Denmark has legalized same sex marriage!

[Divair]

Civil unions provide same-sex couples rights, benefits, and responsibilities identical to those of different-sex civil marriages.

Mind sourcing this?

[Hippostania]

Good for Denmark.

I remember the time when I hoped that Finland would be among the first ten countries in the world to legalize same sex marriage.. Well, it's not going to happen until 2015 and you can thank True Finns and their ''but two men can't have children and it's unnatural!!!11'' bullshit for that.

[Arcada Xenon VI]

Human rights ARE a real issue.

Human rights would be whether or not homosexuals should be killed or protected from public beatings.

Government recognition of marriage is not a human right.

If you seriously equate the two, I invite you to live in Saudi Arabia and learn what human rights are first hand (or lack thereof, as the case may be).

i couldn't agree more. As the NationStates itself here state it, that would be the "Wild Abuses" of human rights. I think all of you are too busy in your sweet neutrality and your 3000 dollar paychecks to see.

[Terruana]

All I got from your post is that you prefer old stuff. I actually prefer Avicii to Beethoven, Stephen King to Shakespeare, Cinema to theatre, etc etc. I think the issue isn't with the human race regressing, it's with your tastes being outdated.

I'm not bragging here, I'm do not possesses a great knowledge of either classical music or classic literature, but I do know enough to see it superior. Sure, I've read Stephen King, he's not bad, but stand beneath Shakespeare. Films are, usually, books simplified, brought down for the average consumer.
But to claim that that lap-top music with 2 chords is equal to Beethoven, that is just ridiculous.
And before any of you say it, yes "De gustibus non est disputandum", is completely true, but that sentence has been used wrongfully in many a case. While is says that there can be no disputes over tastes, it does not state that everything is relative, just that, for example, you wont be able to prove someone that Beyonce ain't no Deep Purple.

Why? What makes Beethoven so much better than any modern musicians? I actually find his music kinda dull. So using your logic of "what I think is good is the universal standard", I can categorically say that classical music is terrible.

Seriously though. Why are "classics" better than modern? And I'm gonna need more than just "because I said so".

[Kaleer]

Human rights would be whether or not homosexuals should be killed or protected from public beatings.

Government recognition of marriage is not a human right.

If you seriously equate the two, I invite you to live in Saudi Arabia and learn what human rights are first hand (or lack thereof, as the case may be).

i couldn't agree more. As the NationStates itself here state it, that would be the "Wild Abuses" of human rights. I think all of you are too busy in your sweet neutrality and your 3000 dollar paychecks to see.

I WISH I made 3000$.... That'd be so nice... So so nice.

[Jewcrew]

Human rights would be whether or not homosexuals should be killed or protected from public beatings.

Government recognition of marriage is not a human right.

If you seriously equate the two, I invite you to live in Saudi Arabia and learn what human rights are first hand (or lack thereof, as the case may be).

Marriage has already been upheld as a basic human right. Try again. And just because you live in a country {I'm assuming since you both keep bringing up Saudi Arabia} that is notorious for shitting all over rights, doesn't mean every other country has to.

Because denial of a government-regulated contract somehow constitutes being ruled mind and soul.

Sorry, I don't live in a fantasy world.

No, the government just telling me what I can and cannot do with my life is complacently okay.

Marriage is a basic human right; government recognition of it is not. That's all we're arguing about here. There are Mormons in the USA that marry multiple wives. Ever seen 'Sister Wives'? Terrible show, but the man is married to several women, only one of which is legally recognized by the state. That doesn't mean he isn't married to the other women. He is. The government just isn't the arbitrator of the contractual obligations involved in the marriage.

The point is, marriage is nothing more than a ceremony. Government merely recognizes it for the sake of a few legalities, many of which can be handled by a normal contract drawn up by a lawyer. If I had my way, I'd abolish government recognition of marriage all-together, and people could have their own contracts written for such things on the rights and responsibilities of each party. Government has no place in marriage, as far as I'm concerned.

So I couldn't give the furry crack of a rats ass about gay marriage because all I see is government stepping beyond its legitimate boundaries.

[Arcada Xenon VI]

Jewscrew reminded me, in a third-world country such as mine, with an average sallary of 300 euros, and European prices, corruption, the ridiculously large administration left from the socialist era, the Kosovo problem, the outdated industry and plus a bunch of more stuff, the government tactically shoves Homosexual marriage, (it being such a touch subject) in order to mask the real issues.

Not surprising.

Things like gay marriage have been latched onto in order to mask the real issues. It's rather pathetic that in much of the West, especially the USA, social issues always seem to make it to the forefront when the economic issues are much more pressing.

Either way, congrats to the roughly 150 000 homosexual Danes.

See this the read? See how every one is defending it with all they got, like they've achieved world peace? The government simply pushes various stuff of this caliber, to push back what is the most important. We may all end up beggars, dependent of international aid, but hey, at least the homosexuals will be able to marry.
And even less homosexuals here. If there is over 0.5 percent homosexuals in my country, then I will take back everything I said.
So, instead on focusing on something graspable, that will benefit us all, the politicians choose the 0.5 percent on the expense of the rest of us.

[Kaleer]

Marriage has already been upheld as a basic human right. Try again. And just because you live in a country {I'm assuming since you both keep bringing up Saudi Arabia} that is notorious for shitting all over rights, doesn't mean every other country has to.



No, the government just telling me what I can and cannot do with my life is complacently okay.

Marriage is a basic human right; government recognition of it is not. That's all we're arguing about here. There are Mormons in the USA that marry multiple wives. Ever seen 'Sister Wives'? Terrible show, but the man is married to several women, only one of which is legally recognized by the state. That doesn't mean he isn't married to the other women. He is. The government just isn't the arbitrator of the contractual obligations involved in the marriage.

The point is, marriage is nothing more than a ceremony. Government merely recognizes it for the sake of a few legalities, many of which can be handled by a normal contract drawn up by a lawyer. If I had my way, I'd abolish government recognition of marriage all-together, and people could have their own contracts written for such things on the rights and responsibilities of each party. Government has no place in marriage, as far as I'm concerned.

So I couldn't give the furry crack of a rats ass about gay marriage because all I see is government stepping beyond its legitimate boundaries.

And that I can respect to a point.

But there is no real alternative at the moment to a government involvement. Having a separate contract to afford homosexuals all the same legal right as heterosexual becomes the old saying "separate but equal".

And as for polygamy, if that's what you want to do, go for it. As long as everyone is consenting, I don't give a fuck. Legalities just need to be worked out.

[Arcada Xenon VI]

Good for Denmark.

I remember the time when I hoped that Finland would be among the first ten countries in the world to legalize same sex marriage.. Well, it's not going to happen until 2015 and you can thank True Finns and their ''but two men can't have children and it's unnatural!!!11'' bullshit for that.

??? You're joking? I never imagined the Finns like that. I actually thought that all of Scandinavia has homosexual marriage, even in the '90s/early '00s
I guess there is some real men in Scandinavia left.

[Kaleer]

Not surprising.

Things like gay marriage have been latched onto in order to mask the real issues. It's rather pathetic that in much of the West, especially the USA, social issues always seem to make it to the forefront when the economic issues are much more pressing.

Either way, congrats to the roughly 150 000 homosexual Danes.

See this the read? See how every one is defending it with all they got, like they've achieved world peace? The government simply pushes various stuff of this caliber, to push back what is the most important. We may all end up beggars, dependent of international aid, but hey, at least the homosexuals will be able to marry.
And even less homosexuals here. If there is over 0.5 percent homosexuals in my country, then I will take back everything I said.
So, instead on focusing on something graspable, that will benefit us all, the politicians choose the 0.5 percent on the expense of the rest of us.

They'd probably come out of the woodwork if backwards countries didn't have things like death penalties for being homosexual.

[Hippostania]

See this the read? See how every one is defending it with all they got, like they've achieved world peace? The government simply pushes various stuff of this caliber, to push back what is the most important. We may all end up beggars, dependent of international aid, but hey, at least the homosexuals will be able to marry.
And even less homosexuals here. If there is over 0.5 percent homosexuals in my country, then I will take back everything I said.
So, instead on focusing on something graspable, that will benefit us all, the politicians choose the 0.5 percent on the expense of the rest of us.

Passing a legislation legalizing same-sex marriage wouldn't take so much time if social conservatives wouldn't turn it into such a big issue. It's people who want to deny other people their rights that is preventing the government from focusing on economy.

[Divair]

Good for Denmark.

I remember the time when I hoped that Finland would be among the first ten countries in the world to legalize same sex marriage.. Well, it's not going to happen until 2015 and you can thank True Finns and their ''but two men can't have children and it's unnatural!!!11'' bullshit for that.

??? You're joking? I never imagined the Finns like that. I actually thought that all of Scandinavia has homosexual marriage, even in the '90s/early '00s
I guess there is some real men in Scandinavia left.

Scandinavia does. Finland does not, unfortunately.

[Farnhamia]

Good for Denmark.

I remember the time when I hoped that Finland would be among the first ten countries in the world to legalize same sex marriage.. Well, it's not going to happen until 2015 and you can thank True Finns and their ''but two men can't have children and it's unnatural!!!11'' bullshit for that.

??? You're joking? I never imagined the Finns like that. I actually thought that all of Scandinavia has homosexual marriage, even in the '90s/early '00s
I guess there is some real men in Scandinavia left.

Yes, and as soon as it becomes legal in Finland, they're going to get married to each other.

[Jewcrew]

Marriage is a basic human right; government recognition of it is not. That's all we're arguing about here. There are Mormons in the USA that marry multiple wives. Ever seen 'Sister Wives'? Terrible show, but the man is married to several women, only one of which is legally recognized by the state. That doesn't mean he isn't married to the other women. He is. The government just isn't the arbitrator of the contractual obligations involved in the marriage.

The point is, marriage is nothing more than a ceremony. Government merely recognizes it for the sake of a few legalities, many of which can be handled by a normal contract drawn up by a lawyer. If I had my way, I'd abolish government recognition of marriage all-together, and people could have their own contracts written for such things on the rights and responsibilities of each party. Government has no place in marriage, as far as I'm concerned.

So I couldn't give the furry crack of a rats ass about gay marriage because all I see is government stepping beyond its legitimate boundaries.

And that I can respect to a point.

But there is no real alternative at the moment to a government involvement. Having a separate contract to afford homosexuals all the same legal right as heterosexual becomes the old saying "separate but equal".

And as for polygamy, if that's what you want to do, go for it. As long as everyone is consenting, I don't give a fuck. Legalities just need to be worked out.

Legalities are worked out just fine, without the use of government. Which is all I see here; groups swinging government around like a mallet to accomplish their selfish goals.

[Hippostania]

??? You're joking? I never imagined the Finns like that. I actually thought that all of Scandinavia has homosexual marriage, even in the '90s/early '00s
I guess there is some real men in Scandinavia left.

Yes, and as soon as it becomes legal in Finland, they're going to get married to each other.

And then all children will become gay, the social order will collapse and we'll descend into violent and bloody anarchy. Yes, same sex marriage is very dangerous.

[Kaleer]

And that I can respect to a point.

But there is no real alternative at the moment to a government involvement. Having a separate contract to afford homosexuals all the same legal right as heterosexual becomes the old saying "separate but equal".

And as for polygamy, if that's what you want to do, go for it. As long as everyone is consenting, I don't give a fuck. Legalities just need to be worked out.

Legalities are worked out just fine, without the use of government. Which is all I see here; groups swinging government around like a mallet to accomplish their selfish goals.

They thing is if you don't have the "big bad government" swinging their mallet, then we'd have all kinds of groups fighting with each other over basic rights.

[Divair]

Yes, and as soon as it becomes legal in Finland, they're going to get married to each other.

And then all children will become gay, the social order will collapse and we'll descend into violent and bloody anarchy. Yes, same sex marriage is very dangerous.

Obviously. Hitler will suddenly become the ruler of the planet and gas all the non-gays.

*nods*

[Jewcrew]

Legalities are worked out just fine, without the use of government. Which is all I see here; groups swinging government around like a mallet to accomplish their selfish goals.

They thing is if you don't have the "big bad government" swinging their mallet, then we'd have all kinds of groups fighting with each other over basic rights.

And if people were killing/assaulting homosexuals and not being pursued and punished for it, you'd have a point. Since the law protects homosexuals from actual violations of human rights, you don't.

[Farnhamia]

Yes, and as soon as it becomes legal in Finland, they're going to get married to each other.

And then all children will become gay, the social order will collapse and we'll descend into violent and bloody anarchy. Yes, same sex marriage is very dangerous.

At least it won't be boring.

[Leepaidamba]

You people are effectively "reversing" evolution, to the point where all of us will live in sort of primordial times, only with technology. Like animals, really, no rules, no ethics, nothing, like our ancestors did. Scandinavia is on the great way so far. Impossible to prove to their brain-washed liberals. Or any that learn from them.

As a proud citizen of the country to have suffered the longest from same-sex marriage, I can attest to the falsity of this statement.

[Arcada Xenon VI]

I'm not bragging here, I'm do not possesses a great knowledge of either classical music or classic literature, but I do know enough to see it superior. Sure, I've read Stephen King, he's not bad, but stand beneath Shakespeare. Films are, usually, books simplified, brought down for the average consumer.
But to claim that that lap-top music with 2 chords is equal to Beethoven, that is just ridiculous.
And before any of you say it, yes "De gustibus non est disputandum", is completely true, but that sentence has been used wrongfully in many a case. While is says that there can be no disputes over tastes, it does not state that everything is relative, just that, for example, you wont be able to prove someone that Beyonce ain't no Deep Purple.

Why? What makes Beethoven so much better than any modern musicians? I actually find his music kinda dull. So using your logic of "what I think is good is the universal standard", I can categorically say that classical music is terrible.

Seriously though. Why are "classics" better than modern? And I'm gonna need more than just "because I said so".
Your lack of taste is no problem of mine. I listen to modern music too, frequently even than classical, rock and roll partially carrying on it's role in the 20th century.
But, you know, where as rockers would have to tune their guitars, all your guys need to do is to update the software anti-virus. I'm not saying you're some simpleton, but your failure to recognize quality is your shame.
Is the concept of chords, tones, keys, time signatures known to you? Now, I ain't no expert, but you can't argue what music is more complex. There are melody and rhythm all fit together perfectly. Violins playing unison, the true beauty of music.
Of course, you aren't a robot. Complex harmonies and scales alone do not mean good music. It is about what is captured in it, the tempo change, the constant discovery, you explore one piece as you listen to it. It's not just a sampled synthesizer played over a repetitive beat.

[Leepaidamba]

They thing is if you don't have the "big bad government" swinging their mallet, then we'd have all kinds of groups fighting with each other over basic rights.

And if people were killing/assaulting homosexuals and not being pursued and punished for it, you'd have a point. Since the law protects homosexuals from actual violations of human rights, you don't.

Sexual equality under the law is a human right. By only recognizing marriages between a man and a woman (recognizing a man's marriage to a woman but not to a man and vice versa requiring a law to violate sexual equality), a government is violating that right. It is an actual violation of a human right.

[Jewcrew]

And if people were killing/assaulting homosexuals and not being pursued and punished for it, you'd have a point. Since the law protects homosexuals from actual violations of human rights, you don't.

Sexual equality under the law is a human right. By only recognizing marriages between a man and a woman (recognizing a man's marriage to a woman but not to a man and vice versa requiring a law to violate sexual equality), a government is violating that right. It is an actual violation of a human right.

Go spend time in Saudi Arabia. I refuse to talk to someone that equates the death penalty just for being homosexual with government not regulating a contract. You know nothing of human rights and seriously need some first hand experience.

Just full of first world ignorance.

[Arcada Xenon VI]

See this the read? See how every one is defending it with all they got, like they've achieved world peace? The government simply pushes various stuff of this caliber, to push back what is the most important. We may all end up beggars, dependent of international aid, but hey, at least the homosexuals will be able to marry.
And even less homosexuals here. If there is over 0.5 percent homosexuals in my country, then I will take back everything I said.
So, instead on focusing on something graspable, that will benefit us all, the politicians choose the 0.5 percent on the expense of the rest of us.

They'd probably come out of the woodwork if backwards countries didn't have things like death penalties for being homosexual.

What death penalty? The're better protected then us normal, people! And yet they argue! Indeed, jewscrew, it selfishness taken to a whole different level.
Saying: "I don't care, they can do a\what day want, as long as my ass is fed" Is freaking selfish. It's utterly degrading. All that JJ Russo crap.

[Ifreann]

Who is "they"? What "Central health research clinic" are you talking about?

I see nothing immoral with recognising that homosexuality isn't any kind of illness or ailment.

Do....do you have x-ray vision?

No dear, not mockery. An act of defiance.

Actually you will. You won't do a single thing to stop Gay Pride celebrations of any sort, except complain about them. You have no grounds to do so legally, and if you tried to do so illegally you'd be quickly arrested.

Like how our forerunners forced society to give women the vote and acknowledge black people as humans rather than monkeys.

We're not promoting homosexuality. We're promoting equality and tolerance.

Majority? Maybe in your country.

I never once said the word majority.

Just complain? Maybe in your country? Just see how will the gay pride in Serbia develop. Three were cancelled, we showed our position on it. We're not girly little politically-correct Scandinavians.

Which is nothing you did. If a parade were permitted, I doubt you'd do a damn thing but bitch.