Core Politics/World News/Etc Thread.

[Steven94]

Since this forum is apparently for discussing anything, and yet we don't have a topic for this, here we are! :D

Post any current world events, political happenings in your country or another, and so forth.

Please remember to keep it civil

[Steven94]

France officially signs gay marriage into law - FRANCE - FRANCE 24

With this, France becomes the 15th country in the world to allow gay marriage (despite news reports saying it's the 14th?)

Full list of countries that have legalized gay marriage:

Argentina
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Denmark
France
Iceland
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Spain
South Africa
Sweden
Uruguay

[Masakisu]

It's kind of a sad state when France is only the 15th to legalise gay marriage. The majority of Europe hasn't even legalised it yet, god damn.

An equal marriages bill was passed though the House of Commons (the lower house) in the UK but idk if it's been through the House of Lords yet (upper) or how far it is from being put into law.

[Steven94]

Originally Posted by Masakisu

It's kind of a sad state when France is only the 15th to legalise gay marriage. The majority of Europe hasn't even legalised it yet, god damn.

An equal marriages bill was passed though the House of Commons (the lower house) in the UK but idk if it's been through the House of Lords yet (upper) or how far it is from being put into law.

IIRC the bill only applies to England and Wales. Scotland is already very close to legalizing it, so that means it'll be legal throughout most of the UK within a year, probably.

Northern Ireland, on the other hand, defeated a similar bill. I'm not sure how devolution works in the UK, but it looks like 3/4 of the countries will have SSM.

[mussolini]

Originally Posted by Steven94

New Zealand

New Zealand isn't a country, it's a state. Talk about ignorant.

[JohnWatchAnime]

I believe the Netherlands were the first to legalize gay marriage

[Lithium]

i thought about making a thread like this for awhile, but i just saw it devolving into a flame war thread. Well, here's to hoping my instincts were wrong

[Etue]

On this thread:

Threads like these are usually topical rather than meant to be collective like this one.

Collective threads don't work for heated topics honestly, since this isn't a purely socialist/atheist/supporters forum this thread could get ugly real fast simply by people announcing their believes are not in line with others often in a vulgar manner.

On the subject of homosexual rights:

For the better part, I'm not religious and therefore can't see any reason why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt. Sure I don't like seeing men kissing on the street but I don't hate seeing it more than for example two ugly people kissing in public and it only is ''¿subconciously? disturbing'' despite me supporting it consciously. To this is not something to rage about. The amount of openly gay people won't change by giving them the right to marry either.

And on the adoption side, really we need all the adoptive parents we can get, if you're dead and religious and your child get's placed with irreligious people or religious gays I can't see why the atheist parents would be something you'd prefer, but whatever you're dead anyway. Your child won't become gay by being raised by gay people, it's not how that works.

Why does ''the book'' tell gays are bad? Most likely because more openly gay people could possible mean a very slight dip in procreation. Which in the old days was dangerous because people didn't live as long, it was power in numbers. God can't exactly rewrite the book after it was written to suit modern times if anything he would deem it the responsibility of his followers to pick up what is actually dated and what is not.

People in a straight couple with a man/women in the closet are generally one of the most dysfunctional families which cost more money in current society especially since the last thing that we need is to have more goddamn people on this world.

A fun fact is that research on population density shows that denser populations have a larger quantity of homosexuals both in nature and human society, so if you really want to avoid people from the other side you might want to not live in high density area's.

i.e.
Two ugly people kissing < Two gays kissing.
overfull adoption agencies < gay adoptive parents

Also: France accepting gay marriage before Germany makes me sad.
( I may not be homophobic, but I can disciminize against most of misplaced-patriotic France right? ... aawh )

[BrainBlow]

Minnesota has essentially legalized gay marriage now.
I mostly care because Minnesota has a high concentration of Americans of Norwegian descent.
About time they got around to it.
...
Michele Bachmann is a Norwegian-American...


----------------------------------------

Anyways, hearing the angry cries of bigots as history leaves them in the dust pleases me immensely. I will say that.

[mussolini]

Originally Posted by Etue

Threads like these are usually topical rather than meant to be collective like this one.

Collective threads don't work for heated topics honestly, since this isn't a purely socialist/atheist/supporters forum this thread could get ugly real fast simply by people announcing their believes are not in line with others often in a vulgar manner.

I agree. So I'll try not to be vulgar:

Gay marriage is just another bullshit populist issue that politicians will use to win votes. Very few politicians really care about it, it doesn't mean anything new about institutional or public attitudes, there's not going to be a tangible change in most of the countries legislating for it. At best it could be a symbolic move.

When it comes to the issue itself, for me it is not that homosexuals should be treated the same under the law as heterosexuals. The law should be utterly impartial. The ultimate impartial stance for the state is to keep entirely away from marriage - de-legalise it as an institution, and leave it to traditional social institutions like churches, and if there's sufficient demand (which there may well be if people are voting to legalise), organisations that are willing to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals. There is an argument often dismissed as an example of the "slippery-slope fallacy" which I nevertheless think is relevant - if we allow gays to marry, next we'll be allowing polygamy, marriage to animals, marriage to imaginary/fictional people, to inanimate objects, etc.. And I think if we allow gays to marry through state mechanisms, we should afford exactly the same rights to every person in society, even if we think their relationships are deviant or ridiculous. Now, does a state want to be seen to be promoting or supporting such relationships through policy? Probably not. So how can we conceive of a government-managed institution which is entirely non-discriminatory, but also not a farce? I don't think we can. To me, the best way to be fair is to tell everybody, regardless of what they want to do, to sort it out for themselves - if you can find someone willing to perform the ceremony between you and someone you love, go nuts. Want to perform it yourself? Same. Want to claim that you're married to the Flying Spaghetti Monster without having a ceremony? Again, go for it.

The reason "equality" becomes a concern at all is because people insist on thinking about others in groups based on divides and differences - and when your path to "equality" focusses only on one group rather than on all individuals in general, that to me seems counter-productive and in some ways anti-equality.

Originally Posted by Etue

Sure I don't like seeing men kissing on the street but I don't hate seeing it more than for example two ugly people kissing in public and it only is ''¿subconciously? disturbing'' despite me supporting it consciously.

Honestly, "public displays of affection" are tasteless and socially disruptive regardless of who's involved. Even "attractive" married couples are in the wrong for doing this. It's not in-line with standards of proper public behaviour because intimate romantic relationships are supposed to be private. I don't think it's appropriate to colour the issue with personal preferences - either you deem it acceptable or you don't.

Originally Posted by Etue

And on the adoption side, really we need all the adoptive parents we can get, if you're dead and religious and your child get's placed with irreligious people or religious gays I can't see why the atheist parents would be something you'd prefer, but whatever you're dead anyway. Your child won't become gay by being raised by gay people, it's not how that works.

I am still very much inclined to suspect that a child adopted by gays is becoming a potential target for bullying, not with any guarantee, but simply with a higher likelihood than other children (all else held constant). Not saying that this is right or that bullies wouldn't be to blame for this; I'm simply saying that we should be wary, for the child's sake. Ideally children up for adoption should be placed with couples similar to their biological parents and obviously this is going to make homosexual couples less-than-ideal.

Originally Posted by Etue

Why does ''the book'' tell gays are bad? Most likely because more openly gay people could possible mean a very slight dip in procreation.

I would say conformity and societal cohesion. A believer would probably say that it's beyond us to know.

Originally Posted by Etue

People in a straight couple with a man/women in the closet are generally one of the most dysfunctional families which cost more money in current society

Got any evidence for this?

Originally Posted by Etue

especially since the last thing that we need is to have more goddamn people on this world.

So really we should be terminating parentless/abandoned children, executing gays because they're biological dead-ends, executing the disabled for similar reasons and for those of productivity, and executing the unemployed for being unproductive. Right?
Truth be told, population is self-limiting, like almost anything else in the biological world. When population growth becomes truly unsustainable, it will stop, and perhaps reverse.

Originally Posted by Etue

Two ugly people kissing < Two gays kissing.

Two ugly gays kissing < two non-ugly gays kissing
Two ugly gays kissing < two ugly non-gays kissing
What do you think?

Originally Posted by Etue

Also: France accepting gay marriage before Germany makes me sad.

But France is much gayer than Germany. The manliest thing about France is the French Foreign Legion, and the defining trait there is that it's made up of everyone but the French (at least, in theory).

Originally Posted by BrainBlow

Anyways, hearing the angry cries of bigots as history leaves them in the dust pleases me immensely. I will say that.

Isn't this bigotry?