Eventually, yes indeed.

Yes

Yes

Of course !

No.

there are more important things to do, first of all stop the austerity

Whatever the majority’s opinion is. If the majority says yes, then let it be. But if the majority says no, it should be equaly respected.

yes.

NO.

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.

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

Definitly yrs

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..

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.

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.

Don’t call it marriage, but something else, since it is something else.

Yes, of course!

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

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"

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.

@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.

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…

@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?

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…

Marriage????A contract could be enough!!Adoption should be banned!!

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.

No, I do not think so!

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.

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research.

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?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9959950/My-gay-fathers-sexual-abuse-was-swept-under-the-carpet-says-victim.html

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?

Yes sure they should !

Yes !

ABSOLUTELY YES!

YES and NOW

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

of course YES

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.

@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.

@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?

Of course!

YES

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.

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.

ABSOLUTELY YES!

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?

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?

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.

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.

“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]

Υes!

Absolutely YES!!

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

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.

yes!

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.

Would this mean that if a country don’t want gay marriage they must leave the EU or pay a bill?

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?

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.

YES

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

Yes

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

Yes

Je m’en fou!

Gay marriage ! Yes, of course! What`s your problem, “straight” people? Love is love! :)

Never…

Yes

Yes, all of them…this would be a proof of a united European Union!

No.

Russian decision is ok. We should do the same.

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?

no. it should be open for every state to decide by itself for itself. and ask the people, dont do it like France!!!

NO!

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

Yes!

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.

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.

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

THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED BY MODERATORS FOR BREACHING OUR CODE OF CONDUCT. REPLIES MAY ALSO BE REMOVED.

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.

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.

No.

https://www.facebook.com/YoungFriendsofTurkey?fref=ts

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.

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.

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.

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.

The best “european words” to describe the LGBT rights (in this video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4czjuWhd50

” 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”

—wikipedia

“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”

—http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201204/are-homophobic-people-really-gay-and-not-accepting-it

just my fifty cents.

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

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

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

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

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

Eu estou de acordo com a comunidade gay na Europa � uma liberdade democr�tica mas n�o um direito quanto a comunidade gay na Europa est� na sua melhor forma a Russia n�o � os estados da Europa a Russia esta a mudar com politicas de direitos humanos e ir� melhorar mas isso ir� levar anos

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.

why not?!?!?

Definitely yes. It is a matter of when instead of if so the sooner the better.

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.

I wonder what Crisp would’ve thought.

Each EU country should do the same indeed.

We have joined the wrong part of Europe, again.

Anywhere under eu influence is the Wrong part of Europe Boyko.

full of homophobes here

I agree

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.

Yes.

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 .

Already a reality in Portugal, since some years ago!

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.

Yes.

YES! It’s a human right! And that has everything to do with th EU!!

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?

I don’t think that love live is about traditions.

no, no way … each state should follow their stage (of development), I think …

the real question should be: do this really requires a law? who cares?!

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.

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.

YES.

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.

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

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.

yes

It�s already a reality in Portugal for the last 2 years …

@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.

@ 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.

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

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!

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!

The real question is: Why not?

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

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

It’s in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, we should!

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 :)

Quite simply yes I do!

YES!

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.

YES!

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.

No

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.

There should be a clause whereby all future and present member states commit themselves to do this.

yes

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.

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!

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!

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

Yes

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

And why shouldn’t marriage be abolished?

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!

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

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.

How about solid marriages and broken same sex “incidents”

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

“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”.

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.

What comes next? Why not an extended family (or civil union ) of three or four or even more members?

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.

is not democratic !

They HAVE to. End of discussion.

Absolutely yes. Any country not recognizing it should be directly out of the Union

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.

marriage is a legal right…

Like if the continent had no other more serious problems !!!!!!!!!

The EU seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and PEOPLE

I cannot say YES or NO.

NO!!!

Yes, all member states should recognise gay marrages! Why not ???

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

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