same-sexVoters in the Republic of Ireland will take part in a referendum on legalising same-sex marriage on Friday 22 May. They will be asked whether they want to change the country’s constitution to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Family law (including civil status and marriage) is currently decided at the national level by Member State governments, so different EU Member States can have different rules regarding civil status. This can sometimes mean that civil status is not recognised when people travel between countries. We received a comment sent in by Markus, who told us of his personal difficulties travelling between EU Member States whilst being in a civil partnership:

Having arrived in the member state I am studying in, I brought my girlfriend and daughter. My girlfriend quite properly wanted her own bank account. However I can come to the member state as I am a student at an institution, but she is not. She can come here as my partner, but the civil partnership we are in is not recognized by the member state we moved to (they only recognize homosexual civil partnerships). So, because she is not recognized as my partner she cannot open a bank account (she can only have a joint account with me).

We wanted to get some reactions from policymakers to Markus’ experience, so we took his comment to Michael Cashman, at the time a British Labour MEP (part of the  Social Democrats in the European Parliament) and one of the Co-Presidents of the LGBT Intergroup.

One vocal critic of same-sex marriage is Roger Helmer MEP, a member of the UK Independence Party (part of the   Eurosceptics in the European Parliament). In the past, Helmer has described same-sex marriage as “vandalising an ancient institution for the sake of a modish whim”.

He may disagree with the principle of same-sex marriage, but how would he respond to Markus’ experience, and the idea that civil status bestowed in one Member State should be recognised in all others?

helmer-speaksWell, Markus may wish to be governed by European institutions, but I would prefer to be governed by a democratic government that I have elected in Britain. And, so far as I’m concerned, if you have different nations then you will get variations between the way the rules work in one country and another. I would rather live with those variations in the rules than live in an anti-democratic Europe dominated by European institutions that simply don’t feel the need to respond to the wishes of citizens.

Finally, we spoke to Ulrike Lunacek, an Austrian MEP for Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative, and Vice-Chair of the  Greens in the European Parliament. Lunacek is the second of the two Co-Presidents of the LGBT Intergroup in the European Parliament. What would she say to Markus?

lunacek-speaksWell, I would reply to Markus that this is what the LGBT Intergroup is fighting for. And I have been fighting for this all of my political life, being an openly lesbian politician myself, and being the first one in Austria, almost 20 years ago.

The problem with the issue Markus raises is that family law is still something that Member States preserve for themselves… So, on lesbian and gay marriage, it’s not something that the EU can impose on member states, but it’s something that Member States still decide on their own. What we can do is support freedom of movement, based on what is enshrined in the treaties: that each EU citizen can travel and live in all EU Member States, and that has to be true for same-sex couples as well. And that’s not imposing anything on Member States, that’s what Member States agreed to when they joined the EU.

So, the EU can, and is, doing this. And we’ve recently had a hearing that you can see on the website of the LGBT Intergroup, on free movement for same-sex couples. This is essentially what Markus is referring to, so it would be great if he could send us some information about his case, because it’s very good to have cases where we can then argue why it is important to have equal rights for everybody accepted in all Member States.

What do YOU think? What do YOU think should be the role of the EU when it comes to questions like same-sex marriage and civil partnerships? Currently, it is up to national governments to decide on issues related to family law, but should the European Union promote the mutual recognition of civil status across all Member States? Let us know your thoughts and comments, and we’ll take them to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.

Vote 2014

Voting is closed in our Debating Europe Vote 2014! The results are now in, so come and see what our readers thought!

765 comments Post a commentcomment

    • avatar

      why not what these people have done to you ???

    • avatar

      not what was done, but what will be. think wider.

    • avatar

      and what are they gonna do to you?

    • avatar
      someone withaproperopinion


  1. avatar
    Marco Loureiro

    This shouldn’t be something on the table for discussion if we stand up and uphold Equality. Simple as that ;)

  2. avatar
    Eva-Maria Risse

    Yes – even if you were against it – no one suffers from granting these rights to homosexual couples.

  3. avatar
    Marija Laba

    Yes- but it wont come naturally. Will recognizing it make the society accept it? no. In Lithuania, in most cases- being gay is still very secretive. How should Europe encourage sexuality difference and their acceptance first and foremost :)

  4. avatar
    Miguel Braz

    yes, of course. Why should gay people have less rights than others? This is supposedly a democracy. Let people live their lives the way they want, and stop judging. Someday people will judge you, and youll see how its annoying.

  5. avatar
    eusebio manuel vestias pecurto

    Estamos dentro de uma europa democratica o cidadão têm a sua liberdade de cidadania por isso os governos da UE estão aprovar os casamentos gay eu só estou contra é adopção das crianças não faz sentido nelhum que os cidadãos gay adoptêm crianças no nosso infeliz planeta ainda temos o Adão e a Eva

  6. avatar
    António Carujo

    A much as i recognize the right to ppl to be equal in the eyes of the Law, this is a sovereign matter and the EU should keep its “hands” out of it.

    • avatar

      So what?

    • avatar
      Jutta Inauen

      Yes, so what???

    • avatar

      A lot of kids are saved through adoption, and your saying that it is better a kid has no parents than two dads/mums. Plus a lot of heterosexual couples adopt. #LGBTequality

  7. avatar
    Daniel Tanahatoe

    @Antonio Carujo. Indeed the EU has nothing to do with this. But the question was whether EU countries should recognise same sex marriage. My answer would be, eventually yes. For some countries the debate is more advanced and therefore it could be introduced earlier. Other countries need more time.

    • avatar
      Jonathan Ultimate V42069.666

      We got it in the end anyway :)

  8. avatar
    Marcel Onufrei

    Marriage should be kept between a man and a woman because this is natural and this is how children can grow and develop in a mature way. Every one has a right to do what he likes but not a right to ruin society and legalise all the crasy ideas of any minority…

    • avatar

      So the only reason gay people can not marry each other is because their children won’t grow up in a healthy way? I call bullshit. What if they don’t want kids? If they do, do you know a gay couple with unhappy or unhealthy kids? I’m pretty sure gay people are perfectly able to raise their kids, as long as they give them lots of love, education and teach them about norms and values. Just like straight couples should raise their kids.

    • avatar

      Develope in a mature way? Why would kids of LGBT couples or people be immature. In fact they will be more mature of learning the difficulty the parents had to go through to nurture that child while dealing with people with as closed minds as you. Shame. #LGBTequality.

  9. avatar
    Luís Loureiro

    They should have a referendum in every EU country about the subject even the countries that had aproven the law.

  10. avatar
    Jovan Ivosevic

    It’s just not realistic for social policy to be legislated at the EU level. When you have countries in the Union like the Netherlands which legalized prostitution, and Ireland, which only recently legalized divorce, it is clear that member states’ social policies are far too different to be effectively legislated on a “one fits all” basis.

    24/06/2013 Mary Honeyball, MEP, has responded to this comment.

  11. avatar
    Lucian S.

    Totally Yes! Otherwise countries like Romania will never say yes to this.

    • avatar

      yup bro same in Bulgaria

  12. avatar
    Samuel Tantu

    No.Waht we understand true marrige is not compatible with waht is called “gay marrige”.The concept of marrige in european context approach and express the union of a man and a women for love, respect, reliance and procreation.The concept takes in cosideration de diferences and complementarity between a woman and a man.Taking in consideration this facts is impossible for 2 man or 2 woman to marry.Marrige is about something a few of us comprehend.

    • avatar

      True marriage is ‘union of a man and a women for love, respect, reliance and procreation’. So, you stating that:
      1) if a opposite-sex couple are infertile, or decide to not have the kids, you will deprive them of accessing to the institution of marriage too? Even if they are in love?
      2) you saying that all parties to a marriage are in love?, you have facts to support this argument? I can tell you with certainty, and with facts, that not all marriages are about love. Further, this also implies that two people, whatever their sex, can’t fall in love?
      3) Respect – you saying that in every marriage both parties respect each other, and if not, is not a true marriage? what about domestic violence? rape? Cheating? Lies? and the list can go on! All within marriage, regardless of social/religious background. Do you call that respect?
      Also, have a look at the concept of marriage TODAY around Europe, you live in 2015 and not in 1850.
      Get you facts right and do not say that because all of the above, two people of the same-sex cannot enter marriage! Your argument is weak and extremely narrow minded!! And in fact, you do not understand what marriage is all about!

    • avatar

      You act like you are the ‘few’ granted with wisdom. More like the people granted with a closed mind. Open up mate they aren’t hurting you. #LGBTequality.

  13. avatar
    Gediminas Bagdonas

    yes and no. well, is in ”their” right to ask for equal treatment. but on the other hand, once you grant ”them” this right, it eventually WILL lead to redefining the definition of marriage, sexual morality and finally your kind’s extension.

    Damn, if that happens on a progressive basis, I hope to be dead by the time my grandson decides to wed his pet-dog or shag his goldfish.

  14. avatar
    Sílvia Rocha

    But quit calling it gay marriage! It’s marriage! what’s so difficult to understand in it?!

  15. avatar
    Paulo Peralta

    Samuel Tantu says “The concept of marrige in european context approach and express the union of a man and a women for love, respect, reliance and procreation.”

    What about those couples (man and woman) that are married and DoN’T want to have children… should they be considered illegal?

    What about those parents (man and woman) that are married, have they’re children and then… one of them is gay… should those parents be “guilty” of it’s child being gay?


    Europe, the EU, was created for the idea of EQUALITY, FREEDOM and RIGHTS… so… if you deny a right to a part of the population… here are the values that formed this “union”?… It’s as simples as that…

    I say YES… EU should recognise same sex marriages.

  16. avatar
    Станислав Малчев

    I can’t agree that the gay couples have to have the righ to adopt children, but the marriage is something like an union between two people, so noone has the right to involve between their relations..

  17. avatar
    catherine benning

    First of all why is Europe so obsessed with this right to marry? Marriage is between a man and a woman. And two males or two females cannot be equal to that pertnership as it is not the identical arrangment. Both are of the same sex.

    And to one of the earlier posters they already adopt children in both the UK and the UK. And the outcome is being highly guarded as to how these children may have suffered. This is an experiment with the culture and sciety of the European people.

    Two men and two women in a relationship already have the right to a civil partnership. Why do they want marriage when that is an act of heterosexual couples and is in respect of the children they produce together.

    And homosexuality is dangerous physically.

    What killed this man?

    No. Marriage is between heterosexual couples. It cannot take place between two people of the same sex.

    • avatar

      Marriage doesn’t mean children and these ‘dangerous’ people aren’t allowed to have the right of or participate in the acts of heterosexual couples? Unfair. A grown woman like you should know all about the concept of exclusion. Let them marry and stop being so oppressive. #LGBTequality.

  18. avatar
    Don Bourletsikas

    Personally. I am open minded however it goes against my beliefs in religion however in nature it can apply as well! Every nation is different therefore I vote “No”, civil partnership is enough!

    • avatar

      Civil partnership? Get over yourself, please! It is good that you are at least open to them being together but all the EU wants to do is allow people to marry, considering heterosexual couples can already marry they are just expanding current ‘laws’.

  19. avatar
    Leila Willems

    Yes, i can accept that some people do not agree with equal marriage because of personal or religious reasons. But just because you feel that way should not be a reason for others not to get married, the only thing a person who has something against equal marriage can do is not marry someone of the same gender.

  20. avatar
    Hélio Rodrigues

    civil partnership yes, married no! Personally some people should go read what marriage means! Marriage was created in one basic thing: “create a family”, and 2 persons from the same sex cant create a family!!! I mean married is about love and have children, love they can have, but children they cant! I am open minded and I also have gay friends, and already explain my position about this.

  21. avatar
    Panagiotis Chatziioannou

    Υes,marriage is about love,caring,loyalty,honesty.Not about gender.We live in goddamn 21st century.Equality for all EU citizens.Europe should be the example for other countries too.

  22. avatar
    David Fuzzey

    It is up to each Country……the eussr should keep its nose out….as for my answer…….Yes.

  23. avatar

    NO! Because it’ depends of what definition of “marriage” there is in european countries .
    In France, “gay marriage” doesn’t make sense! A marriage is between a man and a woman, because inside of the definition of marriage, there is this LINK with the FILIATION. People with same sex can’t have children.. To a different reality, we need a specific law (and a specific word!). A “gay union” would be fairer than to create a legal invention saying that a children may born from two people of same sex. A specific law for homosexuals would bring specific solutions to their conditions.
    And please, think first about the children, not about the desire of parents ! Europe has to protect the weaknest people..and in this case, it’s the child! Let the child the choice to know his dad AND his mum! The difference of sex is crucial for the construction of a human being. A man and a woman don’t give the same thing to a child! what about the intrauterine relationship between a baby and his mum ?
    I heard a lot of people saying me: but the hapiness of a child is not linked with the sex of his parents, it’s just a question of how much they love their children ! Of course, love is crucial for the development of children, but it can’t be separated with the sexual otherness.. if you begin to separate sex and love, it’s dangerous, because you put sex into perspective. In this case, if love is enough to legislate, we can accept all of things..why cant’ I marry my sister ? I love her! and if I’m biologically a woman, why can’t I become a man ? there is no more sex, only a gender <<<<< see "gender theory"

    • avatar

      Their specific CONDITIONS! They are just loving someone I don’t think that is a mental illness. #LGBTequality.

  24. avatar
    Bane Sovilj

    first of all, your question is discriminatory by itself. you should have asked: ”Should all EU countries recognise LGBTQ marriages? What do YOU think?” if you really care about human rights, please take into consideration ALL sexual minorities, not only gay population. so, ask appropriate questions for a good beginning… as for MY opinion, i think slightly different: ALL countries in the world, weather they are internationally recognized or not (therefore – not only the eu countries), should recognize LGBTQ marriages. i think they should, but i am aware of the fact that it is not possible.

  25. avatar
    Andrew Chandler

    The problem is that each country has different forms of marriage registration and different relationships between churches and the state. The EU should not interfere in these and in freedom of conscience.

  26. avatar
    David Fuzzey

    ” The gays and lesbians are handicapped either genetically or by a strong neurosis. They are also worth of treatment like afflicted men or women. welcome back to the dark ages……why not flog them and give the electro shock therapy while your at it??…evolution obviously passed you by.

  27. avatar
    Ivana Simoniti

    The reason handicapped people arent allowed to drive is because they would be a danger to themselves and others… who are gays endangering by claiming their rights? They should be allowed if they wish and they should be allowed to adopt. Thousands of children go unadopted every year. Is it better to leave them as orphans just because we are intolerant?

  28. avatar
    Antonín Rozkopal


  29. avatar

    First of all, call it marriage, not gay marriage. One single consenting adult with another single consenting adult. I am all in favor of any marriage meeting that definition. Who am I to rule over others?

    @Bane Sovilj
    If you really wanted an acronym with all variants, you’d end up with an unpronouncable 50 letter word. Oh, and T doesn’t describe sexual preference whereas LGB do.

    But, ‘gay marriage’, or ‘redefined marriage’ as I prefer to call it (and am in favor of) is not a human rights or civil rights issue or even an equality issue.

    First of all, marriage is no human right or civil right. If I claimed the civil right to marry and no one wanted to marry me, would the state force someone? I think not, therefore it isn’t a civil right.

    And technically, if in a country no one is allowed to marry a person of the same sex, then that rule applies equally to all, so therefore its not an equality issue either.

    Just to make sure people got the message: I am in favor of letting any two single consenting adults ‘marry’ eachother.

  30. avatar
    Jovan Ivosevic

    I am going to record the date and time when I agreed with David Fuzzey on something. Anyone who thinks homosexuality is a disease needs to read a medical textbook, or at least a science book regarding the presence of homosexuality in mammals.

    And FYI for those who say men and women can create a family, why do we recognize the marriage of a man and woman who medically cannot have children, or are too old for it? Marriage is a legal contract by which two people can choose to vest in each other various rights, from inheritance to tax benefits, to giving control over life and death decisions like who is going to decide whether they should operate on you or not when you are in a coma. If you deny one person that right because you are too uncomfortable with who he or she likes to have sex with, you can wrap it in religion, you can wrap it in traditionalism, it’s still discrimination any way you slice it.

  31. avatar
    Alexandre Lecoq

    Yes ! And by the way the map’s wrong : there’s no civil union in France : that was even the solution proposed by the opponents of same sex marriage. There’s however a partnership for same-sex and straight couple whose legal system is similar (especially on fiscal and succession matters) to that of marriage but not the same.

  32. avatar

    Let’s make a referendum and the masks will fall!

  33. avatar
    Christos Mouzeviris

    “And please, think first about the children, not about the desire of parents ! Europe has to protect the weaknest people..and in this case, it’s the child! Let the child the choice to know his dad AND his mum! ”

    So what about people who can not have children and must adopt? What tells us that the child wants to be adopted! What about people adopting children from other countries and other ethnicity or races.. Is that moral? If two gay people can not have children as it is not natural, then two white people can not have a black or Asian child. Yet we allow that to happen… Are we sure than an African baby want to be adopted by a white family and be taken out of its country? Are we suffering from the “white savior” complex? Just because Madonna and other celebrities are doing it, does not make it right.

    If we must take special care for the children as you say, then we should also do it for straight couples that want to adopt, or celebrities who think it is their right to go and adopt children from all over the world.. Children are not puppies..

    And what about if one gay parent has already a child from a former heterosexual relationship? If they later remarry a person of the same sex, why can’t their new parents adopt the child of their partner and create a family?

    If we say NO to one kind of family, then perhaps we should forbid other existing types of family, like the single parent families! Are you sure that a child is better off growing up in a family with just a mother, that in many cases the father is either unknown or he does not want to participate in the growing up of the child…

    Where do we draw the line?

  34. avatar
    Niki Sharon

    Why no?? We are in 2013, why don’t give them the right to live free their love?? We should change our mentality and accept the fact that the gay people exist and are persons like us. We must be open mind

  35. avatar
    Debbie Stowe

    Definitely. In the future it will seem as absurd that gay couples were prohibited from marrying as the anti-miscegenation laws (which prevented couples of different races from marrying) now do. Why should some people’s prejudice and ignorance stop gay people getting full equality?

  36. avatar
    Nikolaos Sotirelis

    Definitely yes. Marriage is practically a contract between two adult people who decided to share their lives. Either they belong to the same sex or not, the State should provide them all the legal rights and benefits of a marriage. Such as common property, or legacy matters.
    However the main issue here is, if married people of the same sex should have the right of an adoption. I believe not. And I don’t mean that they’re gonna be bad fathers or mothers. I mean that as adults, they chose to live together. I don’t think that a baby could chose for itself, if it wants to be raised by a gay family.

  37. avatar
    Jovan Ivosevic

    @Antonn Rozkopal: If you believe that gay people are “aiming to educate children” to become homosexual, and if you equate the quest by adult gay people for legal recognition of their relationships with the aim of pedophiles to recognize pedophilia as normal behavior, then you are not tolerant by any means.

    I grew up with openly gay students since grade school. They shared their stories, their love problems with me, and I am now 33 years old, and I like the opposite sex every bit as much as I did back then. If you are straight, you can’t “become” gay through reeducation any more than you can “become” straight if you are gay. Gay reparative therapy and similar methods have been shown to result in a many consequences ranging from chronic depression, to anger to suicide, which is what you’d get if you tried to “re-educate” a straight person to form same sex romantic relationships against his or her instinct. I will take the words of psychiatrists and other scientists about what homosexuality is over the word of someone who thinks gay people and pedophiles should be in the same category and says scientists are under political pressure.

  38. avatar
    Christos Mouzeviris

    as for the adoption…. where do we draw the line? what about people who can not have children and must adopt? What tells us that the child wants to be adopted! What about people adopting children from other countries and other ethnicity or races.. Is that moral? If two gay people can not have children as it is not natural, then two white people can not have a black or Asian child. Yet we allow that to happen? Are we sure than an African baby want to be adopted by a white family and be taken out of its country? Are we suffering from the ?white savior? complex? Just because Madonna and other celebrities are doing it, does not make it right.

    If we must take special care for the children as you say, then we should also do it for straight couples that want to adopt, or celebrities who think it is their right to go and adopt children from all over the world.. Children are not puppies..

    And what about if one gay parent has already a child from a former heterosexual relationship? If they later remarry a person of the same sex, why can?t their new parents adopt the child of their partner and create a family?

    If we say NO to one kind of family, then perhaps we should forbid other existing types of family, like the single parent families! Are you sure that a child is better off growing up in a family with just a mother, that in many cases the father is either unknown or he does not want to participate in the growing up of the child?

  39. avatar
    Nikolaos Sotirelis

    Dear Christos you do have a point. However you are missing something. When a couple adopts a child, special social State services check very often their behavior and their family life, so the State can ensure and provide a secure and normal life to the child.
    There are two kinds of homosexuals. Those with the natural choise, which is an hormonic issue and those with the personal choise, which has to do with an adult’s conscious choise. Both are equally and totally respectable.
    But if a child grows up in an environment with different sexual standard than the rest of the kids, even if it finds love and protection that it needs, can this be considered fair and normal raising of a child? This child is damned to live two lives. One in its home and another out of it. Not to mention the possible rejection from the other children, in a tender age and the psychological violence of this fact.So the issue isn’t so simple.
    The State should allows with no hesitation the gay marriage, but I don’t think it should provide them the right to an adoption.

  40. avatar

    Yes sure.We want to make a European Union that will be fully democratic and preserve the values of freedom and human development.Gay marriage-civil unions should be legal.The same should be applied with straight couples.

  41. avatar
    Fazalum Minallah

    If 2/3 Majority of a country decides it to be legal then it should be legal otherwise it should be illegal.

  42. avatar
    Kostas Tsampas

    I agree with Aleksei every EU country should decide individually whether or not to allow gay marriage or adoption , as for me a big NO for the adoption but marriage should be allowed

  43. avatar
    Maryama WM

    Marriage is about love and love is a good thing…the law has nothing to do with that. Everyone should have the freedom to marry whomever they love.

  44. avatar
    What the EU stands for

    Of course both marriage and adoption should be legal, marriage is a LEGAL institution, not a moral one. The EU I and many people support is an EU that grants equal rights to citizens,.

    Those who are “against same sex marriage” have a very easy way out – don’t marry a person of same sex.

  45. avatar
    Antwnia Anduela

    Absolutely yes for me.Everyone should have the freedom to choice for his life.why u confuse with other things like is an inducement to think more openly in Europe

  46. avatar
    Julian Barazi

    Due to all our constitutions people have similar rights. Since being homosexual is unlike pedophilia not a crime, legal homosexual marriage needs to be introduced. Wether or not they will have the option to get married in church is not ours to decide since we are secular states, that is decision that needs to be done by the pope and other church leaders.

  47. avatar
    Astrit Disha


  48. avatar
    Paul Engelhard


  49. avatar
    Juan Manuel Mora Rey

    Each country according to its social situation. It is hard to say Yes. I have lived the ridiculous situation in France and I cannot say some other EU countries will be in a better position. It takes time and education. Not so easy.
    I would love to say Yes, but that’s not real, nor democratic. Each country should go its one way to walk that path.

  50. avatar
    Isabel Ribeiro

    I do not agree with any kind of marriage.
    If you love someone you should not need to sign documents, the commitment is in your head.

  51. avatar
    Borislav Valkov

    Marriage is civil right long before democracy was even researched. To abolish this right is the same as abolishing the democracy. It’s their choice and I do not understand why does so many people what others can do or cannot do since being gay is not a as being criminal?

  52. avatar
    Tom Bouwman

    Wow! I see there are still people out there who think that gay marriage and adoption should not be allowed! What an interesting age this is to live in! They remind me of the Coelacanth: It’s still here reminding us of a lost era…but who gives a sh*t?

    • avatar

      When you cant put up a good argument…or spell ‘bigger’ correctly. #LGBTequlaity

  53. avatar
    Joseph Krukowski

    What concirns same sex MARRIAGES, I have doubts, because in many countries like Latvia this termin has religious conotation. But same sex couples should have at least common set of legal rights, like common property, opportunity to visit partner in hospital, protecion against violence etc.

  54. avatar
    Jovan Ivosevic

    @Nikolaos Sotirelis: Not too long ago, the argument was made that unless school children are separated by race, the children who are of a different race will be teased in school by bullying kids of the majority race. Not only is this an invalid argument legally, (rights should not be given or withheld based on whether or not school yard bullies think you should have it) but what has been discovered is that children only bring such prejudices to school if they hear it at home. Same was true for racism as it is for homophobia. If school administrators punish children for bullying and if attitudes begin to change, there is no problem. In California we have had gay couples adopting children for a few decades now. Their kids grow up to be 90% heterosexual (which is the same proportion as in the general population) and their development depends on how their parents raised them, much more so than who their parents are going to bed with every night. Which is not a surprise because the same is true for straight parents.

  55. avatar
    Jovan Ivosevic

    @Astrit Disha: If you set aside your prejudice long enough to think about comparing gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality, you will realize that neither children nor animals are capable of consenting to sex, nor are they capable of signing a contract which is what marriage is. So there is absolutely no evidence one will lead to the other.

    Women in western countries (except Switzerland) were given the right to vote between 70 to 95 years ago. It has been more than half a century, and we still haven’t extended the right to vote to children or animals. I am sure some man had the same concern as you back then and it sounded just as ridiculous.

  56. avatar
    Jovan Ivosevic

    @Joseph Krukowski: Do you honestly think that marriage has a religious connotation only in “religious countries’? It has that connotation for everyone who is religious, and none for people who are not religious. What is amazing to me is that in 2013 someone wants to make civil rights subject to religious doctrine. Should we start putting people in jail who have had sex before marriage because it is against Christian beliefs? Should we make divorce illegal for any cause but adultery by a woman because this is what Jesus says in the Bible? Or should we just excuse every straight person who doesn’t live up to those high standards but hold gay people to them?

  57. avatar
    Petra Guasti

    Yes, everybody ought to have the right to connect their life to someone else. And of course yes to adoption, it is better for a child to grow up with two loving mothers/fathers than to be raised without love in some state institution…

  58. avatar
    Nikolaos Sotirelis

    Dear Jovan, I would agree totally with you, if we were living in an ideal society. But I’m afraid we are not. Bullying is a daily practice to schools and neighborhoods, all over the world.
    Now imagine the percent of the couples that they’ve adopt a child. Let’s say 5%? Now think the percent of those couples that they are gay. 1%? (only a few gays, get finally married). So the possibility for a child to be adopted from a gay family is about 0,005%! So we are not talking just for a simple minority, but for a dramatic exception. An easy victim!
    I won’t argue with your elements from California. After all, you have probably searched a lot for them . But there are indeed a lot gay couples with natural children from other marriages. The big difference of those children with the adopted children is that the situation that they were involved to, was a mixed choise between nature and their parents. The adopted children however is a matter, which State has the first word. Not nature, nor the parents. The State should care only for the children benefit and not for the couple’s “sense of completion”.

  59. avatar
    Christos Mouzeviris

    @Nikolaos Sotirelis: “There are two kinds of homosexuals. Those with the natural choise, which is an hormonic issue and those with the personal choise, which has to do with an adult’s conscious choise” That is totally NOT true… no one chooses to become a homosexual and deal with everything that goes with it.All the slander, the discrimination, the stereotypical portrayal… If you had to go through all this, would you “chose” to become homosexual? The reality is that human sexuality has all shades of grey.. There is the 100% black that is the absolute male, and the 100% white that there is the absolute female..Between them exist myriads types of sexuality and it is unfair to categorize by simplification: he is “gay” she is “straight”… Some people like the opposite sex at a moment, and then are attracted by the same sex, when the meet the right person.. So what do you say about a man that likes to have a dominant female companion? As for children adoption I am skeptic myself too about the issue for now..Not because I believe that gay people are not able to raise a child well.. Would you prefer to leave a child in a dysfunctional traditional family where one or both parents are alcoholics and abuse their children, or allow a gay couple to adopt them? But as you said because of the bullying and discrimination that the child will face in his life… Not that I rule out totally adoption by gay parents forever..Once our societies accept gay marriages and we eventually grow up and mature, then there will be no issue in what type of family you were raised… As it will not matter who you sleep with and what you do in your bed… You may chose to be with a male partner for a number of years, then if you meet the right woman, fall in love with her… Easy as that.. We are not animals to mate just to procreate.. We are complex organisms with a soul, as we pride ourselves to be… So why do we persistently want to limit ourselves and bring our kind to the level of other beasts that we share this world with?

  60. avatar
    Jovan Ivosevic

    Nikolaos I generally don’t give ******** the right to have a veto over someone’s rights. Kids are teased because they have a funny name, because they are disabled, because they talk funny, because they do something that does not conform with the group. 20 years ago ids were teased about having parents from a different race. School administrators that dealt with their school bullying problems were successful, while those that did not failed at their job. We don’t tell parents who have kids that get teased or bullied at school that they can’t bring their child there, we discipline the bullies. Same thing for kids who have gay parents. And given the shortage of parents willing to adopt children, it is certainly better for those kids to have parents who want him or her and be teased at school, than grow up in a state institution and be teased at school, or beaten up there.

  61. avatar
    Nikolaos Sotirelis

    Christos I’m not an expert in sexuality. You are right that there are a lot of kinds of sexualities. But stereotypes and standards are excisting and have a lot to do with the morality standards of each period, class or religion.
    Different sexualities and moralities in Ancient Greece, in MiddleAges, in aristocracy, in Islam. Different even in a city than a distant village of the same country. So a part of it has to do a lot with the concious choise, even if it’s guided from the environment, plenty of times.
    However the main issue here isn’t human sexuality but the luck of an adopted child. And it’s in the hand of the State to decide what is the best for it and not for the couple either it is straight, or gay, or bi…

  62. avatar
    Christos Mouzeviris

    In Ireland where I live they used to do that you know…. They had institutions that their purpose was to look after children…. The State made a right mess of it.. So its role should be only in law legislation… And that needs debate, to reflect the needs of the citizens… So that is what we are doing now…

  63. avatar
    Nikolaos Sotirelis

    Petra this is an usual argument, but it has no value at all. There is enough childless families, which are waiting for many years for an adoption but they don’t get a quick license. The problem isn’t that there is not enough families to cover the orphans, but the public services’ bureaucracy.
    All the couples want to adopt infants and not the older children for reasonable causes. That is the main problem of the orphan. If they grow up a little, they shall never have a chance to be adopted by a family. If you add a few couples to the applicants, it won’t change anything at all.

  64. avatar
    Nikolaos Sotirelis

    A suggestion to “Debating Europe”: When you put a subject under vote you should have more than two options. For example if you put in this specific issue two choices, yes or no, I personally and a lot of others, we couldn’t be able to choose. I, for instance, would vote yes for gay marriage, but without the right to an adoption. A third option like “yes under preconditions”, could cover the blank.

  65. avatar
    catherine benning

    I am surprised by the apparent lack of education on this subject throughout this entire thread. The answers are childlike, without any serious consideration of the future of European life and the expectations of their children. More than that, the lack of health awareness is frightening. Which goes to show that whilst educating or the indoctrination of the youth of this continent they failed to raise the issue of the human body and its limitations. I believe Europe is stultified by its race to be ‘modern’ without giving any mature consideration to the question posed here.

    First and foremost what equality are we taling about here. Tow men in a relationship and wo women in a relations is not equal and cannot be equal to the relationship between a man and a women because they are between different genders. When you try to do this it is the equivalent of pretending a heavyweight is equal to a featherweight in a boxing contest. And in that example, the two are men.

    The other apparent issue that struck me here is, how many people came to read this thread and comment, passionately, whilst leaving so many of the truly important issues of the day raised on the website, untouched. Another indication of immature thinking and lack of wisdom in how politics affect every aspect of our lives.

    The ridiculous idea that being raised in a deviant lifestyle by two adults, who, by the very nature of the situation, cannot fill their needs is better than one of being in an institution. That is akin to comparing the frying pan to the fire and opting for the fire. An institution is indeed not good but it does offer more diverse and secular environment to grow in and choose than an environment that would expect and impose a belief on them that leaves little or no opening for dissent. A baby adopted into a certain doctrine that would, in this case, be dominant and overbearing, would have a great fear in offering up and opposing view to that of the carers belief. And the heavy influence by the state who would have imposed this life on them would not offer any support in exposing their discontent or opposition to this lifestyle they may want to express. In other word, as is now already the circumstance, the ‘state’ would hide what it has done to their life as their officials won’t accept blame and as the homosexual agenda is an experiment politicians are presently obsessed with, anything that goes against that policy status would be squashed dramatically.

    Have you heard of the mishaps and the devastation of children adopted or fostered by homosexual couples? No? Well I wonder why that is? Couldn’t be a cover up, could it?

    These children reveal their horror and are often life threatened for it, how long will it take to hear the true story of what takes place in the real world with this distortion of principle that is currently so popular?

    And answer this question. Imagine you have a relationship with your opposite sex lover, and you have children or a child together. You break up and as a result of financial devastation or some other horrific tragedy in your life, you child or children are taken into care and offered up by the state for adoption. And against your will, which is happening often in the UK, your child or children are given to homosexual men for adoption. Against the will of the entire family. How will you feel about that?

    And one last question, what would you would want if it was you being put up for adoption?

  66. avatar
    Band Khayx

    Same-sex marriage is a Human Right. Europe abides by Human Rights and should, therefore, give the example. Recognition of same-sex marriage should be automatically generalized in all EU. However, i personally believe, each member state should decide about introducing marriage as law at its own pace. It’s the EU task to instruct the countries in that direction and that same-sex marriage should have all the same rights as the existing marriages, otherwise it is nothing than a second rate marriage, like in Portugal. If a same-sex couple is not allowed to adopt children, then there is a perpetuation of discrimination, something which should be watched carefully by the Human Rights Watch and the European Commission.

  67. avatar
    Claudio Cilia

    YES please! we’re all European, It’s not easy to be gay .. We want our lives to be lived in peace and at full equality

  68. avatar
    Ricardo Duarte


    By the way, the map is wrong. Portugal honours and legally recognises same sex civil partnerships as well as marriage.

  69. avatar
    Mitja Blažić

    It is not a question of “should” it is only a question of “when”. I am sure the answer is soon.

  70. avatar
    Marta Logan

    Why are we even discussing this? Are we also going to debate if interracial marriages should be legal? Get over it already! If you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t get married to someone of your own sex! That’s the only choice you should have to make.

  71. avatar
    What the EU stands for

    Catherine Benning,
    as articulate as you are, you should be aware of politicization of both research and media. The sources you quote are nowhere neutral, as research should be, they rather masquerade political opinions as research. Are you aware of horror that some children experience after adoption into heterosexual “traditional families”? Yes? Should we therefore deprive orphans from growing up in a loving family? Didn’t think so. Yes, there are bad people, there are people who cannot handle the responsibility to raise a child, but these are individuals, and there aren’t so many of them either, and not surprisingly they come in all forms and colors and sexualities.

    It’s sad to see that you “feed your mind” only with what YOU *think* is right, but it is up to you. But just as well as I won’t tell you to go and read progressive research and media, YOU should not be telling OTHER people how to live their lives, let them have their Human Rights and stay out of other people’s bedrooms. If you don’t like it, just stay OUT of it.

  72. avatar
    What the EU stands for

    And do answer Catherine Benning’s question “You break up and as a result of financial devastation or some other horrific tragedy in your life, you child or children are taken into care and offered up by the state for adoption. And against your will, which is happening often in the UK, your child or children are given to homosexual men for adoption. Against the will of the entire family. How will you feel about that? And one last question, what would you would want if it was you being put up for adoption?”

    I would want it to grow up with LOVING adoptive parents, who are open minded – cause how would you know that that very child is not homosexual. What would YOU do if your teen kid came home with a boy/girlfriend of same sex?

  73. avatar
    catherine benning

    @What the EU stands for:

    Now lets start with your handle. Who are you to tell us on this website what the EU stands for? What business are you in that gives you a free for all on what the EU stands for and why do you want to give the impression you are leading this union in some way or another? More, it is the state or the EU who should be staying out of the bedroom, and if they don’t want our views, then it should not pose questions on an open forum for citizens to give them their views. What your problem is, is that you cannot stand an opposing view and simply want a patsy to back you up, one without thought or objection to the realities of what it is you want to have accepted by the citizens of Europe. It’s okay for you to push your thoughtless agenda but you cannot handle the other side of your political reality being examined.

    The pro lobby has been politicizing this issue for years and are frustrated now that people are finally having the courage to speak out. What I put up for people to read was facts, not propaganda and emotional blackmail. However, those of you who want to promote a deviant lifestyle detest facts. They hinder the ability to pull the wool over peoples eyes. And if you feel the tiny revelations I made open on here, then hold onto your hat, as the reality of what you are pushing is on its way to the surface and you will not be able to cover it up with newspeak. The children used thirty years ago by the gay lobby in order to conceal the truth of what it is they really want, are finally coming into their own, and they can no longer be stifled by fear and threats, as they have been for so many years. An avalanche of reality is waiting to spring free. Just as it was with the boys who were held to ransom by Catholic priests.

    And because of horrors toward children being practiced by straight people ‘may also happen’ it is less likely, and it doesn’t make it a good choice to use an example like that indicating that if one set of people do inhuman acts with children, another more rampant group should also be given encouragement and sanction to do the same under the guise of equality.

    That sentence shows you where your head is at, doesn’t it? And for the record, the damage to little boys mentally and physically by unnatural sex acts performed by adult males against them, is far more dangerous than people like you would have it generally known. The entire child sex business should be out in the open so that those who pass laws for us all to abide by, know exactly what it is they are sanctioning. No more of that old nonsense, ‘we had no idea this is what we should have expected.’

    You want democracy, equality and freedom, well, the first requirement for that is openness and debate. Clearly not something you relish when it offers opposition to your agenda.

    Have a good day.

  74. avatar
    What the EU stands for

    Catherine Benning, I never said I, as an individual, decide over what the EU stands for, and what it does not stand for. We, as a large group of citizens, however, are a whole different thing. There is a majority out there in many countries in the EU, who realize that it’s not their business to judge other people’s identities. A man’s freedom is absolute and only ends where another man’s freedom begins. And, I as an individual can read the Charter of Fundamental Rights, maybe you should take a look there.

  75. avatar
    catherine benning

    @What the EU stands for:

    Interpretation of any document is like, beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder.

    Your prejudice closes one eye whilst you blinker the other. What of the freedom of those whom this legislation will impose incarceration on? Are they allowed no voice or are their ‘rights’ to be ignored because of your reluctance to take on alternate information?

  76. avatar
    What the EU stands for

    Whose “rights” would be ignored by allowing consenting adults to marry (which is a LEGAL issue, not a MORAL one in our society)? Your right to discriminate? Your right to intolerance?

  77. avatar
    Jadwiga Aleksandra Nowierska

    I think all states should recognize marriage or civil union-everyones.

  78. avatar
    Marcel - Eurosoviet dissident

    Four out of five evangelical divorcees think marriage is sacred!

  79. avatar
    Peter Schellinck

    It is the European Unions’ duty to promote the mutual recognition of civil status across all Member States. As the project Europe is a collective goal and based on solidarity respecting human rights individual freedom must not be compromised. Hence, whether one likes or approves such relationships is irrelevant. Each and everyone must take up his/her social responsibility and respect that of others.

  80. avatar

    The EU should have the power to approve same sex marriage. In the meanwhile, all countries in the EU should recognize any marriage approved in another one.

  81. avatar
    Jan Falzon

    Like it or not, eventually same sex marriage will be recognised in all European states. When it is implemented, we’ll look back and say “huh, why didn’t we implement it before?” It’s not like anything would change except for two people of the same sex who love each other would, in the case of same-sex marriage being legalised, have their love recognised by the state.

  82. avatar
    catherine benning

    I repeat what I wrote in a previous post. Different entities cannot produce any kind of ‘equality.’ For the two entities are not remotely similar. The physical and mental biological compound is not identical, or even related, on any level.

    A man and a woman in marriage is not and can never be ‘equal’ to two men in a partnership or two women in a partnership. They are different in that they cannot recreate the same situation, either emotionally or physically. Two men cannot pro-create as the two are biologically identical in gender, which is self evident. Two men do not have between them breasts, uterus, vagina, ovaries and the female psyche. Likewise with two women not having the biological requirements to present as male. Therefore, a man is biologically as well as psychologically ‘different’ from a female and vice versa. The two ‘different’ genders are two ‘different’ entities. Therefore, a marriage can only take place between a man and a woman. As, the meaning of marriage is not a union that can be compared to two different biological entities which are unable to practice the union required to create another human being or to form the same psychological connection. Married couples have two distinct and different expectations of what their union can expect, produce and offer, to that of two males or two females. And all the pretense in the world is never going to make them one and the same. More than that, it is psychologically harmful to mankind as a whole to try and persuade them, through legislation, that such an enormous incompatible perception is fact.

    Equality has to begin with comparable entities. Two men having a sexual union is not remotely equal to a sexual union between a man and a woman. And the same is for two females. There is no possibility of two men becoming one man and one woman and is therefore not equal in any respect to a couple who are of different genders. So claiming ‘equal rights’ under secular or even religious freedom, in this situation is plainly absurd. And by forcing mankind to pretend that a faux situation is reality, by any government or state, is against the ‘human rights’ of the citizens they rule over. Thereby, doing so is removing the ‘human rights’ of the entire citizenship they govern.

  83. avatar

    I wonder what _experience_ is your _opinion_ based on, Catherine? Have you ever been in a same sex relationship? Why do you think you can judge other people’s feelings?

  84. avatar

    The whole argument of Catherine can be translated into the debate about the suffragists and female vote. A man is biologically different from a woman. Women have an uterus, breasts, vaginas, and so they are prepared for being mothers, not for deciding about the political interests of a nation. Therefore, they should not vote.

    What’s the catch? Of course, the biological factor does not prevent a woman to be able to think and vote: the purpose of women is not only procreation, as she may agree. In the same way, the purpose of marriage is not only procreation, and for all the rest (including love, care or growing as individuals), same sex couples don’t have any trouble at all. In fact, procreation is a problem in an overpopulated world as ours.

  85. avatar
    Matteo De Chiara

    I think that at least the samesex civil union should be granted in each EU states. If we are talking about marriage, well, if I had to vote, I’d vote YES. But I understand that the people fear everything the found different from their own view of the world and so maybe it is nowadays is only time to let people understand that granting rights to other people is not going to reduce their rights. However I’m sure that it is only matter of time and the future will be in the direction or the recognition of marriage equality.

    I think it is just silly to say that there are other more important things to do. No parliament or government works on a single issue at any time… We can work on economic crisis and, at the same time, work on environmental protection or have foreign relationship. In the same way we can handle a discussion on same sex union. Dont’you think?

  86. avatar
    catherine benning

    Obviously you are not getting the gist of my post or don’t want to.

    The point here is, that men and women are equally able to vote because they have indeed got different expectations and needs in respect of the way our country or state moves forward, However, the difference in those needs does not hinder their right to request those differences be taken into account. Voting is not a physical or emotional expectation or requirement. It is simply a decision based on preferences.

    The relationship between two men or two women is taken care of under legislation by offering up civil partnership, which is theirs for the taking, should they wish to participate. And how clever to realise that by having this ‘right’ they are reducing the rights of other citizens as it is for them alone. Hence the sudden push for heterosexual civil partnership. Again wanting to reduce the meaning of and infinite difference of the entity of human marriage. Which is something that exists as a particular and discrete unit, consisting of unconnected distinct parts.

    Mixed doubles cannot take place between two men or two women. That eliminates the contest before it’s begun. It cannot be a horse race unless only horses are in it. If you admit camels into a horse race it becomes a camel and horse race. No. What is really taking place here is a move by government to remove the fact of gender. What will you call the Wimbledon mixed doubles if you cannot refer to or accept that we have two distinct gender differences with quite separate biological factors and needs? And why should any of us want to give up our gender ‘rights’ in order to pretend we have no real and very desirable differences? I don’t want to be a man, as wonderful and men are, they are ‘different’ from me. Not to mention I love their difference and do not want to emulate it or pretend I don’t find it extremely exciting in its existence.

    And the answer to have I ever been in a same sex relationship, well, not a sexually connected one, no. I have women friends and I have men friends and they are quite dramatically separate in both their stance and reason for being. Which I love and am deeply satisfied with. I don’t want to pretend I’m something other than the woman I am, because I love being a woman. I also don’t want to be forced by a group or by a government into taking on a fictitious notion that these gender differences don’t exist. Because I know that they do. And so do all of you. Otherwise you wouldn’t need to force us all into taking up this ‘kings new clothes’ facade.’ It would have been spotted thousands of years
    ago and righted way back before we ever set eyes on this planet if we were as one.

    It is an insult to my intelligence as well as an offense against my femininity to suggest I’m equal to a male in form and in reason. How dare you try to tell me a man is the equivalent of me in a sexual and biological concept. He is not and can never be so. Or, I his equal in the same context. That is an insult, akin to telling me a horse is a pig, no matter what I see in my eyes and hear through my ears.

    Again, I repeat, marriage is between a man and a woman and can never be ‘the equal’ to what takes place between people of the same sex. Physiologically, that is impossible. And to pretend it isn’t is no less than grotesque distortion of facts.

    I have no care whether two men or two women want to fulflill their sexual and partnership needs together. It is not my business one way or the other what people do in their private lives. But it is my business when you want to include me in the delusion of my rights and my position as woman and mother. Forcing me into accepting a fallacy against my will and demanding that fallacy be put into legislation is, in my mind, a criminal act in and of itself. It denies me the right to be as I was made. It imposes on me a fake world with fake concepts.

  87. avatar
    Matteo De Chiara

    @Catherine, try another angle of view.
    No one want to say that there are no differences at all or that the genders do not exist.
    I really understood what homosexual people want only when i fell in love ( and I’m hetero).

    They want in first place the possibility to have the same right of a family when we talk about serious issues. Like help if one of them is in the hospital seriously ill, for example. All the decision about medical treatment and so on are to be taken by a family member. And how can they manage it? And what if just one of them find a job? If you are a legal couple you can have less taxes, to sustain your partner. You have some paid time off if your partner ( and i want to stress, the person I love) is ill, to help her/him.

    The whole question is all about to grant the same right to stay close to the person you love, to help her/him.
    I cannot understand what could be a problem for me ( a hetero man who loves and help his woman) if a homo man have the right to love and help his man or a homo woman the right to love and help her woman.

    I will be still a man and a father. The only difference is that will be more happy people in the world. Is such an awful thing?


  88. avatar
    catherine benning

    Hi Mat,

    Any gay couple can have and do have all the rights you suggest under the civil partnership laws. That is what that legislation is all about, to give them equality in the practical matters of life.

    I feel marriage between opposite sexes is a sacred vow between them and only them as no other circumstance fits that situation. It is a gift from man to woman and woman to man. They give it to each other and the children of that union as well as to their entire extended family and the community they live in. It is their promise of fidelity, their promise to support each other through their differences. Not through their sameness.

    The rest of my feeling is as clearly written as I can manage in the preceding posts. And all the emotional side winding you followed with, is muffling the issue. The powers that be are wanting to remove our sense of self and this act is the first step toward that goal. Marriage is to produce and provide for each of the opposite sex a husband and wife. Not for a pretense at taking on another role in life to that which they were born to be. They are pledging to stand by each other as they go forth and multiply. Which is a tough and very deeply held commitment of two different sexes.

    The way to happiness is not by taking on a different face or putting in silicone breasts, it is facing and loving what we are as we are. And it is certainly not forcing onto a society acceptance of silicone as reality or the new face as your own. To be at peace with oneself is by learning to love who you are, not stealing that right from others, believing this will finally make you something else. Gay couples are gay couples and their way to peace is only by seeing that situation as it is. For, once thy take marriage from the heart of the gender factor, it will not change their status or change their condition. They will not suddenly be a mand and a woman, two opposites united. They cannot be that. It will simply eliminate joy from those who want and can celebrate the coming together, in one act of harmony with the aim of being celebrated for their understanding of that special state. Expectations they have at are wholly different from gay couples, by the very basis of their difference in life to each other. They have taken the step to be gender conscious, and receive those difference in love and goodwill, in that they plan to conceive ‘together’ and take their offspring into the wonderful unit called family.

    What is wrong with civil partnership? What will same sex couples gain by taking marriage vows they cannot be party to? And by so doing, remove the sense of fulfillment to the union of men and women. Which, is separate and unique because of its divergent parts. It is not equal to same sex relationships as I wrote above, it is different. Therefore, equality does not enter into it.

    Stay with facts and leave the emotional or spiritual aspects to the church. The state is not the church and should never pretend to be so.

  89. avatar
    Matteo De Chiara

    well. At this point I have the doubt that we are talking about different thing with the same name.

    In Italy we don’t have neither gay marriage nor civil gay union. Actually we don’t have any kind of union different from “marriage”. Of course you can have a religious marriage ( that is recognized by law) or only “civil marriage”. But they are both the same “marriage” before the law.

    I totally agree with a civil partnership ( different from a marriage ) granting the right I talk about above ( for example we can discuss about adoption and avoid it from this kind of union). In principle I also agree with homosexual civil marriage ( but, as i stated, I think that not all the country are ready for this step. ).

    The spiritual and religious aspect are leaved to the churches. Each faith can choose who marry with who. It is not up to anyone but the church itself to say which unions they accept. I will never agree about forcing, for example, Catholic church to celebrate gay marriage, if the Church itself does not decide to accept them.

    I still don’t think that two samesex people who marry, live together or do whatever they want to do can in any way “remove the sense of fulfillment to the union” of me and my woman. But, at least, maybe we start to find a common partial solution, isn’t it?

  90. avatar

    “Let me stress this. If you live in a legally-recognised same-sex partnership, or marriage, in country A, you have the right – and this is a fundamental right – to take this status and that of your partner to country B. If not, it is a violation of EU law, so there is no discussion about this. This is absolutely clear, and we do not have to hesitate on this.”

    Viviane Reding
    7 September 2010, European Parliament [Strasbourg]

  91. avatar
    catherine benning

    This is the overall problem with the EU. They are not a democratic form of government. If there are states like Italy, who have a public majority that is not willing to give up their rights in respect of policies that are against the freedoms they wish to retain, then they must learn to respect the decisions of those people and of that state. As these are very personal issues.

    Gay marriage is not an issue that is rightfully to do with the EU and its commission. It is deeply personal in its context. As another poster wrote, they should be staying out of the bedroom. Especially when what they are creating can lead to distinct health issues both mentally and physically connected to the requirement they are insisting on. To force a state to take up an issue such as this, is in and of itself, an imposition and goes against the basic human rights of others in that state.

    Equality is not the issue here, but it is being used as if it is. Whilst at the same time, they are ignoring the ‘human right’ of Freedom of Association. As in the UK. People under the auspices of gay rights have been forced into association with those they do not wish to associate with. And it was pulled under the guise of it being a business, even though that business was in their small four bedroom home. The couple that run that business have been opened up to the most horrendous abuse and threats to their life because they didn’t want to introduce this situation to their young grandchildren in their place of living.

    If Italy is not very strict in its rejection of this edict what is happening here will happen to the people of that country. With acceptance of it in part, it then becomes all consuming and goes so far as to demand marriage in their churches, and sue the clergy there if they are refused. As they have already done in Canada.. Which from my point of view is a strange move from those who profess no connection to religion.

    I’m very pro European Union. Only now, I’m beginning to see this is not as simple as it appears on paper. In the USA the federal government cannot force states to take up policies their citizens reject. And Europe should start realising it is not in a position to impose rules on those states which reject their revolutionary policies which change the basic cultural cohesion of the state. Whether they like it or not they must take steps to get a vote through referendum before imposing such heavy changes. And, that if they continue to do so, by passing out statements akin to the one written above from, Viviane Reding, then I can see this could result in the break up of the union altogether. Which would be very sad indeed.

    Remember, the reason the Shah of Persia was overthrown was by him forcing modernisation before his people were ready for it. The result, it threw that country back 500 years. And still they are c aught up it’s fall out.

  92. avatar
    John Fotopoulos

    Of course every member – state has to recognise gay-marriage. It is either a Europe with common interetsts and beliefs or not.

  93. avatar
    Gavin Crowley

    NO. Gay marriage is not marriage, that’s just vandalism of the dictionary.

  94. avatar
    Bartłomiej van Vresna

    YES!!! There is no reason to deny love! ❤❤❤

  95. avatar
    Cris Hova

    Damn right they should…why are they holding down..religion?morality? the future of humankind?or stupidity?…

  96. avatar
    Nuno Sousa

    Yes, there is no reason to not allow same-sex marriage. Adoption is a difrent matter that must involve a series of studies where the children are the main concern – and not the parents.

  97. avatar
    Aleksejs Miščuks

    I think that it is up to the states of EU to decide in a democratic referendum, and that this decision should not be forced upon any state by one directive from Brussels.

  98. avatar
    Ottó Toldi

    Brussels can not dictate such things, because the EU is for economic and political co-operation. It has nothing to do with gays.

  99. avatar
    Jakub Zelazny

    Seriously Cris, whats it to you? Why do you care so much about laws of people you dont know, or even havent ever met? What is so damn hypnotizing about EU that makes you people forget about democracy?
    Its not about tolerance here Cris, its about making you support politicians in their centralization efforts. They need to make you feel like souvereign nations are a thing of the past, and this overhyped ‘war for tolerance’ is just a tool the need. Dont turn into a tool yourself Cris, because youre about to be used against yourself, your people and your right to govern the land youve always lived on.

  100. avatar
    Jakub Zelazny

    @Otto, it used to be about economics in the 60`s, now its about an unclear vision of unifying political power in hands of people we dont elect. What they decide to do with Europe once they turn countries into discrict is beyond our influence.

  101. avatar
    Gosia Lukasik

    yes,but not imposed by Europe but legalised by national parliaments.Otherwise, we would have the law,which would be fake as it wouldn’t be executed.MPs should stop being afraid of the church or whomever and start creating equal law for all

  102. avatar
    Philip Sabev

    Oh for ****’s sake don’t we have bigger problems to deal with than this worthless gay crusade thing i mean **** don’t we need to deal with an economy that is going on a crash course or racial tensions in Macedonia or Kosovo or the fact that things in the middle east aren’t getting better and that in Africa it’s the same thing and what about Syria what’s going on over there?And what will Turkey do about the rebels and refugees i mean don’t we have other issues to deal with than to appeal to a small group of peolple everyone is so over the top concerned with?

  103. avatar
    Marco Pisu

    If you may vote directly for the commission members you may easly renaunce to your country, that is just a flag, it dosn’t mean that you lose culture, language and traditions of your country. Now we know that the only economc and monetary union doesn’t work very well, so we have two ways: building a real political union with democratic EU institution or eliminating the monetary union because without a real political union it doesn’t work. I think that EU has to recognise gay marriage, it is a basic human right, as well as education or private property.

  104. avatar
    Richard W. Jacquard

    Fixing the economy and civic rights are not mutually exclusive. If they were then we’d fix the economy a lot faster by just denying lots of people basic civic rights. For the record. This pan- global discussion is not a ‘worthless gay crusade’ as bigoted, ignorant and offensive as that sounds, it’s part of a pan global century long fight for civic equality amongst all people’s.

  105. avatar
    Sunny Cvitkovic Anderson

    NO, marriage is union between man and a women, period. Everything else is alternative way of life and, it is not forbidden, but it shouldn’t be recognized by the law! EU institutions should keep their tentacles away from social issues. Court in Strasbourg decided that gay marriages ARE NOT human right. Enough about this, lets move on more important issues!

  106. avatar
    Irena Gluhak Forempoher

    gay marriages have nothing to do with one’s attitude towards homosexuals, but are primarily concerned with the attitude towards conception of marriage and its implications

  107. avatar
    Kristine Sergejeva

    yes, they should. as it is not about some exclusive privileges so specific group of people, but about providing basic rights to the ones who have been discriminated

  108. avatar

    “NO. Gay marriage is not marriage, that’s just vandalism of the dictionary.” Said by Gavin Crowley

    About the initial question, yes. If two people love they can marry, being heterosexual or homosexual. About your comment Gavin, try to be a bit more respectful the next time you participate, please.

  109. avatar
    David Eaton

    Yes of course, marriages tend to have a celebration celebrations normally cost money which will cause people to spend thus encouraging economic growth on a minor scale, any law regarding marriage must be done on a nation state level however

  110. avatar

    While personally I’m all for it, I think that it should be a bottom-up decision left to each state. In some places of Europe the homophobic tendencies are so strong, that the enforcement of a law from the top-down would be met with open hostility and it will really destabilise the EU.

  111. avatar
    Ján Lacko

    Never. Its inhuman and society destroying. The gay propaganda should be abolished in Union as well.

  112. avatar
    Vicente Silva Tavares

    Marriage between people and animals: ” There is not yet, marriage between men and animals. I never thought I could fall in love so much for a cat…” Karl Lagerfeld – Creative Director of CHANEL. As the Romans would say: Quo Vadis?

  113. avatar
    Hy Ko

    With all due respect – “No” is a really ‘profound remark’. “its unhuman and society destroying” – explanation please? Put mind in gear before opening mouth!

  114. avatar
    Debbie Stowe

    Yes. @ Cristian Dinescu: Gay people are not sick. They are normal in every way – they simply are attracted to their own gender. This presents no problems for anybody.

  115. avatar
    Xavier Schoumaker

    If religion tells you marriage is something “special” – religion has its own “marriage” ceremonies and its own rules.
    This is to do with the STATE – and unless you do not like DEMOCRACY – what the state does should be in accordance with the division of church & state.
    Learn from history, instead of preaching your ignorance.

  116. avatar
    Rui Costa

    State should not support any kind of marrige. It’s not a States matter.

  117. avatar
    Dietrich John

    Some previously made statements are quite problematic – I would not consider a society labelling certain members as “sick” as being civilised – at least not in the year 2013.
    Bu more specifically: Whatever one’s position on LGBT rights, the approach of the Russian authorities does clearly not constitute an exemplary way of dealing with this topic.

  118. avatar
    Alberto Buttini

    A Nation should rapresent Its citizens… Help them… And organize a lot of things to be better the livel of the people… Every person, in a democratic country, should have the SAME RiGHTS of the others… The right of marriage is one of these…

  119. avatar

    EU states shouldn’t recognise gay marriage. This problem appeared because we gave a lot of importance to those who are bored of normally livingn and tehy tried something new, atypical.

  120. avatar
    Ottó Toldi

    Just do not call same-sex connections as “marriage”. Just leave it for those old fashioned conventionally thinking people. Please find something more trendy

  121. avatar
    George Titkov

    It’s not about the right of marriage – it’s not been denied to anyone. It’s about redefining what constitutes a marriage, and I think each country should decide for themselves with a referendum.

  122. avatar
    Cristian Dinescu


  123. avatar
    Beny Simko


  124. avatar
    Tommy Beavitt

    I don’t support the illiberal Russian stance but neither do I like the politicisation of sexuality that has led to the absurd “gay marriage” debate. Maybe the Russians are justified in taking pre-emptive steps to prevent the same thing from happening in Russia. It’s a bit like any kind of pre-emptive aggression ? only justifiable in terms of what it sets out to prevent.

  125. avatar
    Eric David Bosne

    In Europe there is no law against LGBT as far as I know. Now the question is just about giving legal rights to the each one of the couple such as if one gets deeply ill the other can legally make make decisions for the other or if one dies of old age the other can have part of the others pension for survival. For me, allowing this seams as a logical step for building a fair society.

  126. avatar
    Natasa Jevtovic

    Of course not. Laws can also be abrogated; in France, as soon as the socialist government loses the elections, the same sex marriage will be abrogated.

  127. avatar
    Massimo Santambrogio

    Russia just confirms its distance from Europe.
    Different LGBT rights within Union will become a serious problem.
    Union should be find courage to face this new right because Union is first of all estabilished on people’s rights.

  128. avatar
    Michel Witteman

    As a part of the world where freedom is a truely important and protected right. Then so must the EU provide that freedom for all of it’s citizens. To be free, think free, and act freely. The goverment can’t tell us how to love or to be with. That’s freedom.

  129. avatar
    Daniel Tanahatoe

    Every country should decide its rules and laws, but in my opinion in every member state of the Council of Europe those laws should be based on European values of Human Rights and dignity and equality and freedom. What the Russian parliament decided goes against human dignity. In most of the rest of Europe, a lot of progress and equality has been achieved. But there is still much more to do before we reach genuine equality.

  130. avatar
    Laima Nouvelle

    Yes. Those who claim “not that kind” of marriage, basically say “not that kind of people”. There are no “kinds” or “types” – people are people. If LGBT are human beings (who dares to think otherwise??), human rights should belong to all of them, just the same. The right to make yourself happy/miserable with your spouse – also. Of course there will be struggle, just like the struggle with women rights. Progress may be delayed with backlashes. But if you have any empathy and mind-capacity, there’s no excuse for discrimination. None, but fears and ignorance.

  131. avatar
    Andrew Chandler

    It’s a matter for individual countries, and the relations between church and state. Even where civil marriage is already separated for all, there are important social questions to be faced, and differing traditions. People have had enough of the Eurocratic ‘sameness’ agenda, or hadn’t you noticed? The fact that the law has been enacted in some countries doesn’t make it a successful measure. Gays and straights alike are opposed to it, because they see it as a ‘one size fits all policy’, treating marriage as if it was like the regulations on fruit and vegetables – they all have to look the same! We will have to wait generations to judge its social impact, and some countries, like Hungary, will want to wait and sea before abandoning traditional marriage. In some Eastern European countries, the introduction of Gay Marriage could lead to further growth of homophobic violence. The EU should be advancing Gay Rights in general in these countries which are already member states, or want to become so. Gay marriage is a distraction, advanced by populist politicians like David Cameron who needs new supporters to fight his Eurosceptic right-wing. It has nothing to do with equality and celebrating difference. Feminist lesbians are against it and so are many Gay activists and Gay Christians. Recognising Gay marriage in EU states will do nothing to help those being beaten up in Russia and the Ukraine. In fact, it will be used, sadly, to justify such attacks. Why provoke these if gay relationships already have equity in law in the EU?

  132. avatar
    José Vieira de Sousa

    Having aknowledge that homosexuality is no longer a mental illness as it was considered in the past century I believe we should accept as a fact that those people exist and may have rights like any other human being. Besides, homosexuality exists for centuries, but it was always kept under a secret. What I can not understand is the need for constant cry for attention and the bad horror movie they provide in the parades of gay proud. There has to be a line between what is acceptable, as for living under the same roof and having tax benefits like straight people who decide to share a life togehter, but i don’t believe that they should be put above the rest of the world just because they are different.

  133. avatar
    Laima Nouvelle

    Andrew, regarding individual countries’ relations between state and church – every EU state is a secular state. In some countries, the church has more influence than other (Lithuania, Malta, Ireland, Poland). Yet it does not mean that churches have ANY jurisdiction in family law. If asking for your right to be treated as a human being, not a slave, whose relationship with the loved one does not matter, is “provoking” – then we are in for a long, long journey. They used to say that women “provoke” violence, while asking for the right to vote.

  134. avatar
    Marco Loureiro

    All EU states should recognise marriage equality. Equality, there’s a value that need to be rekindled. Russia (and other countries) are demonstrating some of the worst political decisions regarding human rights. I’m not sure it’s a democratic regime thats rulling in Russia.

  135. avatar
    Laima Nouvelle

    Jos Vieira de Sousa — regarding parades, they simply are an example of how the right to association is implemented. In Lithuania, we have parades/ marches of veterans of war, work unions, huge marches of nationalist youth, almost every day Krishnaits are dancing on the main streets of Vilnius, etc. For Lithuania, LGBT pride is very meaningful – it’s daring to come to the public sphere, and say that you: either exist as LGBT, or that you support LGBT issues. It’s a political step – if you cannot dare to walk 200 meters on the street AS YOU ARE (veteran, woman, scout, LGBT), if you cannot exist in a public sphere, then how can you be seen as a subject, who debates, asks for rights, participates in society? In this case, you can only debate “about them” – as objects. Not with them, because they are not seen as eligible subjects in public sphere. This is not attention seeking, this is daring to exist – the very first step. Meanwhile, about 50 percent of LGBTs don’t even dare to admit the truth to their families/relatives…

  136. avatar
    Filipe Chichorro de Carvalho

    ” Theorists including Calvin Thomas and Judith Butler have suggested that homophobia can be rooted in an individual’s fear of being identified as gay. Homophobia in men is correlated with insecurity about masculinity”


    “A series of studies recently published in the prestigious Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found higher levels of homophobia in individuals with unacknowledged attractions to the same sex, particularly when they grew up with authoritarian parents who also held homophobic attitudes”


    just my fifty cents.

  137. avatar
    Ronan J Le Bras

    I do not think the EU should push one way or the other. What they should do is facilitate people’s lives by setting up mutual recognition of each other’s legislation on the topic, such that a gay or lesbian couple married in Spain can have their civil status recognized in the country they live in for instance. A democratic sense of Europe will emerge when people feel that their life is made easier and their freedom increased, not restricted.

  138. avatar
    Leila Willems

    Yes, it is frankly appalling that in the 21st century this is even a point of discussion.

  139. avatar
    Vicente Silva Tavares

    I am not religious. I do not consider homosexuality natural. In nature there are males and females so the specimen can procreate. However, humans due to their intelligence can do things against the nature, and many things are considered very normal, like mutilating the body (ear (and in many other places) rings, tattoes, scars, etc), suicide, etc. Therefore, homosexuality is one of them and it is a very old use on some societies (old Greece and Roman Empire for instance). It does not affect me, so I don’t care. The State should not interfere in the personal relationships. Marriage should be just erased from reality. For questions of children and inheritances should be enough a contract with the will of the participants.

  140. avatar
    David Menon

    Yes, as a matter of general EU policy gay marriage should be recognised across all member states.

  141. avatar
    Maria Isabel Silva Carvalho

    Yes! Why not? If you are gay, finally you can love and be together with legal rights and duties. If youre not whats the problem? Children are not an issue. is it necessary to have a marriage to raise and nurture a child? Look at 2013 numbers.

  142. avatar
    José Vieira de Sousa

    Laima Nouvelle – I absolutely agree to the idea of organizing a parade to fight for their rights, but I will never understand the need to provoke, or to schock people by having bizarre behaviour that is usually seen on those events. That’s not the way people should fight for their rights, incorring the risk of damaging the image of homosexual people who are like everyone else. greetings

  143. avatar
    Ben Moussa Souad-sefora

    il est insens de poser cette question! le droit accder au mariage pour les homosexuels devrait tre un droit dans toute l’Union!

  144. avatar
    Christina Kler

    Sooo much ink for this story !!! Please enough propaganda ! Hope all these “european” citizens that “care” so much about tres a la mode gay marriage , start looking with the same passion into the child abuse , human traffiking, rape… and so many really important issues.

  145. avatar
    Isabelle Deville

    Absolument. L’ union europenne doit promouvoir le droit aux homosexuels de se marier partout den europe. Faire de 8% de la population des citoyens de 2me classe est intolrable, tout comme l’est la position de la russie.

  146. avatar
    David Eaton

    Marriage should be introduced in Europe but slowly and on the nation state level, LGBT rights are a particularly sensitive issue across Europe and forced legislation on marriage may make it more dangers for LGBT persons across Europe. However LGBT rights excluding marriage should be forced into every nation state by the EU with protections against discrimination ,abuse harm etc after time and the societies within respective nation states should be educated gradually into respecting the rights of LGBT people and properly including them into society. Transgender people in particular should be given extra legal protections and the right to legally change sex in every nation state.

  147. avatar
    Antonio Jose Pecurto Pecurto

    Eu estou de acordo com a comunidade gay na Europa uma liberdade democrtica mas no um direito quanto a comunidade gay na Europa est na sua melhor forma a Russia no os estados da Europa a Russia esta a mudar com politicas de direitos humanos e ir melhorar mas isso ir levar anos

  148. avatar
    Tamás Heizler

    This is a typical issue that should be kept on country level. If we look at the USA – which is a much closer alliance of states than the EU – then we see that they also have different laws for gay marriage and gay civil union in different states.

    This question is even hard to be answered inside each countries. How hard would it be for the whole EU? Other thing is that the support for gay marriage in a lot of EU countries is way lower than 50% (even lower than 20% in some countries). So I think it wouldn’t be a good thing to press this thing on those countries where it’s not widely accepted (as EU is a democratic union of free and independent countries). People would become to hate the EU if it’d try to press these thing on their countries.

    On the other hand anti-gay discrimination e.g. in working places of course shouldn’t be allowed in the whole territory of the EU, but actually it’s already not allowed in each EU countries. So today gay people can do anything in the whole territory of the EU except for marriage and adoptation of children. I think if they want to marry and adopt a child, it can be a good solution to move to an other EU country where it’s allowed. Just like they do it in the USA.

    I personally don’t have problem with the idea of introducing gay marriage here in Hungary if and only if (!) more than 50% of the population supports that. But I really wouldn’t like the EU to press something on Hungary that is only accepted by some 20% of people and opposed by 80%. We shouldn’t forget about that EU is a democratic union where people’s will should prevail.

  149. avatar
    Tarquin Farquhar


  150. avatar
    Stewart Cowan

    It hasn’t become law until Royal Assent. The Queen will break her Coronation Oath if she okays it. It is obscene and should be outlawed in every country.

  151. avatar
    Debbie Stowe

    They certainly should. Allowing gay couples to marry is a sign of a civilised society. In the future the prohibition on gay marriage will seem as absurd as the US’s anti-miscegenation laws now do.

  152. avatar

    I do believe that the population of the member states have to decide about this point. It is not up to the Union to decide over this subject. Therefore, I can hardly understand the meaning of this debate. By the way, I´m deeply fond of the Union! But the Leitmotiv remains: Unity And Diversity

  153. avatar
    Stewart Cowan

    It appears that the Queen has lied to God Almighty and given Royal Assent to this abomination, homosexual “marriage”. What a shame for this country on so many levels.

  154. avatar
    Patrick Vande Walle

    No. But each country should recognise marriages contracted in other countries. This is a serious legal problem in cases like inheritance, child custody, and more generally all rights attached to marriage.

  155. avatar
    Cristian G. Dinu

    It;s not a question of “sin” or some related idiocies, but a matter of the individual state’s right to decide. Just because something gets law enforcement in a country (not that Wales or England are actually a country, UK is), that doesn’t mean at all that all EU countries should immediately pass a similar law. The question is in fact plain stupid and illogical, i’d have expected more from Debating Europe .

  156. avatar
    Marcel Onufrei


  157. avatar

    Two questions here, principle and practicality. On principle: yes, absolutely. Not only does this equate to respect of human rights and dignity as well as a significant sign from all the member states of the union that they shall not stand for bigotry and defend their citizen’s rights, it is also in accordance with the very values that these states declare to defend on principle – a coherent stance is therefore also an excellent sign of unity and proop of adherence beyond lip service to common values. The issue arises with practicality. With the European Union currenlty facing something akin to a legitimacy crisis in several countries, not to mention a disconnection from the population who seem to be buying more and more into the “corrupt bureaucracy” cliché, it is not in the interest of the EU to enforce by way of directive or resolution a certain policy on its member states – the consequences in terms of the outrage conservative nationalists and eurosceptics could draw out of this would be severe, and there is no guarantee that this situation would be beneficial for LGBT rights on the long run – quite the opposite, in fact. However, a statement of general support, coupled to perhaps some prodding of the member states soft enough to not be considered an infringement of sovereignity but strong enough to be noticed (*insert mechanism proposals here*) would be a viable, efficient and hopefully efficacious approach in the long game.

  158. avatar
    Michail Panchev

    And what about those people who want to be unaware of somebody else’s untraditional sexual orientation. Isn’t it their human right as well?

  159. avatar
    Darko Dobrić

    Yes, it goes without saying that same-sex marriage is a basic right in 21st century Europe. However, the EU should not.force its member states to approve it. Btw, some people here claim that same-sex is not morally acceptable on religious standards. Please note that religion and politics have absolutely nothing to do. Democracy = secularism.

  160. avatar
    Sara Jofre

    I guess people still worry too much about the “neighbours” live. They worry so much that they even decide, by law, what two adults, who are not harming anyone, may or not do.

  161. avatar
    Esther Garcia del Carpio

    I love the lack of logic from the homophobes ‘BUT BUT BUT, my imaginary friend in the sky and a book that has been translated and mistranslated a million times says it’s bad!’ … like haircuts and eating shellfish, yet I don’t see anyone avoiding that. Sore losers, equality is coming like it or not.

  162. avatar
    Ioanna-Maria Gertsou

    Yes! We are all EU citizens and we must have access to civilized rights. If somebody wants to get married in the eyes of god that is his/her personal choise but in the eyes of the State, we are all equal.

  163. avatar
    Algimantė Danilaitė

    Of course. It’s not majority “right” to decide if same sex couples can get married. It’s funny to read arguments like “I don’t want to know somebody else’s sexual orientation”. We are talking about the right to get married, it doesn’t mean homosexuals are trying to impose their sexual orientation to others.

  164. avatar
    Akos Tarkanyi


  165. avatar
    Gatis Gailitis

    Legally, yes, but I see no reason why gays should get a ceremonial marriage since they are not welcome in religion.

  166. avatar
    Christian Weale

    Great news, another step closer to greater equality and a further challenge to inequality, long over due.
    Equality acknowledges the legitimacy of same sex marriage.
    I also believe kindness is a moral value.

  167. avatar
    Christian Weale

    At what point does the pain and burden that discrimination inflicts upon same-sex couples render marriage inequity unacceptable? And why would a society choose to inflict pain when an answer for happiness is known and easy? Could it be that straight couples enjoy marriage discrimination so much that it makes up for the suffering of others, and denies others the very same happiness, they themselves enjoy?

  168. avatar
    Tony Westfallen

    Are those who say “yes, because we are a civilised society” suggesting that yesterday we were not civilised. Personally, I do not see this as a political issue. Politics should not be involved. If you find someone willing to marry you, then that is fine, but don’t make it illegal for people to refuse. If the idea of same-sex marriage is against someone’s religious or personal belief’s, why accuse them of being uncivilised. It seems to me the pro-SSM is once again a minority who are bullying and abusing people for not having the same view!

  169. avatar
    Stewart Cowan

    @Esther Garcia del Carpio – you’re a brainwashed student. Same-sex “marriage” was never legalised by any emperor, king or government prior to the past few years of cultural subversion.

    Listen to Yuri Bezmenov on YouTube describe equality and diversity as a tool to destroy western society.

  170. avatar
    Boyko Vesselinov

    It is not about being homophobic, but western society is brainwashed into being straightophobic. Everyone is entiteled to preferences and privacy, but please cut the marketing.

  171. avatar
    David Fuzzey

    @ Esther …. 1/ I am in favour of SSM . 2/ Your homophobe comment is nonsense but then there seem to be a lot of people now accusing those that disagree with them as having a phobia . It is perfectly ok disagree . It is not homophobic to not support SSM it is merely having a different view. Kicking the hell out of a person for being gay most certainly is. I do hope you see the difference….and had there been vote on SSM I would have voted Yes.

  172. avatar
    Christian Weale

    when it comes to equal rights. Put simply, it says we should all be the same in the eyes of the law.

  173. avatar
    David Eaton

    It should be done on the nation state level to avoid reprisals from homophobic groups

  174. avatar
    Darko Dobrić


  175. avatar
    Timur Kolosov

    Of course yes, why not! Everyone chooses how to live itself , that it is a basic right ! Prohibition of such marriages is a form of discrimination, which is unacceptable!

  176. avatar
    Rajaboopathi Mani

    I believe in natural systems, even animals not having same sex. In the name of screeming rights, where it end

  177. avatar
    Mel Mansour

    I think civil partnership would be legal in all EU countries but marriage would be impossible especially in religious countries such as Italy, Greece and Romania or Bulgaria!

  178. avatar
    Antonio Jose Pecurto Pecurto

    O caminho que os paises da UE esto a levar cada vez h mais unies do mesmo sexo eu no estou de acordo nem a favor estou no meio porque agora comea a ser um interesse politico porque os politicos sabm que os homossexual fazem o seu direito civico a sociedade comea a ver as pessoas de mesmo sexo dentro da sociedade europeia eu s estou contra a adopo no faz sentido nelhum que os homessexual tenham direito de adoptar uma criana ainda existe o Do e Eva neste infeliz planeta

  179. avatar
    Angelo Trampas

    da, ja, да, oui, ano, ναί, jah, yes, sí, sì, si, jā, taip, iva, igen, tak, sim, áno,

  180. avatar
    Christian Weale

    I struggle to understand why anyone would deny another couple the same opportunities that they have bestowed upon them?

  181. avatar

    NO , NON, NEIN, NU, NAO, NE !

    you can have civil partnerships or any other type that confers through law all necessary rights.

    you should NOT change a VALUE

    you were born because of a HE and a SHE ! so stop acting like you created yourselves

    I have nothing against homosexuals, I just disagree with this lame marketing and forced “accept us” thing.
    We don’t need to “accept you”, we understand and we can live together but if you DEMAND RESPECT then show some from your side.. Don’t impose to change today’s society and values just because.

    Today;s society is messed up. Instead of protecting the family and its members it is finding all “laws” to make it break apart with just a snap of a finger.
    You can divorce, you can abandon you cand even create your own church just because you want to make something bad, inappropriate be accepted (with force) by others.

    There are so many examples…

    and regarding adopitions… don’t give me examples that it will be better in a “gay familiy” for an orphan kid
    YOU CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN biologically so live with it! you cannot have them “as your children” either

  182. avatar
    Delia Gologan

    Yes, definately! It is the only way to make baby steps towards acceptance, raising tolarence rates etc

  183. avatar
    Sanja Jovanovic

    Yes! Promoting human rights without actually giving them to people doesn`t count. And it is not gay marriage, it is same sex marriage or just marriage :)

  184. avatar
    Cristina Bocan

    No! God let the law through which the marriage should happen ONLY between 2 opposite-sex persons! The gay marriage is not normal!

  185. avatar
    Alex Sekkpefb

    @Tony Westfallen I think one should have the choice first… no one is bullying straight people, as they get born with a divine right to marriage ( or as I like to call it legal recognition of their couple) , whilst in most of the UE countries gay couples have to struggle with no Tax equity, no property security, no social protection for their partner. Leave religion out of this, as it only feeds the soul… Im ok with not having same sex legal recognition as long as you spare me of paying taxes!! But as I DO pay the same taxes as everyone else or even more, I see no reason in not having the same rights just because my brain works differently.

  186. avatar
    Akos Tarkanyi

    Homosexuality is an illness and a dangerous antisocial perversion. Any argument for seeing it as normal is lie and is based on lies. Science and social science supports nothing of what homosexualists use to deceive public opinion. The whole homosexualist movement is a product of the Leftist Liberal world media that is silent about facts. Declaring a perversion to be normal means declaring marriage as nothing more than a worthless perversion and that is the true aim here. Marriage and family are already in deep crisis and media people and more and more politicians want to make it worse.

  187. avatar
    Akos Tarkanyi

    Marriage is about having children, about family. Childless couples are like a lake without fish. Homosexual couples are like the Dead Sea. They are not the exception to the rule marriage means having children. They are a different system, a type of relationship that cannot have common biological children ever. And family law always defends the situation of children, it has much less to do with the sexual relationship of two persons and with that it has any only because that might lead to having children. Thus homosexual relatioships has nothing to do with family law and has nothing to do with marriage. The “gay marraiges” are not marriages or are fake marriages. Each of such official process and each usage of such an expression means an ideological and cultural attack against real marriages, real families and after all against children.

  188. avatar
    Akos Tarkanyi

    There is no homosexuality in the animal kingdom, only rare single homosexual acts between animals. And homosexuality is really dangerous, so there is no such thnig as “homophobia”, because being afraid of homosexuality is normal.

  189. avatar
    Natasa Jevtovic

    No, and you have already asked that question. We’ve got only 5 EU states out of 28 who legalized the same sex mariage by now (Netherlands, Sweden, Luxemburg, Spain, France). That’s not the majority.

  190. avatar
    Darko Dobrić

    As far as we know, the EU’s been built upon democratic values such as tolerance, understanding, freedom and secularism. Therefore, religion does not have any relevance in our discussion. For many, marriage is NOT about having children. Throughout the comments above, some people have attempted to define (very vaguely, I must say) what a family is on heteronormative standards. Please remember: You are not entitled to tell what a family is. Nor is any religious congregation/association/group. “Family” – as a concept – is subject to redefinition as it has been recently revised at a linguistic and political level that better reflects the basics of contemporaneity. More than 8 states now have articulated an informative sense of marriage as a legal union that does not necessarily entail heteronormative obligations and/or strict and outdated marital values. As for homosexuality in the animal world, I suggest that you conduct some research on the topic only to find out how biased your premises are. To my understanding, there is no difference between “rare homosexual acts” and being “homosexual”. Any such consideration does not make a bit of a difference. Please stop comparing religion and sexuality and/or religion and politics. Both things have nothing to do. Please let’s just be honest and accept that sexuality is a private matter, a basic need that has been neglected throughout history for the sake of all the wrongdoing of conservative and heteronormative entities.

  191. avatar
    Massimo Santambrogio

    Same-sex marriages between citizens of different countries of the Union are already creating serious problems today. Different status, different treatments, different rights, couples that are couples, children who are sons, families that are families only in one of the countries.
    Ridiculous, paradoxical, unsustainable situation.

  192. avatar
    Alison Jenner

    Yes, it is a matter of human rights. Those who don’t want to have equal marriage seem to me to be defending prejudice. I understand that those with religious worries are upset; but they cannot and should not impede the rest who have no such qualms. There are so many ‘straight’ weddings which act as a challenge to society because of their short duration, adulterous intrigues or other deviations from historic “marriage”. I think that this will seem a storm in a teacup in a few years’ time.

  193. avatar
    Timur Kolosov

    Do not be puritans, these marriages did nothing to endanger the lives of other people and the inability of the majority to accept it once again shows weakness and fear of difference.
    “Intolerance is evidence of impotence.”
    Aleister Crowley
    Homosexuals are also human beings, not trampling their rights!

  194. avatar
    Veronica Mone

    Is their choice…who are we to tell them what is right or wrong? do they bother me? NO…so…..yes! let them be free!

    • avatar
      Timur Kolosov

      BRAVO,Veronica :)

  195. avatar
    Eimhin McEvoy

    In an ideal world yes absolutely!!!! but any attempt to enforce it at a European level could be meet with a serious rebuking against Europe, let each country do it at their own pace, they will naturally gravitate towards it as it is a question of equality!! That way it will be sustainable and beyond refute :)

  196. avatar
    Christian Weale

    We in Europe only have to remember the deranged and unpleasant posturing, when listening to the recent debates relating to reforms to the marriage laws, this informs me that there is still much prejudice and discrimination in our societies. The marriage law means so much to me, it’s profoundly moving. I was born in the late 60’s and grew up in the 80’s Britain, gay men were being targeted, we were blamed for HIV/Aids, it was perceived to be a Gay/Drug user plague. I couldn’t legally have a sexual relationship until I was 21. There was Clause 28, my teachers couldn’t talk about being Gay, I was subjected to regular beatings at school, almost nobody helped, I deserved it, I should expect nothing else.
    My generation as many before me Endured so much, for the freedoms that the present & future generations can enjoy.

  197. avatar
    Akos Tarkanyi

    Marriage is about having children, about family. Childless couples are like a lake without fish. Homosexual couples are like the Dead Sea. They are not the exception to the rule marriage means having children. They are a different system, a type of relationship that cannot have common biological children ever. And family law always defends the situation of children, it has much less to do with the sexual relationship of two persons and with that it has any only because that might lead to having children. Thus homosexual relatioships has nothing to do with family law and has nothing to do with marriage. The “gay marraiges” are not marriages or are fake marriages. Each of such official process and each usage of such an expression means an ideological and cultural attack against real marriages, real families and after all against children. The very same mentality that OKs “gay marriages ” causes the too low fertility and the high and growing cohabtitation rate and divorce rate in Europe: that is the “anything goes because there are no consequences” mentality. A big rotten lie that destroys couples, families, children and individual people alike.

  198. avatar
    Akos Tarkanyi


  199. avatar
    Darko Dobrić

    Saying homosexuality is an illness in the 21st century is uniquely antidemocratic, all-pervasive and totalitarian. It cannot be compared with Nazism or Communism because it is too cheap an argument. It lacks any consistency and breeds violence, promotes degeneracy and blackens the name of the EU. Positing that heteronormative and reproductive marital unions are the sole valid articulations of the family is – once more – antidemocratic, all-pervasive and totalitarian. It cannot be even compared to Nazism or Communism because it lacks consistency in a very unique – and dangerous – way.

  200. avatar
    Christiane Suchanek

    Yes! In a true democracy everyone should have the same rights. It should not depend on sexuality. That’s discrimination.

  201. avatar

    Yes. We are all free and equals, aren’t we?

  202. avatar
    Nicolae Serban

    The EU must maintain and develop it?s objective(secular) policies. We live in a multicultural and religious diversity Union, in wich the freedom of conscience or values of every person or community(no matter how small) must be guaranteed, always in a just way. As long as the diversity of conscience and values in the EU respects the human dignity, the freedom of conscience and equality between all people, we?re on the right track and every one has a place here.
    But when our values denies, even partly, the equality of all men, then we?re no more different or evolved from the Europe of wars. In the history of mankind No other continent has led to so many wars, has spread so much intolerance and suffering as Europe did. It is time that we change!
    The common values of good and justice are universal, no matter what religion or faith. Religion is always a personal choice and no one has the right to impose certain values or choices on those who do not adhere to those values.
    God, in all its different forms of understanding(christian, muslim, jew, etc), must never be an excuse for the lack of certain people?s or certain community?s capacity to be tolerant or to respect the freedom of other people. How can anyone wich considers itself civilised can invoke violence, hatred, intolerance in the name of his God? How can anyone wich considers its religion as just and peaceful dares to ask the denial of equality of the others who do not believe in the same God?
    So, the EU must put a stop to all this rubbish of ?in the name of God? and make Europe a safe and just place for every citizen. No one has the right to claim intolerance, hatred or violence, no matter what his/hers beliefs are.

  203. avatar
    Sohnie Nazreen Babar

    its sad how this is even still a question, this is under someones human rights, so the plain and simple answer to this is yes. Political and Religious view should be put to the side.

    • avatar
      Paul X

      It has nothing to do with human rights. It would be very simple to give same sex couples a ceremony and exactly the same rights in law as a married hetrosexual couple…. just don’t call it a “Marriage”
      That is the real issue. Gays insist it should be called a marriage and just to keep them happy governments are prepared to upset millions of people for who the word marriage has very traditional and Regilious meanings.

      Politically correct clap trap which offends a large potion of the population just to appease a small vocal minority

  204. avatar

    Of course. Yes. There shouldn´t even be a debate on this.

    There is a Treaty. Read the Treat. It is already the Law that each and every member state agreed to when they signed the Treaty.
    If they don’t like their own Treaty.. well.. that´s another topic. Only way to resolve that is to born it, end it, change it or get out. Because the way it is built it is quite clear about this subject.

    When some Jose, a European citizen from Spain that takes his wife Maria and children to move to Italy because of work. His children are still legally both his and Maria’s. And Maria can still open a proper banks account and register their kids in school properly and so on.

    How is that European and fair when.. if I would take my loving legally married husband and children under the law of a EU member state to Italy. He could not open that bank account or properly register our kids to school or even hospital visitings and decisions that in a emergency situation must be taken. Because in Italy the Law would say that I don’t have a husband, that I don’t have a family.

    This disgusts me and so far makes me feel sick of the EU for taking so damn long to fix it. No need to change your sovereign laws. Just respect the Treaty that you already signed and apply it to all legal families of the EU.

    For it not to be implemented yet, to everyone, every single European citizen regardless of race or sex or sexual orientation (and so on) living loving lives with their families or just partners is mocking the very core of the idea of a united, borderless and free Europe. Every one deserves the right to pursuit of happiness because we are all born equal.

    YES. Not tomorrow. Not now. YESTERDAY. LGBT people are just as human to deserve the same respect and dignity that their straight fellow citizens and families are granted. Not to mention that we also pay TAXES.

    (Normal taxes NOT GAY-TAXES.) Thank you very much!

  205. avatar

    Yes for sure :) but I don’t think it will happen for awhile.

  206. avatar

    I think yes, as we live in the EU and we suppose to have the same rights!

  207. avatar

    no, and that is not discrimination…and my question is : where is Croatia on the map ?

  208. avatar
    Алерим Ћињодар

    “No freedom untill we`re equal.” One of the main goals of the united Europe should be promotion and protection of freedom, both as a general and inividual value. Reasons such as: “It is not part of our culture, tradition, religion etc.” are just not acceptable. Recognition of the rights of people who are different is one of the greatest achievements of our history. Therefore, there is no culture, tradition or religios belief that could be above these achievemnts.

  209. avatar
    Catalin Vasile

    No!They should not!Every country shoul treat the subject according to their own laws, customs and their people’s choice!

  210. avatar

    Yes, of course!
    And I don’t even think that every country should accept marriage equality (i.e. make it legal under national law for a same sex couple to marry) but AT LEAST recognise the status that a couple has in another member state. If I’m married to a man in The Netherlands and I go on vacation to Italy and my husband gets injured – Italy doesn’t need to allow gay marriage to recognise that in another EU member state I am his husband and I should be able to visit him in the ER or whatever.. Just like, if I had a wife, Italy would recognise me as this woman’s husband. Just like states recognise each other’s birth certificates, diplomas, notary deeds, etc. but suddenly, Oh no, marriage issues are in the competences of the member states… What a load of crap because of some religious and bigoted people who live in last century!

  211. avatar
    Ana Georgieva

    I also want freedom, I want everyone to go naked on the street and at work with a ribbon belt around his waist. Now I feel discriminated!

  212. avatar

    Obviously Yes! By not allowing same sex marriage, we are giving more rights to a group of people, and denying them to another group.

  213. avatar
    Darren Grasso

    This is a family law issue which falls outside the competences of the EU. On what legal basis can the EU pass a law which obliges MSs to recognise a marriage that has been conducted in another MS. The EU has power to ensure that the freedom of movement for its citizens is being observed but that’s as far as it should be allowed to go. If a Spanish citizen decides to move to Poland, he has to follow the Polish family law and not expect to have the same conditions he enjoyed in Spain.

  214. avatar
    Bartek Marcinkowski

    No, each country and society should decide according to their values (shared by the majority). Otherwise it’s not democracy anymore. We face an extremely important question here: what is more important, freedom or equality? Such statements as “no freedom until we’re equal” don’t mean anything and remind me empty communist slogans. To sum up, if Swedes want to legalize gay marriages – it’s totally fine but if Poles or Croats have different opinion here, their position should be respected too. This is freedom.

  215. avatar
    Matej Zaggy Zagorc

    What I don’t understand, is how people can value broken marriages between woman and man more than a solid marriage between two same sex partners.

  216. avatar
    Monika Schmidt

    I join again.., ok!the discussion without having read any previous comment. I declare that I am against such kind of marriag, , I do know that probably I will stand very alone with this opinion, but that’s ok with me. being homosexual is against the nature and I prefer nature. taking thus on my back that I might be considered as old-fashioned, but then again, ok, old fashioned with a good conscience

  217. avatar
    Михаил Биджов

    The most dull question …What is the problem when two souls no matter the sex are in love ?!?!?!?! If there is only love between them what bad could do that to us ??? All we need is love <3

  218. avatar


  219. avatar
    Алерим Ћињодар

    “Respect the difference between societies.” I could agree. But what if a majority in some country decides that there is no place for immigrants there and they decide it on a referenda? Should we also respect that as a democratic decision and say that they have a different values so we should respect them? Democracy should be more than “what majority thinks” and more often” what majority feels”.

  220. avatar
    Dirk Schönhoff

    Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let us be the pacemaker for equal rights. The world needs freedom and equality.

  221. avatar
    Emilian Lafer

    Also, Seriously, you guys need to add Croatia to ALL YOUR MAPS. But keep in mind, central EU regulation on the matter will not be easily accepted by the people, especially in more conservative societies. The EU has bigger issues right now and marriage equality sadly has to be left to member states to decide. Don’t get me wrong, I am for marriage equality, I just don’t think the EU has the power to make such decisions.

  222. avatar
    Georgeta Bulmaga

    Let each country to decide for itself! Where is the freedom if we impose to a country a law which the citizens of that country refuse to accept? There is no more freedom there!

  223. avatar
    Системата Куца

    The queers should not be treated as human beings in public! Do whatever THE **** you want, but do it within the boundaries of your own home! Gay pride…. There is absolutely nothing to be proud of! ****!

  224. avatar
    Olivier Laurent

    The real issue isn’t forcing any state to accept or not the gay marriage, the real issue is why do the states have their words on such private things?

    You force communities such as the religious ones to enforce things that are forbidden by their beliefs or whatever.

    The marriage should remain a private contract. it would have its true meaning for the christian communities, the muslin or gay communities. The state should only enforce human rights and that’s it. Stop that one-size-fits-all , your create unnecessary conflicts.

  225. avatar
    Samo Košmrlj

    with all the problems we have, the gay marriage upsets the people the most? i dont want to live on this planet anymore

  226. avatar
    Jutta Inauen

    Same rights for everybody. If heterosexual couples can get married, this should be also possible for anybody else. If homosexual couples can have a certified civil partnership, this should be also possible for anybody else.

  227. avatar

    I’m not agains gay people, but marriage is for men and women. For gays we could find another term, “union” by exemple, is more european.

  228. avatar
    Jorge R

    Is there any reason to say No?

    Sorry, any RACIONAL reason, I mean.
    Please, if you believen in extra-terstial divinties, we respect you, but we don’t take it seriously for a racional civilization.

  229. avatar
    Jorge R

    Now a days is allow in Spain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Danmark and Sweden. It’s not called marriage but its a kind of in United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, Hungary and Finland.
    The E.U. is just a economic proyect… they will not have the courage to make a european law until each country devolope it own law.

  230. avatar
    Carlos V Arc

    I see how mentally backward are many people from countries in Europe that say pretend be modern and open-minded… As a heterosexual Spaniard, I am surprised “Europe” still debating that matter… :-S

  231. avatar
    Eli Dirkx

    That is for the people to decide, not some central government that arbitrarily legalizes and illegalizes such things on the vote of the day.

  232. avatar
    Kiril Ivanov

    I don’t believe in marriage in general, but EVERYONE must have that legal right !

  233. avatar
    George Zeglinas

    Definatelly same-sex marriages should be a recognised by any country which like to be called ”European” and that’s European Greens official stance!!!

    • avatar

      Well done to the European Greens!

  234. avatar

    European Union must recognised same-sex marriage. That must be one of common politics.

  235. avatar

    Yes. Marriage equality and civil partnership equality must be recognised on european level.

  236. avatar

    I’m from Latvia – Baltic state. In Latvia my generation, mostly, have no problems with that. But still our government say NO! Why? Gay marriage just could be closer together love between two men. Where is the problem? Gays aren’t a pedophiles or something like that… we are just a normal humans! I say YES!

  237. avatar

    Yes. It goes against people’s dignity not to acknowledge same sex marriage. If EU citizens can travel freely across borders and work everywhere in the EU they should not be treated with discrimination. All EU countries should recognise the marriage of all EU citizens.

  238. avatar

    Yes, if same-sex marriage is recognised in one EU member state and not another, how can I really have free movement as an EU citizen? I am in a civil partnership with my partner of almost 25 years in the UK. Our love and commitment to each other is recognised by the British government. We have the same rights and responsibilities to each other as a heterosexual married couple have to one another. If I am offered a position to work in, say, Lithuania, which isn’t a gay-friendly state and where such unions are not recognised, what do I do? Do I accept the position and go back to being “single” in the eyes of the Lithuanian state? Or do I not go and remain in a state that recognises my civil partnership but miss out on a job opportunity? If I have to choose, how can my EU citizenship be equal to that of, say, a heterosexual married British man who is free to take up a job in Lithuania and take his wife with him, and for their marriage to be recognised there? A heterosexual, then, has more freedom of movement in Europe than I would have being in a civil partnership.

  239. avatar
    Lee Lovelock

    No- to acknowledge yet another tactic in the Frankfurt School’s arsenal that is driving down native European population Rimen, and ensuring that these incomers bouten Europe sind needed, is a self-fulfilling forespeak; one where White Europe carry on dwindlig until it is too late. Really is like the Hittite Empire, Babylon, Rome in her last Days. History just kering as gewune (normal).

  240. avatar
    Ivan Burrows

    Debating Europe

    Your question implies that the peoples of Europe should not be asked but should be forced to accept it.

    Is this your opinion ?

  241. avatar
    Daniel Suranyi

    I would be for equality in that marriage could abandoned altogether. People should be free to live their relationships in any way they like without needing to tell the government who they are with at the moment. If I am committed to somebody I do not need to tell that to the registrar or to the priest. I can tell it to myself and my partner. That should be enough.

  242. avatar
    Giovanni Pasquini


  243. avatar
    Dionìs Koçi

    You mean should EU put it to vote, right? It is interesting how marriage is evolving. Marriage was invented to make sure the kids, being born as result of hetero sex, could have also a male parent, besides their mother. Then nowadays it is a legal need staying independently from having kids or not, but then most of couples with no kids, are so because they can’t, not because they won’t.

  244. avatar
    Peter Chloupek

    Absolutely yes…everybody should be with the person he loves, legally married or not! High time to accept that we are all human and should have the same rights.

  245. avatar

    If all people are equal in front of the law and if they all as humans enjoy anhd have fundamental rights and freedom’s then they absolutely should. Thou desipt such widely spreded declared acceptance and protecton of all EU memers we witness a dramaticlal inconsistencie with such walus in reality. Different peopel are still peope and we must respect that!

    Yes to real equality among humans in their rights!

  246. avatar
    Aleksandros Ho Megas

    Any kind of voluntary union between adults is their own business; state should not interfere there. But also we shouldn’t be forced to call apple and orange; marriage is union between a man and a woman.

  247. avatar
    Osmen Ajruli

    I think that u are in wrong path ..this people need help …and they should first see the blessing of heterosexual marriages and kids they would be much happier ..and of course less sleep in first years lol

  248. avatar
    Dænut Bøbøcel

    I am noticing that most of the people commenting here and who are answering no, originate either from East Europe or other countries with heavy religious backgrounds and beliefs
    Interesting connection, I must say :-)

  249. avatar
    Jason Cotterill-Attaway

    This again; it is the right of the individual nation to decide following their established processes and not the role of the EU to dictate; especually if you want Turkey to join!

  250. avatar
    Ivan Burrows


    From a purely scientific prospective homosexuality is a ‘biological abnormality’ like any other physical or mental impermanent (blindness, birth defects, mental illness, etc).

    So the question is should we treat it as an illness or not ? & if not what is the purpose of the hypocritical oath taken by medical professionals ?

  251. avatar
    Geoffrey Terfa Gbidye

    Useless continent called Europe. Let them continue testing God. What was the purpose of God creating woman, and man? Was it for the same sex to marries themselves? Doom will come upon Europe and those who embrace same sex marriages, fire will consume any person that indulge in this shameful act call Gay marriage.

    • avatar

      Does everyone in Europe have the same belief system? Is there a reason why we all should comply with yours?

  252. avatar
    Michal Majtan

    Yes. We cant be slaves of fear and false religious ideologies. There is no religion only science, only constant observation, experimentation and knowledge

    • avatar

      I agree with you, but the problem is we actually are slaves of fear and false religious ideologies…. Therefore we need a bit more than science. We need education. Since education is the only means to transfer the things that some of us have proved to be be true to the ones who are too afraid to search.

  253. avatar
    Elena Neska Motxa

    How can love in any shape or form be considered an illness or harmful and such homophobic comments full of hatred not?

  254. avatar
    Elena Neska Motxa

    How can love in any shape or form be considered an illness or harmful and such homophobic comments full of hatred not?

  255. avatar
    Enrico Massari

    Naturally YES: since the beginning of the civilty homosexual and heterisexual unions coexist and in european culture there are al lot a heroes both Male and Female who were bisexuals.

  256. avatar
    Enrico Massari

    Naturally YES: since the beginning of the civilty homosexual and heterisexual unions coexist and in european culture there are al lot a heroes both Male and Female who were bisexuals.

  257. avatar
    João Carlos Gonçalves Anselmo

    No. By no means. Marriage is between a woman and a man. Always has been, since the first Humans walked the earth, 200.000 years ago, or at least since Homo Sapiens showed up, 50.000 years ago. An informal contract, for most of he time, and and a formal contract, for the past millennia. And marriage has nothing to do with realigion, or God; it simply pre-dates it. Homossexuals have the right to get together, of course, and have most of the rights that a married couple have, except for child adoption. The homossexual love and the homossexual union should even be formally recognized by the society, if so they wish. Call it what you want; but marriage it is not and never will be, no matter what some decide to call it. What is equal should be treated as equal, and what is different should be treated as different. And, for crying out loud, don’t come up with the “modernist” and the – nowadays – politically correct, and sickening, homophobia theory crap to label the people that don’t think the same way. Every form of social engineering is extremely dangerous for society.

  258. avatar
    João Carlos Gonçalves Anselmo

    No. By no means. Marriage is between a woman and a man. Always has been, since the first Humans walked the earth, 200.000 years ago, or at least since Homo Sapiens showed up, 50.000 years ago. An informal contract, for most of he time, and and a formal contract, for the past millennia. And marriage has nothing to do with realigion, or God; it simply pre-dates it. Homossexuals have the right to get together, of course, and have most of the rights that a married couple have, except for child adoption. The homossexual love and the homossexual union should even be formally recognized by the society, if so they wish. Call it what you want; but marriage it is not and never will be, no matter what some decide to call it. What is equal should be treated as equal, and what is different should be treated as different. And, for crying out loud, don’t come up with the “modernist” and the – nowadays – politically correct, and sickening, homophobia theory crap to label the people that don’t think the same way. Every form of social engineering is extremely dangerous for society.

  259. avatar
    Bipul Mohanto

    People, as your population is already decreasing many of the countries in EU (at least not increasing in noticeable phase), why EU will take this decision that will indirectly impact on population growth. If you people wanna extinct from earth like dodo, then EU is welcome.

  260. avatar
    Thomas Beavitt

    What is really needed is a EU-wide privacy law protecting those who consent to intimate acts from the morality police.

  261. avatar
    Thomas Beavitt

    What is really needed is a EU-wide privacy law protecting those who consent to intimate acts from the morality police.

  262. avatar
    Pro Surveyor

    If you don’t like the union between a woman and a man try instead an union between a man and a woman

  263. avatar
    Pro Surveyor

    If you don’t like the union between a woman and a man try instead an union between a man and a woman

  264. avatar
    Afonso Fernandes Marques

    Gay marriage is a wonderful decision because it gives EU people what is needed at this moment. Confidence and certainty in the future…

  265. avatar
    Afonso Fernandes Marques

    Gay marriage is a wonderful decision because it gives EU people what is needed at this moment. Confidence and certainty in the future…

  266. avatar

    Marriage is not the “holly” connection of a man and a woman. It is the constitutional connection of the two participating entities under the view of the country and (lets face it) the tax collectors.
    After reading a bit about the history of marriage and the way people get married around the world one can realise that marriage was not invented in order to connect people under any god but to ensure that both of the parents will contribute to the raise of their offspring.
    With that said we can treat gay couples the same way we treat infertile couples. They pay their taxes together and they adopt kids or use donors to have kids.

  267. avatar
    Vinko Rajic

    YES ! Why should we respect religion ? Is religion not a crime ? People are just wasting their time and money . Religious truth , Virgin Mary is going to do big thing , they promise , get believers , make money , nothing is going to happen , they change story and do the same thing again :
    In just 5 years, the “seer” Ivan Dragicevic has bought properties worth a total of 1.566 million dollars, equivalent to 1,470,953 euro (taking into account the appreciation of the euro at the time of the trade).
    An average American, in the 5 years would have earned $ 198,508 gross, gross 195 336 € (taking into account the appreciation of the euro year to year). Figures, gross, are nearly 10 times lower than the amount spent by the “seer”.…/inchiesta-esclusi…-«nessuno-dei-veggenti-di-medjugorje-si-e-mai-arricchito-grazie-alle-apparizioni-»-ecco-le-prove-del-contrario/

  268. avatar
    Vinko Rajic

    YES ! Why should we respect religion ? Is religion not a crime ? People are just wasting their time and money . Religious truth , Virgin Mary is going to do big thing , they promise , get believers , make money , nothing is going to happen , they change story and do the same thing again :
    In just 5 years, the “seer” Ivan Dragicevic has bought properties worth a total of 1.566 million dollars, equivalent to 1,470,953 euro (taking into account the appreciation of the euro at the time of the trade).
    An average American, in the 5 years would have earned $ 198,508 gross, gross 195 336 € (taking into account the appreciation of the euro year to year). Figures, gross, are nearly 10 times lower than the amount spent by the “seer”.…/inchiesta-esclusi…-«nessuno-dei-veggenti-di-medjugorje-si-e-mai-arricchito-grazie-alle-apparizioni-»-ecco-le-prove-del-contrario/

  269. avatar
    Dacii Sunt Stramosii Mei

    Not Romania! I hate when EU decide for a single country. EU it’s a good Project but let’s remember we are so different cultures…with so different languages and history. We will never be like the USA…because we can’t. If EU wants to create a dictatorship over member countryes then someday will be another bloody revolution. Since we descover democracy in 1989 we got our industry destroyed by foreigners. Our nature destroyed by foreigners and so on…nothing good happened since 1989..only the fact that u are free to move. Wake up EU..wake up or die someday like any regime

  270. avatar
    Isaac Gabriella

    marriage is about legal obligations and legal rights … anybody has the right to Justice! on marital issues! to ensure rights and obligations over his/her partnetner

  271. avatar
    Joerg Sp

    Is there even a debate? Who would even question this? Only people like the conservatives and fundamentalists like christian democratic Party in Germany. If they question such things and are debated, then after 10 seconds they have NO arguments against gay marriage equality than to say “our values”. There is NO debate. You should rather debate how we can stop European Union exporting weapons all over the place, how we can fix the refugee drama or deal with the impending doom resulting from the crash of the economy or the ecosystem or both.

  272. avatar
    John Zervas

    Yes they should, gay people are people and when they get their right they will be happey people = happy tax payers. Why on earth doesn’t anyone understand that? It’s not a matter of human rights here, it’s a matter of making the right moves while performing statecraft and have to deal with the human factor. Let the people get married so that life can go on and states can make precious money out of the situation!

  273. avatar
    Nikolaos Sotirelis

    3 days ago was the global day against homophobia.
    That was because, at 1990 (after 2 millenniums!!!), the W.H.O. discovered that homosexuality is not… a disease!!! Great step… for science! :p
    I hope however, that soon enough, they’ll discover the cure of… homophobia, because till now it seems… incurable!!!

  274. avatar
    Ferenc Lázár

    Irish citizens will never vote for gay marriage, neither the Italians and Hungarians, it is just a liberal issue which the social liberals keep forcing on majority! Why do you think us better for a child to have 2 fathers or 2 mothers instead of traditional relationship?!

  275. avatar
    Ferenc Lázár

    Alessandro, my government is not fascist, that was the case of Italy with Mussolini as we know it from history! Of course, I know that a small minority of yours became very agressive and you’re calling everbody fascist and homofob if they don-t agree with your views! However the majority of citizens don’t agree with gay marriage, that is the case of Spain as well, where the socialist government imposed on their citizens without asking them! That was the case in France as well, majority citizens were not asked by the socialist government. I AM NOT HOMOFOB, I AM NOT AGAINST GAY PEOPLE, I JUST SAY THEY DON’T NEED MARRIAGE AND CHILD ADOPTION TO SHOW OF WITH THEIR BEHAVIOUR AND MATERIALISM.

  276. avatar
    Alexis Peter Ginis

    Of course it should! Why are we even discuss it!? Whether some people like it or not, it’s their right as citizens and human beings to have the same privileges as everyone. Besides, rights are not here to protect the majority, but the minority.

  277. avatar
    Luca De Cristofaro

    Europe should ask national countries to recognize gay marriage as well as it does asking to abolish death penalty.

  278. avatar
    Fernando North

    Yes of course, all EU nations should be tested against a common Human rather than religious standard. Human Rights should be observed through EU-and remember humans have rights not religions. To have a religious view is your right, to impose it on another is not.

  279. avatar
    Tiago Miranda

    This is not a religious question, but a civilian one. Have that in mind if you’re going to