|
Hermetic posted:Wait, Germany? That's one of those things you never check on, because you just assume they've got that poo poo on lock... Germans are stuck on technicalities? 
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
Cocks Cable posted:Uhhh, so hi thread. When is Germany going to get gay married? It feels like they are very behind the western progress curve in this regard when you look at the West as a whole. If I didn't misread the translations from German, it seems their current problem is there's a pissing match going between parties not in government that have serious proposals to legalize it, and the parties in government that want to block it mostly to spite those other parties at this point. One presumes that if the coalition of those out of power and pushing the marriage bill win enough seats next election to be government, they'll do it as one of their first actions. But they're hardly alone among the west in terms of not having gay marriage already, shockingly few places have it:  Dark blue means same sex marriage is legal. The goldish color indicates that laws have been passed legalizing it but they haven't taken effect yet - I believe both countries and the other minor areas in that color right now are doing it in 2017. Light blue is civil unions only. The teal blue color indicates that you can't get same sex married in that place, but if you get same-sex married somewhere else it's considered legal and valid. Notice especially that Australia has refused to legalize despite NZ doing it a bit ago. It totals to about 19 countries where it's fully legal, a few more where it's mostly legal (like Mexico, or how some segments of the total United Kingdom don't have it quite yet), and then 2 or so countries where it's guarenteed to be legal soon. Out of 196 countries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
gently caress yeah  Fun fact: the Dutch Reformed Church (NGK) (one of the major pillars of support for apartheid) was also a major supporter of the apartheid regime's criminalization of homosexuality. Last fall when I was visiting some family out there, it made front page news that the NGK had just voted to fully recognize gay marriage  E: drat okay I guess I misremembered the newspaper article I read, looking it up now it seems the NGK voted that committed sexual relationships outside of marriage are no longer sinful and that they recognize homosexual married couples as having a nonsinful committed sexual relationship that doesn't impair their standing in the church but is somehow still not equivalent to biblical marriage. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Holy poo poo. A week ago, 49 people were murdered in cold blood in the worst mass shooting in American history and people are getting all bent out of sorts about an rear end in a top hat on the internet? gently caress you
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:You're right and I apologize for that. I tone that gently caress you down to "You're still kind of an rear end"
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:gently caress you Nah, he's right. The Insect Court is dishonest scum who doesn't deserve being treated as anything other than a blatant and mindless troll. Defending him is beyond foolish.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:gently caress yeah South Africa still first republic in world to legalize same-sex marriage, so still applicable.Fairly sure that the Isle of Man should stop being gold and start being dark blue if not now then in a couple months. They also passed civil partnerships for all couples, so same sex and mixed sex partnerships can be equal in whichever way they want. Northern Ireland needs to get their poo poo together on multiple issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
To end the sad saga of the Treviso pride parade (which was held last Saturday): The parade went fine. I'm led to believe that organizers asked participants to maintain "sobriety and decorum", which if true makes me angry. The unsaid part is "or they might not authorize the parade next year", after veiled threats of gang violence and terrorist attacks from former mayor Giancarlo Gentilini and (in a curious twist) the indignation of a local skinheads chapter, and a last minute change to the parade's route (unrelated to security issues, if you were wondering). Former lefebvrian priest Floriano Abrahamowicz crawled out of his hole to release a statement against the parade and announce a special mass to ask god forgiveness, to a collective yawn Anyway, as I said the parade went fine. These goobers protested it, unchallenged by police who usually disperse counter-protests:  It's reported that they brought prayer beads and prayed for the participants, pleading them to "purify" themselves. Local newspaper La tribuna di Treviso did not report on the prayer group, they did instead creatively crop/frame a photo to misrepresent an ironic lesbian pride sign as a "dissident" sign:  ("we soberly like pussy (among other things)") A full photo:  You can't make this poo poo up After the parade, one of the organizers was surrounded by a dozen men and beat up (nothing serious fortunately, just some bruises and a big scare). Impossible to tell if it was a fascist gang or just an unremarkable group of perfectly average town boys. The area is full of CCTV cameras so they could possibly be identified My city's parade is this Saturday, wish us luck Bonus homophobic propaganda from around Treviso   🎭 Dramatis personae locique 🎭 Treviso: backwards shithole in the Italian north-east (Italy's "guns and bibles" area. Other notable features: industrial, formerly rural; Protestant work ethic; secessionist). Has a moderate mayor after 19 years of fascist government. Giancarlo Gentilini: former mayor and deputy mayor of Treviso for nearly 20 years combined. Proud unapologetic gun-toting fascist and racist (was sentenced three times for incitement to racial hatred), outright called for the ethnic cleansing of the Treviso province (multiple times, he really likes the sound of "ethnic cleansing"). Some of his greatest hits from interviews: believes a communist conspiracy is behind immigration waves from Africa; wants to hunt immigrants (in jackrabbit costumes) for sport; is racist against imported dogs; wants "double zero" tolerance for Roma. Utter shithead Floriano Abrahamowicz: former Prior of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, excommunicated. Holocaust denier, Nazism/Fascism apologist, Austrian-born but enthusiastically adopted by the Italian north-east as a moral authority. Shithead among the shitheads Fraternity of Saint Pius X, most commonly "the Lefebvrians": a religious society, they identify as Roman Catholic but were expelled from the church after Vatican II. Welcomed back by Benedict XVI but not fully reconciled yet (they won't compromise on doctrine - in their words, they won't give in to "liberalism and modernism"). Holocaust deniers; vocal antisemites known to the ADL and SPLC. The church of choice of hard-right European parties (Front National, Liga Polskich Rodzin, Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski, Forza Nuova, Lega Nord). In other words, too extreme for the Catholic church, and Abrahamowicz was too extreme for them
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 11:27
|
|
|
Gays hate pederasts?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 11:52
|
|
|
fishmech posted:If I didn't misread the translations from German, it seems their current problem is there's a pissing match going between parties not in government that have serious proposals to legalize it, and the parties in government that want to block it mostly to spite those other parties at this point. One presumes that if the coalition of those out of power and pushing the marriage bill win enough seats next election to be government, they'll do it as one of their first actions. That amuses me. "I WANT TO GIVE THEM MARRIAGE!" "OVER MY DEAD BODY!! I WANT TO DO IT.". We're too popular. VitalSigns posted:gently caress yeah Yeah, SA is cool in a lot of ways, from what a former colleague told me. She hates the African "huts and spears" stereotype with a white-hot rage. Italy, like Turkey and Russia, is one of the few places that legitimately scare me.They seem to be going far-right really fast, and I'm pretty terrified of what could come of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
Hermetic posted:
Yeah, Italy sure terrorized the world last time they went far-right. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
Hermetic posted:Yeah, SA is cool in a lot of ways, from what a former colleague told me. She hates the African "huts and spears" stereotype with a white-hot rage. Paradoxically the old NGK was probably one of the main driving forces behind the adoption of LGBT rights, by combining homophobia with support for apartheid, the two became somewhat entwined in popular thought, so after the first full elections and the new constitution in the mid 90s there was an attitude of "yeah gently caress everything they supported." And so gay rights happened. I think that was the first time in the world that a national constitution protected against sexual orientation discrimination on the same level as race. Outside of the courtrooms though, there's still a lot of room for progress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Yeah, Italy sure terrorized the world last time they went far-right. They don't have to invade Northern Africa to terrorize LGBT people and refugees, dude.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The public perception of the 'acceptability' of LGBT people is still a fair bit lower in SA to the US, but progress is being made. It's certainly a lot better than when you start heading further north. Oh, yeah, I didn't mean that they were a gay utopia...We're only a few years out from reports of corrective gang rape reaching the US, if memory/media awareness serves. However, I meant in general they defy the stereotypical depictions of Africa that you get out of Americans most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
fishmech posted:If I didn't misread the translations from German, it seems their current problem is there's a pissing match going between parties not in government that have serious proposals to legalize it, and the parties in government that want to block it mostly to spite those other parties at this point. One presumes that if the coalition of those out of power and pushing the marriage bill win enough seats next election to be government, they'll do it as one of their first actions. Not exactly. Basically, the current ruling coalition consists of the moderately conservative CDU and the moderately progressive SPD. The other two parties currently in parliament are the fairly progressive Greens and Left. SPD, Greens and Left are all pretty outspokenly in favour of opening the marriage, whereas the CDU is somewhat split on the issue, to the tune of about a 50-50 to 60-40 split of their members being against/for. So if you were to just throw an appropriate proposal into parliament tomorrow and let everyone vote on it how they feel like, chances are good it would actually pass. The reason why no real headway has been made yet despite all this is because the coalition agreement between SPD and CDU included a part about not going for full marriage equality. So the SPD can't make a proper push for it without risking their coalition. The split you have seen may be referring to the differences between the upper (Bundesrat) and lower houses (Bundestag). Basically, the upper house currently has a healthy majority in favour of marriage equality, whereas the lower house is dealing with the aforementioned clusterfuck. So you'll occasionally see the upper house make some noise about throwing a proposal into the mix to see what happens. Perestroika fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Not exactly. Basically, the current ruling coalition consists of the moderately conservative CDU and the moderately progressive SPD. The other two parties currently in parliament are the fairly progressive Greens and Left. SPD, Greens and Left are all pretty outspokenly in favour of opening the marriage, whereas the CDU is somewhat split on the issue, to the tune of about a 50-50 to 60-40 split of their members being against/for. So if you were to just throw an appropriate proposal into parliament tomorrow and let everyone vote on it how they feel like, chances are good it would actually pass. The reason why no real headway has been made yet despite all this is because the coalition agreement between SPD and CDU included a part about not going for full marriage equality. So the SPD can't make a proper push for it without risking their coalition. The funny thing is I usually don't hear any straight and clear opposition to same-sex marriage in political discourse, but a lot of deflection. I think "but what about SINGLE MOMS?!" was popular for a while. There was that one CDU politician that said same-sex marriage would lead to legalising incest, but even her own party members distanced themselves from her for that. There's also the fact the Bundesverfassungsgericht in Karlsruhe, sorta kinda the Supreme Court of Germany, generally rules in favour of making marriage and civil union equal in terms of tax rights, inheritance rights and adoption rights (though only when adopting your partner's child). There's not even a whole lot of religious opposition to same-sex marriage, when even the evangelical Christian community in German speaks in favour of it (though only offers blessings but not weddings from what I can tell) and the Catholic Church mostly wrings their hands and speaks only in the vaguest term because a clear no would mean even more people saying gently caress you and quitting the church. It feels like there's so little actually stopping us from having same-sex marriage that it continuously amazes me that we don't have it yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Not exactly. Basically, the current ruling coalition consists of the moderately conservative CDU and the moderately progressive SPD. The other two parties currently in parliament are the fairly progressive Greens and Left. SPD, Greens and Left are all pretty outspokenly in favour of opening the marriage, whereas the CDU is somewhat split on the issue, to the tune of about a 50-50 to 60-40 split of their members being against/for. So if you were to just throw an appropriate proposal into parliament tomorrow and let everyone vote on it how they feel like, chances are good it would actually pass. The reason why no real headway has been made yet despite all this is because the coalition agreement between SPD and CDU included a part about not going for full marriage equality. So the SPD can't make a proper push for it without risking their coalition. Thank you for that. Like I said, I was only able to go through auto-translated german news articles and a few english ones, and it was all rather unclear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
a cartoon duck posted:The funny thing is I usually don't hear any straight and clear opposition to same-sex marriage in political discourse, but a lot of deflection. I think "but what about SINGLE MOMS?!" was popular for a while. There was that one CDU politician that said same-sex marriage would lead to legalising incest, but even her own party members distanced themselves from her for that. You know Germans...They're all about laziness, procrastination and inefficiency.  Actually, and this is without an in-depth understanding of German culture, mind, I could see marriage not being a huge deal in the environment you describe. Civil unions seem to be legitimately on par with het marriage, and you don't have to worry about a pack of batshit crazy fundamentalist politicians making them unequal out of some twisted ambition to turn the country into a theocracy, so there's really no huge rush, unless you're hung up on semantics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
Hermetic posted:You know Germans...They're all about laziness, procrastination and inefficiency. Yeah, wouldn't want to be too uppity, we should appreciate what we are given. It's just words after all. Is it possible for you to make a post in this thread that isn't backhanded?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Wooten posted:Yeah, wouldn't want to be too uppity, we should appreciate what we are given. It's just words after all. Nothing about that was backhanded, please shut the gently caress up forever you insufferable, idiotic pissbaby. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Hermetic posted:Nothing about that was backhanded, please shut the gently caress up forever you insufferable, idiotic pissbaby. Nice meltdown 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Wooten posted:Nice meltdown I agree, your meltdown was hilarious. Now please leave, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Hermetic posted:You know Germans...They're all about laziness, procrastination and inefficiency. lmao you are literally defending civil unions as being separate from but equal to marriage, is this fuckin real stop being an rear end in a top hat, and stop responding to all criticism by dismissing everyone who complains as a whiner
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:lmao you are literally defending civil unions as being separate from but equal to marriage, is this fuckin real Bu..but separate but equal 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Bu..but separate but equal I'm sorry if that's how I came across. It was more "I can see why they're not in a rush to fix it immediately, despite being fairly progressive", not "This never needs to be fixed, separate but equal is awesome!". (Though, to be honest, I'd rather just see state marriage obliterated and replaced with civil unions for everybody. I'm sure that the troupe of crazies that follows me from thread to thread will find that awful, but whatever, there's a reason I have them on ignore.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Hermetic posted:Though, to be honest, I'd rather just see state marriage obliterated and replaced with civil unions for everybody. Oh word?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Hermetic posted:I'm sorry if that's how I came across. It was more "I can see why they're not in a rush to fix it immediately, despite being fairly progressive", not "This never needs to be fixed, separate but equal is awesome!". You're one of those nutcases that thinks governments shouldn't be allowed to marry and marriage is a religious institution aren't you? OR. You could just let gays marry. Because this is a childish line of inquiry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Hermetic posted:I'm sorry if that's how I came across. It was more "I can see why they're not in a rush to fix it immediately, despite being fairly progressive", not "This never needs to be fixed, separate but equal is awesome!". There is absolutely no good reason to abolish state marriage, a concept which is older than religious marriage by far.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Hermetic posted:Though, to be honest, I'd rather just see state marriage obliterated and replaced with civil unions for everybody. e: Both in civil and religious contexts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I'd agree with that. The word comes with a whole lot of baggage of transferring virgin daughters as chattel from their fathers to their husbands and all that poo poo for my liking. How do you feel about the word "queer"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
As in 'queer theory' or as in being yelled from a passing car?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I'd agree with that. The word comes with a whole lot of baggage of transferring virgin daughters as chattel from their fathers to their husbands and all that poo poo for my liking. No it really doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:As in 'queer theory' or as in being yelled from a passing car? Well that's the whole point, isn't it? Being concerned about "marriage" being a loaded word seems odd when so much of the community is willing to embrace what was firmly a slur not long ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I'd agree with that. The word comes with a whole lot of baggage of transferring virgin daughters as chattel from their fathers to their husbands and all that poo poo for my liking. No. Marriage is not some Abrahamic religion thing, it occurs in one form or another in every culture on earth. You are being myopic on this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No it really doesn't. fishmech posted:state marriage, a concept which is older than religious marriage by far. Being as everyone has decided to redefine it as about love now, it's only fair that same word is allowed for both same and mixed sex partnerships, but some people still object to the historical connotations. I guess allowing all partnerships to choose between a 'marriage' and a 'civil union' would be the best case. Small Frozen Thing posted:No. Marriage is not some Abrahamic religion thing, it occurs in one form or another in every culture on earth. You are being myopic on this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
The argument that marriage has baggage doesn't really hold up. Marriage is heavily inter-twined with the idea of a mutually beneficial, consensual, relationship in the west. It's historical meanings and implementations, while not utterly irrelevant, do not have much bearing on how the word is used today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I never said it was Abrahamic or religious, just that it has historically been patriarchal and I understand why people object to that. It's not like we're trying to rehabilitate the KKK or the Swatstika. The vast majority of people have positive views of the word marriage, so doing away with it because it was less equal previously is kind of silly. And even then, what does this actually have to do with gays demanding marriage equality? They want access to those rights and under the bonds of marriage, so it seems kind of silly for you to try to make this about "Well, but you see marriage is really unequal and sexist in the past, so nobody should have it". That's just shifting the goal posts. unwantedplatypus posted:The argument that marriage has baggage doesn't really hold up. Marriage is heavily inter-twined with the idea of a mutually beneficial, consensual, relationship in the west. It's historical meanings and implementations, while not utterly irrelevant, do not have much bearing on how the word is used today. This, exactly. Most humans view marriage positively.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I never said it was Abrahamic or religious, just that it has historically been patriarchal and I understand why people object to that. It was patriarchal because it occurred in patriarchal societies! Oh my god, you can't be this dense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:It was patriarchal because it occurred in patriarchal societies! Oh my god, you can't be this dense. I admit that it's probably far too ingrained to just scrap it, but there are countries in Europe offering that alternative to all partnerships, which is a good step.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:And still carries those connotations for some people, because we still live in a society that carries a lot of those trappings. You can see why people might want an arrangement that escapes that word, right? It carries that implication for people who don't understand anthropology or sociology and want to lash out pointlessly against words instead of reclaiming them, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:21
|
|