Same-sex marriages in Sweden

victor

victor

Antediluvian as Feck
Orderite
Saw this on my newspaper feed on iGoogle (roughly translated)

"Seven out of 10 say yes to same-sex marriages

Christian Democrats only opponents; 'I'm a little surprised' - Parliament member Annelie Enochson."

That headline really made me laugh. It nicely portrayed the Christian Democrats (warning! Contradiction!) as silly, naive, and childish.

Honestly, why the hell would you mind same-sex marriages? It's this backwards protection of traditional institutions, that ceased to have any real meaning with the death of feudalism, I really don't get. It's probably the same people that honestly believe you can "un-gay" someone by sending them to therapy/church/concentration camps.

I think it's ridiculous to care about such trivial things as the institution of marriage or same-sex parents (which apparently doesn't really change much), something that doesn't affect anyone else, in such "modern" times.

Funny that if there were regulations against the slowdown of society's progress, 90% of all organized religions would go right out the door, along with people who have principles.

What do you all think about same-sex marriages?
 
Pray the gay away!

Same sex civil marriages should be possible. Religious marriages should be up to the church's doctrine representing the religion itself.

Funny that if there were regulations against the slowdown of society's progress, 90% of all organized religions would go right out the door
Click to expand...

This might be slightly off-topic, but here goes.

Nowadays? Maybe. I'm not a big fan of organized religion, but I acknowledge the fact it has mostly been a huge boon on science. Scriptoriums, libraries, monasteries devoted to research. Baghdad had an excellent establishment when it comes to mathematics.

Of course, there were people excommnicated, burnt alive for claiming discoveries that contraicted church dogma. Lots. That said, I don't think it's fair to present churches only from their negative impact.
 
Wooz said:
Of course, there were people excommnicated, burnt alive for claiming discoveries that contraicted church dogma. Lots. That said, I don't think it's fair to present churches only from their negative impact.
Click to expand...

There have been more people killed and tortured for non-religious ideologies (Nazism, Soviet communism) than people killed and tortured by religious ideologies.

But somehow, if you have some nutjobs who call themselves Christians and then proceed to attack Jerusalem or burn witches or whatever, it's blamed on the "sickness of religion", but when particularly non-religious or even anti-religious do the same only much worse, somehow their atheist nature doesn't factor into it.

I know, I know, in one case you can speak of religious motivations while in the other case the motivations lie outside any religious or non-religious matters wholesale. Except that's not really true, is it? The discourse of Soviet communism's specific atheism is as much "a wrong of atheism" as the opposite insanity of Muslims would be "a wrong of religion".

If Muslim extremism is an example of the flaws of religion, why aren't the Soviet horrors an example of the flaws of atheism?
 
If Muslim extremism is an example of the flaws of religion, why aren't the Soviet horrors an example of the flaws of atheism?
Click to expand...

We-ell, one could argue that communism, and Lenin/Stalin's cults were similar to a religion in establishing a quasi-theological dogma as to the teachings and teachers' infallibility.

Besides, aren't they said example?
 
Brother None said:
Wooz said:
Of course, there were people excommnicated, burnt alive for claiming discoveries that contraicted church dogma. Lots. That said, I don't think it's fair to present churches only from their negative impact.
Click to expand...

There have been more people killed and tortured for non-religious ideologies (Nazism, Soviet communism) than people killed and tortured by religious ideologies.

But somehow, if you have some nutjobs who call themselves Christians and then proceed to attack Jerusalem or burn witches or whatever, it's blamed on the "sickness of religion", but when particularly non-religious or even anti-religious do the same only much worse, somehow their atheist nature doesn't factor into it.

I know, I know, in one case you can speak of religious motivations while in the other case the motivations lie outside any religious or non-religious matters wholesale. Except that's not really true, is it? The discourse of Soviet communism's specific atheism is as much "a wrong of atheism" as the opposite insanity of Muslims would be "a wrong of religion".

If Muslim extremism is an example of the flaws of religion, why aren't the Soviet horrors an example of the flaws of atheism?
Click to expand...

Hey bud- potential falacity here as you are trying to draw a comparison between mass murder done by secular and non-secular ideologies. The problem is that our historical records of non-secular mass murder are sketchy at best. Accurate historical records are probably good for only a few hundred years, during which time one could argue mankind is moving away from supernatural beliefs.

I also agree with Wooz on this one- Given the teleological endpoint of the more hard core of communist and other ideological movements- worker's paradise, 1000 year Reich or whatever ideology was utilized to justify the Khymer Rouge- the extremist of these movements are not so different than non-secular extremists. All are based on some ideological dogma that purports the use of violence.
 
I have a couple gay couples in my neighborhood, I could care less about them since they are clean and quiet and leave me alone. These people should not be denied the legal rights of a spouse.

However, I don't think two men or two women is a marraige. Civil union whatever you want to call it, why do they want to define themselves using straight criterea and nomenclature?

And where does it end?
Are we not opening the door for three way marraiges? Interspecies marraige?

Who are we to judge, or deny a guy that wants to marry his cocker spaniel just because it doesn't fit into our outdated, closeminded judeo-christian concept of marraige? :shock: "Interracial marraige was outlawed at one point too in some states".

Seriously though, marraige is a man and a woman, give the queers civil unions and the legal rights that come with it. If their church or whatever wants to recognoze them as married, more power to them.

Meanwhile we have a war going on, the economy is slowly circling the drain, we have massive forign debt, an aging population, millions without health insurance, the planet is fucked, social security system will go bankrupt, need I go on...

Gay marraige should be low on the "to do" list for politicians, but instead they'd rather pander to the bible-thumpers.
 
I agree that gay marriage should be a low point on the "to do" list. But that's because I think its a non-issue.

Marriage is a legal and civil union. It can be a religious union as well, but in a state of divided church and state, the church may define marriage in a religious way, the state should define it as a matter of civil rights.

If you don't allow gays to marry, you essentially deny gays the right to associate as they wish, you curb their right to free speech, and you deny them family rights enjoyed by hetrosexuals.

Essentially you create a system of two classes in which gays are denied rights simply because- by choice or genetics, they choose life partners of the same sex.

Granted, we deny felons the right to vote as a result of them being criminals. But are you suggesting we place gays in a similar category as criminals.

If not, what justifies denying gays the same rights enjoyed by everyone else in society?

And if you are going to create a test for the right to marry and have raise children, then perhaps we should deny unfit hetrosexuals couples the right to have children too. To be honest, I know quiet a few homosexuals who are reasonable, rational and well adjusted people living productive lives. I know a lot more hetrosexuals who don't and are complete assholes.

I think it better that we deny all assholes, regardless of sexual orientation, the right to marry and have families.

But until then, I will be damn if I ever support a government based on a constitution that embraces equality, liberty and justice, the power to deny homosexuals the right to family and marriage merely because it seeks to cater to a population of religious conservatives.

While I agree that gay marriage should be low on our "to do" list, defending our society against a government that seeks to deny fundamental rights to a minority class, a government that furthers the what is called in the Federalist Papers, a tyranny of the majority, is worth defending.

Do you really want to cut into those rights of family?
 
welsh said:
And if you are going to create a test for the right to marry and have raise children, then perhaps we should deny unfit hetrosexuals couples the right to have children too.
Click to expand...

I've been in favour of this for some time, since our currently malraised generation might actually turn out to be a large sociological problem in the near future.

But for some reason, procreation is a "right" rather than something you should earn, let alone a "duty". Typical idiocracy.
 
Brother None said:
Wooz said:
Of course, there were people excommnicated, burnt alive for claiming discoveries that contraicted church dogma. Lots. That said, I don't think it's fair to present churches only from their negative impact.
Click to expand...

There have been more people killed and tortured for non-religious ideologies (Nazism, Soviet communism) than people killed and tortured by religious ideologies.
Click to expand...
Err...
Nazis were religious and anti-atheist - most of Germans were Christians - they even created their own version of Christianity that teached about Nordic Jesus.
Even without Christian religion, there was a cult of Adolf Hitler, so they weren't non-religious.
 
I'm completely against the legal establishment of marriage in all contexts. Marriage is between a man and woman and their respective church and should have little or no connection with the law in any way. That goes for three way, bestiality, and gay marriage too. This is not the place for laws to interfere, it is not a community decision who weds who, and it is not a governments job or purpose to regulate or file peoples respective marriages. In America, married couples get lots of tax benefits, which I also think are pointless. The idea is that if two people are married, they can file taxes as a single taxpayer, or get insurance as a single entity. Once again, this should have nothing to do with the state, although in the cases of PARENTS I could see letting people receive tax benefits. But parenting and marriage is not synonymous.
 
Uh, yes, yes, that's all very fine and dandy, and I agree the state shouldn't mess with who you chose to spend your life with.

However:

Same-sex marriages would provide partners with privileges now only reserved (in most countries) for heterosexual marriages, such as informing the closest 'relative' of say, a homosexual were he/she to suffer an accident, mutual-share bank accounts and many other things.

Besides its symbolic value, it's also a pretty big organizational issue.
 
we've had same-sex marriages here for years. (and before that we had a "samenlevingscontract", which isn't marriage, but you declare that you'll live together with said person for x amount of time, thus creating a legal framework for things such as buying a house, childsupport, etc etc)

and the world didnt even end!
 
Sorrow said:
Even without Christian religion, there was a cult of Adolf Hitler, so they weren't non-religious.
Click to expand...

Cult of personality isn't religious. Regardless, commies killed more people than those pansy-ass nazis anyway
 
Brother None said:
If Muslim extremism is an example of the flaws of religion, why aren't the Soviet horrors an example of the flaws of atheism?
Click to expand...
Well, I'm no expert on the Soviet Union, but I don't recall hearing that the "commies" were motivated by their lack of belief into committing atrocities. Besides, as I believe you yourself have said, the problem isn't really the beliefs. There will always be some belief system or another. The problem is the people, whether they're ignorant, greedy, narcissistic, or just don't care.

Edit: I also agree with what Ashmo said below:
Ashmo said:
The problem is not the non-secularism of religion, but the dogmatic nature and its direct opposition to logical, rational and naturalist (as opposed to supernaturalist) reasoning.
Click to expand...

Brother None said:
But for some reason, procreation is a "right" rather than something you should earn, let alone a "duty". Typical idiocracy.
Click to expand...
Ah, but there you're opening a really damn big can of worms. Who decides who is suitable for procreative purposes? What arbitrary traits will be deemed suitable/unsuitable? How do you defend against the inevitable corruption of the system so that personal beliefs and prejudices don't get involved? What happens when the population level ceases growing at an acceptable rate and there are too many old people being supported by too small a young population? Do you lower the standards? What about the inevitable backlash that would occur from those who believe procreation is a right? Throw them in jail?

Besides, where's the data that says that assholes, bigots, and fools only come from bad parents? I've seen decent, rational, loving parents have the most ungrateful asshole children, and parents I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy turn out bright, responsible, great kids.
 
Cult of personality is religious in the case of Adolf Hitler. The nazis even tried to invent a state religion with Hitler as a Jesus Christ knock-off.

Still, the point you're trying to make is half-true:

Yes, secular ideologies can cause as much havoc as religious ideologies.

The problem is not the non-secularism of religion, but the dogmatic nature and its direct opposition to logical, rational and naturalist (as opposed to supernaturalist) reasoning.

Cults of personality are INHERENTLY about dogmatic faith. Whether the cult is religious or not does not matter.

Also, while it's not the supernaturalist nature of religion that is the primary evil in religion (as opposed to its dogmatic nature, which just spells trouble) it's certainly a good catalyst because of its promise of the possibility of an eternal afterlife or rebirth (thus lowering the value of the non-eternal real life). Add a dogmatic conviction that sinners must be vanquished and you'll end up strapping bombs to your body and blowing up bus stations.

Of course you don't need scripture (Mein Kampf?), churches (NS youth camps?), preachers (Goebbels?), a sense of being part of a chosen few (Aryans?), a common enemy (Jews?) or the promise of a Greater Good (1000 year Reich?) to talk people into dying for you, but it sure helps.

You think the 1940s were bad? Imagine the war would have lasted long enough for a second generation of Hitler Youth -- Denazification would have turned out to be a real drag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top