Skip to main content
Topic: Same Sex Marriage (Read 54918 times)

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Reply #251
The more the West drifts into this disgusting stuff the more piece meal countries become.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Reply #253
Last year the Shanghai government cracked down on sham divorces. They had put in restrictions that couples could only own their own  property, so prospective house-buyers sometimes opted for pro forma divorces, so that they get hold of another.

The Norwegian benefits agency was pursuing sham separations for the same reason. For one particular benefit it was advantageous to be single parent, so they set in motion a major investigating operation, hitting hard on any set of parent that were found to be living together even if they officially didn't.

If the system gives sufficiently large incentives for being married or unmarried, some will take advantage of it.

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Reply #254
Yes, I'm sure that's never ever happened with men and women.
Of course it has happened, but with a man and a woman it's a side issue. The main purpose of marriage is different. Whereas with the same sexers, there is no main purpose, just side issues.

We have discussed this before, and if I remember right, inheritance benefits were the only purpose you were able to name for marriage. So, if you, a smart guy, can't figure out the proper purpose of marriage, why should anyone else. Marriage as a social institution is doomed. Same-sexers fought and got for themselves a hollow pointless "right".

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Reply #255
I probably said something like that there is marriage, the relationship between my wife and I, that's nobody's business but hers and mine or close to it. Then there's marriage, the contract that takes care of issues like custody, inheritance, and divorce.

Incidentally, adult adoption for inheritance purposes is also a thing.

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Reply #256
I probably said something like that there is marriage, the relationship between my wife and I, that's nobody's business but hers and mine or close to it. Then there's marriage, the contract that takes care of issues like custody, inheritance, and divorce.
Both of these miss the main purpose of marriage. Besides, it never earlier occurred to you to name (child) custody as a thing - naturally, because the debate was over same-sex marriage.

And how is divorce a reason or purpose for marriage? You must be celebrating the new year already :) Happy New Year!

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Reply #258
I don't really know what you're talking about specifically, but I implicitly mentioned it as adoption here:
So in your mind, when you say "adoption", it encompasses custody of one's own children? This only proves my point: Modern people have no clue about the main purpose of marriage and how other things in society relate to it.

Edit: Moreover, in the post you are quoting from, you are as if arguing against Barulheira when he says marriages and partnerships are only about names. You do this by mentioning attributes that are not essential or definitional to marriage or partnership, i.e. you do this by adding more names to the mix.

Both of you miss the core point, a certain well-known biological fact that underlies the definition as per natural law philosophy. Supporters of Darwinian evolution generally are very vehement about facts like that, but they turn around 180 degrees when some currently hip politically correct nonsense needs to be argued for. 

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Reply #259
Adoption is a right of children, not adults.
Even less gay adults.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Reply #260
The map in the original post is getting seriously out of date. 

This one from Wikipedia is fresher. In-the-navy-blue denotes countries where same-sex marriages are recognized as any other marriage, other colours have some intermediate or interim status, gray gives no recognition.


Re: Same Sex Marriage

Reply #262
Having seen that Sweden's mainstream media is not unquestioningly trans-positive anymore, but started asking questions, I assume that the peak of the silly modern gender ideology has passed and is now trending downwards. However, under the cover of the pride month, Estonia's government pushed through a marriage equality law. Now due to this, the Lutheran church of Estonia decided to stop registering marriages for the state.

In Sweden the traditional church seems to be mostly positive to the gender ideology. Any dissent on this point is actively suppressed. When the LGBTQ+ toleramus gang decides to harrass a church official, the church removes the official. In Finland the church is more ambivalent, being internally split and both parties having an uneasy cohabitation in the church. In Estonia, the church leaders mostly don't buy into the gender ideology. One joker in the church council suggested that maybe the church could register gender-neutral marriages for the state and go on to bless scriptural marriages, but the council decided to be more principled and pull back from the business of state marriages altogether.

In Catholic countries, it is common that the church does not serve the state function of registering marriages. Registering the marriage for state census is one ceremony and getting married (and blessed) by the priest an entirely different ceremony in Catholic countries, different from Lutheran priests performing the ceremony first and then filing a form to register it for the state census. The pope seems to be fully determined to hold on to the business of marriage and accommodate gays and other "who am I to judge?" folks. In the current pope's mind, non-Catholic as he is, the church is all for all sorts of ceremonies for the sake of ceremonies, which happens to align with the gender ideologues. The gender ideologues never cared about marriage and rights and equality, but about celebrating their own narcissism, somewhat in the manner that the Catholic church is doing.

Instead of trying to accommodate the irrational gender ideology, I think that the state should register households instead of marriages. When you live together, you can be registered as a household and get the inheritance privileges accordingly (because this is the only tangible "right" marriage registration ever gave to people). This should make everybody happy,  polyamorous bis and whatever. Except it would not, because the gender ideologues never were happy when things were rational. They never had a rational argument for their case, but went on to win the political lobby. They won the political lobby because it did not occur to the "traditional values" camp that the perfectly reasonable state of affairs could be overturned for something less than reasonable. Moreover, the state of affairs with "traditional marriage" was not something overly desirable for people. It's been the case for about half a century now that about half or more than half of children are born outside marriage, indicating that marriage is not seen as any sort of desirable right, so nobody stood up to defend it. On the other hand, the irrational undermining of it (while rhetorically claiming to equalise or promote it) does have the effect of stirring up emotions to irrationally defend the traditional marriage — which is very welcome for the gender ideology crowd as they can play the victim.

The Lutheran church of Estonia made the reasonable choice. They did not go against scripture, but also refrained from playing into the victim mentality of the gay, queer and trans toleramuses. The church's role has already been reduced to next to nothing in society and it is in line with this fact to step aside from functions that have ceased to function. They are not going the way of the church of Sweden trying to keep serving the state when the state has succumbed to values and ideologies that the church cannot align with.