I've had a great time reading back through it. Found a post of my own on page 18 that I'd totally forgotten about
Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Gannicus
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I've had a great time reading back through it. Found a post of my own on page 18 that I'd totally forgotten about
So @Jerch, you don't want comment on Janek then? I realise you never addressed the issue with Novak either.
Considering those conceded, the amount of proof you have provided to back up your views is back down to ZERO
Considering those conceded, the amount of proof you have provided to back up your views is back down to ZERO
Last edited:
In Slovenia people said NO to Gay Marriage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After 94% of votes counted the result are:
Glasovi ZA (YES) 207.713 36,98 %
Glasovi PROTI (AGAINST) 354.004 63,02 %
A little less than 345 000 people or 1/5 of the people who have voting right had to vote against. It is all done, let's have a party now!
After 94% of votes counted the result are:
Glasovi ZA (YES) 207.713 36,98 %
Glasovi PROTI (AGAINST) 354.004 63,02 %
A little less than 345 000 people or 1/5 of the people who have voting right had to vote against. It is all done, let's have a party now!
Wouldn't party too long mate, that's a higher percentage of yeses than there would have been in the past and it'll only increase.
No it was 45% of YES the last time. And I don't give a shit, left parties done shit job recently and it will be a long long time until they again have any say!
So, you're partying a temporary victory? It's inevitable mate, just accept it.
Sorry I have about 50% of the people in this thread on ignore so I don't know what are you talking about. Just saw that comment becouse I enabled to see Sliva post who is also on ignore.So @Jerch, you don't want comment on Janek then? I realise you never addressed the issue with Novak either.
Considering those conceded, the amount of proof you have provided to back up your views is back down to ZERO
I still agree with this handsome fellow.
Gonna be a lonely thread for you
Oh really? I thought you said there'd be a new law within months?
??
What does that even mean? You're not ignoring me. I took apart the Dr Janek article you posted. That's what I'm talking about you ignoring.
Congrats on being poster children for bigoted hardline Christians across America. You think you've had a victory for children, but in their sermons they'll smear ye as a shining light of homophobia to add weight to their own vile ends. That's all they care about and as far as they'll spread far and wide, you rejected gay people. That's how most of the world will see it too. I can see the videos now!
Yeah I am ignoring you. Ups. You could still click to see ignored messages if you don't understand it.
Yes new law will be offered to ČasjeZa! group, to give them every right except marriage (they have registration) and kids. I support that, their status need to be resolved in a normal law which have only benefits.
from: http://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/referendum/primc-zmagovalec-referenduma-so-otroci/381608
Google translate so you will not say I am correcting anything. So you can understand it:
tied=equal (every economic and social rights for homosexuals in Slovenia which are not alredy equal)
from: http://www.24ur.com/novice/slovenija/glede-izida-referenduma-sta-obe-strani-optimisticni.html
Again google translate without editing.
Some people stand behind what they say. On the other hand people from ČasjeZA! talked how we must accept the referendum result (they didn't believed for a second that enough people will vote against) and now when they lost they talk about how they will fight further. Hm where did go words about accepting the opinion of the 2/3 people with voting % higher than in any other referendum in last years.
And back to ignore all your deluded people who don't really know what is human right and what is not, people who don't know that in some cases making clear difference is must, people who ignore kid's right to father and mother, etc.
In Slovenia they talked a lot about adopting kid's from other countries (because an argument, that kids from Slovenia who don't have families will get them with this law is useless - more than 500 hetero couples waiting for adoption and just over 10 adoption per year) but forget that Russia and other countries from which we adopt the most kid's have laws, that you can't adopot kid if your country accept same sex marriages.
Like on this very forum, on every forum in Slovenia people who are for Gay Marriages were extremely vocal how people against are backwards and in minority but it showed who is in minority.
And again, all is aceptable even on this forum if you are for Gay Marriages, insulting is a must. You who are for Gay Marriages insulted me for discrimination gay people, and in same sentence discriminate me baised on my religion and nationality. Where did equality went?
As I said, back to ignoring all you people, who can't have a fair disscusion without casual insulting.
I think it's amazing how you manage to both ignore and mis-understand every single time you post.
From the OPPOSITION leaders, and in the case of NSi, the minority-minority-minority opposition leader, as I pointed out. They have no power to make that decision. She even used "expect". But, I guess that is probably one of the posts you have chosen to ignore. I expect you also ignored the post where I made the point, if a referendum could be called over this law change, why not the next one also?
If you believe that, why not leave it as it stands? Why are you talking about new law changes above?
And back to your ignoring of, well, everything. Literally.
You conveniently forget there is already gay adoption in your country. And this referendum today actually will not stop it.
http://www.sloveniatimes.com/first-adoption-by-gay-partner-of-child-s-parent
When did I insult you? People have pointed out you want to restrict people's choice, and being very specific, restricting a choice that will have zero bearing on your actual life. There's terms in the dictionary for that and if you're uncomfortable with that, tough.
The language of this tweet says it all for me:
"Normal" Slovenia
"Normal" Slovenia
@Jerch
I imagine this has been explained many times already but I just want you to think about what a yes vote would mean for the future. Gay people would be accepted officially by the majority of people and in a very public way. Gay people have and always will be around and now finally they would have equal rights like the rest of us. This means that in the next generation there would be no stigma attached to being gay and therefore kids won't get bullied over it.
You say you are worried about children? What about those 10% who grow up ashamed of what they are because of these archaic attitudes?
Slovenia, just like every other country in the world some day, will have its own historic day and I hope by then you will realise the importance of it
I imagine this has been explained many times already but I just want you to think about what a yes vote would mean for the future. Gay people would be accepted officially by the majority of people and in a very public way. Gay people have and always will be around and now finally they would have equal rights like the rest of us. This means that in the next generation there would be no stigma attached to being gay and therefore kids won't get bullied over it.
You say you are worried about children? What about those 10% who grow up ashamed of what they are because of these archaic attitudes?
Slovenia, just like every other country in the world some day, will have its own historic day and I hope by then you will realise the importance of it
He's worried about the children in the same way all anti campaigners are - by ignoring all known evidence to the contrary that there's any difference whatsoever between children in either type of family.
@unchanged_lineup I think you've shown sufficiently in this thread how wrong and misguided he is, not that anyone with a functional mind can't see it.
Some people just prefer to live in their own bubble. Leave them be, progress and society at large will move past them, sooner or later.
Some people just prefer to live in their own bubble. Leave them be, progress and society at large will move past them, sooner or later.
Don't worry, his kids will find out soon enough.
Absolute bollocks. I have been the mother to my two boys, and been the Father too. I changed both of their nappies from birth, registered both their births, one of them I did on my own, took them both for their Doctors appointments and vaccinations, cared for them when they were ill, took them to school and picked them up and cooked for them every night. I took them to hospital when they were hurt or sick, tucked them in at night and read them stories, clothed them, taught them and done pretty much everything a Mother would do except actually carry them and then give birth to them.
Sorry, but I find your posts extremely offensive and seriously uninformed. You are having a go at people for not having experience to back up what they are saying, yet at the same time you are doing exactly that.
Me, I've already posted here since you posted this, but you chose to ignore it.
Let me break this one down.
First, there are many here that have said they are parents, it just appears you have chosen to ignore their comments.
Next, It's not a big problem for the LGBT, more people with your attitudes are a problem for them. I know two gay nursery teachers, and two gay teachers, and I live in a pretty small quiet area of Southern England. I guarantee you that your kids are being taught or will be taught by a gay teacher at one time or another, but you won't know this because it's doubtful they will come out. The point being though, is that gay people will know exactly what a child will need. Parental instinct is present in the majority of people, gay or straight.
I also posted what kids really need a couple of pages back, and it has feck all to do with one parent having a twig and giggleberries and the other having a vagina.
That's a pretty disgusting attitude to have. Certainly offensive. You seem to moan about getting abuse in this thread, yet quite freely post incredibly insensitive and offensive stuff with absolutely no hint of irony or understanding how upsetting it may be.
It's laugh at the ones from ČasjeZA! campaign who started inviting people to the after referendum party week before referendum. Probably this won't be the best party in town now.
I won't start to argue about other things because the last time I caught myself doing that I was called a bad parent in about 5 different ways which hurted me a lot.
Well that's fine, but it's clear that you are wrong. My eldest lad just read my post and said it's true, you have been my mother and father. He then gave me a hug before punching my arm and saying "that's enough soppy shit, old man" My boys, and many others out there, prove my point, I don't need you to argue it.
Yes. Lets celebrate voting apathy and bigotry.
They will be giving women, blacks and the Irish the vote next.
Shut up and get back in the kitchen wom ..... wait a minute ..... you said you are a man ...... stop messing with my mind maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!!!!
I don't really want to go into a deep debate.
1. I do recognize the fact that gay people do live together and form long-lasting relationship. They should have a right to get medical information about their partner, inherit possessions in case of death etc. There is no doubt in my mind about this.
2. Marriage has a religious origin, it was a relationship of a man and woman sanction before God and relevant religion. Please keep it this way.
3. I'm all for civil relationships - if the state sanctions gay "marriages" , three-some "marriages' - I'm fine with this. I'm not going to get one. But please don't call it a "marriage" as to me it reffers to a man and woman taking oath befre God.
4. yes, I'm religious.
1. I do recognize the fact that gay people do live together and form long-lasting relationship. They should have a right to get medical information about their partner, inherit possessions in case of death etc. There is no doubt in my mind about this.
2. Marriage has a religious origin, it was a relationship of a man and woman sanction before God and relevant religion. Please keep it this way.
3. I'm all for civil relationships - if the state sanctions gay "marriages" , three-some "marriages' - I'm fine with this. I'm not going to get one. But please don't call it a "marriage" as to me it reffers to a man and woman taking oath befre God.
4. yes, I'm religious.
Marriage predates whichever particular religion you think owns it.
But nobody is talking about forcing religions to marry people. This is a discussion about the civil legal version of marriage. Under the law gay people shouldn't be second class citizens simply to keep religious bigots happy.
Yeah let's celebrate a country where part of its population isn't granted the same rights as another part, simply because of their sexual preference. How fecking backwards can you be.
This is something to be ashamed of, not something to celebrate.
That might well be what it means to you, but it is not what it has meant through history. This thread is well worth reading if you think that's the case.
Any mods watching, I've read through the whole thread lately and I'd be happy to threadmark the posts where people have included factual evidence, such as for the wrong info of Sunny Jim above.
He's not entirely wrong. The monogamous marriage we have now with all its baggages does have its origin with religion, or at least been associated and modified by it for so long that it doesn't really matter anyhow.
Call me a bigot, but as long as i have nothing against state recognized relationships between gay people i don't want that relationship called "marriage". That's all.
Well, i don't want to spoil your day but civil marriage was introduced by Napoleon Bonaparte in his Civil Code, article 165.
This is what I meant:
http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html
http://theweek.com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/20/historical-marriage-definitions_n_4589763.html
I totally realise you'll leap on that last one. But my point is to show i)god not involved and ii)the meaning changes over time.
It still took place in a religious setting / place of worship or under the watchful eye of a religious priest or whatever (even though the marriage itself was political).
Babylon itself, ('the first city' and part of Mesopotamia), was a forerunner of most of civilisation, and they were absolutely steeped in ancient religions and traditions that others copied or were influenced by. Especially ancient civilisations who were slaves of superstition and didn't want to 'upset the gods'.
Great, so well done us for having parts of the world moved beyond that to such an extent that you can live your life not abiding by that and get by.
It's also hardly the god Sunny Jim meant, though I expect him to try to utilise that now.
Well, his point stands, doesn't it? The notion of marriage is and always has been under a religious sphere. Whether that religious sphere permits a marriage between 2 men, or 2 women, or 3+ people, or whatever combination is a different matter. If you want to remove all notion of a religious ceremony from a civil partnership between 2 men etc, I'm sure the 'religious bigots' wouldn't have any issue with that (which is what SunnyJim has been arguing).
Well, you admit that while under the watchful eye of a representative of whatever religion, it had a political function. And the functions that it has had over the past 4000 years would be anathema to most modern devout catholics, for example. A case in point is that if you want to accept that it had to be blessed by a religious functionary, you also must accept that throughout history they blessed marriages of two men, polygamy, marrying ghosts (in China) etc.
Its function has changed and changed and not always followed the rules that people who don't want gay marriage today follow themselves.
For example:
http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/12. Aboriginal Marriages and Family Structures/marriage-traditional-aboriginal-societie
I'm not religious. I want gay people to have the same rights as me. I'm not asking anything of any church, I'm asking it of the state. What's standing in the way is etymology, is that what you're saying? That would be pretty childish seeing as equalising the marriage situation would only denigrate it in the minds of those who let it because we're just talking about a word here.
By the way, I'd love to read up on anything you have that says religion has always been involved.
Last edited:
Shut up and get back in the kitchen wom ..... wait a minute ..... you said you are a man ...... stop messing with my mind maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!!!!
It's important to note that within the churches itself, marriage has changed I.e divorce, annulment. Also, the LGBTQ community isn't asking to be married by the churches, that's a personal choice for the couples and the clergymen. They are asking to be afforded the same rights conferred upon by the state to hetero couples. If you want to change civil union, change it so that the word 'marriage' doesn't exist in the laws anymore. Of course, everybody realize what a hassle it would be, so we just make the current version of marriage available for the LGBTQ instead.
It had a political function but a religious setting. You will not find an example in that part of history of a man and a woman getting married without a religious component. Every civilisation had a religious setting, or a religious 'face' to the marriage. Even though it had a political backbone, the trimmings were all religious ceremonies, or connotations. Even if the religion was farcical itself, it still had that component.
On your last point - I'll source some stuff from you when I'm home from work. If you want to read about Ancient Babylonia in particular, and how it was the first city / civilisation, I have some interesting stuff, but marriage is a minor part of it.
Anyway - my involvement in this thread was just to talk about how religion and marriage are intertwined, and to this day still are, as SJ mentioned.
Edit: And tbh nothing material is really standing the way. What is the difference between a civil partnership and a marriage (registration)? I'm assuming there are different tax laws, but I don't know if there is anything else. Can you explain?
Cheers, I appreciate it. Just highlighted two things there in your post that I don't think are too far from what I'm thinking or what I'm about to argue.
If we're going that broad, let's call Secularism a new "religion", because if we're binding together all past religions to say that there's always been a "religion" involved in marriage, you'd have to admit the range of beliefs we're talking about here is vast. The one and only thing they have in common would be "someone/something/someones/somethings are bigger than me and I worship him/her/it/them". Literally.
If that's the case, then I think the state is bigger than me. I think equal society is bigger than me. We consecrate marriage under the state with an empowered functionary in a designated setting, too, just like the religions do. If we're throwing every religion from Aboriginals to Sumarians to Confucionists to Catholics into this mix, I don't think what I'm saying is such a big leap and I don't think it's possible for modern-day Christians to deny me access to the word.