.. I mean, seriously.. if you're against gay marriage, don't get one.

The problem is, we (the religious groups against gay marriage) believe that homosexuality itself is wrong. It is a choice, but the wrong one to make. If you want to understand why we believe it to be wrong you would have to research into the groups themselves for their reasons.

Thre are also religious groups that believe that interracial marriage is wrong, and they too have no proper place inserting their views into public policy.

Race is not the same thing as homosexuality. Homosexuality is a choice, and the government can legislate regarding such choices as it sees fit.
Religions made marriage too. They didn't just show up and start "mucking about in it."


Yeah - we all remember that day when we mulled it over.... and decided to be straight. It was a long decision. We weighed the pros and cons. We did not actually consider what it was that we found sexually apealing. We just made a dispassionate decision based on social mores and traditional beliefs and made that conscious decision to chase members of the opposite sex....

The problem is, we (the religious groups against gay marriage) believe that homosexuality itself is wrong. It is a choice, but the wrong one to make. If you want to understand why we believe it to be wrong you would have to research into the groups themselves for their reasons.


Yeah, I'm a very devout Christian as well. However, I have many friends who are gay, I have witnessed the fact that it is not a choice that they make, AND, if you want to know what we should do with anyone who is thought of as sinning (and if you think it is sinning, then you sure better follow all the rest of Leviticus too, because homosexuality in the New Testament is not even spoken of) then just act like Jesus. What would Jesus do? He'd pray for them, talk to them, and leave them to decide on their own.

Who in the hell defined marriage as being between a man and a woman? The church was quite happy to perform commitment ceremonies until the rise of homophobia in the 12th century. There are many Anglicans, Protestants, not to mention liberal Jews, to name but a few, who are quite happy to recognise same-sex marriage, so why should Catholics and Baptists determine what these people can do before God?

Are you saying that civil unions should give EVERY SINGLE right that marriage gives that isn't related to child rearing? If so, what is so vital about those few out of several hundred that they need to be denied?

Civil union could be legally denied to same-sex couples, by private organizations such as insurence carriers as well as by the government. Civil union or civil marriage is a legal contract that comes with certain financial benifits. It could be argued that the purpose of a family being the orderly propogation of the species, that therefor such benifits can be reserved soley for hetero couples (even though not all are fecund).?
And argument I completly agree with.

Marriage is a religious ritual. While churches et al can restrict its usage, the government, in the U.S.A. under the Bill of Rights, cannot legally do so.
Of course, when has our government ever been thourough and vigilent in its own obedience to the law?
Well: The US doesn´t accept polygamy either although some religion practise it. The state of Utah had actually to change its law in that respect before it could enter the US in 1890 - it had to ban polygamy and it did.
So obviously the US government can legislate upon the definition of marriage. It has done so in the past. So why should it suddenly be banned from doing so. You have common law, don´t forget that. There is a precendent for it. And that is the think that counts. I´m not a common-law expert but you know: the law is open for interpretation everywhere. Also the Bill of rights. And the US with its common-law system and the rather small numbers of written law give actually even more room for interpretation than the legal systems of continental Europe who are based on Roman law (and written law - the so-called positive law).
So, you shouldn´t make concluding statements about the interpretation of the law. A lawyer would say: That needs to be investigated, thats need to be looked at. And in the case of the US it means to look at old precents.
I doubt you are going to find anything in favour of gay marriage in the past though.

My view on marriage - but not just mine also the traditional view - is that it is between one man and one woman.
A man has a right to marry any woman and a woman has the right to marry any man. There is no discrimination in that principle.
Marriage is designed for a long-term relationship of a man and a woman.
And that includes mostly the potential ability that children do come out within this relationship. This can however only happen in a relationship between a man and a woman. Of course it isn´t mandatory and there are cases were people decide against that. But still: it has the potential ability for it. So therefore it is completly justified to differentiate between a heterosexual and a homosexual relationship.

That is not discrimination that is on the conterary fair and balanced and justified. Simular things ought to be treated the same way different things ought to be treated differently - that are the TWO SIDES of the equality principle according to german law. Most people only know the first but forget the second. But it is logical that it has two sides - because not all things in this world are simular after all. If we allow gay marriage the next thing would be polygamy or pedophilia or other things.
We have to remain a clear position and a consequent position: and that is given by the definition of marriage as to be between one man and one woman. And as I´ve pointed out this definition is completly justified and in no way discriminating. And therefore I see the argumentation and the demands of the gay movement as outrageous.

Thank you for the explanation, it helps me understand the context.

I would say though that the it could be said that the "traditional" view point was that white people were superior to black people and other races in the past. But the vast majority of people now realise that to be a repugnant point of view.

I don't understand how allowing gay marriage will be the first step on the road to paedeophilia, I can't that happening here after we have passed laws for civil unions between gay and lesbian people.

I realise I live in a fairly socially enlightened country, for instance voting for women and making slavery illegal all happened a lot earlier than in many other countries, so I expect eventually the rest of the world will get over its prejudices in time. Of course, it may be slow.

The problem is, we (the religious groups against gay marriage) believe that homosexuality itself is wrong. It is a choice, but the wrong one to make. If you want to understand why we believe it to be wrong you would have to research into the groups themselves for their reasons.

We have neo-Nazi groups here in Sweden that believe anybody who is not white is wrong, that doesn't make it correct.

Of course, I appreciate the religious groups you describe have a far greater following than these abhorrant neo-Nazi's, but again, I don't see how religion can be used to deny somebody their human rights. And I say that from a country that has only recently disestablished the church.

People try to justify their fear of Homosexuality with the bible, just as people in the south justified their holding of slaves. The truth of the matter is, both of these "testaments" were taken completely out of the context with which they were origionally presented.

In the infancy of the church, Paul didn't want Christians to be painted with a bad name, so he suggested that they not wear their hair down, cover their heads, and not engage in homosexual activity. What can we deduce? Paul was trying to protect the church, by rising above the other accepted norms in the culture. The origional reasons for becoming a christian were the origional reasons for becoming, say, a communist. They saw flaws in their culture, and so removed themselves from the culture in order to change it.

Yeah - we all remember that day when we mulled it over.... and decided to be straight. It was a long decision. We weighed the pros and cons. We did not actually consider what it was that we found sexually apealing. We just made a dispassionate decision based on social mores and traditional beliefs and made that conscious decision to chase members of the opposite sex....

I stayed up 'til 4 AM!

Race is not the same thing as homosexuality. Homosexuality is a choice, and the government can legislate regarding such choices as it sees fit.
Religions made marriage too. They didn't just show up and start "mucking about in it."

As a gay man, I can say I did not choose to be gay. In fact, it would be very foolish to do so in a world like ours as it brings lot of problems and inequality with it. Also, in recent studies there has been shown a possible genetic reason for being gay. There is also a proven difference in hormones, showing biological rather than psychological reasons for being gay.

Religion has mimick so many things for there religous stories, that I can't see a reason why we can't extend marriage to all couples. It's also a sign of evolution that things change, and many religous habbits have already changed during the past centuries.

--
Homosexuality is a discovery, not a choice or a sin.

We have neo-Nazi groups here in Sweden that believe anybody who is not white is wrong, that doesn't make it correct.

Of course, I appreciate the religious groups you describe have a far greater following than these abhorrant neo-Nazi's, but again, I don't see how religion can be used to deny somebody their human rights. And I say that from a country that has only recently disestablished the church.

Can I come and move in with you? I'm great with cleaning and cooking..

And being gay is not a choice.

And allowing gay marriages will not lead on a path for pedophilia and polygamy. There are already rules set disallowing it.

And there's already a 15-page thread on this.

And I like cheesecake.

As a gay man, I can say I did not choose to be gay. In fact, it would be very foolish to do so in a world like ours as it brings lot of problems and inequality with it. Also, in recent studies there has been shown a possible genetic reason for being gay. There is also a proven difference in hormones, showing biological rather than psychological reasons for being gay.

Religion has mimick so many things for there religous stories, that I can't see a reason why we can't extend marriage to all couples. It's also a sign of evolution that things change, and many religous habbits have already changed during the past centuries.

--
Homosexuality is a discovery, not a choice or a sin.


How about this thought eh? Homosexual men are generally more in tune and sensitive to women. They are never Chauvinistic. Effeminate men are the same way. Also, effeminate men get laid WAY more often and do it better than dumb, jock football playing testosterone charged men.


Think about it? Is it possible that homosexuals and effeminate men are the next evolutionary step for humans? In that case, you normal homo-sapiens better start bowing down and worshipping your new masters! Woot, all us sensitive guys are more evolved! Yay!

And I like cheesecake.


Philadelphia style? Or one of the others? The best is Philadelphia style, in my opinion.

Can I come and move in with you? I'm great with cleaning and cooking..

And being gay is not a choice.

And allowing gay marriages will not lead on a path for pedophilia and polygamy. There are already rules set disallowing it.

And there's already a 15-page thread on this.

And I like cheesecake.

LOL :D that made me laugh....

Sorry I'm not actually gay, I just am someone who passionately believes in equality and human rights! But, you're more than welcome to come round and do the cleaning :) !!

The problem is, we (the religious groups against gay marriage) believe that homosexuality itself is wrong. It is a choice, but the wrong one to make. If you want to understand why we believe it to be wrong you would have to research into the groups themselves for their reasons.

The real problem is that those religious groups think that they have a patent on truth. The fact that it is a belief, without any positive evidence, makes that you cannot enforce it on other people. It's not because you belief in something that all others have to follow you like lemmings.

Another problem: who decides on what are religious groups and what are just groups of lunatics?

As already stated in this thread, some religions allow polygamy or disallow interracial marriage: why shouldn't we follow them but should we follow groups who prohibit being gay?

If people can choose which religion to follow, I'm choosing the ancient Greek religion, in which even some gods had gay relationships :)

Nice quote I have about this:
"If god doesn't like the way I live, Let him tell me, not you."
If he even exists of course..

I don't know if this is relevant or not, in Lebanon all marriages are handled by the different religions. There is no civil marriage, union etc...
Moreover, homosexuality is considered a crime, punishable by law with 5+ years in prison.

I don't know if this is relevant or not, in Lebanon all marriages are handled by the different religions. There is no civil marriage, union etc...
Moreover, homosexuality is considered a crime, punishable by law with 5+ years in prison.

I find all arguments based on current laws irrelevant as this can only be based on 'current law, good law', which defies every attempt to change anything.

--
To know what you prefer, instead of humbly saying "Amen" to what the world tells you you ought to prefer, is to keep your soul alive.
-Robert Louis Stevenson

We see alot of talk about gay-marriage rights these days as apparently its more important than our 12.5% poverty rate (US), curing diseases, and ending world hunger.


Of course, there are more important issues, but this should be an easy one: it costs nothing, does not force anyone to do anything, it just gives more people the right to marry. Stop argueing, give those rights and get to really important issues.


That being said, many people in the US are against homosexual marriages, would it make a difference if the word, "marriage" was not there but instead "union"; a union which would confer the same legal rights and titles as a marriage?


In my opinion it would make a difference: If it is not the same it's discrimination. if it is the same, why call it something else? It just leaves to many possibilities open for (later) discrimination and it is just making a difference for the sake of making it different. Give me one good reason to call it something else if it is the same and please don't tell 'because some people can't stand it'. Murder is not allowed because some people commit murders.


I realize that many people are against gay-marriage because it fouls the "sanctity of marriage"--which is historically a religious (Christian?) concept.

Religions can still choose to have a ceremony or not for gay marriages. And all rest is legal business, which has nothing to do with religion (seperation of state and church).

--
"Homosexuality, at its core, is about the emotional connection between two adult human beings. And what public institution is more central -- more definitive -- to that connection than marriage? The denial of marriage to gay people is therefore not a minor issue. It is the entire issue."
-- Andrew Sullivan, New Republic

The problem is, we (the religious groups against gay marriage) believe that homosexuality itself is wrong. It is a choice, but the wrong one to make. If you want to understand why we believe it to be wrong you would have to research into the groups themselves for their reasons.

You must, however, see that it's not a Christian principle to bring religious values out into the open. This includes the public forum that is parliamentary democracy. You are told repeatedly in the New Testament to do what Pharisees and others don't, and that is to shut up and get on with your own lives, keeping religion to yourselves, unless you're trying to convert. There is no compulsion in religion.

Cite Biblical evidence that homosexuality is wrong. Actually, don't. Click onto soulforce.org and courage.org.uk and read some of the accounts that are there. Courage is particularly interesting, they used to be in the business of 'curing' homosexuals, but they realised with the help of experience, prayer and bible-thumping that there's nothing wrong with it. And by the way, wherever it says 'Sodomite' in your Bible, it's wrong. They only ever referred to Sodom directly, such as in Ezekiel 16:48-49, never as an archetype.

Thank you for the explanation, it helps me understand the context.
I would say though that the it could be said that the "traditional" view point was that white people were superior to black people and other races in the past. But the vast majority of people now realise that to be a repugnant point of view..
I can´t that you are responding to any of my arguments though. And I have clearly given a definiton of marriage which is no way discriminating.
Every institutition has its purpose: and the one of marriage is to bind man and woman togehter. A discrimination within this system is indefensible - like one based on race or relgion.
But marriage can´t be expanded to everything, that would strip the instituition of its purpose. Homosexual relations or polygamy doesn´t fit in that.

I don't understand how allowing gay marriage will be the first step on the road to paedeophilia, I can't that happening here after we have passed laws for civil unions between gay and lesbian people. ..
Wait ten or twenty years that this is going to come. Actually they are many advocates of gay-marriage in the US who say: Well: don´t see a reason against polygamy either. Not allowing polygamy is discriminating.
That is going to swap over as well. It just needs time. I mean the gay movement in Europe is also in most countries at least younger than in the US.
So that is then the next step in the destruction of the instituition of marriage.

I realise I live in a fairly socially enlightened country, for instance voting for women and making slavery illegal all happened a lot earlier than in many other countries, so I expect eventually the rest of the world will get over its prejudices in time. Of course, it may be slow.
I would plainly point out that slavery wasn´t used in Europe itself: rather feudalsim was: which is not quite the same and ended in most countries in the first half of the 19 th century - except in Russia were it dragged on for longer. And in the case of women voting many countries also had that in the first half of the 20 th century.
But I don´t see that does things can be in any way compared to this issue. This is about a development which is ultimately leading to the destruction of marriage.
And as far as I know the enlightend Swedish welfare state was in a deep crisis in the begining of the 1990s. So there were a lot of cuts in it. But still the tax burden and the state quota is very high (50%) and the maximum tax as well. I don´t see such a system as particularly enlightened.
Well: I wouldn´t completly copy the anglo-saxon modell though: Germany has to go for its own modell which need to be somewhere between. Switzerland has many interesting things (like the head premium model for the health insurance). Well: that goes of topic now.
But enlightened Sweden has obviously reservations towards the "stupid" rest of Europe. Well, we have to live with that. I´m not going to boycott Ikea because of it.

Philadelphia style? Or one of the others? The best is Philadelphia style, in my opinion.

I like the cheap style..the cheapest is good enough for me.

LOL :D that made me laugh....

Sorry I'm not actually gay, I just am someone who passionately believes in equality and human rights! But, you're more than welcome to come round and do the cleaning :) !!

Well I'm not gay either, and I'm the same..but I'm a good roommate! :)

How about this thought eh? Homosexual men are generally more in tune and sensitive to women. They are never Chauvinistic. Effeminate men are the same way. Also, effeminate men get laid WAY more often and do it better than dumb, jock football playing testosterone charged men.


Think about it? Is it possible that homosexuals and effeminate men are the next evolutionary step for humans? In that case, you normal homo-sapiens better start bowing down and worshipping your new masters! Woot, all us sensitive guys are more evolved! Yay!

Whoooh, slow down there. When did THIS happen? I think there's a lot of girls in southern California that need to hear about this information :p

Wait ten or twenty years that this is going to come. Actually they are many advocates of gay-marriage in the US who say: Well: don´t see a reason against polygamy either. Not allowing polygamy is discriminating.
That is going to swap over as well. It just needs time. I mean the gay movement in Europe is also in most countries at least younger than in the US.
So that is then the next step in the destruction of the instituition of marriage.

Every single other country except Japan(pre-1998) has pedophilia laws. Letting gays marry would not disrupt current pedo laws, there are too many solid, based arguments against it, unlike for gay marriage..

And you Christians already ruined the institution of marriage. What do you think Bachelor or those other 'marriage reality' shows are doing? And what about Britney Spears or other celebrities? Most people love them, even Christians. Yet, they do things like have thirty hour marriages and whore themselves out. That's real sacred and stuff there.

Every single other country except Japan(pre-1998) has pedophilia laws. Letting gays marry would not disrupt current pedo laws, there are too many solid, based arguments against it, unlike for gay marriage..

And you Christians already ruined the institution of marriage. What do you think Bachelor or those other 'marriage reality' shows are doing? And what about Britney Spears or other celebrities? Most people love them, even Christians. Yet, they do things like have thirty hour marriages and whore themselves out. That's real sacred and stuff there.
Such things are only possible in the US. Other countries have other laws regarding marriage and divorce. But that is a topic for another discussion. The US may consider to change laws in that respect.

Such things are only possible in the US. Other countries have other laws regarding marriage and divorce. But that is a topic for another discussion. The US may consider to change laws in that respect.

w00t. :)

I can´t that you are responding to any of my arguments though. And I have clearly given a definiton of marriage which is no way discriminating.
Every institutition has its purpose: and the one of marriage is to bind man and woman togehter. A discrimination within this system is indefensible - like one based on race or relgion.
But marriage can´t be expanded to everything, that would strip the instituition of its purpose. Homosexual relations or polygamy doesn´t fit in that.


Wait ten or twenty years that this is going to come. Actually they are many advocates of gay-marriage in the US who say: Well: don´t see a reason against polygamy either. Not allowing polygamy is discriminating.
That is going to swap over as well. It just needs time. I mean the gay movement in Europe is also in most countries at least younger than in the US.
So that is then the next step in the destruction of the instituition of marriage.


I would plainly point out that slavery wasn´t used in Europe itself: rather feudalsim was: which is not quite the same and ended in most countries in the first half of the 19 th century - except in Russia were it dragged on for longer. And in the case of women voting many countries also had that in the first half of the 20 th century.
But I don´t see that does things can be in any way compared to this issue. This is about a development which is ultimately leading to the destruction of marriage.
And as far as I know the enlightend Swedish welfare state was in a deep crisis in the begining of the 1990s. So there were a lot of cuts in it. But still the tax burden and the state quota is very high (50%) and the maximum tax as well. I don´t see such a system as particularly enlightened.
Well: I wouldn´t completly copy the anglo-saxon modell though: Germany has to go for its own modell which need to be somewhere between. Switzerland has many interesting things (like the head premium model for the health insurance). Well: that goes of topic now.
But enlightened Sweden has obviously reservations towards the "stupid" rest of Europe. Well, we have to live with that. I´m not going to boycott Ikea because of it.

But your definition of marriage is clearly discreminating against those who don't wish to marry the opposite of their own gender. Where is it set in stone that marriage must be between a man and a woman always? Surely governments are free to set their own laws on this subject?

I never said the rest of Europe was stupid btw!! I think Europe is far more enlightened than many parts of the world.

As regarding our tax level, yes it is fairly high by world standards, but that's because we have made a choice to pay this so that we can have a system that produces a more equal society. Our attitude towards taxation is different to some other countries, tax is not automatically considered a bad word as it is in some places.

Every single other country except Japan(pre-1998) has pedophilia laws. Letting gays marry would not disrupt current pedo laws, there are too many solid, based arguments against it, unlike for gay marriage..

Ok, that may not happen immidiately. But polygamy is going to become an issue soon. I´m convinced about that. Just wait ten-twenty years.
And one day someone again begins to discuss the protection age - so we are slowly moving into the sexualisation of juveniles. That is a tendency: more and more early sexual intercourses. A dangerous development.

Well I'm not gay either, and I'm the same..but I'm a good roommate! :)

If I ever need one, you will go to the top of the list :)

And one day someone again begins to discuss the protection age - so we are slowly moving into the sexualisation of juveniles. That is a tendency: more and more early sexual intercourses. A dangerous development.

I don't really feel there is a relationship between these issues. The country that we hear most prominantly being against gay marriages is the one with the highest incidents of teenaged preganancies in the industralised world, so I don't think the relationship between these issues should be overstated.

Although to be fair, I think many of these teen preganancies in USA are a result of the prudish attitude American society has towards sex. I think there's probably as much teenage sex here, but because we understand it will happen, sex education is better and therefore contraception used more widely.

The American attitude towards sex always amuses me, as was illustrated when Janet Jackson's nipple was revealed on MTV... which cause a huge uproar amongst Americans. Most of us Europeans, certainly Swedes at least, couldn't understand the fuss, we have tv adverts for shower gel that show more than that!

Ok, that may not happen immidiately. But polygamy is going to become an issue soon. I´m convinced about that. Just wait ten-twenty years.
And one day someone again begins to discuss the protection age - so we are slowly moving into the sexualisation of juveniles. That is a tendency: more and more early sexual intercourses. A dangerous development.

Oh who cares about people fighting for polygamy? There's hardly a giant surge of people who practice it and most of them are probably from a different religion from Christianity so it doesn't matter what the Church says anyway.

And the reason the first-time-sex age is going lower is because more people are starting to break away from traditional views about sex, but they don't have any guidance because the people they need help from don't want to talk about it because they have irrational and psychological-harming views and therefore cannot help themselves.

Oh, and younger people follow pop-media, and they're all disgusting whores on TV. This has nothing to do with gay marriage, it has to do with the fact that they follow what's popular and you people are fighting worthless causes instead of trying to be good parents. TV is not parenting..

Ok, that may not happen immidiately. But polygamy is going to become an issue soon. I´m convinced about that. Just wait ten-twenty years.
And one day someone again begins to discuss the protection age - so we are slowly moving into the sexualisation of juveniles. That is a tendency: more and more early sexual intercourses. A dangerous development.

Is it? I suppose that depends on why you believe juveniles having sex is dangerous.

Is it because you feel they are not emotionally ready for it?

or is it because you feel they are too easy to manipulate?

If it's the former, then times change. Societies change.

If it's the latter(as I believe), then other than my concers of manipulative grown-ups turning children into sex toys, I'm willing to let democratic opinion run it's course. FOR OTHER CHILDREN!

Let me make this perfectly clear. I don't care what anybody else thinks when it comes to raising my child. Opinions are welcome, and will be taken into consideration. But if how I raise my child differs from public opinion, tough titty. If you don't like the way I raise my child, then tough titty. If you try to take my child away, you'd better bring an army with you! The only people who decide what my child can and can't do is me, my wife and my child.

Personally, I'm hoping to raise a foul-mouthed little pervert. :D

j/k.

The American attitude towards sex always amuses me, as was illustrated when Janet Jackson's nipple was revealed on MTV... which cause a huge uproar amongst Americans. Most of us Europeans, certainly Swedes at least, couldn't understand the fuss, we have tv adverts for shower gel that show more than that!

Now I really want to move over there. :(

And as one person from Europe said on a talk show, 'If we were as sexually repressed as you guys I would shoot myself in the brain!' :D

But your definition of marriage is clearly discreminating against those who don't wish to marry the opposite of their own gender. Where is it set in stone that marriage must be between a man and a woman always? Surely governments are free to set their own laws on this subject?.
They are free to do this in a democratic process. What I however reject is the gay movement in the US trying to force its will via courts against public opinion in the US. That isn´t possible in Europe because of the different legal system. But in the US they had some success with that actually. And that is a thing which I call outrageous and undemocratic.

I never said the rest of Europe was stupid btw!! I think Europe is far more enlightened than many parts of the world.
That is nice, but you certainly consider Scandinavia as most enlighten. I wouldn´t be surprised. But you are of course in no way biased???

As regarding our tax level, yes it is fairly high by world standards, but that's because we have made a choice to pay this so that we can have a system that produces a more equal society. Our attitude towards taxation is different to some other countries, tax is not automatically considered a bad word as it is in some places.
That is at least a logic position. So people don´t run away with their fortunes to Switzerland? How many millionares or billionaires are living in Sweden and have not left or moved their capital? I´m really interested.
In Germany much money was moved in the 1990 out of the country because of high taxation. Legally and also much illegaly (Switzerland doesn´t consider tax fraud a crime and sees the bank secret as holy - from 2005 onward however they have to take anomously a tax of 15 % (2010: 35%) on capital gains of their EU customers. 80% have to be transfered to the domestic country; of course anomously: bank secret is holy: That is the EU-Swiss deal after many years of negotiations).
People here want to pay less tax but want to have as much social security than in Scandinavia. You see why that can´t work. Aside of the fact that Germany is using 4% of its GDP as development aid for East Germany which the communists really ruined in the fourty years they ruled it.

They are free to do this in a democratic process. What I however reject is the gay movement in the US trying to force its will via courts against public opinion in the US. That isn´t possible in Europe because of the different legal system. But in the US they had some success with that actually. And that is a thing which I call outrageous and undemocratic.

I'm sorry people don't want to be discriminated against and want to lead normal lives like everyone else so they have to go to court to get assholes that view them as sub-human to get a job or to get the same rights as other people do just because they're not gay..

Oh who cares about people fighting for polygamy? There's hardly a giant surge of people..
And there is no giant demand for gay marriage. So why changing it.


And the reason the first-time-sex age is going lower is because more people are starting to break away from traditional views about sex, but they don't have any guidance because the people they need help from don't want to talk about it because they have irrational and psychological-harming views and therefore cannot help themselves.
Oh, and younger people follow pop-media, and they're all disgusting whores on TV. This has nothing to do with gay marriage, it has to do with the fact that they follow what's popular and you people are fighting worthless causes instead of trying to be good parents. TV is not parenting..
It fits in this development. The decline of traditional values. I wonder to what else that it going to lead. It is no surprise that in our time sexualy-transmitted diseases are spreading much faster than in any time before. Especially certain lifestyles - like promiscuity especialy among homosexuals - is leading to their spread. And that the media plays a negative role in that development is a given as well: Though I can´t really change that: I´m for a free media. Though pornography and the f.. word should be kept out at least at day-time when children are watching as well.

They are free to do this in a democratic process. What I however reject is the gay movement in the US trying to force its will via courts against public opinion in the US. That isn´t possible in Europe because of the different legal system. But in the US they had some success with that actually. And that is a thing which I call outrageous and undemocratic.


That is nice, but you certainly consider Scandinavia as most enlighten. I wouldn´t be surprised. But you are of course in no way biased???


That is at least a logic position. So people don´t run away with their fortunes to Switzerland? How many millionares or billionaires are living in Sweden and have not left or moved their capital? I´m really interested.
In Germany much money was moved in the 1990 out of the country because of high taxation. Legally and also much illegaly (Switzerland doesn´t consider tax fraud a crime and sees the bank secret as holy - from 2005 onward however they have to take anomously a tax of 15 % (2010: 35%) on capital gains of their EU customers. 80% have to be transfered to the domestic country; of course anomously: bank secret is holy: That is the EU-Swiss deal after many years of negotiations).
People here want to pay less tax but want to have as much social security than in Scandinavia. You see why that can´t work. Aside of the fact that Germany is using 4% of its GDP as development aid for East Germany which the communists really ruined in the fourty years they ruled it.

In relation to these court cases, I would say that just because they go against the majority opinion in USA, does not make them wrong. Sometimes people have to fight for their right to equality, it's sad, but sometimes necessary.

No, I don't think the Nordic countries are the most enlightened on everything at all. We have our failings like everywhere really.

And yes, regarding the tax exiles, it's true there have been a some. Ingmar Kamprad (IKEAs founder) comes to mind as one of the most famous. Funnily enough, he did move to Switzerland! But by and large, most Swedes, including the rich ones, respect the law and believe in its goals. In fact, we don't have that many millionaires precisely because its hard to become one due to the increased tax level if you have a higher income. Our society tends to believe its not actually necessary to have that level of individual wealth, and that it can be better spent on other things for the greater population.

And there is no giant demand for gay marriage. So why changing it.



It fits in this development. The decline of traditional values. I wonder to what else that it going to lead. It is no surprise that in our time sexualy-transmitted diseases are spreading much faster than in any time before. Especially certain lifestyles - like promiscuity especialy among homosexuals - is leading to their spread. And that the media plays a negative role in that development is a given as well: Though I can´t really change that: I´m for a free media. Though pornography and the f.. word should be kept out at least at day-time when children are watching as well.

There is a large demand for gay marriage. That's why there were..like..200 marriages within' a week or so of gay marriage being legalized in San Francisco.
The reason for STDs being transmitted is the same as to why we're having sex earlier; parents aren't doing parenting right. They're relying on schools to do the teaching for them and most schools are strictly abstinence-only. The only problem is that kids are still having sex, only they can't get condoms from school because they're not allowed and can't by any other means so they're spreading diseases around because of not having resources and ignorance thanks to miseducation.

And I think decline of traditional values is good, because, you know, I don't like massacuring people just because of their religion or treating black people like they're white people's servants or burning witches because they're evil..and did I mention the drilling holes into people's heads?

Gays are not any more promiscuious than straight people. Why do you think there's a rule in the 10 Commandments(because they cover everything in the world of course) about not cheating on your spouse? Or the 50% divorce rate in America?

In response to the first post

Asking this is like asking "Seperate but equal versus unified but equal, what's the difference?"

Personally, I'm hoping to raise a foul-mouthed little pervert. :D
j/k.
I think if it should ever come to that you either have reconsidered or forgotten your rather juvenile remarks of today.

I think if it should ever come to that you either have reconsidered or forgotten your rather juvenile remarks of today.

If I raise a foul-mouthed little pervert with an ambition to learn and a sense of honor and fair play, then I'll consider my parenting a success.

If I raise a foul-mouthed little pervert with an ambition to learn and a sense of honor and fair play, then I'll consider my parenting a success.

Hear hear.

And yes, regarding the tax exiles, it's true there have been a some. Ingmar Kamprad (IKEAs founder) comes to mind as one of the most famous. Funnily enough, he did move to Switzerland!. I´m not surprised by the decision of the IKEA founder though. Many prominent figurers of Germany moved out of the country like Michael Schumacher (Monaco), Beckenbauer (Switzerland), e.g. well and many more.

But by and large, most Swedes, including the rich ones, respect the law and believe in its goals. In fact, we don't have that many millionaires precisely because its hard to become one due to the increased tax level if you have a higher income. Our society tends to believe its not actually necessary to have that level of individual wealth, and that it can be better spent on other things for the greater population.
Oh, come on! Are you a social democrat???
People think first about one thing: themselves. I rather go with Adam Smith than Karl Marx.
Though the number of millionaires has certainly gone done in 2002: After all: you need double the money to be an Euro millionaire.
Well anyway the number is increasing.
Regarding the money which fled country: Nobody knows for shure: but it were a few hundred billion Euros for shure.
But this is also a result of a policy of high taxation. That is not so popular here.

I personally think that the government should change all its "marrige" laws into union laws, then give marrige to religion to do as it wishes.
i concur.

I´m not surprised by the decision of the IKEA founder though. Many prominent figurers of Germany moved out of the country like Michael Schumacher (Monaco), Beckenbauer (Switzerland), e.g. well and many more.


Oh, come on! Are you a social democrat???
People think first about one thing: themselves. I rather go with Adam Smith than Karl Marx.
Though the number of millionaires has certainly gone done in 2002: After all: you need double the money to be an Euro millionaire.
Well anyway the number is increasing.
Regarding the money which fled country: Nobody knows for shure: but it were a few hundred billion Euros for shure.
But this is also a result of a policy of high taxation. That is not so popular here.

As I said, some have moved out. But, really, most have stayed here. It's really true. Our society is quite homogenous in its opinions on this issue, even the Moderates (main conservative party) have had to change their policy on tax after they lost the last election when they were promising tax cuts.
Ha ha, you don't need so much to be a millionaire here... I was talking dollar millionaires earlier, as this tends to be an American dominated forum. To be a millionaire in Swedish Crowns you would only have about 110.000€.

There is a large demand for gay marriage. That's why there were..like..200 marriages within' a week or so of gay marriage being legalized in San Francisco..
San Francisco is the centre of the gay movement. Do you think I don´t know that because I´m not American? I know that: there are even parts of the city which are populated mainly by gays. Aside of the fact that the illegal actions of the major were of course attracting all interested gay people around the US. 200 cases out of almost 300 million Americans is a very insignificant number. I bet that there are more people interested in polygamy actually.

As I said, some have moved out. But, really, most have stayed here. It's really true. Our society is quite homogenous in its opinions on this issue, even the Moderates (main conservative party) have had to change their policy on tax after they lost the last election when they were promising tax cuts.
Ha ha, you don't need so much to be a millionaire here... I was talking dollar millionaires earlier, as this tends to be an American dominated forum. To be a millionaire in Swedish Crowns you would only have about 110.000€.
How boring: so no political controversy about the direction of the country?
Well: I was saying the reference to DM and Euro rather in a joking manner. After all:since them we all have only have of our money left, hehhehe. Well: things are also mostly half of the price though.
It doesn´t make much difference whether you refer to Dollar or Euro. The exchange rate is not exactly 1:1 (though it would be easier to calculate) but with 1,20 Dollar for 1 Euro you would currently even need more to be a Euro millionaire than a Dollar millionaire.

San Francisco is the centre of the gay movement. Do you think I don´t know that because I´m not American? I know that: there are even parts of the city which are populated mainly by gays. Aside of the fact that the illegal actions of the major were of course attracting all interested gay people around the US. 200 cases out of almost 300 million Americans is a very insignificant number. I bet that there are more people interested in polygamy actually.

Oh, you're not? You argued an awful lot about democracy and laws...

Edit: Er, and to clearify, usually Americans are the ones who are arguing about how democracy is everything and such..don't remember the other examples.

Actually, the numbers weren't too bad, considering the marriages were an act of civil disobedience unlikely to be actually legal.

How boring: so no political controversy about the direction of the country?
Well: I was saying the reference to DM and Euro rather in a joking manner. After all:since them we all have only have of our money left, hehhehe. Well: things are also mostly half of the price though.
It doesn´t make much difference whether you refer to Dollar or Euro. The exchange rate is not exactly 1:1 (though it would be easier to calculate) but with 1,20 Dollar for 1 Euro you would currently even need more to be a Euro millionaire than a Dollar millionaire.

Oh don't worry, there's plenty of controversy and debate on where the country's going...!! Just look at the last year's EMU-referendum as an example you will have seen outside Sweden.
My comments weren't suggesting there's no mood against high taxes, it's just that a lot of people do accept that the system by and large is a good one (far far from perfect though!).

Actually, the numbers weren't too bad, considering the marriages were an act of civil disobedience unlikely to be actually legal.

They've since been voided I believe. :(

Oh, you're not? You argued an awful lot about democracy and laws...
Edit: Er, and to clearify, usually Americans are the ones who are arguing about how democracy is everything and such..don't remember the other examples.
Well: after all you have ocupied us once - and in a way also liberated us. So it is obvious that we have learned from you.
The transatlantic binding used to be - and although damaged still is - one of the two main pillars of our foreign policy as well. And we have still the most US troops in Europe (72000).
So I say: God bless America, the leading country of the world.

They've since been voided I believe. :(

Which was most likely a mistake. Now you've turned one legal case into 2000+. Would've been better to settle the issue of gay marriage permanently, not just whether or not the Mayor of San Francisco had the authority.

So I say: God bless America, the leading country of the world.

Go Canada.

Well: after all you have ocupied us once - and in a way also liberated us. So it is obvious that we have learned from you.
The transatlantic binding used to be - and although damaged still is - one of the two main pillars of our foreign policy as well. And we have still the most US troops in Europe (72.000).
So I say: God bless America, the leading country of the world.

Well, God bless you too. :)

I just think it's so cute the way you guys always confuse decimal points with commas. :)

Race is not the same thing as homosexuality. Homosexuality is a choice, and the government can legislate regarding such choices as it sees fit.
Religions made marriage too. They didn't just show up and start "mucking about in it."

I take it, then, that about the time you hit puberty, you made a conscious choice to be heterosexual, being either gay or straight having equal attraction for you.

No?

Then if you didn't choose to be heterosexual, why do you assume we queer folks choose to be gay?