Romania May Redefine Marriage "Between 1 Man and 1 Woman"

[Prydania]

Attempts to overturn that will feel like an act of cultural theft and vandalism to many of those who have been brought up in such a context...

Legalized same-sex marriage has not resulted in societal collapse.

This isn't 2002 where this is all theoretical. It's been legal for over a decade in some jurisdictions. You can stop with the doom and gloom. We know it's not coming.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Attempts to overturn that will feel like an act of cultural theft and vandalism to many of those who have been brought up in such a context...

Legalized same-sex marriage has not resulted in societal collapse.

This isn't 2002 where this is all theoretical. It's been legal for over a decade in some jurisdictions. You can stop with the doom and gloom. We know it's not coming.

I've never suggested for a moment that it would! But people would certainly feel aggrieved and there's the prospect of some political backlash and reversals. If some of this can be mitigated by using the words "civil unions" that seems like a very intelligent and prudent thing.

It may be worth having a separate thread on this as we're wandering away from the Romanian example where such a thing doesn't appear to be on the agenda at present.

[Prydania]

Legalized same-sex marriage has not resulted in societal collapse.

This isn't 2002 where this is all theoretical. It's been legal for over a decade in some jurisdictions. You can stop with the doom and gloom. We know it's not coming.

I've never suggested for a moment that it would! But people would certainly feel aggrieved and there's the prospect of some political backlash and reversals. If some of this can be mitigated by using the words "civil unions" that seems like a very intelligent and prudent thing.

Again, I'll point to the jurisdictions where it's been made legal. There was a lot of opposition to the idea of legalized same-sex marriage in Canada. And then it happened, and there was a lot of controversy...and then it died down. And now the Tories have given up on even challenging it.
In the UK it was even the Tories who legalized it. The party of crown, church, and country just up and legalized gay marriage because, in the words of David "an actual aristocrat and the personification of the social order" Cameron "it's a simple matter of equality."

My point is that the idea that legalized gay marriage will result in a backlash of blacklashes hasn't really manifested in any jurisdiction where it's legal. There's a huge fuss made after it happens, and then it just dies down when people realize that gay marriage doesn't effect the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.

Therefore I find your appeal to a "prudent" compromise lacking. It's not needed. It's the sort of argument that held weight fifteen years ago when legalized same-sex marriage was a pipe dream and compromise with a staunchly opposed right wing seemed appealing (and hell, the conservatives of fifteen years ago could have stalled the wave of legalized same-sex marriage had they accepted such a compromise back then).
Now though? We know that same-sex marriage doesn't cause the backlash you're worried about. Most decent people, even those who opposed it on religious grounds, move on.

Besides, what's your solution? You're going to suggest governments take marriage away from every married same-sex couple in the name of a compromise that's simply not necessary?

It may be worth having a separate thread on this as we're wandering away from the Romanian example where such a thing doesn't appear to be on the agenda at present.

I'll tie it back to Romania.
You could legalize same-sex marriage in Romania today, and in one year's time it'll be a non-issue and everyone but the saltiest reactionaries will have moved on with their lives.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I've never suggested for a moment that it would! But people would certainly feel aggrieved and there's the prospect of some political backlash and reversals. If some of this can be mitigated by using the words "civil unions" that seems like a very intelligent and prudent thing.

Again, I'll point to the jurisdictions where it's been made legal. There was a lot of opposition to the idea of legalized same-sex marriage in Canada. And then it happened, and there was a lot of controversy...and then it died down. And now the Tories have given up on even challenging it.
In the UK it was even the Tories who legalized it. The party of crown, church, and country just up and legalized gay marriage because, in the words of David "an actual aristocrat and the personification of the social order" Cameron "it's a simple matter of equality."

My point is that the idea that legalized gay marriage will result in a backlash of blacklashes hasn't really manifested in any jurisdiction where it's legal. There's a huge fuss made after it happens, and then it just dies down when people realize that gay marriage doesn't effect the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.

In the UK the Church is notably more liberal than many other predominant churches (to the point that some of the conservative Anglicans in the rest of the world have been considering splitting) so it's been less of an issue due to lack of a rallying point. As it was supported by both major parties, there was nowhere for any energy to go in opposing it, so it dissipated very quickly.

Culture war issues - like gay marriage - have played into the rise of the Trumpists. "Dying down" is not a universal path, and while I don't have any specific knowledge of Romania the very fact that people are trying with some chance of success to legally enshrine the definition of marriage in Romania suggests it's more towards the America end of the scale than the UK one.

Besides, what's your solution? You're going to suggest governments take marriage away from every married same-sex couple in the name of a compromise that's simply not necessary?

Don't reverse what's already been done and settled, but where there's still contention and the struggle is an active issue go for a path of compromise.

I'll tie it back to Romania.
You could legalize same-sex marriage in Romania today, and in one year's time it'll be a non-issue and everyone but the saltiest reactionaries will have moved on with their lives.

I don't know enough about the specifics of Romania to comment definitively, but in some places there may be an elevated level of lingering resentment and rise of "culture war" ideology when this sort of thing goes through, and that may not simply "go away in a year" and instead have future consequences.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Boo romania

[Prydania]

Culture war issues - like gay marriage - have played into the rise of the Trumpists. "Dying down" is not a universal path, and while I don't have any specific knowledge of Romania the very fact that people are trying with some chance of success to legally enshrine the definition of marriage in Romania suggests it's more towards the America end of the scale than the UK one.

And even in the US, for all the bluster behind Trumpism, same-sex marriage is legal.
You can hand wring about "oh no the GOP put the guy on the court!" but the fact remains that in the US legalized same-sex marriage is set judicial precedent.

Besides, what's your solution? You're going to suggest governments take marriage away from every married same-sex couple in the name of a compromise that's simply not necessary?

Don't reverse what's already been done and settled, but where there's still contention and the struggle is an active issue go for a path of compromise.

Would you consider legalized same-sex marriage in the United States settled? I ask because the above portion I quoted seems to indicate you don't. Despite the fact that the issue was settled by the courts. So question time. Are you in favour of reversing what's been settled in the US and downgrading American same-sex couples' marriages to "civil unions"?

I'll tie it back to Romania.
You could legalize same-sex marriage in Romania today, and in one year's time it'll be a non-issue and everyone but the saltiest reactionaries will have moved on with their lives.

I don't know enough about the specifics of Romania to comment definitively, but in some places there may be an elevated level of lingering resentment and rise of "culture war" ideology when this sort of thing goes through, and that may not simply "go away in a year" and instead have future consequences.

The thing about it is that same-sex marriage can, and often has, followed civil unions. Civil unions were the law of the land in the UK until a Conservative government decided to just legalize same-sex marriage.

So say you get a compromise where LGBT Romanians have to settle for "civil unions." And that's fine for 5-15 years before eventually that becomes full-fledged same-sex marriage once everyone realizes it's not a big deal.
So ok. Congrats. Romania took the cautious approach to an issue that they could seen in a dozen other European nations wasn't a huge deal.

Really my issues with your position are threefold...

1) You're arguing for a "separate but equal" solution, which history proves is both inherently unequal and untenable.
2) You seem to be suggesting that the US ought to reverse what its courts have settled, and strip LGBT married couples across the country of marriages they entered into legally.
3) You're seeking compromise with what ultimately is a group of people who won't ever truly be happy unless every LGBT person is killed or forced back into the closet anyway.

On that last point as far as Romania goes specifically? "Resentment" isn't that specific, now is it? I'm not keen on letting bigots dictate policy. Their very nature makes them immune to compromise, because they hate the targeted group based on unreasonable criteria.

[The New California Republic]

The definition is fine as it is.

[Trumptonium1]

Good for them. Whatever makes Romanians content, including protection of their culture.

Even if it harms LGBT Romanians? So much for protecting them

Harms them how? Physically? Financially? Socially? None of these.

You have a right to marry whomever you damn well please, apparently.

Love who you want to love, as long as it's not a child. And it's consensual. And it's a human. There.

You're infringing on a lot of people's freedoms here.

Looks like homosexual mirage is gaining traction in Romania. Otherwise they wouldn't bother to try something like that.

It's most likely a distraction from other issues.

Good for them. Whatever makes Romanians content, including protection of their culture.

Denying someone their rights is not a "whatever floats your boat" think.

Who said it's a right?

[The South Falls]

Even if it harms LGBT Romanians? So much for protecting them

Harms them how? Physically? Financially? Socially? None of these.

Love who you want to love, as long as it's not a child. And it's consensual. And it's a human. There.

You're infringing on a lot of people's freedoms here.

It's most likely a distraction from other issues.

Denying someone their rights is not a "whatever floats your boat" think.

Who said it's a right?

How? You want forced marriage? And it is denying them their rights to recognized union, as they are a human, adult, consensual couple.

[Trumptonium1]

How? You want forced marriage?

No, why?

And it is denying them their rights to recognized union, as they are a human, adult, consensual couple.

Who said it's a right?

[The South Falls]

How? You want forced marriage?

No, why?

And it is denying them their rights to recognized union, as they are a human, adult, consensual couple.

Who said it's a right?

You said my marriage criteria was infringing on rights.



"Who says you have the right to not be forced into marriage."

[Trumptonium1]

No, why?



Who said it's a right?

You said my marriage criteria was infringing on rights.



"Who says you have the right to not be forced into marriage."

Don't be obtuse, you said that denying homosexuals same-sex marriage is denying them "their rights to recognised union blah blah"

Who said this is a right?

I didn't say your marriage criteria was infringing on rights, I said they were infringing on freedoms.

[Page]

Love who you want to love, as long as it's not a child. And it's consensual. And it's a human. There.

Do your duty to God and country. Marry someone with whom you can have children, and raise them right.

I don't believe in God and I don't think I have a duty to my country to procreate.

[The South Falls]

You said my marriage criteria was infringing on rights.



"Who says you have the right to not be forced into marriage."

Don't be obtuse, you said that denying homosexuals same-sex marriage is denying them "their rights to recognised union blah blah"

Who said this is a right?

I didn't say your marriage criteria was infringing on rights, I said they were infringing on freedoms.

Freedom to marry children is something that needs to be infringed upon.

I'll concede this. Marriage is more of a freedom than a right. Gay people should have the freedom to marry.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I will clarify my points in one more effort-post as we seem to have some misunderstandings, but I won't be commenting further here as we're at risk of hijacking a thread about the Romanian situation, which is not even currently having this discussion about marriage/civil unions. Happy to discuss it later on another thread if I've left any gaps below in my position that you wish to pursue further

Culture war issues - like gay marriage - have played into the rise of the Trumpists. "Dying down" is not a universal path, and while I don't have any specific knowledge of Romania the very fact that people are trying with some chance of success to legally enshrine the definition of marriage in Romania suggests it's more towards the America end of the scale than the UK one.

And even in the US, for all the bluster behind Trumpism, same-sex marriage is legal.
You can hand wring about "oh no the GOP put the guy on the court!" but the fact remains that in the US legalized same-sex marriage is set judicial precedent.

Which may end up being contested because it's become a culture-war issue.

Besides, what's your solution? You're going to suggest governments take marriage away from every married same-sex couple in the name of a compromise that's simply not necessary?

No. I'm not going to advocate for that. I've no desire to dig back up things that are already established and resolved. We are where we are and we must deal with circumstances as we find them and try to find the best way to bring people together - the solution will differ depending on the local circumstances.

Would you consider legalized same-sex marriage in the United States settled? I ask because the above portion I quoted seems to indicate you don't. Despite the fact that the issue was settled by the courts. So question time. Are you in favour of reversing what's been settled in the US and downgrading American same-sex couples' marriages to "civil unions"?

I am not an expect on America - I've studied it from an outsiders perspective but do not live there. The US long has a tradition of letting individual states decide - that would seem less divisive than trying to pursue it and impose it on a federal level on communities that do not want it. I would advocate that states starting from zero start down the civil unions path, however, for the reasons I've explained elsewhere.

The thing about it is that same-sex marriage can, and often has, followed civil unions. Civil unions were the law of the land in the UK until a Conservative government decided to just legalize same-sex marriage. So say you get a compromise where LGBT Romanians have to settle for "civil unions." And that's fine for 5-15 years before eventually that becomes full-fledged same-sex marriage once everyone realizes it's not a big deal.

England is my locale, so I'm familiar with the chain of events. But you're almost arguing my point for me here. If civil unions occur and then later down the line there's a substantial societal consensus to move to marriage, that is absolutely fine. If not, that's fine too. Surely it's better to have a two-step process with less disquiet, division, and radicalisation occurring than it is to have a one-step process on the tiniest of majorities or unilateral government action that makes the issue into a rallying point for extremists?

Really my issues with your position are threefold...
1) You're arguing for a "separate but equal" solution, which history proves is both inherently unequal and untenable.
2) You seem to be suggesting that the US ought to reverse what its courts have settled, and strip LGBT married couples across the country of marriages they entered into legally.
3) You're seeking compromise with what ultimately is a group of people who won't ever truly be happy unless every LGBT person is killed or forced back into the closet anyway.

On that last point as far as Romania goes specifically? "Resentment" isn't that specific, now is it? I'm not keen on letting bigots dictate policy. Their very nature makes them immune to compromise, because they hate the targeted group based on unreasonable criteria.

Fortunately, we can strike number 2 as I have hopefully demonstrated that is not my position. On number one, an advancement of rights in a relatively non-contentious way is a good thing even if the rights are not entirely equal, and if the direction of untenability is towards later full marriages with less contention, this is nothing I would object to. Number three is an over-generalisation and a rhetorical move to group everyone with a certain opinion as being bigots and therefore worth completely ignoring in the political process. Which is dehumanising and a major tenet of the culture war ideologies of left and right that want to tear communities apart rather than bringing them together. In a democracy you should not seek such paths, as any substantial group who can be radicalised can later cause you trouble that is entirely self-inflicted.

[Dahon]

Good for them. Whatever makes Romanians content, including protection of their culture.

By this same bullshit metric, NOT ending chattel slavery in Europe and the Americas was a bad thing, as slavery came first and THINK OF THE CULTURE, WHITE MAN!!! Just think of the culture you're about to uproot... by treating people like... like... people!

Only "muh culture" is worse than bullshit, it's the gateway to bigotry in all its ugly phases, subtle and unsubtle.

[Trumptonium1]

Good for them. Whatever makes Romanians content, including protection of their culture.

By this same bullshit metric, NOT ending chattel slavery in Europe and the Americas was a bad thing, as slavery came first and THINK OF THE CULTURE, WHITE MAN!!! Just think of the culture you're about to uproot... by treating people like... like... people!

Only "muh culture" is worse than bullshit, it's the gateway to bigotry in all its ugly phases, subtle and unsubtle.

This entire post seems to be more of a wailing cry of defeatism - the last words of a dying, frail ideology lost in a world that keeps going against them election by election - rather than an actual post responding to my point.

As such since I don't know if you're talking to me or want to vent your anger that you're losing and will continue to lose for decades, I can only reply that your point - if we can call it that - does not make sense and culture evolves. Equating the livelihoods of slaves to LGBT people in a democratic country is a low, even for you.

[Democratic Empire of Romania]

Am I the first Romanian commenting here ?

So, this referendum on family is bad, why :

1) It will cover up any political action done. So, free to steal more government money !

2) None shall say what you can do and what you can't do in your private life.

It is our right as a nation to accept or not. The EU allowed this. But the campaign for 'yes' was utterly crap. But whether the result is, Romania will accept it.

It's "between spouses", not "between a man and a woman".

And if you ask me my position: Not your thing.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

What a pathetically spiteful thing to do.

Oh, hey, the Church backs it. Colour me surprised.

[The Holy Therns]

Well. That sure is a shit thing to do and a shit thing to support.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Do your duty to God and country. Marry someone with whom you can have children, and raise them right.

Homosexuals, infertile women, and sterile men therefore should not marry, make marriage between any of those parties illegal.

Did you forget about adoption and in-vitro insemination?

It's two concepts that allow infertile couples and same-sex couples to have children.

And don't you dare pull the "muh youth gay corruption" card on me, because a child with a family is better than a child with no family, regardless of whether he has two dads, two moms, or two parents that don't resemble the child.

[Baltenstein]

You don't have to be 2000 years old to not be an ignoramus, not culturally insensitive, and not uneducated.

Oh well. Somehow I'll survive knowing that I wasn't aware that Jews censor themselves when referring to God.

I think the real question here is, how have you not seen "The Life of Brian"?

[Kubrath]

You said my marriage criteria was infringing on rights.



"Who says you have the right to not be forced into marriage."

Don't be obtuse, you said that denying homosexuals same-sex marriage is denying them "their rights to recognised union blah blah"

Who said this is a right?

I didn't say your marriage criteria was infringing on rights, I said they were infringing on freedoms.

Rights are a man-made concept, and as such are beholden to people. It's not the other way around. They are nothing more than agreed-upon privileges drafted, implemented and enforced by people. If a given people deem something worthy enough to be a right, they will grant themselves that right via any means necessary. Therefore, it doesn't matter if same-sex marriage is currently a right, because people can grant themselves that right given enough support. So you're missing the point entirely when you're asking who claims it to be a right. People think it's a right, and if enough of them do, then it will eventually become one.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Don't be obtuse, you said that denying homosexuals same-sex marriage is denying them "their rights to recognised union blah blah"

Who said this is a right?

I didn't say your marriage criteria was infringing on rights, I said they were infringing on freedoms.

Freedom to marry children is something that needs to be infringed upon.

I'll concede this. Marriage is more of a freedom than a right. Gay people should have the freedom to marry.

They should have the freedom that their society gives to them, because freedom, and more fundamentally to this case, marriage, is a social construct.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Homosexuals, infertile women, and sterile men therefore should not marry, make marriage between any of those parties illegal.

Did you forget about adoption and in-vitro insemination?

It's two concepts that allow infertile couples and same-sex couples to have children.

And don't you dare pull the "muh youth gay corruption" card on me, because a child with a family is better than a child with no family, regardless of whether he has two dads, two moms, or two parents that don't resemble the child.

Traditional Christianity also doesn't allow in-vitro insemination, because the process by which it is done usually involves discarding unused embryos.