Cali on same-sex marriage

[TwinkieGorilla]

Uhm? What?! Buttsex owns.
Off topic, why does a blue state like Cali have a republican governor?

hmmm, yeah. why is there an immensely famous hollywood actor serving as governor of california. the very same california which includes hollywood.

 

[Neamos]

Hmmm yes why are liberal people voting for an actor, especially since he's a Republican.

Also didn't America learn anything about electing actors?

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

americans dumb and leik movies!

 

[welsh]

I suspect there is little more digusting to the average heterosexual that homosexual buttsex.

Arnold, for a Republican, rocks. The guy is an immigrant, comes to the US, works out, becomes Mr. Universe, becomes a successful movie star, makes millions in real estate, marries a Kennedy, and becomes Governor. Awesome.

 

[iii]

 

[Loxley]

Off topic, why does a blue state like Cali have a republican governor?

According to my california history proffesor when I was taking classes over there it is because:

1. When he got elected it was a question of him or the former democratic governor Gray Davis.Which would be the equalient of Bush running for a third term against anyone else.

2. He is in historical terms so far one of the better california governors. Not the best, but definitely not bad.

3. Arnold is as welsh mentioned the picture of the American dream.

 

[Bad_Karma]

Not only that, but he seems to be far enough on the left wing of the republicans to be also voted from people who are normally voting for democrats.
At least that's what i think of him... might be pretty wrong on that

---
By the way, the whole discussion it's fucking wrong if you use this 'it's natural' card...
Because natural doesn't mean "natural for humans", and it especially doesn't mean "normal".

Rape is natural (nearly all Orang Utan offprings stem from rapes).
Cannibalism is natural (not only insects but some more animals).
Killing of children from other males is natural (see the lions and to some degree even chimpansses and more).
Sex instead of saying Hello is natural (you know these monkies wich are doing it all the time to strengthen the social bonds?).
And so on and so on...

So screw your examples of gay monkes/dogs/giraffes/swans or whatever...

I personally don't care if they are married or not, but i don't get why they even want to be married.
Tax advantages?
I really think it's some form of mental weakness. Needing assurance that you're right and hoping that you then can tell other people that it's right and that they then would accept it... But the acceptance won't come from a law saying: "It's okay"...

But yeah, if they want too...

On the whole 'gay-movement'. It's the same as with the emancipation and other movements. They all are working for themselves. And therefore they are sometimes over the top with what they want, and of how important they think of themselves...

 

[Tagaziel]

By the way, the whole discussion it's fucking wrong if you use this 'it's natural' card...
Because natural doesn't mean "natural for humans", and it especially doesn't mean "normal".

Uh, what? Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, unlike the examples you quoted. Examples of homosexuality in nature are designed to counter the "unnatural" argument presented by conservorons.

Homosexuality is normal and definitely not an illness.

Rape is natural (nearly all Orang Utan offprings stem from rapes).
Cannibalism is natural (not only insects but some more animals).
Killing of children from other males is natural (see the lions and to some degree even chimpansses and more).
Sex instead of saying Hello is natural (you know these monkies wich are doing it all the time to strengthen the social bonds?).
And so on and so on...

So screw your examples of gay monkes/dogs/giraffes/swans or whatever...

Doesn't mean it's acceptable for humans to do. Again, homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone unlike the things you mentioned.

Why impose sanctions then?

I personally don't care if they are married or not, but i don't get why they even want to be married.
Tax advantages?

Right to being informed about the partner's health, right to inherit, ability to pay taxes as a couple rather than separately, equality before law... that's only a short list.

I really think it's some form of mental weakness. Needing assurance that you're right and hoping that you then can tell other people that it's right and that they then would accept it... But the acceptance won't come from a law saying: "It's okay"...

Thankfully we have more intelligent people in existence that understand that it isn't about assurance but about equality before law and basic human dignity.

Please present an argument WHY shouldn't same-sex marriage be introduced as an equal to opposite-sex marriage.

On the whole 'gay-movement'. It's the same as with the emancipation and other movements. They all are working for themselves. And therefore they are sometimes over the top with what they want, and of how important they think of themselves...

Oh yeah, demanding equal rights for women was really unimportant. Uhum. Right.

 

[Sander]

I don't really like this thing.
The main reason for marrige is to make a family, children.

This is wrong.
Marriage is not about having children, just like sex isn't about creating children either (for most people, that is). Marriage is about two people committing to eachother, and with that come a lot of benefits like tax adjustments, inheritance laws, giving your spouse the power to decide for you in cases where you are incapable of doing so (eg. you're in a permanent coma) and several other things like that.

Note: I don't have problem with homosexuals but they can't have children on their own (atleast in the near future) so why should they be marriged. Its a nonsense

They can adopt.

By the way, the whole discussion it's fucking wrong if you use this 'it's natural' card...
Because natural doesn't mean "natural for humans", and it especially doesn't mean "normal".

You're twisting this argument around. The only reason people come up with the examples of homosexuality in nature is in response to people going 'homosexuality is unnatural'.

 

[fedaykin]

On the whole 'gay-movement'. It's the same as with the emancipation and other movements. They all are working for themselves. And therefore they are sometimes over the top with what they want, and of how important they think of themselves...

AHAHA, that's the best laugh of the day.
Yeah, remember those selfish movements that demanded equal rights and de-segregation for black people? How DARE those egoistic fucks demand basic human rights! It's not like America is a democracy or something. Oh, wait...

 

[Bad_Karma]

Okay, just because i got tired writting my answer and than being looged off -_-
A bit shorter:

First to Azzly.. erm Grizzly - You know such personal attacks won't lead to you winning me over or such a thing? So please stop it... it's only mildly annoying.

Then on what's overall being said:
I never said that the nature card can be played from the other side. Because it's not usable, because examples from the animal world don't carry over in the human world.
Also it fucking doesn't matter if it hurt somebody. Necrophila and Canibalism on death also isn't hurting anybody.
So normal != natural and not hurting anyone.
I'm not against homsexual marriages (never said so).
You can gain most of the rights (not the taxes though) through other legal ways, at least in the civilised modern world, as far as i know.
A marriage between homosexuals and heterosexual couples are different. - possible children, you can screw around with it, as much as you want to, but it's a difference.
The marriage might actually stem from the traditional thought of defending it because, of possible offsprings. And therefore is antiquated for being defended by goverments.
I think we should cancel a lot of marriage-advantages and grant them to all couples (not especially married ones, but also long term ones and such) or bind them on having children (don't care if adopted or own...).
I didn't mean unimportant in the meaning of not being important, but in the meaning of thinking of oneself to high. You know, like a damn lot feminists thinking they did the whole work, while it was an invetable change after WW2, imho.

@Fedaykin i don't know if my english is that bad, or if your english ist that bad. But who cares... Just to clea it up again:
I didn't say they shouldn't demand the same rights, but i said they often end up in demanding more rights.
Black/Woman/Gay(?) quotas are not helping equality and you got them. Feminists are not working for real equality but for equality in the aspects they want to be equal in - or did you ever hear about someone demanding to have the same downsides (if there are some)?

But yeah you're all right, i'm a monster wich is against females, races and especially homsexuals -_-
So Thumbs up, either for my english, or for your text comprehension. Guess it's my english

 

[Sander]

You can gain most of the rights (not the taxes though) through other legal ways, at least in the civilised modern world, as far as i know.

Most, but not all. It also costs a lot more effort to get those rights if you're not married.

A marriage between homosexuals and heterosexual couples are different. - possible children, you can screw around with it, as much as you want to, but it's a difference.

Not all heterosexual couples are fertile, and homosexual couples can adopt and have children through other means.

The marriage might actually stem from the traditional thought of defending it because, of possible offsprings. And therefore is antiquated for being defended by goverments.
I think we should cancel a lot of marriage-advantages and grant them to all couples (not especially married ones, but also long term ones and such) or bind them on having children (don't care if adopted or own...).

This makes absolutely no sense if you think about it. You basically just said that every couple should have the same rights as a married couple, but without the institution of marriage existing.
What you're actually doing is expanding the institute of marriage by having every couple be married, instead of abolishing it.

Also, it's not useful as you remove certain distinctions between married couples and non-married couples that people like to keep open.

 

[Tagaziel]

First to Azzly.. erm Grizzly - You know such personal attacks won't lead to you winning me over or such a thing? So please stop it... it's only mildly annoying.

I don't need to win you over. You get the facts presented to you and it's up to you to wise up or not.

Then on what's overall being said:
I never said that the nature card can be played from the other side. Because it's not usable, because examples from the animal world don't carry over in the human world.

Utter failure. I see you don't understand the basic concept that human is an animal, and as an animal, is part of the animal kingdom.

Dude, stop with the antropocentrism.

Also it fucking doesn't matter if it hurt somebody. Necrophila and Canibalism on death also isn't hurting anybody.
So normal != natural and not hurting anyone.

Actually they are, if you took care to read up and understand that it's against the law, since it constitutes defacing human remains, and that is not a misdemeanor but a crime.

I'm not against homsexual marriages (never said so).
You can gain most of the rights (not the taxes though) through other legal ways, at least in the civilised modern world, as far as i know.

Actually no, you can't. If you die, your family has the right to inherit first, even if you wrote down that your partner should. Not to mention that in most cases your partner needs to write a proper statement, for example, for you to be informed about his health when in hospital. It's kind of hard to write one when you're in a coma, and most hospitals deny information if you're not part of the patient's family, no matter what paper you show.

A marriage between homosexuals and heterosexual couples are different. - possible children, you can screw around with it, as much as you want to, but it's a difference.

No, they are not. A marriage is identical for both opposite- and same-sex couples.

The marriage might actually stem from the traditional thought of defending it because, of possible offsprings. And therefore is antiquated for being defended by goverments.

Many first world countries already have a form of marriage or civil partnership available for same-sex couples. "Traditional" thought is already in retreat, despite what vocal conserves and Palpatine want you to think.

I think we should cancel a lot of marriage-advantages and grant them to all couples (not especially married ones, but also long term ones and such) or bind them on having children (don't care if adopted or own...).

Wouldn't it be cheaper and much less of a hassle to simply change a few words in law about marriages?

Except for Poland, where we'd need to revise the Constitution.

I didn't mean unimportant in the meaning of not being important, but in the meaning of thinking of oneself to high. You know, like a damn lot feminists thinking they did the whole work, while it was an invetable change after WW2, imho.

Feminists are a vocal minority.

@Fedaykin i don't know if my english is that bad, or if your english ist that bad. But who cares... Just to clea it up again:
I didn't say they shouldn't demand the same rights, but i said they often end up in demanding more rights.
Black/Woman/Gay(?) quotas are not helping equality and you got them. Feminists are not working for real equality but for equality in the aspects they want to be equal in - or did you ever hear about someone demanding to have the same downsides (if there are some)?

I do hope you're not saying we should ignore their work and goals totally.

But yeah you're all right, i'm a monster wich is against females, races and especially homsexuals -_-
So Thumbs up, either for my english, or for your text comprehension. Guess it's my english

Quick tip when writing about controversional subjects:

Ask yourself:

1. Does my post reflect what I want to say?
2. Can my post be easily misunderstood?
3. Does my post contain unintentional mistakes changing what I meant to write?

It does help.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

*sigh*

can we start instating a logic, reasoning and prejudice test as part of registration? this is hurting my international outlook on defunct cRPG communities (is joke). i'm starting to believe that half of you have actually never left your mother's basement.

*sigh*

most likely, half of you oppose it because you do not understand it intellectually (most of the other half being made up of parts ignorance, prejudice and self-proclaimed religious "morality"). i would only say, to those of you so eager to oppose the idea, "why not approach a gay couple and ask them what this all means to them?"

and don't stop there. ask a few. because really, that's who this is about...not you or me or our philosophies on how much or little relevance this has to gay couples.

 

[Bad_Karma]

@ Sander
Yes it's quite more difficult.
And that should be changed. It should be easy to give others the right to get informed about your health status, and it should be possible for good friends to drive with you in an ambulance waggon and such.

Not all heterosexual couples are fertile, and homosexual couples can adopt and have children through other means.

That's right. But a lot of people would say having problems with fertility is a problem. And that to be able adopting someone, someone would have had to father a child...
So i really think there's a difference.
But this difference is one that could legally be solved by binding advantages and such to the child.

-rest-
I wouldn't call it an expansions, but a legal opening. So to say you could choose different rights (some bond to duties) and such.
But to be honset, i don't really get you there.

I don't need to win you over. You get the facts presented to you and it's up to you to wise up or not.

Then give me facts i really can agree with or learn something from, and not only such i allready heard and disagree with

Utter failure. I see you don't understand the basic concept that human is an animal, and as an animal, is part of the animal kingdom.

Dude, stop with the antropocentrism.

There's differences in human and animal society.
Neither apes nor any other animal have a society that are resembling our really well. So you can't project their behaviour and 'morality' onto us, without making big/small errors.
You even make these errors when your projecting behaviour from one race of apes onto another. You can try to catch overall patterns, but also then you might make some mistakes.
Maybe my wording was to simple for you on that? I mean we can discuss to some extend how much of an animal a human is, but the wouldn't add to the discussion here i think. And therefore i would like to circumvent such deep discussions about it.

I agree that in nature there is homosexuality. But for me that doesn't mean it's natural for us, even while overall patterns are giving a hint in that direction....

Actually they are, if you took care to read up and understand that it's against the law, since it constitutes defacing human remains, and that is not a misdemeanor but a crime.

As there are laws against homosexuals in some countries. So it's a crime in some countries. Does that change anything? I guess not.
By the way, i think homosexual marriages are also more or less a crime in countries wich don't allow them. The only thing is, that doing something impossible isn't be able to avanged, no?
Because if you and your friend would pretend to be marriaged and illegal gain access to the advantages of a 'real' (the allowed ones) you would get a punishment, or am i wrong on that?

Actually no, you can't. If you die, your family has the right to inherit first, even if you wrote down that your partner should. Not to mention that in most cases your partner needs to write a proper statement, for example, for you to be informed about his health when in hospital. It's kind of hard to write one when you're in a coma, and most hospitals deny information if you're not part of the patient's family, no matter what paper you show.

As said i think in a lot countries you can, i though don't know every law.
And yes, i think it would be a fault on the hospitals side. By the way, that's not only a problem for homosexuals. So this shouldn't be only solved for them (by being able to marry).
It's a damn leg-work at the moment, so that's surely given.

No, they are not. A marriage is identical for both opposite- and same-sex couples.

Your opinion <-> My opinion, we won't met in the middle... so yeah.

Many first world countries already have a form of marriage or civil partnership available for same-sex couples. "Traditional" thought is already in retreat, despite what vocal conserves and Palpatine want you to think.

I know... i also know what some islanders in the caribean or such were making with their dead, or what Atzecs did with war 'prisoners', or what greek thought of young men...
But ask yourself does that really matter when were speaking mainly speaking about christian tradition?
Tradition allways get changed, mostly because of the social dynamic of humans yeah.

Wouldn't it be cheaper and much less of a hassle to simply change a few words in law about marriages?

Except for Poland, where we'd need to revise the Constitution.

Cheaper and less hassle ? Yes.
But it wouldn't reflect the change in society i think, while it should do that. And so i think when you're working on it, you could do it 'right' from the beginning.
Yes i might be wrong with this point, but that's at least my opinion.

Feminists are a vocal minority.

Okay, maybe i was taking this 'extreme' example to hard, but i meant such examples, as also some revolutionists who said/thought: 'The oppressed should now be some times the oppressors'.

I do hope you're not saying we should ignore their work and goals totally.

No. It helped and helps the society, but you need to watch very close what someone demands. And if the goals are really the right ones, or if they are off.
Because humans tend to search their own advanage, and i won't judge that to hard

So i hope this time it's understandable and okay

--addition edit--

Really it isn't only about them, but also about those who think of the marriages as the christian symbol it was for years.
I think they wouldn't be that angry if you had a bigger split between the govermental (?) institution of marriage and the religious one.
Or they would look really bad...

And yes, i way a ass about the resonons for homsexual couples wanting to marriage, but that might stem from the fact that i met a lot of more hetrosexual couples who said things like: "Why should we marriage? The only real advantage would be in the taxes".
So yeah, maybe my horizon was to short on that one.
But i still think there's also a portion of self-assurance. Judge me for that...

 

[Sander]

@ Sander
Yes it's quite more difficult.
And that should be changed. It should be easy to give others the right to get informed about your health status, and it should be possible for good friends to drive with you in an ambulance waggon and such.

Neat thought, but that's not really practical considering the insane amount of administration that costs.

That's right. But a lot of people would say having problems with fertility is a problem.

Having problems is indeed a problem. What the hell is your point?

And that to be able adopting someone, someone would have had to father a child...

That actually completely defeats the purpose of adopting a child, as most infertile couples who want children adopt.

It's also not a prerequisite in any part of the world, so your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

So i really think there's a difference.

That's because you're being stubborn without a reason.

There are no problems with straight couples getting married even though they're infertile, yet you insist that gays shouldn't get married because they can't have children either. *this makes no sense*.

But this difference is one that could legally be solved by binding advantages and such to the child.

Why would advantages that apply solely to two adults in a relationship need to be determined by their having a child? This makes even less sense.

-rest-
I wouldn't call it an expansions, but a legal opening. So to say you could choose different rights (some bond to duties) and such.
But to be honset, i don't really get you there.

You wanted to eliminate marriage, and then give all couples the same rights as married couples.
In effect,you're simply marrying every couple.

There's differences in human and animal society.
Neither apes nor any other animal have a society that are resembling our really well.

Actually, this is untrue, specifically if you look at societies in the past that had a very patriarchal hierarchy.

And, in case you hadn't noticed, many different cultures have different forms of society which also correspond to some animal kingdoms.

I agree that in nature there is homosexuality. But for me that doesn't mean it's natural for us, even while overall patterns are giving a hint in that direction....

Conservative estimates point to a 10% homosexuality ratio in humans. Entire societies were once based around homosexuality (see the ancient greeks). How you can possibly contend that it isn't natural is beyond me.

As there are laws against homosexuals in some countries. So it's a crime in some countries. Does that change anything? I guess not.
By the way, i think homosexual marriages are also more or less a crime in countries wich don't allow them. The only thing is, that doing something impossible isn't be able to avanged, no?
Because if you and your friend would pretend to be marriaged and illegal gain access to the advantages of a 'real' (the allowed ones) you would get a punishment, or am i wrong on that?

Erm, what's your point? Some societies deem that homosexuality is illegal, yes. So?

As said i think in a lot countries you can, i though don't know every law.

No, in most countries it is impossible to deny your family their part of an inheritance.

Your opinion <-> My opinion, we won't met in the middle... so yeah.

You haven't given one solid argument as to why there would be a difference.

I know... i also know what some islanders in the caribean or such were making with their dead, or what Atzecs did with war 'prisoners', or what greek thought of young men...
But ask yourself does that really matter when were speaking mainly speaking about christian tradition?
Tradition allways get changed, mostly because of the social dynamic of humans yeah.

Why would be speaking mainly about Christian tradition here?

Cheaper and less hassle ? Yes.
But it wouldn't reflect the change in society i think, while it should do that.

wat
Most countries have legalised homosexuality and the majority think homos are entitled to do whatever they want. How the hell would allowing gay marriage not reflect society?

 

[fedaykin]

@Fedaykin i don't know if my english is that bad, or if your english ist that bad. But who cares... Just to clea it up again:
I didn't say they shouldn't demand the same rights, but i said they often end up in demanding more rights.
Black/Woman/Gay(?) quotas are not helping equality and you got them. Feminists are not working for real equality but for equality in the aspects they want to be equal in - or did you ever hear about someone demanding to have the same downsides (if there are some)?

The problem wasn't your English (though it's a good idea to proofread posts - you make many typos), but that you phrased it like you were downplaying the importance of movements that demand social and legal equality for certain groups. And it still looks like you are. Speculation that they might end up demanding "more rights" is irrelevant to the matter. It is wrong to deny someone basic human rights just because there is a probability that he or she could end up putting forward excessive demands. There are always a few extremists in every group.

 

[Tagaziel]

I wouldn't call it an expansions, but a legal opening. So to say you could choose different rights (some bond to duties) and such.
But to be honset, i don't really get you there.

Neither do we.

Then give me facts i really can agree with or learn something from, and not only such i allready heard and disagree with

It's not my fault if you ignore scientific facts.

There's differences in human and animal society.

So?

Neither apes nor any other animal have a society that are resembling our really well. So you can't project their behaviour and 'morality' onto us, without making big/small errors.

Morality is a human, flawed concept.

Nature is amoral.

You even make these errors when your projecting behaviour from one race of apes onto another. You can try to catch overall patterns, but also then you might make some mistakes

Uh, what? How is that related?

Maybe my wording was to simple for you on that? I mean we can discuss to some extend how much of an animal a human is, but the wouldn't add to the discussion here i think. And therefore i would like to circumvent such deep discussions about it.

It's a *fact* that human is an animal. What's your point...?

I agree that in nature there is homosexuality. But for me that doesn't mean it's natural for us, even while overall patterns are giving a hint in that direction....

Oh gee, everything is contrary to what I think... oh yes, let's ignore it!

As there are laws against homosexuals in some countries. So it's a crime in some countries. Does that change anything? I guess not.

We're talking about the *first* world.

By the way, i think homosexual marriages are also more or less a crime in countries wich don't allow them. The only thing is, that doing something impossible isn't be able to avanged, no?

Nullum crimen sine lege.

Because if you and your friend would pretend to be marriaged and illegal gain access to the advantages of a 'real' (the allowed ones) you would get a punishment, or am i wrong on that?

You're not making a speck of sense. We can't pretend to be married and get the advantages, because either the act will not carry any consequences with it (due its "nonserious" character) or it will be in force and we're fucked.

You can't pretend to get married to get the benefits, you either are or are not. Binary situation.

As said i think in a lot countries you can, i though don't know every law.
And yes, i think it would be a fault on the hospitals side. By the way, that's not only a problem for homosexuals. So this shouldn't be only solved for them (by being able to marry).
It's a damn leg-work at the moment, so that's surely given.

Your point? It's a benefit of married couples. Forcing every couple to register to get benefits is... totalitarian.

Your opinion <-> My opinion, we won't met in the middle... so yeah.

What opinion? Law doesn't differentate between marriages for same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. You're making absolutely no sense.

I know... i also know what some islanders in the caribean or such were making with their dead, or what Atzecs did with war 'prisoners', or what greek thought of young men...
But ask yourself does that really matter when were speaking mainly speaking about christian tradition?
Tradition allways get changed, mostly because of the social dynamic of humans yeah.

What? You're not making any sense.

Cheaper and less hassle ? Yes.
But it wouldn't reflect the change in society i think, while it should do that. And so i think when you're working on it, you could do it 'right' from the beginning.
Yes i might be wrong with this point, but that's at least my opinion.

Don't hide behind "it's my opinion". You're not making sense and we're here to tell you about it.

So i hope this time it's understandable and okay

I now understand that you make no sense whatsoever.

Really it isn't only about them, but also about those who think of the marriages as the christian symbol it was for years.
I think they wouldn't be that angry if you had a bigger split between the govermental (?) institution of marriage and the religious one.
Or they would look really bad...

What? Marriages are already split.

 

[Madbringer]

You guys are so gonna burn in hell, like.

 

[Bad_Karma]

So because i see i'm wording things badly and i'm also confusing more and more things (i'm really sorry about), i will no give shorter answers. Hope it will then be better (Man must i look stupid now -_-).

@Sander

I don't know about the cost. I think it depends on the country (some with decend bureaucracy should be able to handle it without much more costs).

What i wanted to say with the fertile problem. There's also some different between fertige and infertile couples.
But it doesn't mean one is less worth the the other. And that advantages you can get as married couple because of a child should be bon to the child and not a marriage.

You wanted to eliminate marriage, and then give all couples the same rights as married couples.
In effect,you're simply marrying every couple.

Yes you're more or less right on that.

About the nature and homosexuality.
Again some bad wording, i believe it's natural (to some degree, because there also some problems arising from our society).
But it's not because the comparinson of animals to humans (you really have to be cautious with that. I mean you can't really project chimpansee behaviour onto Bonobo behaviour, and they're pretty close to each other).
And yes, sociological sciences are allways making generalizations and small errors, therefore i'm real cautious with estimations, if that helps you?

The law thing was an answer to grizzly...

Why would be speaking mainly about Christian tradition here?

I was confusing something there (as i said, i troubles me at the moment. I don't even know why).

wat
Most countries have legalised homosexuality and the majority think homos are entitled to do whatever they want. How the hell would allowing gay marriage not reflect society?

No! I mean going farther ahead. Not only granting marriage rights to homsexuals, but as said before, also to non-married long time relationships.
Because as far as i see it, at the moment there's a devlopment toward 'long-term' relationships without marriage.

---
@fedaykin
I will try to work on lowering my typo-ratio.

No, i hold the movements in high regard for gaining more rights, and i hope it will go on from here. But only in the right direction and quotas are not the right direction imho.

But you allways have some over-the-top (or as you put it 'There are always a few extremists in every group'.).

Really i'm someone who hold equal rights high. But it's hard to say "Yes we're heading to equality", when you see that's a lot of things are going wrong.
A example would be schools offering tons of extra courses helping courses to female, but not one to male children. Especially when there's allready some sort of equality reached.
---

But i guess we're leaving the topic, after i made an idiot out of myself, so if you further want to discuss something with me send me a PM...
I've made myself look dumb enough for now