NationStates Jolt Archive

mms://stream.tv4.se/2007-08-03/Nyheterna_22_00!153038,W4L!.wmv

Prime Minister Fredrik Rheinfeldt, visiting Stockholm Pride during the day and taking the opportunity to strike up a conversation with a contingent of gay soldiers and strategically placed reporters, has confirmed that he is in favour of a gender-neutral marriage law and is going to push for its adoption at the Moderate Party's convention in the fall, because seemingly he has also grown tired of the delay of the law that has been expected for years now.

So far the Moderate Party is the only Riksdag party that has not taken an official stance on the issue, with all the others apart from the Christian Democrats (basically Christian nutters, sort of like the Democratic party in the USA if one wishes to make a comparison) having decided to support the reform.

The Christian Democrats, who opposed the civil union law that granted all rights of marriage apart from insemination and adoption rights when it was passed a decade and a half ago, are clutching at straws and are now claiming to support civil unions and that they are "enough". Never mind the fact that they opposed any and all reform of the adoption and insemination laws when those were, of course, changed to treat gay couples the same as heterosexual ones... but now, they're "enough"! Pfft! :rolleyes:

Anyhoo, the Christian Democrats are unfortunately in the coalition government and have been stalling the issue at every turn since they know that given a vote in parliament, they will lose. They did the same thing with the civil union law, which was passed when they were in a coalition government last time by the opposition introducing it and the government being run over in a very humiliating way. The other parties in the Government are weary of this being repeated and have extended an olive branch to the opposition that has pledged to introduce a motion at the start of the plenary session should, I paraphrase, the government continue to be paralysed by the fringe Christian Democrats.

So, uhm, "finally!", I say. You'd think we were some sort of crazy, backwards, retarded country with the time this has taken.

Get your politics straight (hahas!). Democrates in the US want to pass laws pro-gay marriage laws.

Democrates in the US want to pass laws pro-gay marriage laws.

No, they don't. Just like our crazy Christian Democrats, they are contending that an apartheid policy of civil unions is "enough".

Heh, it's a shame the U.S. still has a long way to go in the backwards, retardedness sector...

No, they don't. Just like our crazy Christian Democrats, they are contending that an apartheid policy of civil unions is "enough".


What the difference between a marriage lisence and a civil union. From what I understand they would get the benefites of marrage without the contract.

What the difference between a marriage lisence and a civil union.

Equality before the law is the difference. Any difference, even in name, is a difference.

No, they don't. Just like our crazy Christian Democrats, they are contending that an apartheid policy of civil unions is "enough".

wait..what? The dems are the pro-gay side here in america. they push more for actual same-sex marriage, while the repubs try their hardest to ban it.

Civil unions is the foot in the door for more most. Look at the flow of things. dems push for civil unions then more. repubs push to have everything blocked. It is an all or nothing thing for both sides.

So, will you marry me, Fass?

Equality before the law is the difference. Any difference, even in name, is a difference.

It sure as hell is equal in California.

Heh, it's a shame the U.S. still has a long way to go in the backwards, retardedness sector...

hopefully not much longer. I am waiting to see what happens when same-sex couple move out of MA.

FSM save Sweden!

wait..what? The dems are the pro-gay side here in america.

Which is saying very little since being "pro-gay" in the USA can be achieved by thinking that laws outlawing "sodomy" are not so nice.

they push more for actual same-sex marriage, while the repubs try their hardest to ban it.

Nope, all of the serious contenders for their presidential candidacy have rejected gay marriage and settled for a discriminatory civil unions policy, if even that. The party itself, from what I gather, is not pro-gay marriage, either.

So, will you marry me, Fass?

Hell no!

hooray!

So Fass, any plans on taking advantage of the new legislation?

It sure as hell is equal in California.

Nope, gay marriage was blocked in California and it only has "domestic partnerships" which aren't even petty civil unions... they're just Negro entrances to substandard facilities.

Which is saying very little since being "pro-gay" in the USA can be achieved by thinking that laws outlawing "sodomy" are not so nice.



Nope, all of the serious contenders for their presidential candidacy have rejected gay marriage and settled for a discriminatory civil unions policy, if even that. The party itself, from what I gay, is not pro-gay marriage, either.



Hell no!
Then one wonders why democrats at large did not call for the courts in MA to change their minds as the republicans did.

In fact the republicans worked to try and get a ban on gay marriage in MA on the election ballot, while democrats works to block such a ban. Also democrats worked to block similer bans on election ballots in the 04 elections, but could not get the courts on their side.

While all major democratic candidates support CU's they also are opposed to any laws that would block same-sex marriage. How many democrats voted against the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage? (and, if i remember right that was back when the republicans controlled the senate)

So Fass, any plans on taking advantage of the new legislation?

There were, sort of, but not at the moment, no.

Then one wonders why democrats at large did not call for the courts in MA to change their minds as the republicans did.

In fact the republicans worked to try and get a ban on gay marriage in MA on the election ballot, while democrats works to block such a ban. Also democrats worked to block similer bans on election ballots in the 04 elections, but could not get the courts on their side.

While all major democratic candidates support CU's they also are opposed to any laws that would block same-sex marriage. How many democrats voted against the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage? (and, if i remember right that was back when the republicans controlled the senate)

As I said, being "pro-gay" in the USA can be achieved by not wanting to ban something, instead of actually doing something that is "pro" and not just defensive. I'm sorry, but I have much, much higher standards for "pro-gay" than that. Even the Christian Democrats here would count as "pro-gay" if we were to lower our expectations to yours.

And I thought this would be a happy thread.

And I thought this would be a happy thread.

It's not?

It's not?

Doesn't look that way, and I speak as an expert. Adios.

Doesn't look that way, and I speak as an expert. Adios.

It would seem, then, that your expert credentials are as dubious as always even in this matter.

There were, sort of, but not at the moment, no.I thought you were against marriage because it was inherently patriarchy or misogynistic or something in that vein.

No, they don't. Just like our crazy Christian Democrats, they are contending that an apartheid policy of civil unions is "enough".

Yeah, so I guess the whole state of Massachusetts legalizing gay marriage is just a myth like the moon landing then?

It would seem, then, that your expert credentials are as dubious as always even in this matter.

Oh, shut the fuck up.

Nope, gay marriage was blocked in California and it only has "domestic partnerships" which aren't even petty civil unions... they're just Negro entrances to substandard facilities.

Since I live in California and you in Sweden, I'll let you know what California's law is on civial unions, 'kay? ;)

As I said, being "pro-gay" in the USA can be achieved by not wanting to ban something, instead of actually doing something that is "pro" and not just defensive. I'm sorry, but I have much, much higher standards for "pro-gay" than that. Even the Christian Democrats here would count as "pro-gay" if we were to lower our expectations to yours.


no what you said was:
Which is saying very little since being "pro-gay" in the USA can be achieved by thinking that laws outlawing "sodomy" are not so nice

Actively working against something being banned is not the same disagreeing with laws already on the books. your description in you OP about rhe "Christian Democrats" more accurately fits the republicans. working against something constantly until it is pass and then trying to keep it from spreading. They stopped trying to get gay marriage repealed in MA, and started trying to reinforce the laws against it in other states.

Yeah, so I guess the whole state of Massachusetts legalizing gay marriage is just a myth like the moon landing then?

They didn't legalise it. A court had to rule that it was illegal not to treat gay couples equally, and that is a completely different matter. The Democrats deserve no acknowledgement for something they didn't do.

Since I live in California and you in Sweden, I'll let you know what California's law is on civial unions, 'kay? ;)

Let me, then: The California family code - Division 3. Marriage - Part 1. Validity of Marriage states that:

308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

That means that gay marriage is illegal in California. That means that California doesn't recognise gay marriages from Massachusetts - a gay couple properly married there, and the not the unequal sham that doesn't even reach the level of a civil union that they have in California, aren't in California, but straight couples are. You call that equality? Go to the back of the bus, then, if you think that.

They didn't legalise it. A court had to rule that it was illegal not treat gay couples equally, and that is a completely different matter. The Democrats deserve no acknowledgement for something they didn't do.

they do get the credit for blocking the republican attempt to reinstate the ban.


this may come as a shock to you, but politicians work towards gaining the majority to vote for them. The majority of americans are against same-sex marriage, BUT the majority would accept CU's or DP's.

sooo...if the politician wants the majority to actually get in to power the 2 top stances to take are no gay marriage, or CU/DP.

This is a good thing, we must celebrate...Everyone get drunk :)

This is good right? Or have I terribly misread the OP?

Let me, then: The California family code - Division 3. Marriage - Part 1. Validity of Marriage states that:

308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

That means that gay marriage is illegal in California. That means that California doesn't recognise gay marriages from Massachusetts - a gay couple properly married there, and the not the unequal sham that doesn't even reach the level of a civil union that they have in California, aren't in California, but straight couples are. You call that equality? Go to the back of the bus, then, if you think that.
I may be wrong, but the DP on CA actually are closer to "marriage" than the CU in VT(or was it NH with the CU's?)

Also you'd have to wait to see what would happen from a same-sex couple moving out of MA would do. It will be one hell of a legal battle, but with a conservitive USSC it don't see same-sex marriage winning.

no what you said was:

What I said is that you actually have to be "pro" to count as pro. The Democrats ain't it.

Actively working against something being banned is not the same disagreeing with laws already on the books. your description in you OP about rhe "Christian Democrats" more accurately fits the republicans. working against something constantly until it is pass and then trying to keep it from spreading.

The Democrats have come no further than the Christian Democrats. Both are content with civil unions, both are disturbingly religionist, the rest of their policies (social as well as the rest) are quite in tune.

If you want a Swedish equivalent to the Republicans, you'd have to go with the "Sverigedemokraterna" (not in the Riksdag), an even crazier, nationalist, religionist party, deeply homophobic, xenophobic, anti-abortionist and socially retarded, with policies reminiscent of something that was oh, so avant-garde 70 years ago.

They stopped trying to get gay marriage repealed in MA, and started trying to reinforce the laws against it in other states.

What the hell are you talking about? They pushed for repealing as recently as a few months ago. They haven't stopped anything.

This is a good thing, we must celebrate...Everyone get drunk :)

This is good right? Or have I terribly misread the OP?

no, it is good.

the argument is over if the democratic party of the USA is anti or pro gay.

Let me, then: The California family code - Division 3. Marriage - Part 1. Validity of Marriage states that:

308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

That means that gay marriage is illegal in California. That means that California doesn't recognise gay marriages from Massachusetts - a gay couple properly married there, and the not the unequal sham that doesn't even reach the level of a civil union that they have in California, aren't in California, but straight couples are. You call that equality? Go to the back of the bus, then, if you think that.

I didn't say gay marriage was legal, I said civil unions and marriages hold the same legal status in the state.

they do get the credit for blocking the republican attempt to reinstate the ban.

And that's simply not "pro". Not by my standards - perhaps only by your already low ones.

this may come as a shock to you, but politicians work towards gaining the majority to vote for them. The majority of americans are against same-sex marriage, BUT the majority would accept CU's or DP's.

sooo...if the politician wants the majority to actually get in to power the 2 top stances to take are no gay marriage, or CU/DP.

You admit it yourself, they're not "pro-gay". They're willing to sell gay people down the river to adhere to a homophobic electorate. The only reason they're even for civil unions - tenuously at best, even at that! - is because they like to pretend they're somewhat on the left and don't want to alienate those voters, either. If they stood to win more votes by not being for civil unions, either, they'd throw off the oven mittens and toss it like the hot potato the waffles deem it to be.

I didn't say gay marriage was legal, I said civil unions and marriages hold the same legal status in the state.

And you are wrong about that. Very wrong.

the argument is over if the democratic party of the USA is anti or pro gay.

Fass is absolutely correct. Just because the Democrats are more "gay friendly" than the Republicans doesn't make them "pro gay". Is gay marriage in the platforms of the likely Democratic hopefuls for the presidency in 2008? You bet it isn't because they're scared as hell to "alienate the voter base". They just wrap their opposition to gay marriage in terms that are a lot more sugarcoated and "understanding" and friendly than the oh-so-vicious (and yet, for once, surprisingly more honest) Republicans.

no, it is good.

the argument is over if the democratic party of the USA is anti or pro gay.

Then I say *toast* to a polite thread and equality for our Friends :)

What I said is that you actually have to be "pro" to count as pro. The Democrats ain't it.

to you. and quite frankly I am bored of your "democrats have nothing against same-sex marriage so they are anti-gay because the don't go to the parades attitude"

you made a claim that all you had to do to be called "pro-gay" is disagree with a law and was shot down. back-pedal more.



The Democrats have come no further than the Christian Democrats. Both are content with civil unions, so the majority of democrats being for same-sex marriage is being content with CU's. both are disturbingly religionist,.....what? the big thing against dems in this country is that they are thought of as anti-religion (after the "the dems don't have a plan" bs) oh wait...let me guess. they are "disturbingly religionist" because some do go to church? the rest of their policies (social as well as the rest) are quite in tune. equality?


What the hell are you talking about? They pushed for repealing as recently as a few months ago. They haven't stopped anything. really? last i heard they were push for an amandment on the '08' ballot, but dropped it. They weren't ruled against or block they simply gave up.

What the difference between a marriage lisence and a civil union. From what I understand they would get the benefites of marrage without the contract.

So if there is no difference between the two why do there even need to be two? Hmmm....

Fass is absolutely correct. Just because the Democrats are more "gay friendly" than the Republicans doesn't make them "pro gay".

Precisely. Not wanting to illegalise, but be all too happy to consign to a second class citizenship (be it that it is moderately better than what they are now), is not "pro-gay" in any sense.

Here is an easy way to settle things:

Any person that wants that want a legal, government binding civil union, should get one. Every couple that gets this civil union has equal rights, and so forth.

Marriage on the other hand, should not be anything more than a private ceremony, if one so wishes to have one, but its not legally binding, nor mandatory to be in the civil union.

Easy enough, right?

Precisely. Not wanting to illegalise, but be all too happy to consign to a second class citizenship (be it that it is moderately better than what they are now), is not "pro-gay" in any sense.

so working to block gays from being sent back to second class citizenship is not pro-gay?

Precisely. Not wanting to illegalise, but be all too happy to consign to a second class citizenship (be it that it is moderately better than what they are now), is not "pro-gay" in any sense.

Toleration and not much acceptance.

Its all talk, one of the greatest lies in Washington is that the Democrats are compassionate. They're no better than the Republicans.

The Democrats have come no further than the Christian Democrats. Both are content with civil unions, both are disturbingly religionist, the rest of their policies (social as well as the rest) are quite in tune.

How long do you think before people claim that the Democrats are "godless socialists" or something like that?

Anyway, good for Sweden. Hopefully, it'll become the general norm and my state will remove it's shameful constitutional ban.

to you. and quite frankly I am bored of your "democrats have nothing against same-sex marriage so they are anti-gay because the don't go to the parades attitude"

you made a claim that all you had to do to be called "pro-gay" is disagree with a law and was shot down. back-pedal more.

They are not pro-gay, and I didn't claim that that was what being pro-gay was. I was saying that by your low expectations and wrongful definition of the term, that was what sufficed in the USA. Well, it doesn't suffice where I live and I judge them by my standards, not that of the USA.

so the majority of democrats being for same-sex marriage is being content with CU's

Until the party is, I don't care what polls claim. The party is not pro-gay marriage. It's not pro-gay, either. It's just more "gay friendly" than the Republicans, and that doesn't exactly take all that much effort. You might think that's oh, so commendable and noteworthy, but it ain't much to write home about, at all.

......what? the big thing against dems in this country is that they are thought of as anti-religion (after the "the dems don't have a plan" bs) oh wait...let me guess. they are "disturbingly religionist" because some do go to church?

They are religionist by secular standards. That the USA is not a very secular society, and the Democrats are just a wee tad bit more progressive than the other side, doesn't mean that they are not religionist.

equality?

Yup, sort of on the same page as the democrats even there - in fact, their minister extended abortion rights just before the summer. The Christian Democrats and the Democrats are quite comparable.


really? last i heard they were push for an amandment on the '08' ballot, but dropped it. They weren't ruled against or block they simply gave up.

They didn't give up on their own. They were thwarted.

so working to block gays from being sent back to second class citizenship is not pro-gay?

So making gays settle for the second class "civil union" and denying them "marriage" IS pro-gay?

So making gays settle for the second class "civil union" and denying them "marriage" IS pro-gay?
sooooo, exactly how are the forcing them to accept CU's and never have marriage, as oppsed to setting up CU's as a foot in the door?


Believe it or not before MA allowed gay arriage via a lawsuit, that was the tactic of the gay rights movement. get CU's and then marriage.

Easy enough, right?

Nope, because it's a cop-out and a needless cop-out at that. Marriage is not private, nor is it religious. Renaming it because wackos would like to claim otherwise is not acceptable.

so working to block gays from being sent back to second class citizenship is not pro-gay?

Nope, because they didn't "promote" them. And aren't promoting.

So making gays settle for the second class "civil union" and denying them "marriage" IS pro-gay?

It might simply be a reasonable course to take. Marriage possesses Christian connotations and requirements that single-sex unions simply do not fulfill.

It might simply be a reasonable course to take. Marriage possesses Christian connotations and requirements that single-sex unions simply do not fulfill.

The latter being complete bollocks since marriages aren't just for Christians, aren't just for religionists, aren't banned for atheists, and are enforced by the government instead of a church. That the ceremony some people choose is religious doesn't make the legal institution of marriage religious in the eye of the law at all.

Nope, because it's a cop-out and a needless cop-out at that. Marriage is not private, nor is it religious. Renaming it because wackos would like to claim otherwise is not acceptable.

-sigh- I'm starting to think you are the type that argues with walls, just to get off on your self-proclaimed superiority.

How is it a cop out? Making people equal under the law is a good thing no? Making a private ceremony, not legally binding is a good thing, no? Marriage is a ceremonially thing, and frankly governments should not hold marriages themselves, to be legally binding, as some are religious, and that would a violation of separation of church and state in some way. Making everyone get a civil union, which gives them equal rights is a proper thing to do. The government should not be part of any ceremonies. Its not their place. If someone want to get a ceremony after the civil union is enacted, then so be it. Its not like it devalues anything at all. It just states that the government does not support any ceremony, only legal contracts.

sooooo, exactly how are the forcing them to accept CU's and never have marriage, as oppsed to setting up CU's as a foot in the door?

A "foot in the door" scenario indicates that someone is on the other side of the door trying to keep you out. Offering someone a foot in the door is NOT opening the door and saying "come on in".


Believe it or not before MA allowed gay arriage via a lawsuit, that was the tactic of the gay rights movement. get CU's and then marriage.

Of course it was! But the point is that it should not have to be. There never should have been a reason for that tactic in the first place.

All your arguments point up the fact that there is still a huge discrepancy between civil unions and marriage. And as long as the distinction exists, the politicians who are offering up civil unions are not especially pro-gay, they are merely throwing bones to the second class citizens.

Gay marriage, finally! Well, the light at the end of the tunnel is nigh, at least.


I dont think thats light your finding at the end of that tunnel. 0.0 (Sorry i simply couldnt resist)

How long do you think before people claim that the Democrats are "godless socialists" or something like that?

I always think it's hilarious when people in the USA speak of political spectra by the myopic USA standard.

Anyway, good for Sweden. Hopefully, it'll become the general norm and my state will remove it's shameful constitutional ban.

Patience is a virtue of the liberal. We'll win. We always do. Sometimes we lose some battles, or stagnate for a while, but in the end we win.

Want to come over to the US and set the sanctimonious hypocrites in our government straight? (No pun intended, of course).

It might simply be a reasonable course to take. Marriage possesses Christian connotations and requirements that single-sex unions simply do not fulfill.


Marriage is a legal term. Currently in the US marriage offers its participants an extended set of legal and financial rights that are not universally offered by civil unions. If it also has religious overtones, that is simply the choice of the participants. As to the Christian connotations, I would imagine that there are millions of married Hindus, Buddhists, etc. who might disagree with you there as well.

Christians in this fight have attempted to co-opt the word marriage, but it just doesn't fly. If they want such a word of their very own, one that indicates JUST a religious meaning, they need to create a new one, not try to redefine one currently in worldwide accepted usage.

How is it a cop out?

It's a cop-out because it surrenders marriage to the religions that have tried to co-opt it post-factly, when in fact marriage is from the beginning a secular institution, and continues to be, and there is no need to give it up. Religionists need not, and should not, be given a centimetre of it. Let them change the name of their ridiculous and unrecognised unions before their sky fairies if they're so horny for it. There is no reason for the rest of us to do so.

I dont think thats light your finding at the end of that tunnel. 0.0 (Sorry i simply couldnt resist)

What?

Nope, because they didn't "promote" them. And aren't promoting.they promote same-sex marriage, by blocking the people who would ban it again.

A "foot in the door" scenario indicates that someone is on the other side of the door trying to keep you out. Offering someone a foot in the door is NOT opening the door and saying "come on in".




Of course it was! But the point is that it should not have to be. There never should have been a reason for that tactic in the first place.

All your arguments point up the fact that there is still a huge discrepancy between civil unions and marriage. And as long as the distinction exists, the politicians who are offering up civil unions are not especially pro-gay, they are merely throwing bones to the second class citizens.

Look at the result of forcing the door open. around 11 states wrote bans against same-sex marriage into their state constitutions the following election year. Making it that much harder to reach. You CANNOT force your way throw the door without major backlash. backlash that could blcok you attempts all together.

-sigh- I'm starting to think you are the type that argues with walls, just to get off on your self-proclaimed superiority.

Hey, that's the same thing I was thinking!

Fass is absolutely correct. Just because the Democrats are more "gay friendly" than the Republicans doesn't make them "pro gay". Is gay marriage in the platforms of the likely Democratic hopefuls for the presidency in 2008? You bet it isn't because they're scared as hell to "alienate the voter base". They just wrap their opposition to gay marriage in terms that are a lot more sugarcoated and "understanding" and friendly than the oh-so-vicious (and yet, for once, surprisingly more honest) Republicans.

In fact, the Democratic Platform 2004 says ( www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf ):

"We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal
responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at
the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate
President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a "Federal Marriage
Amendment." Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart."

Brief summay: "We support equal 'benefits and protections' but if individual states choose not to, that's their right and should continue to be their right.

Note also the lack of any specific mention of marriage outside of that defending the right of individual states to discriminate.

Compare this to, say, an actual left-wing party like the Green Party of the Untied States Platform 2004 ( http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/2004platform.pdf ):

"We support the recognition of equal rights of
persons gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender to
housing, jobs, civil marriage, medical benefits,
child custody, and in all areas of life provided to
all other citizens.
...
"[We call for:] Ending governmental use of the doctrines of
specific religions to define the nature of family,
marriage, and the type and character of personal
relationships between consenting adults."

Not only does the Green Party specifically endorse "civil marriage" for "persons gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender" but they do so with no strings attached (i.e. they don't defend the "state's right" to discriminate) and while specifically endorsing the separation of church and state.

The Democratic Party is not "pro-gay." The Democratic Party is "pro-center." People with enough guts to actually take a real stand are, unfortunately, generally not permitted to participate in the electoral process in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_past_the_post#Effect_on_political_parties).

It's a cop-out because it surrenders marriage to the religions that have tried to co-opt it post-factly, when in fact marriage is from the beginning a secular institution, and continues to be, and there is no need to give it up. Religionists need not, and should not, be given a centimetre of it. Let them change the name of their ridiculous and unrecognised unions before their sky fairies if they're so horny for it.

I'm sorry, but things here in the US are very different. Marriages over here have always had religous overtone. Just as I said in another thread, my dad was reciting in his wedding practice, and he had to say "In the name of the father, son and holy spirit" although he isn't a christian. So, with there being religious overtone in a great many marriage ceremonies, the government should not support them, as it is support of religion in a sense, which the First Amendment of our constitution says should not happen. I don't how its been done in Europe, but I'd imagine that marriage ceremonies there, since the medieval era, have had some sort of religious aspects to it. I am with you, I truly am, about gays, straights, bis, blacks, whites, arabs etc.. being able to be united in union, with equally protected rights. But I cannot allow a supposed secular government, support any ceremony with a religious aspect to it.

they promote same-sex marriage, by blocking the people who would ban it again.

If you wish to use the word like it doesn't mean, and wish to fool yourself and settle for the lesser of two evils, but then claim the evil good because it isn't as evil as the evil evil.

I'm sorry, but things here in the US are very different.

I don't care. The things in the USA are wrong, and I see no reason to entertain them... but you are wrong about the USA, actually. Marriages, legally, there are nothing but secular. Ever been to Vegas?

But I cannot allow a supposed secular government, support any ceremony with a religious aspect to it.

It doesn't have a religious aspect to it. Religionists are trying to claim so, but there's no reason to recognise their claims. In fact, not recognising their claims is exactly how a secular government can and does support marriage.

If you wish to use the word like it doesn't mean, and wish to fool yourself and settle for the lesser of two evils, but then claim the evil good because it isn't as evil as the evil evil.

Well, last time I checked, "blocking people that would ban it again" wasn't evil...

Well, last time I checked, "blocking people that would ban it again" wasn't evil...

... but it still ain't making it legal or doing anything pro. A reaction is not the original action.

Yay for Sweden. Now hows about a nice Swedish empire encompassing Northern Ireland at least

... but it still ain't making it legal or doing anything pro. A reaction is not the original action.

right right. so they should just sit back and let the republican force gays back into the closet, because that would be just as "non-pro" as keeping the republicans from doing so.

I thought you were against marriage because it was inherently patriarchy or misogynistic or something in that vein.

I am against it for me because it is patriarchal and also because homosexual relationships are capable of so much better than what the heterosexuals came up with, but if people wish to go slumming and settle for it, then they should be able to.

right right. so they should just sit back and let the republican force gays back into the closet, because that would be just as "non-pro" as keeping the republicans from doing so.

Wanting Negro slaves free, but not have them be able to vote or sit on the same side of the bus as you ain't exactly pro-Negro. It's just anti-slavery. Well, the Democrats were pro-slavery, but it's just a metaphor.

I'm sorry, but things here in the US are very different. Marriages over here have always had religous overtone. Just as I said in another thread, my dad was reciting in his wedding practice, and he had to say "In the name of the father, son and holy spirit" although he isn't a christian. So, with there being religious overtone in a great many marriage ceremonies, the government should not support them, as it is support of religion in a sense, which the First Amendment of our constitution says should not happen. I don't how its been done in Europe, but I'd imagine that marriage ceremonies there, since the medieval era, have had some sort of religious aspects to it. I am with you, I truly am, about gays, straights, bis, blacks, whites, arabs etc.. being able to be united in union, with equally protected rights. But I cannot allow a supposed secular government, support any ceremony with a religious aspect to it.

Marriage need only have religious overtones if one chooses them to be there; the legal contract and the religious ceremony are entirely separate things. If one doesn't want one of the two, then one does not have to get married in that particular setting. It's not time we gave up all sense of rationality in favor of deliberating over the connotations of a word, for Christ's sake; it's time that the religious among us understood that there is a difference between legal marriages and religious ones, despite the fact that the two institutions bear the same name.

I am against it for me because it is patriarchal and also because homosexual relationships are capable of so much better than what the heterosexuals came up with, but if people wish to go slumming and settle for it, then they should be able to.

Again shows his true side. Now, wouldn't he throw a fit if i said this: "Heterosexuals are far more better and capable of doing things in life, than homosexuals"

I love how he calls others hypocrite, yet he is one himself.:D

Wanting Negro slaves free, but not have them be able to vote or sit on the same side of the bus as you ain't exactly pro-Negro. It's just anti-slavery.

but democrats are working to block republicans from blocking homosexuals from "setting on the same side of the bus" (which I assume was your attempt at a marriage analogy) every time republicans bring it up democrats fight against it.

Again shows his true side. Now, wouldn't he throw a fit if i said this: "Heterosexuals are far more better and capable of doing things in life, than homosexuals"

I wouldn't throw a fit because such a claim is patently wrong.

but democrats are working to block republicans from blocking homosexuals from "setting on the same side of the bus" (which I assume was your attempt at a marriage analogy) every time republicans bring it up democrats fight against it.

I think a better and more convoluted analogy would be to say it's like giving gays a different bus altogether, on which they can sit anywhere they want

I think a better and more convoluted analogy would be to say it's like giving gays a different bus altogether, on which they can sit anywhere they want

a better way to describe it would be giving gays their own bus so people would not be shocked when they eventually got on the same bus.

Wanting Negro slaves free, but not have them be able to vote or sit on the same side of the bus as you ain't exactly pro-Negro. It's just anti-slavery.

Which is pro-negro. First they free them, then they work on rights. Like climbing a ladder.That's the way it works in the US, slowly but surely. Although there is no gay marriage now, there will be eventually. That's what we stand for. The only reason it takes so long for things to change is because there are so many different opinions. That's where by the people comes in.

a better way to describe it would be giving gays their own bus so people would not be shocked when they eventually got on the same bus.

Why should it be important to make the bigots comfortable?

but democrats are working to block republicans from blocking homosexuals from "setting on the same side of the bus" (which I assume was your attempt at a marriage analogy) every time republicans bring it up democrats fight against it.

Yes, it's made quite clear by now that you confuse being circumstantially gay-friendly with pro-gay. Even the Christian Democrats voted for allowing homosexuality to be cause for asylum when fleeing countries where it's punished with, say, death. They weren't pro-gay, they were anti-death penalty as they are.

Which is pro-negro. First they free them, then they work on rights. Like climbing a ladder.That's the way it works in the US, slowly but surely. Although there is no gay marriage now, there will be eventually. That's what we stand for. The only reason it takes so long for things to change is because there are so many different opinions. That's where by the people comes in.

Yes, african americans need to climb a ladder, much like we did.:rolleyes:

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/images/concise.jpg

Im anti-US goverment, but does that make me pro-terrorist. I think not. Just because some one is anti"x" doesn't mean they support "y".

lol faggots

Yes, african americans need to climb a ladder, much like we did.:rolleyes:

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/images/concise.jpg

Im anti-US goverment, but does that make me pro-terrorist. I think not. Just because some one is anti"x" doesn't mean they support "y".

Bad analogy. In this case anti-slavery is pro-african-american because you're supporting them. In your case, being anti-government isn't supporting terrorists.

Which is pro-negro.

Nope, it's circumstantially Negro-friendly.

Why should it be important to make the bigots comfortable?already explain. backlash can be worse than taking things slow.

Yes, it's made quite clear by now that you confuse being circumstantially gay-friendly with pro-gay. Even the Christian Democrats voted for allowing homosexuality to be cause for asylum when fleeing countries where it's punished with, say, death. They weren't pro-gay, they were anti-death penalty as they are.
the only thing made clear by now is you do not like being wrong. Democrats in the USA are Pro-gay. deal. with. it.

the only thing made clear by now is you do not like being wrong. Democrats in the USA are Pro-gay. deal. with. it.

No, they're not, but you can continue lying to yourself, because that's the only person you're gonna be able to fool.

No, they're not, but you can continue lying to yourself, because that's the only person you're gonna be able to fool.
[quotq]pro·mote /prəˈmoʊt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pruh-moht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -mot·ed, -mot·ing.
1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.
2. to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc. (opposed to demote).
3. Education. to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes.
4. to aid in organizing (business undertakings).
5. to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), esp. through advertising or other publicity.
6. Informal. to obtain (something) by cunning or trickery; wangle.[/quote]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promote

#1 fits what democrats do when the block republicans from baning gay marriage and block them from pushing gays back into the closet.

Pro-gay. deal. with. it.

Nope, it's circumstantially Negro-friendly.

Right. But, being this african-american-friendly is being pro-african-american. Freeing african-americans is pro-african-american.

Right. But, being this african-american-friendly is being pro-african-american. Freeing african-americans is pro-african-american.

Being pro-segregation isn't being pro-Negro. Just because you're not as evil as Lucifer, doesn't mean you're not as evil as... uhm... the snake, or whatever.

No, they're not, but you can continue lying to yourself, because that's the only person you're gonna be able to fool.

You're fooling yourself.

You're fooling yourself.

Is this gonna degenerate into the two of you just stating your position is right over and over again in a hope to get the last word in?

You're fooling yourself.

I need only see what the Democratic party leadership is up to to see what the Democrats are like, while you on the other hand need to look to the Republicans to make the Democrats look less bad. They may not be the runs, but they're still shit.

I wish I was Swedish. You guys seem to have it fairly together.

What?
It was that highest form of wit, the Anal Sex Joke. Or so I reckon.

Being pro-segregation isn't being pro-Negro. Just because you're not as evil as Lucifer, doesn't mean you're not as evil as... uhm... the snake, or whatever.

Segregation is seperation. Meaning, the seperation of african-americans and the rest of us. Unless you're saying that we were going from slavery to segregation... where you would still be wrong. We weren't aiming for segregation, we were aiming at freeing them, which is pro-african-american.

Segregation is seperation. Meaning, the seperation of african-americans and the rest of us. Unless you're saying that we were going from slavery to segregation... where you would still be wrong. We weren't aiming for segregation, we were aiming at freeing them, which is pro-african-american.

You weren't aiming at freeing them. You were aiming at pseudo-freeing them - they weren't slaves, but they were still not people like you! - because it served a purpose. You just shifted one harsher oppression to one not so harsh, and now you would claim that that was somehow pro-Negro when all it was was anti-Slavery. It's only circumstance that the slaves happened to be Negroes.

Is this gonna degenerate into the two of you just stating your position is right over and over again in a hope to get the last word in?

I should hope not.

It was that highest form of wit, the Anal Sex Joke. Or so I reckon.

I got that same feeling.

I need only see what the Democratic party leadership is up to to see what the Democrats are like, while you on the other hand need to look to the Republicans to make the Democrats look less bad. They may not be the runs, but they're still shit.

I'm not comparing them to Republicans and I haven't throughout this whole thread. The fact is that Democrats are taking a position that encourages gay marriage by preserving what is already here. And unless they try to reverse the process, they are pro-gay. And that's that.

You weren't aiming at freeing them. You were aiming at pseudo-freeing them - they weren't slaves, but they were still not people like you! - because it served a purpose. You just shifted one harsher oppression to one not so harsh, and now you would claim that that was somehow pro-Negro when all it was was anti-Slavery. It's only circumstance that the slaves happened to be Negroes.

You don't see the truth. What we aimed at was to free them, we hadn't a clue they would be used for the same purpose once again until they were. And if you'll notice, when we did realize it, we tried to make it better. That's something I call pro-african-american.

You don't see the truth. What we aimed at was to free them, we hadn't a clue they would be used for the same purpose once again until they were. And if you'll notice, when we did realize it, we tried to make it better. That's something I call pro-african-american.
though during this period the roles were reversed. the democrats were the ones trying to keep the status-quo and it was the republicans trying to change things.

They may not be the runs, but they're still shit.

:D You be the one!


I'm only disappointed that my 10 year old German Shepard will more than likely be gone by the time I am allowed to marry her. I love that bitch with all my heart.

If you wish to use the word like it doesn't mean, and wish to fool yourself and settle for the lesser of two evils, but then claim the evil good because it isn't as evil as the evil evil.

Did you just spew shit all over my internet?

pro·mote /prəˈmoʊt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pruh-moht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -mot·ed, -mot·ing.
1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.
2. to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc. (opposed to demote).
3. Education. to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes.
4. to aid in organizing (business undertakings).
5. to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), esp. through advertising or other publicity.
6. Informal. to obtain (something) by cunning or trickery; wangle.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promote

#1 fits what democrats do when the block republicans from baning gay marriage and block them from pushing gays back into the closet.

Pro-gay. deal. with. it.

And there's always this.

That's not the point.

I know but the argument that this thread had developed was it point either.

I was merely pointing out stances can and do change.







edit: i do believe this is my first time warp....

though during this period the roles were reversed. the democrats were the ones trying to keep the status-quo and it was the republicans trying to change things.

That's not the point. The point is that it was pro-african-american.

I'm sorry, but things here in the US are very different. Marriages over here have always had religous overtone. Just as I said in another thread, my dad was reciting in his wedding practice, and he had to say "In the name of the father, son and holy spirit" although he isn't a christian.

He HAD to? Who held a gun to his head? Last I checked this was a country that had freedom of religion he could have used any god, group of gods, or no god at all had he desired. My wife and I are also not Christian thus we did not have a Christian ceremony if he is not a Christian he should have done the same rather than make a mockery of the ceremony.

backlash can be worse than taking things slow.


:p HAhahaha Stop it, please.
Enough already!! Let me catch my breath.

:p HAhahaha Stop it, please.
Enough already!! Let me catch my breath.

Actually, they're absolutely right. If you take things slow nobody will object because it happens so gradually. If there is backlash, the whole thing could be ruined and go back to where it was.

Ban all marriage, civil union, whatever, its just moralistic judaeo-christian bullsh*t anyway. Bingo problem solved! If it takes some sort of legal contract, or fear of some god, to make your relationship special and stable then it isn’t worth anything anyway…….

Won't this make my sons and daughters gay? Therefore making me gay! Stay away from my ass! *flees to Kansas*

Ban all marriage, civil union, whatever, its just moralistic judaeo-christian bullsh*t anyway. Bingo problem solved! If it takes some sort of legal contract, or fear of some god, to make your relationship special and stable then it isn’t worth anything anyway…….

And who'd support that? No matter what amount of time passes, people will always want a tangible object to hold in their hand and say, "I'm married!".

Won't this make my sons and daughters gay? Therefore making me gay! Stay away from my ass! *flees to Kansas*

...Uhhh, not really...

And who'd support that? No matter what amount of time passes, people will always want a tangible object to hold in their hand and say, "I'm married!".

ah well theres the crux of the matter: people are superficial morons. argument is futile. *sob*

ah well theres the crux of the matter: people are superficial morons. argument is futile. *sob*

Exactly. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

...Uhhh, not really...

If my son sees a perfectly happy gay couple and believes it to be a perfectly normal way to live, then I'm going to have to beat him so much just to make him heterosexual. Just the way I...err god intended.

If my son sees a perfectly happy gay couple and believes it to be a perfectly normal way to live, then I'm going to have to beat him so much just to make him heterosexual. Just the way I...err god intended.

I guess you have a point.

Victory for Sweden!

I'd have written that in Swedish but I don't understand the language and I couldn't find an English to Swedish translator.

Besides, I'm sure Fass would bite my head off if I tried using one anyway. :D

Sweden is TEH LOSE.

Canada's been having gay marriages for years.

meh, 'Marriages' are an archaic and reactionary thing, I say we go back to pagan/tribal group love/orgy style relationships;)

meh, 'Marriages' are an archaic and reactionary thing, I say we go back to pagan/tribal group love/orgy style relationships;)
Wouldn't that be even more archaic though?

Congratulations Sweden! :)

And I'm right with Fass on this, civil unions really aren't equality, and marriage is not a religious institution.

Nope, all of the serious contenders for their presidential candidacy have rejected gay marriage and settled for a discriminatory civil unions policy, if even that. The party itself, from what I gather, is not pro-gay marriage, either.
Isn't the problem in the church rather than the state?

Can state marry two people in marriage or is marriage as such a church function? IMO state shouldn't be able to force churches to marry gays if it's against the doctrine of the church and there's an equal - non religious civil union - alternative, from the viewpoint of the government, available.

Equality of gays shouldn't mean restricing church policies which are based on religious grounds...However churches shouldn't be able to restrict employment of gays for non religious duties based on their sexual orientation.

Personally I don't mind gay marriage but like I said it should be up to churches to change their policy instead of the government - If people object to treatment of special groups (gays, wimmen, etc..) enough and abandon the church then there's bound to be policy changes from within.

Isn't the problem in the church rather than the state?

Can state marry two people in marriage or is marriage as such a church function? IMO state shouldn't be able to force churches to marry gays if it's against the doctrine of the church and there's an equal - non religious civil union - alternative, from the viewpoint of the government, available.

Equality of gays shouldn't mean restricing church policies which are based on religious grounds...However churches shouldn't be able to restrict employment of gays for non religious duties based on their sexual orientation.

Personally I don't mind gay marriage but like I said it should be up to churches to change their policy instead of the government - If people object to treatment of special groups (gays, wimmen, etc..) enough and abandon the church then there's bound to be policy changes from within.

So you would rather the churches' discrimination be state-sanctioned as it is now?

But this is not really the point. The point is that churches should provide a religious ceremony for marriage, the state should provide a secular ceremony for marriage, people can choose which they want, and both will be equal in name and in legal rights.

So you would rather the churches' discrimination be state-sanctioned as it is now?It's their doctrine.

If some saint or holy book sez gays are teh evil and women inferior it is their prerogative to think so. It's your prerogative to not listen to them and found a new church, swap churces or try to affirm a change in policy to a more accepting attitude towards the special group of your choice.

I consider it akin to discriminating by physique or sex to a job that requires a certain body type (eg. stripper, model or mine worker).

Considering that you wouldn't force, for example, a Christian church to marry a muslim couple or force a christian couple go through religious rites of marriage of another religion (would you?) it's their right to hold on to their, well, religion.
The point is that churches should provide a religious ceremony for marriage, the state should provide a secular ceremony for marriage, people can choose which they want, and both will be equal in name and in legal rights.Marriage has religious connotations.

Civil union is a non-religious marriage where state is concerned ie. equal rights & responsibilites compared to a marriage from the viewpoint of the state.

It's their doctrine.

If some saint or holy book sez gays are teh evil and women inferior it is their prerogative to think so. It's your prerogative to not listen to them and found a new church, swap churces or try to affirm a change in policy to a more accepting attitude towards the special group of your choice.

I consider it akin to discriminating by physique or sex to a job that requires a certain body type (eg. stripper, model or mine worker).

Except in your examples, the discrimination is serving a purpose, generally commercial i.e. increasing popularity/efficiency of the company. The religious discrimination serves no purpose.

Considering that you wouldn't force, for example, a Christian church to marry a muslim couple or force a christian couple go through religious rites of marriage of another religion, now would you?

I wouldn't force churches to do a same-sex marriage either, but it is still state-sanctioned discrimination. Concerning other religions, people generally choose what religion they follow, homosexuals don't choose their attraction any more than heterosexuals do.

Marriage has religious connotations.

Civil union is a non-religious marriage where state is concerned ie. equal rights & responsibilites compared to a marriage from the viewpoint of the state.

Marriage only has religious connotations in the minds of people who believe what the church tells them, and are willing to follow this monopoly on marriage the church has proclaimed rights over. It has no basis in the laws of the country.

As Fass has said, in secular countries, marriage is simply a legal contract between two people and the state. A religion may perform the ceremony, or the state may do, but after that it is still a secular institution.

Umm... the state can marry people in most places. In fact, usually if someone just goes and gets a church wedding, they aren't officially married until they go sign the papers at city hall.

Yup. And in fact if you want to you can cut through all the pomp and fanfaire and just get the papers signed at city hall, say your I do's, and you're done.

Isn't the problem in the church rather than the state?

Can state marry two people in marriage or is marriage as such a church function? IMO state shouldn't be able to force churches to marry gays if it's against the doctrine of the church and there's an equal - non religious civil union - alternative, from the viewpoint of the government, available.
Umm... the state can marry people in most places. In fact, usually if someone just goes and gets a church wedding, they aren't officially married until they go sign the papers at city hall.

*Cheers for Sweden*
*Reads several pages of repetitive debate*
*Decides not to get involved*
*Leaves*

(basically Christian nutters, sort of like the Democratic party in the USA if one wishes to make a comparison)

You got it totally backwards. The Republicans are the Christian nutters. The only reason most Democrats don't openly support gay marriage is because they're afraid of losing the moderate vote. Our "moderates" are what we be considered right-wing in other countries I'm afraid.

Actually, they're absolutely right. If you take things slow nobody will object because it happens so gradually. If there is backlash, the whole thing could be ruined and go back to where it was.

And in the mean time, we are all saying "oh, hang on... it will get better some day, I promise. You KNOW that even if things suck for you, your grandchildren will have it better, yes indeedy! I just don't want to be uncomfortable right now. Let's put the problem on hold until it becomes some one elses problem."

Not an acceptable answer. When people are oppressed, we should act NOW to help them.

Isn't the problem in the church rather than the state?

Can state marry two people in marriage or is marriage as such a church function? IMO state shouldn't be able to force churches to marry gays if it's against the doctrine of the church and there's an equal - non religious civil union - alternative, from the viewpoint of the government, available.

In the US, a marriage is not considered legal UNLESS the state does it, that is, a church ceremony does not entitle the participants to share income tax status, automatic inheritance rights and so on... but if you simply go to city hall and fill out the paperwork, you can be married without ever setting foot in a church. THAT is the part that homosexuals are fighting for here... they are not looking to force any religious institution to recognize them, but merely for equal treatment under the LAW. And, as has been stated "civil union" for homosexuals and "marriage" for heterosexuals is not equal treatment... it must be ONE term for any such partnership. In the US (and most everywhere else) "marriage" is the accepted term for it, and shoud be universally used for all.

Equality of gays shouldn't mean restricing church policies which are based on religious grounds...However churches shouldn't be able to restrict employment of gays for non religious duties based on their sexual orientation.

Nobody wants to restrict church policies. If some church wants to say that they will only perform ceremonies for white couples under the age of 25, that is fine, it is up to them. Those ceremonies are not legal until the couple gets a marriage license from the state, anyway. I think employment is an entirely separate issue, and does not relate to the marriage discussion.

Personally I don't mind gay marriage but like I said it should be up to churches to change their policy instead of the government - If people object to treatment of special groups (gays, wimmen, etc..) enough and abandon the church then there's bound to be policy changes from within.

Churches can do whatever they want. The STATE, however, must provide equal treatment for all its members... that is what is being fought for... legal recognition that has nothing to do with religion in any way.

Marriage has religious connotations.

Civil union is a non-religious marriage where state is concerned ie. equal rights & responsibilites compared to a marriage from the viewpoint of the state.

Which is, of course, why un-ordained ship's captains have long been permited to perform marriage ceremonies?

Sorry. I'm married. Civil ceremony. No mention of any spooky father figure.

Marriage is NOT a religious construct, except within the bounds of your church. Most churches, after all, will not marry those who are not of their faith. Try getting a catholic priest to marry a pair of Anglicans. Won't happen. As a point of doctrine, the catholic church doesn't really consider non-catholic marriages to be true marriages. Should that then become the definition of marriage? A catholic event only? No? So if a catholic is willing to accept marriages as being considered real marriages of people who they do not feel are blessing their union in front of a real god, then are not all civil ceremonies equally not before God?

Seems assinine to say that a couple is married if they pledged their union before nothing out of an error in their choice of faith, but not married when pleging their union deliberately before nothing.... doesn't it?

Oh, you guys just upped one mroe on the "Reasons to Make That Move To Sweden Pronto" list? 'Sokay, but it really doesn't make much of a difference anymore. Thanks for the effort, though; we appreciate it.


.. that, and your affinity to long thread titles gets tiresome ;P

Oh, you guys just upped one mroe on the "Reasons to Make That Move To Sweden Pronto" list? 'Sokay, but it really doesn't make much of a difference anymore. Thanks for the effort, though; we appreciate it.


.. that, and your affinity to long thread titles gets tiresome ;P

Just don't move to Malmo, it's a war zone.

You got it totally backwards. The Republicans are the Christian nutters. The only reason most Democrats don't openly support gay marriage is because they're afraid of losing the moderate vote. Our "moderates" are what we be considered right-wing in other countries I'm afraid.

unfortunately, tis true


democrats shy away from gay marriage because of its controversial image



welcome to american politics 101...............

Just don't move to Malmo, it's a war zone.

Don't listen to Ferrous Oxide, because he apparently has no clue what he's talking about. Malmö a "war zone"? That's just stupid and telling that he's never been.

You got it totally backwards. The Republicans are the Christian nutters.

The Democrats are Christian nutters, too. I know that by USA standards the Democrats must be oh, so progressive and whatnot, but USA standards are not something to hang in the Christmas tree, as we say.

This is why I have a problem with europians sticking their noses into American politics when they get everything backwards concerning it. The Democrates are not christian is they keep pushing for seperation of church and state while the republicans do not.

The Democrats are Christian nutters, too. I know that by USA standards the Democrats must be oh, so progressive and whatnot, but USA standards are not something to hang in the Christmas tree, as we say.

well, they're not so much "christian nutters" as much as they simply try to appease the moderates


personally, i'd like to see everyone get off the god wagon and start concerning themselves with here and now and what we can REALLY do to make this a better world


and yes, i agree, civil unions are really more of an insult than anything else. it's the whole "separate but equal" argument that the supreme court ruled unconstitutional

it's only a matter of time before the other states HAVE to recognize gay marriage because of Article Four Section One of the united states constitution which enumerates full faith and credit amongst states

which means that one state must recognize another state's legal documents

which means that if a couple gets married in mass. and then moves to texas, under the constitution texas MUST recognize the marriage

The Democrats are not christian nutters. In any way. The Republicans are the christian nutters. Everything else you said is alright.

Right now, gay marriage, using the word marriage, is not majorly popular. Political parties must use their own views and compromise on them to appease the people. That's how our government works. It's not a group of people who have ideas, it's a group of people who have ideas, throw them at the people, and then the people throw back their own stuff, and you have to come out somewhere in between. Civil unions, or domestic partnerships, right now are that in-between. The democrats MUST be gay-friendly and not precisely pro-gay, because the majority of americans are not pro-gay. Creating gay-friendly policies work towards changing the majority opinion, leading eventually towards gay marriage, which the democrats would support at the correct time. Yes, the green party is precisely pro-gay, 100%, but do you see the green party in office? no, you don't. You must appease to the people first, and then work for reform and progression.

The Democrats are not christian nutters. In any way. The Republicans are the christian nutters. Everything else you said is alright.

Right now, gay marriage, using the word marriage, is not majorly popular. Political parties must use their own views and compromise on them to appease the people. That's how our government works. It's not a group of people who have ideas, it's a group of people who have ideas, throw them at the people, and then the people throw back their own stuff, and you have to come out somewhere in between. Civil unions, or domestic partnerships, right now are that in-between. The democrats MUST be gay-friendly and not precisely pro-gay, because the majority of americans are not pro-gay. Creating gay-friendly policies work towards changing the majority opinion, leading eventually towards gay marriage, which the democrats would support at the correct time. Yes, the green party is precisely pro-gay, 100%, but do you see the green party in office? no, you don't. You must appease to the people first, and then work for reform and progression.



hear hear!

The Democrats are not christian nutters. In any way. The Republicans are the christian nutters.

I know that people in the USA, mainly due to the two party weirdness, easily fall for the false polarities of their political system and inflate all these objectively minor differences between the Democrats and Republicans to maintain the illusion that the system gives them oh, so much choice, when in fact the differences are minor and the choice they have is basically between semi-far right and right. That's why it's so hard for you to accept that the Democrats and Republicans are just degrees from one another, and because one are the loonier of the Christians, the others seem much, much less loony to you. It gets amplified like that when one only has two points of comparison.

mms://stream.tv4.se/2007-08-03/Nyheterna_22_00!153038,W4L!.wmv

Prime Minister Fredrik Rheinfeldt, visiting Stockholm Pride during the day and taking the opportunity to strike up a conversation with a contingent of gay soldiers and strategically placed reporters, has confirmed that he is in favour of a gender-neutral marriage law and is going to push for its adoption at the Moderate Party's convention in the fall, because seemingly he has also grown tired of the delay of the law that has been expected for years now.

So far the Moderate Party is the only Riksdag party that has not taken an official stance on the issue, with all the others apart from the Christian Democrats (basically Christian nutters, sort of like the Democratic party in the USA if one wishes to make a comparison) having decided to support the reform.

The Christian Democrats, who opposed the civil union law that granted all rights of marriage apart from insemination and adoption rights when it was passed a decade and a half ago, are clutching at straws and are now claiming to support civil unions and that they are "enough". Never mind the fact that they opposed any and all reform of the adoption and insemination laws when those were, of course, changed to treat gay couples the same as heterosexual ones... but now, they're "enough"! Pfft! :rolleyes:

Anyhoo, the Christian Democrats are unfortunately in the coalition government and have been stalling the issue at every turn since they know that given a vote in parliament, they will lose. They did the same thing with the civil union law, which was passed when they were in a coalition government last time by the opposition introducing it and the government being run over in a very humiliating way. The other parties in the Government are weary of this being repeated and have extended an olive branch to the opposition that has pledged to introduce a motion at the start of the plenary session should, I paraphrase, the government continue to be paralysed by the fringe Christian Democrats.

So, uhm, "finally!", I say. You'd think we were some sort of crazy, backwards, retarded country with the time this has taken.

Best of luck in this Fass!

On a similar note I'm sad to say that Kanako Otsuji, one of my local reps from here in Sakai didn't make her bid for the Upper House this past week. She was the first openly gay pol in Japan, and I'm proud to have been represented by her in the local prefectural assembly!

http://www.otsuji-k.com/english.html

I hope some day that the US will live up to it's promise and Japan will acknowledge it's reality.

The Democrats are not christian nutters. In any way. The Republicans are the christian nutters. Everything else you said is alright.

Right now, gay marriage, using the word marriage, is not majorly popular. Political parties must use their own views and compromise on them to appease the people. That's how our government works. It's not a group of people who have ideas, it's a group of people who have ideas, throw them at the people, and then the people throw back their own stuff, and you have to come out somewhere in between. Civil unions, or domestic partnerships, right now are that in-between. The democrats MUST be gay-friendly and not precisely pro-gay, because the majority of americans are not pro-gay. Creating gay-friendly policies work towards changing the majority opinion, leading eventually towards gay marriage, which the democrats would support at the correct time. Yes, the green party is precisely pro-gay, 100%, but do you see the green party in office? no, you don't. You must appease to the people first, and then work for reform and progression.

And you don't see anything particularly wrong with the fact that Americans don't want gay marriage and aren't pro-gay?
Do you not realize that what you wrote is an indictment of the people of this country?
In this instance, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the political system. It is entirely the fault of the People.

And you don't see anything particularly wrong with the fact that Americans don't want gay marriage and aren't pro-gay?
Do you not realize that what you wrote is an indictment of the people of this country?
In this instance, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the political system. It is entirely the fault of the People.

this is true


perhaps it's america's christian heritage that interfers with our social progress

And you don't see anything particularly wrong with the fact that Americans don't want gay marriage and aren't pro-gay?
Do you not realize that what you wrote is an indictment of the people of this country?
In this instance, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the political system. It is entirely the fault of the People.

I did find it quite hilarious, and also quite telling that the two major parties in the USA are not actual political parties - they're more election machineries. How else does one explain that seemingly they have no actual ideological basis that they adhere to, but are all about "pleasing the most people they can" so that they'll get elected. That's just wind flail populism, but unfortunately one made to be fed by the lack of a proportional parliamentary system. This whole "majority takes all the votes" silliness I'd find quite depressing.

this is true


perhaps it's america's christian heritage that interfers with our social progress
Sweden has a Christian heritage. They just realized at some point that it was all bullshit.

In this instance, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the political system. It is entirely the fault of the People.That's called democracy.

Sweden has a Christian heritage. They just realized at some point that it was all bullshit.

Well, it sort of helped that a lot of the fundies emigrated to North America in the 1800s. :P

And you don't see anything particularly wrong with the fact that Americans don't want gay marriage and aren't pro-gay?
Do you not realize that what you wrote is an indictment of the people of this country?
In this instance, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the political system. It is entirely the fault of the People.

I'm going to have to disagree. The people of the US overall are a liberal people. It's just that progress towards this goal is a bit slow. And that is largely a function of the system. Slowly but surely the neandetals are being dragged into the light or overwhelmed.

Sweden has a Christian heritage. They just realized at some point that it was all bullshit.


i don't think america will ever realize it's all bullshit



but it would most certianly be nice

I'm going to have to disagree. The people of the US overall are a liberal people. It's just that progress towards this goal is a bit slow. And that is largely a function of the system. Slowly but surely the neandetals are being dragged into the light or overwhelmed.

i couldn't disagree with you more


the american people are not liberal by any means


our MODERATES are considered hard core conservatives compared to the European nations

Well, it sort of helped that a lot of the fundies emigrated to North America in the 1800s. :P

LOL! Ya'll want them Minnesotan's back? I hear they build real good bridges...

i don't think america will ever realize it's all bullshitThat depends. What does the young generation of US Americans think of it in general?
the american people are not liberal by any meansqft

I did find it quite hilarious, and also quite telling that the two major parties in the USA are not actual political parties - they're more election machineries. How else does one explain that seemingly they have no actual ideological basis that they adhere to, but are all about "pleasing the most people they can" so that they'll get elected. That's just wind flail populism, but unfortunately one made to be fed by the lack of a proportional parliamentary system. This whole "majority takes all the votes" silliness I'd find quite depressing.

Yeah, well it won't be changing in our lifetimes. Most Americans don't even know what proportional representation is, much less that other countries successfully use it.
As you are well aware, most also find the idea of changing the constitution repugnant because of a fixation on the nation's founders. Which is odd in its own way, seeing as several of the founders including Jefferson thought there should be a new constitutional convention every twenty years or so.

LOL! Ya'll want them Minnesotan's back? I hear they build real good bridges...

hey now, come on dude


a lot of people's lives were turned upside down over that

hey now, come on dude
a lot of people's lives were turned upside down over thatliterally. and?

i couldn't disagree with you more


the american people are not liberal by any means


our MODERATES are considered hard core conservatives compared to the European nations

Funadmentally the majority are "liberal". Consider what we've gone from to where we are now. 20 years ago, any thing related to gay marriage would have been been ixney. Now it's at least considered.

That's called democracy.
Not the biggest fan, especially when its used by the uneducated.
That depends. What does the young generation of US Americans think of it in general?
The Christian youth movement is plenty strong, and the media will have even the nonreligious committed to traditional values by the time they reach their most politically active ages.

Funadmentally the majority are "liberal". Consider what we've gone from to where we are now. 20 years ago, any thing related to gay marriage would have been been ixney. Now it's at least considered.
Getting fifty percent on an exam is still failing, and it still means you're a fucking dumbass, even if you did get a thirty on the last one.

hey now, come on dude


a lot of people's lives were turned upside down over that

yeah, I know that was a low blow. But I couldn't resist. It's Fass after all. Gotta get the low blows in on our Scandasnob. ;)

And you don't see anything particularly wrong with the fact that Americans don't want gay marriage and aren't pro-gay?
Do you not realize that what you wrote is an indictment of the people of this country?
In this instance, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the political system. It is entirely the fault of the People.

Sure I do. I support gay rights full out. That's me, I'm a minority. However, a majority of my peers do not see the way I do. Our political system runs on what the majority of people see and want. Yes, I do realize what I wrote is an indictment of the people of this country. I think that the people in this country are wrong. In order to attempt to change their views, you must appease them in some way. If you just pop full out reform and change at them, most of them are going to resist. If you give them some of what they want, and some of what you want, and kind of rock the boat back and forth until you get what you want, it's a much smoother, probably more successful process then full out change.

Funadmentally the majority are "liberal". Consider what we've gone from to where we are now. 20 years ago, any thing related to gay marriage would have been been ixney. Now it's at least considered.but what about 40 years ago?

LOL! Ya'll want them Minnesotan's back?

Oh, we get them already as tourists, which can be quite hilarious... take that old story of the two USA pensioners standing in a Swedish town known for its medieval buildings and remnants and going: "Look, honey. There are so many ruins." "Yeah, it's because the city was so heavily bombed during the second world war." And looking at the town's old ring wall and saying: "And that was once the Berlin wall". *snickers*

I hear they build real good bridges...

I'll have the window seat and the vegan meal, thanks. Extra leg space would be nice.

Not the biggest fan, especially when its used by the uneducated.Well, that's the original meaning of democracy, rule by the plebs.

The Christian youth movement is plenty strong, and the media will have even the nonreligious committed to traditional values by the time they reach their most politically active ages.Thank Yah this is yet limited to the US.

yeah, I know that was a low blow. But I couldn't resist. It's Fass after all. Gotta get the low blows in on our Scandasnob. ;)

lol, yeah yeah


i know where you were comin' from bro


i'm not much of one to judge low blows either :p

Getting fifty percent on an exam is still failing, and it still means you're a fucking dumbass, even if you did get a thirty on the last one.


Comapre the US to places like Iran (where gay = death penalty), and you may reconsider. Hmmm... some places marry gays in the US, nowhere is it legal to kill gays. That's well above a 50% in my books...

but what about 40 years ago?

Well, one mustn't forget that as late as in the 60s the USA had its own version of apartheid going on. It can be mind-boggling to look at it that way - the 1960s! - but also quite sobering.

This is why I have a problem with europians sticking their noses into American politics when they get everything backwards concerning it. The Democrates are not christian is they keep pushing for seperation of church and state while the republicans do not.

There is no contradiction between Secularism and Christianity (does "render unto Caesar" ring any bells?); the National Secular Society in the UK has many Christian members, and the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State is an ordained minister. Methinks you should check your facts before you accuse us of getting things backwards.

Comapre the US to places like Iran (where gay = death penalty), and you may reconsider. Hmmm... some places marry gays in the US, nowhere is it legal to kill gays. That's well above a 50% in my books...

So Iran gets kicked out of the class and expelled for jerking off underneath the desk. Whatever. Still means the US gets a 50.

There is no contradiction between Secularism and Christianity (does "render unto Caesar" ring any bells?); the National Secular Society in the UK has many Christian members, and the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State is an ordained minister. Methinks you should check your facts before you accuse us of getting things backwards.

He never said anything about there being a contradiction. That post was in response to Democrats being labeled "christian nutters." I don't know what "christian nutters" means, but most people take it as "those whom support fundamental christian integration into government" We call those people "christian nutters." "christian nutters" and secularism contradict eachother.

Well, one mustn't forget that as late as in the 60s the USA had its own version of apartheid going on. It can be mind-boggling to look at it that way - the 1960s! - but also quite sobering.

And fortunately, we've moved on.

1957 - No way in hell can a ****** vote!
2007 - An ethnicly black man is a very serious candisate for the presidency.

1957 - Kill faggots!
2007 - Most of us think it's OK to marry ya'll, at least in some fashion.

1957 - Women = housewives
2007 - A woman is a very serious candidate for president.

Are we perfect? Hell no. :mad:
Have we made progress? Hell yeah! :D

So Iran gets kicked out of the class and expelled for jerking off underneath the desk. Whatever. Still means the US gets a 50.

Nah. You're just judging by a narrow window. US gets at least a C on gay/minority rights.

And fortunately, we've moved on.

1957 - No way in hell can a ****** vote!
2007 - An ethnicly black man is a very serious candisate for the presidency.

1957 - Kill faggots!
2007 - Most of us think it's OK to marry ya'll, at least in some fashion.

1957 - Women = housewives
2007 - A woman is a very serious candidate for president.

Are we perfect? Hell no. :mad:
Have we made progress? Hell yeah! :D



yes but compared to other european nations, america is well behind the times


hell, even CUBA has a universal healthcare system


and SOUTH AFRICA, the nation that was blasted for human rights violations in its RECENT past, is now more socially progressive than the united states in terms of civil liberties

that's right, their high courts have affirmed that gay marriage cannot be banned

so has america progressed, yes

but very much, in relation to other western democracies? no

and SOUTH AMERICA, the nation that was blasted for human rights violations in its RECENT past, is now more socially progressive than the united states in terms of civil liberties


uh.. South America isn't a nation.

uh.. South America isn't a nation.

wait, my bad

i meant south africa


sorry mates

He never said anything about there being a contradiction. That post was in response to Democrats being labeled "christian nutters." I don't know what "christian nutters" means, but most people take it as "those whom support fundamental christian integration into government" We call those people "christian nutters." "christian nutters" and secularism contradict eachother.

S/he said:

The Democrates are not christian is they keep pushing for seperation of church and state

No mention of 'nutters'.

He ment it as a (bad) example.

Oh, we get them already as tourists, which can be quite hilarious... take that old story of the two USA pensioners standing in a Swedish town known for its medieval buildings and remnants and going: "Look, honey. There are so many ruins." "Yeah, it's because the city was so heavily bombed during the second world war." And looking at the town's old ring wall and saying: "And that was once the Berlin wall". *snickers*

LOL Reminds me of my Dad's story from the Louvre. A US tourist couple walked up while he was seeing the Mona Lisa. The woman asked what it was. The man checked the title, mispronounced it, and declared he'd never heard of it.

Get your politics straight (hahas!). Democrates in the US want to pass laws pro-gay marriage laws.

HA.

You obviously do not understand US politics. This is the Theory of US Politics, as tested and verified by Seangoli:

"In US Politics, if a party wishes for A) to happen, they will inherently do everything in their power to ensure that A) does not happen. As a result of A) not happening, do largely to their actions, they will place fault upon the shoulders of the other party. As such, they will forever have garner support, for they 'support' A), where as the other party does not."

For instance, Conservatives don't actually want to make abortion illegal, as that would remove a great deal of what they are all about from their slogan. As such, they will claim to try and make abortion illegal, however knowing full well that they cannot, so as to garner support for them, and against the liberals for said actions. This results in more votes in conservative areas from their constituents, and if you make it *appear* that you actually are trying to do something, you will endlessly be elected. The same holds true for liberals.

I'm back, with a vengeance.

so has america progressed, yes

but very much, in relation to other western democracies? no

Although you should keep in mind that Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage. Gay marriage debates are much like death penalty debates, where people often forget that the USA is a federation, not a unitary state.

I say this only because it annoys me when people in death penalty debates tell me how terrible I am for living where they have a death penalty when my state was the first democracy in the world to ban the practice. I'm sure there are quite a few Bay Staters who get similarly annoyed at being lumped in with those they shouldn't be lumped in with.

What is the purpose of a gay marriage really? Marriage is meant to be an institution of state- and church-supported protection for children that come out of a heterosexual relationship. So why would two men or two women respectively want marriage at all? Just for the public recognition of their relationship?

The Democrats, being the party of reasonable people, WANT to make gay marriage legal.

Unfortunately, the NASCAR Joe six-packs out there are rabidly insecure about their own sexuality and vehemently oppose anything resembling gay rights.

The Democrats try to stay reasonable and win the occasional election by shrugging their shoulders and saying "Mmm...maybe civil unions are OK, then?"

Exterminate the rural populations in the flyover states like the vermin they are, and the US would have much more reasonable policies on gay marriage and abortion, etc.

What is the purpose of a gay marriage really?

Equality. Gay people want to have the same options that every one else does, including marrying the adult of your choice.

And if not just for equality's sake, there are legal reasons. Since the Wiki says it better than me...

In the United States, there are at least 1,138 federal laws "in which marital status is a factor."[32] (See Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States for a partial list) A denial of rights or benefits without substantive due process, assert the proponents of same-sex marriage, directly contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which provides for equal protection of all citizens. For instance, a heterosexual US citizen who marries a foreign partner immediately qualifies to bring that person to the United States, while long-term gay and lesbian binational partners who have spent decades together are denied the same rights, forcing foreign gay partners to seek expensive temporary employer or school-sponsored visas or face separation. See Immigration Equality and Human Rights Watch report on this and other forms of discrimination against same-sex couples.

What is the purpose of a gay marriage really? Marriage is meant to be an institution of state- and church-supported protection for children that come out of a heterosexual relationship. So why would two men or two women respectively want marriage at all? Just for the public recognition of their relationship?

Among other things. Spouses are also granted certain legal rights and financial benefits. The status of being married impacts things like insurance coverage, right to inherit, etc.

Among other things. Spouses are also granted certain legal rights and financial benefits. The status of being married impacts things like insurance coverage, right to inherit, etc.

It's true. The only reason my parents are married was because a civil union didn't give enough legal protection.

Among other things. Spouses are also granted certain legal rights and financial benefits. The status of being married impacts things like insurance coverage, right to inherit, etc.Yes, but those benefits are all aimed at supporting children that would come out of such a relationship, right?

Except in your examples, the discrimination is serving a purpose, generally commercial i.e. increasing popularity/efficiency of the company. The religious discrimination serves no purpose.Except to serve religion.

Religion by itself doesn't serve a purpose but is a purpose unto itself: Religion is defined by doctrines and 'holy books'...if you don't like the doctrines of a church or religion then choose another religion or better priest and get your union formalized :D

In the eyes of the government you'd still have civil union but for all intents and purposes you were married.I wouldn't force churches to do a same-sex marriage either, but it is still state-sanctioned discrimination.It's not state sanctioned discrimination if the state offers an equal alternative where state policy is concerned.

Marriage only has religious connotations in the minds of people who believe what the church tells them, and are willing to follow this monopoly on marriage the church has proclaimed rights over. It has no basis in the laws of the country.Civil union is a form of secular marriage.

Heck, if I were in charge I'd call the result of every civil ceremony a civil union as marriage is such an...anachronic term relative to what it represents. Besides 'We're united' sounds much better than 'We're married' :DAs Fass has said, in secular countries, marriage is simply a legal contract between two people and the state. A religion may perform the ceremony, or the state may do, but after that it is still a secular institution.More specifically it's a juridic institution and AFAIK civil union *should* carry the same benefits & privileges as a marriage does.

The problem is in word definition: Marriage is a discriminating term whose definition usually goes something like this (Dictionary.com) the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

In time the definition will change naturally, however it will not happen overnight and aggressive campaigning will only increase homo-antipathy in people who normally wouldn't give a rat's ass.

I personally don't mind what's it called as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of churches or other institutions to carry out their *private* doctrine.

Don't listen to Ferrous Oxide, because he apparently has no clue what he's talking about. Malmö a "war zone"? That's just stupid and telling that he's never been.

You know I'd never dare listen to anybody else while you are around, dear.

Now, aren't they referring to the incident(s) widely discussed once upon a time in that lovely Atlantian Islands thread throwing around equally lovely right-winger blog sources, and us talking about some amusing 'unbiased' video or the other you later linked me to? I think so.

Anyhow, can't diss a city with such a hilarious name. Örebro's still in the contest for the same reason. :]

What the difference between a marriage lisence and a civil union. From what I understand they would get the benefites of marrage without the contract.
Hint: "separate but equal" was tossed out a generation ago.

It doesn't matter if you think the black water fountains are just as good as the white water fountains. It's still fucking wrong.

Personally, I wish "marriage" could be completely destroyed. It's an institution with a disgusting history. I certainly hope I never have to dirty any of my relationships with it. But, in my country, if I want a legal union I may some day have to put up with the word "marriage." That sucks for everybody, gay or straight, because they are being forced to associate with a tradition of abuse and inequality.

Yes, but those benefits are all aimed at supporting children that would come out of such a relationship, right?

And gay people never want children ?


I think we should reclassify the terminology, from now on marriage is a legal contract between 2 human adults (which are performed by a state/country official, with all the legal benefits marriage gives now) and on the side we have religious unions (which are performed by priests etc. and don't give the couple any legal benefits).

Yes, but those benefits are all aimed at supporting children that would come out of such a relationship, right?

Nope. Marriage is NOT simply about children. If it were, people who are infertile, to old or simply not interested in reproducing would not be allowed to get married. Some of the benefits do deal with offspring, but certainly not all of them.

And who is to say that a gay couple WOULDN'T have children, anyway? Many do, either by adoption or with a surrogate parent (as do many straight couples). So the "marriage is for the children" argument does not fly either way.

What is the purpose of a gay marriage really? Marriage is meant to be an institution of state- and church-supported protection for children that come out of a heterosexual relationship.
Way to insult every childless married couple, and every adoptive family, all at the same time.

My adopted cousins extend a friendly "fuck you," by the way.

This is why UB is on my ignore list.

LOL! Ya'll want them Minnesotan's back? I hear they build real good bridges...

I am normally one for a joke in good taste or bad ... but that was rather disgusting.

As for the "Fundy Minnesotans" we may be Fundy compared to Sweden but we are still a "blue state" over here ... ya may not want to get rid of us.

*snip*

Are you personally planning on marrying or adopting anytime soon?

What is the purpose of a gay marriage really? Marriage is meant to be an institution of state- and church-supported protection for children that come out of a heterosexual relationship. So why would two men or two women respectively want marriage at all? Just for the public recognition of their relationship? A number of reasons, some personal, others practical. Personal reasons vary, but for practical reasons let me offer up a few:

(1) Taxation, Super, Wills, and insurance- Being married has an important and often advantageous fiscal impact.

(2) Immigration- Having gone through the immense stress of my partner attempting (finally successfully) to immigrate I can confidently say that it would not have been possible should my partner have had been the same gender as me. Partly for the reason of not having the option of marriage, and partly for the reason that homosexual couples lack key rights in other areas too.

(3) Security- Marrying somebody offers a level of security some desire. It becomes harder to break up, and entitles you officially to a portion of the joint ownerships.

Are you personally planning on marrying or adopting anytime soon?

No. Why do you ask?

A number of reasons, some personal, others practical. Personal reasons vary, but for practical reasons let me offer up a few:

(1) Taxation, Super, Wills, and insurance- Being married has an important and often advantageous fiscal impact.

(2) Immigration- Having gone through the immense stress of my partner attempting (finally successfully) to immigrate I can confidently say that it would not have been possible should my partner have had been the same gender as me. Partly for the reason of not having the option of marriage, and partly for the reason that homosexual couples lack key rights in other areas too.

(3) Security- Marrying somebody offers a level of security some desire. It becomes harder to break up, and entitles you officially to a portion of the joint ownerships.
There's also the bit about being each other's next of kin and all that should they become incapacitated and unable to make medical decisions for themlselves... or should their family not like you and try to exclude you from hospital visitation and all.

There's also the bit about being each other's next of kin and all that should they become incapacitated and unable to make medical decisions for themlselves... or should their family not like you and try to exclude you from hospital visitation and all.

There we are, another practical reason. As we can see, gay marriage is more than a frivolous demand for token equality.

There we are, another practical reason. As we can see, gay marriage is more than a frivolous demand for token equality.
Yep. I would also imagine that adopting a kid would be easier for a married couple than a common-law one.

Yes, but those benefits are all aimed at supporting children that would come out of such a relationship, right?

Wrong. Very, very few of the protections associated with marriage have anything at all to do with children. Pretending that marriage is all about children is, simply put, ridiculous.

No. Why do you ask?
Nothing facetious, just curious. I mean, I get pretty riled up about immigration law, because my wife (feels funny saying it still) and I went through bureaucratic hell because of it. I was just wondering if you were approaching from the same kind of angle, or if it is more of a principle-fight for you.

As noted though, if we were a same-sex couple, we would not be living together today. Just too few rights and pathways.

Yep. I would also imagine that adopting a kid would be easier for a married couple than a common-law one.

And that there is an automatic opportunity for unofficial discrimination when you give one controversial minority a special label. Like with immigration you have 'defacto' 'spouse' and ... 'interdependent' (the latter being the euphemism for 'queers who want partner visas, submit your application for ridicule here'). Apparently homosexuals can't have defacto relationships either, just 'interdependent' ones.

Except to serve religion.

Religion by itself doesn't serve a purpose but is a purpose unto itself: Religion is defined by doctrines and 'holy books'...if you don't like the doctrines of a church or religion then choose another religion or better priest and get your union formalized :D

Indeed, and I will never respect them for it.

It's not state sanctioned discrimination if the state offers an equal alternative where state policy is concerned.

Now this is the problem because the alternative is not offered in many places.

Heck, if I were in charge I'd call the result of every civil ceremony a civil union as marriage is such an...anachronic term relative to what it represents. Besides 'We're united' sounds much better than 'We're married' :D More specifically it's a juridic institution and AFAIK civil union *should* carry the same benefits & privileges as a marriage does.

The problem is in word definition: Marriage is a discriminating term whose definition usually goes something like this (Dictionary.com) the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

In time the definition will change naturally, however it will not happen overnight and aggressive campaigning will only increase homo-antipathy in people who normally wouldn't give a rat's ass.

I personally don't mind what's it called as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of churches or other institutions to carry out their *private* doctrine.

Indeed, the word is the problem. I would rather all the names are changed to some other term and all be known as the same thing, regardless of how the ceremony was carried.