Sweden Legalizes Gay Marriage

[El_Machinae]

Nice troll.

Maybe the term troll fits you better in this thread.

<photo>

Now you're just being a troll.

Thou art hereby branded a troll

Moderator Action: If someone is trolling, DO NOT reply to them. Report the trolling instead. Additionally, calling someone a 'troll' is considered flaming on CFC. DO NOT do it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Christians and others should be getting along with the modern times and give up on their hopelessly outdated and archaic traditions.

Yeah yeah, we heard pretty much the same thing from the Gnostics, we heard it from the Romans, we heard it from the Muslims, we heard it from the Enlightenment, we heard it from the Darwinists, we heard it from the Flower Children, we can't say the argument has improved much since the first time. I suggest you stop beating a dead horse.

 

[capslock]

The problem is the group in question does not want the legal framework itself but the word. They want it to be called "marriage" and nothing else! This is childish.

Agree. They want to be seen as normal and feel this will be a step in that direction. Nothing is keeping two (or 3 or 50) homosexuals from living together happily except their own insecurities and need for acceptance. No law is going to help that. Public opinion and attitudes need to change, and maybe they will in time, THEN the law will change. It seems it has in some places. In others, forcing it on people won't help anything.

Additionally, a homosexual union =/= a heterosexual union, so they don't get = protection and benefits. There are all kinds of unions, friendships, relationships that don't get the same treatment, because they aren't the same. Its not rocket science.

And seperate but equal has been working beautifully when it comes to gender. We still have women's bathrooms and mens. In department stores the women's department is like 5x the size of the mens. Noone is being called a bigot for not rising in self righteous outrage against this kind of thing.

 

[Cutlass]

I am not denying them a legal relationship, do you read what I write? I am denying them the term "marriage", because there is no justification for its use for same-sex couple partnerships.

And you have neither a reason nor a right to do so.

 

[El_Machinae]

I know a lesbian couple that got married and then had twins together.
It's only pre-21st century that homosexuals could not reproduce. In future decades, even the males should be able to reproduce.. The law should be modernised to reality.

 

[admiral-bell]

Agree. They want to be seen as normal and feel this will be a step in that direction. Nothing is keeping two (or 3 or 50) homosexuals from living together happily except their own insecurities and need for acceptance. No law is going to help that. Public opinion and attitudes need to change, and maybe they will in time, THEN the law will change. It seems it has in some places. In others, forcing it on people won't help anything.

Additionally, a homosexual union =/= a heterosexual union, so they don't get = protection and benefits. There are all kinds of unions, friendships, relationships that don't get the same treatment, because they aren't the same. Its not rocket science.

And seperate but equal has been working beautifully when it comes to gender. We still have women's bathrooms and mens. In department stores the women's department is like 5x the size of the mens. Noone is being called a bigot for not rising in self righteous outrage against this kind of thing.

I have an idea. Rename civil marriages to civil unions, and open them to everyone. If you want the legal rights that one has under marriage now, you get a civil union. If you want to get married you go to a church. However, getting married no longer grants any legal benefit. In order to receive the legal benefit you need the civil union. That way everyone has equal rights, churches get to keep their own definitions, and everyone is happy. Any objections?

 

[capslock]

All kinds of objections, lol. Noone is gonna vote to eliminate marriage so gays can feel accepted, lol. You're dillusional.

How about you guys come up with some real reasons why homosexual unions should be granted the same title, benefits, and consideration as heterosexual marriages. We already agree the deserve some consideration and benefits, but really, other than wanting to feel good, why push it so far as to want to destroy marriage? No law is going to make people view gay couples the same as normal couples, sorry, but thats life.

 

[Arwon]

"destroy marriage"?

 

[capslock]

Yah, he wants to abolish marriages and create a new system. Did you read his post?

 

[damnation]

He said that there would be no 'legal' marriages, but 'religious' marriages still exist. Did YOU read his post?

No law is going to make people view gay couples the same as normal couples, sorry, but thats life.

You seem pretty confident, especialy because some countries already do.

 

[Dachs]

Yah, he wants to abolish marriages and create a new system. Did you read his post?

Your comment and his post don't have much to do with each other.

 

[Zelig]

Yah, he wants to abolish marriages and create a new system. Did you read his post?

Are you suggesting that marriages only came into existence once there was government legislation regarding them?

 

[Zack]

You don't need to have lived in a previous time to know its history.

True, your words are.

 

[admiral-bell]

All kinds of objections, lol. Noone is gonna vote to eliminate marriage so gays can feel accepted, lol. You're dillusional.

How about you guys come up with some real reasons why homosexual unions should be granted the same title, benefits, and consideration as heterosexual marriages. We already agree the deserve some consideration and benefits, but really, other than wanting to feel good, why push it so far as to want to destroy marriage? No law is going to make people view gay couples the same as normal couples, sorry, but that's life.

Marriage isn't eliminated under my idea. If you wanted one you could get one from a church. I don't think it is the government's business to be marrying people, that is the job of churches (separation of Church and state and all that jazz).

Homosexual unions should be granted because equality is a good thing. Do you disagree?

My plan wouldn't destroy marriage, merely put it back where it belongs: in the hands of churches. Now, my idea isn't perfect. Gay and straight couples will not be viewed the same by people, but they will be viewed the same by the eyes of the law; that is what matters here.

Yah, he wants to abolish marriages and create a new system. Did you read his post?

Ummm....

No. Learn to read.

(Oh, and it's spelled delusional. If you are going to attack me, please spell it correctly.)

 

[Arwon]

Yah, he wants to abolish marriages and create a new system. Did you read his post?

Right, because changing the name on the government contract totally destroys something that predates monotheism let alone the modern state.

And other countries clearly have destroyed marriage by doing exactly what he suggested.

Pfft.

 

[West 36]

I'm here to express joy that Sweden did this (yay Sweden!) and so that I'll have this subscribed so I can continue to read all the fun things people that don't like this have to say.

 

[Winner]

And citizen is a name for a free, white, educated, property-owning male who has bribed us the right amount. It has always been that way.

Uhm, when you try to be sarcastic the next time, avoid being so obviously wrong.

no Kosovo

Good, nobody should have recognized it anyway.

 

[Snorrius]

My plan wouldn't destroy marriage, merely put it back where it belongs: in the hands of churches. Now, my idea isn't perfect. Gay and straight couples will not be viewed the same by people, but they will be viewed the same by the eyes of the law; that is what matters here.

They will not be seen as the same even by the eyes of the law - read my previous posts - because those two types of union are not even. In regular marriage there are man and woman, and woman is protected more in a lot of countries. In the same-sex union both parties are even, so laws should consider this. So even if same-sex couples will get the "word" marriages, they will not be really equal because it is unfeasible.

 

[Winner]

@Winner: I'm not saying that everything should change, but changes to move towards equality should take place.

Equality has been achieved by giving the same-sex couples right to enter into a legally recognized registred partnership in this country.

AFAIK, they have pretty much the same ceremonies and nobody here is crying and whining that a different legal term for their union makes them unequal. They're happy that the law recognizes their unions and the heterosexuals are happy that their marriage hasn't been devaluated. Everybody is happy.

... but hey, life would be boring if American (Anglo-Saxon) liberals had nothing to complain about, no injustice to fight, no minority to "save" and no rudeness to eradicate by proper application of political correctness...

 

[Leifmk]

My plan wouldn't destroy marriage, merely put it back where it belongs: in the hands of churches. Now, my idea isn't perfect.

"Your idea" is wrong and ignorant. (And keeps coming back up again again, I sincerely doubt you came up with it yourself.)

It is wrong and ignorant because marriage does not originally belong with "the churches", nor has it ever really historically been the province of the churches. In much (but never all) of Christian Europe, there was a period when you had to have a church ceremony for a marriage to be legally binding. This period began a while after the Reformation, and ended in most places some time between the late-18th and mid-19th centuries -- we're talking two or three centuries, at most, and it was over long before anyone now living was born. Clearly an anomalous state of affairs compared to the history of Christianity as a whole.