[Gay] Gay News from Around the Gay World That is Gay

Started by Martinus, June 19, 2009, 04:33:36 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Martinus

Quote from: Zanza2 on June 19, 2009, 02:51:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 07:15:43 AM
Well, the Archbishop was talking more along the lines of "I don't oppose" than "I support" but it's still quite a big thing, considering it's Poland and the Catholic church. Precisely he said that:

"If that is not going to lead to [full marriage] then it is a thing to consider. If this would facilitate such things as [inheritance, or joint taxation], then I would be open to this. As long as it does not enter the area of values, such as broadening the definition of marriage, then I do not oppose such things."
That's really all one can reasonably expect from a Catholic bishop. After all, they would compromise their dogma otherwise.

Sounds like a good development for Poland. :)
I don't think it's their dogma, per se, but I get what you mean. Essentially, it's the farthest he can go without the church changing its official teachings (which is not dogma, as far as I understand, just something that is hard to change).

Barrister

Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2009, 08:10:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 07:15:43 AM
Well, the Archbishop was talking more along the lines of "I don't oppose" than "I support" but it's still quite a big thing, considering it's Poland and the Catholic church. Precisely he said that:

"If that is not going to lead to [full marriage] then it is a thing to consider. If this would facilitate such things as [inheritance, or joint taxation], then I would be open to this. As long as it does not enter the area of values, such as broadening the definition of marriage, then I do not oppose such things."

If I was in his shoes I would do the same thing.  Establishing Civil Unions is really the only way they can stop gays getting marriage in the long term.  All conservatives with half a brain would work towards them.

I support civil unions (although the horse is out of the barn in this country)... :unsureL
Quote from: crazy canuckBB's treatment is consistent with one who defends positions taken by the conservative wing of the Conservatives.

Josquius

██████
██████
██████

BuddhaRhubarb

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 19, 2009, 02:12:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2009, 02:09:14 PM
Agreed, I don't really think pride parades are put on to win hearts. I think they are generally seen as celebrations for the participants, affirming their existence and giving them a chance to celebrate their openness. The ultimate celebration of a transition from fearful, closeted child to showy glitter queen waltzing down main street.

Yes exactly. They are for the participants, not for everyone else.

It's just a parade. Don't go, if you don't feel like seeing it.  I see it as just another parade, like the Santa Claus parade mixed with a Dyke March(tm)
:p

Ed Anger

#34
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 19, 2009, 07:11:45 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 19, 2009, 02:12:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2009, 02:09:14 PM
Agreed, I don't really think pride parades are put on to win hearts. I think they are generally seen as celebrations for the participants, affirming their existence and giving them a chance to celebrate their openness. The ultimate celebration of a transition from fearful, closeted child to showy glitter queen waltzing down main street.

Yes exactly. They are for the participants, not for everyone else.

It's just a parade. Don't go, if you don't feel like seeing it.  I see it as just another parade, like the Santa Claus parade mixed with a Dyke March(tm)

I want to send a float to one of those parades, but then Flounder throws marbles in the street while me and D-Day break the float in half and run over a bunch of gays in flounders brother's car.
Stay Alive...Let the Man Drive

garbon

"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."

I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Martinus


BuddhaRhubarb

:p

Syt

If we want to prevent catastrophic economic and societal change we will have to radically change our climate system.

Proud owner of 42 Zoupa Points.

garbon

"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."

I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Jaron

Is that funny in Poland? Because its not over here.
Winner of THE grumbler point.

Crazy_Ivan80

Quote from: Barrister on June 19, 2009, 04:03:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2009, 08:10:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 07:15:43 AM
Well, the Archbishop was talking more along the lines of "I don't oppose" than "I support" but it's still quite a big thing, considering it's Poland and the Catholic church. Precisely he said that:

"If that is not going to lead to [full marriage] then it is a thing to consider. If this would facilitate such things as [inheritance, or joint taxation], then I would be open to this. As long as it does not enter the area of values, such as broadening the definition of marriage, then I do not oppose such things."

If I was in his shoes I would do the same thing.  Establishing Civil Unions is really the only way they can stop gays getting marriage in the long term.  All conservatives with half a brain would work towards them.

I support civil unions (although the horse is out of the barn in this country)... :unsureL

if a civil union has all the trappings of marriage it's rather dishonest to call it something else than marriage.

Heh, I even doubt that the couple having a 'civil union' will say that they've been civil unioned rather than married.

Martinus

Yeah, civil unions might be an important step towards equality, but ultimately it is a "separate but equal" measure. Anyone who agrees to it, but not to full marriage equality, must be aware of this dishonesty.

Valmy

Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2009, 08:40:27 AM
Yeah, civil unions might be an important step towards equality, but ultimately it is a "separate but equal" measure. Anyone who agrees to it, but not to full marriage equality, must be aware of this dishonesty.

Um...I am for full gay marriage but I am a bit annoyed by bringing up the 'separate but equal' thing in this context.  Are you implying we are not going to fund civil unions the same way we didn't fund black education?  That we are going to some how segregate gay people from straight people?  Because I don't really see how calling it a different name for an equal thing is anything more than a political trick not some way to keep gay people separate than straight people or keep them down.

So how the fuck would it keep anything 'separate' which in the sense that phrase was used referred to racial segregation?  You not being able to marry sucks but don't compare it to Jim Crow for godsake.  Hyperbole anyone?
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Martinus

Quote from: Valmy on June 22, 2009, 08:45:11 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2009, 08:40:27 AM
Yeah, civil unions might be an important step towards equality, but ultimately it is a "separate but equal" measure. Anyone who agrees to it, but not to full marriage equality, must be aware of this dishonesty.

Um...I am for full gay marriage but I am a bit annoyed by bringing up the 'separate but equal' thing in this context.  Are you implying we are not going to fund civil unions the same way we didn't fund black education?  That we are going to some how segregate gay people from straight people?  Because I don't really see how calling it a different name for an equal thing is anything more than a political trick not some way to keep gay people separate than straight people or keep them down.

So how the fuck would it keep anything 'separate' which in the sense that phrase was used referred to racial segregation?  You not being able to marry sucks but don't compare it to Jim Crow for godsake.  Hyperbole anyone?

Well, that's exactly what's going to happen. Because if we called same-sex unions "marriages", then all rights awarded to "opposite" marriages would automatically apply to same sex ones - and any situation in which they don't would automatically count as discrimination, whether it comes to the public or the private sector (e.g. as far as rights are being granted by companies to spouses of employees).

If you don't do that, and keep it separate but equal, then yes, you will open a door to discrimination - because every time someone will award a new right or privilege to married couples, you will run into an argument whether it should or should not also extend to couples in civil unions.

So it is exactly like "separate but equal" - you have equality in theory, but in practice you leave a door open to discrimination via other means.