In Austria, same-sex couples were able to marry from 1 January 2019. That brings the total number of EU Member-States that recognise same-sex marriage up to thirteen. However, that still leaves 15 European countries where same-sex marriage is not legal. In many Eastern European countries, the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman is enshrined in the constitution.
For same-sex couples, this confusing legal landscape throws up several issues. If they move from one European country to another, will they have the same rights as straight couples in terms of things like pensions, guardianship of children, legal wills, and so on? Should their marriage be recognised across the entire European Union?
What do our readers think? We had a comment sent in from Luca on our ‘Suggest a Debate’ page, asking how LGBT rights (including on issues such as same-sex marriage and adoption) can be improved across the continent. Would recognising same-sex marriage not be a good first step?
Should same-sex marriage be legalised across Europe? We asked Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from all sides of the political spectrum to stake out their positions on this question, and it’s up to YOU to vote for the policies you favour. See what the different MEPs have to say, then vote at the bottom of this debate for the one you most agree with! Take part in the vote below and tell us who you support in the European Parliament!
Yes, of course. I think that’s important. Human rights are for all.
Yes. When it comes to gay marriage, there is a clear contradiction in Europe. On the one hand, we do not define marriage at the European level. Family law is a national competence. Yet, on the other hand, we have decided at the European level (because it’s in the treaties) that we’re not allowed to discriminate against people. So, if you apply that principle logically, somebody should be able to go to court and ask: ‘Why am I not allowed to marry as a homosexual?’
We also have freedom of movement in Europe, and if you are a heterosexual married couple and you move to another country, you have no problem. But if you are a same-sex couple and you move to another country, you lose your rights: Social security, child benefits, and so on. That is discrimination on the basis of sexuality…
I would say that, for me, the most important element for this issue is the first article of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which speaks about respect for human dignity… On the other hand, I believe we should approach this issue in dialogue and in full sensitivity for the diversity of views.
There is also another aspect, which we speak about frequently in the European Parliament. I belong to those who think that this issue it is not a European competence to decide, but rather it should be left to Member States. So, we do need to respect the principle of subsidiarity, which is very important within the legal structure of the European Union,.
Beatrix von Storch (EFDD), Member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs:
Curious to know more about same-sex marriage across Europe? We’ve put together some facts and figures in the infographic below (click for a bigger version).
IMAGE CREDIT: CC / Flickr – European Parliament
With the support of:
1,685 comments Post a commentcomment
Yes but such things should not be done in church
and no right to adopt children.
Andrius Adomaitis and no right to be happy. Equal marriage yes but less equal than the other. 😒
Agree with Vladislav 100% on this. State ceremonies and equal rights in status. But forcing churches to change their view on this is just as oppressive to the religious groups as not permitting same sex marriage is to homosexually orientated people. While we’re at it, what about state recognised polygamy? Many people the world over practice this, yet it is considered immoral in many states. . . . .
NO! NO! NO! and again NO!!!
Next step after the marriage is to allow adoption of child and what example they would give to the child? “Be like daddy marry uncle John”… that sucks! In your bedroom you can be anything you want but you shouldn’t be allowed to give bad examples in public!
Yes, cause being in orphanage is better than being adopted by same-sex family.
Sure
Bad examples like prejudice?
bad examples? have you ever been with a gay/lesbian couple? would you like to be judged? So sad
so basically you are saying that people marry the opposite sex because they learn it from their parents? thats not how this works. thats not how it works at all…
If you ask me, you’re what’s wrong with this world. Not gay marriage!
Bad examples in public. Shame on you.
The only bad example I see here is you.
Same sex marriage and adoption have proved to work perfectly well in all the countries that have legalized it!
Elton John has adopted children – what’s the problem?
No bad examples in public, for the kids. Of course. Right so not drinking, not swearing, not yelling, not fighting. And what about writing homophobic comments?
Do you know how stupid and ignorant you sound!!! What bad examples in public are you talking about!!! Isn’t it possible for heterosexual couples to give bad examples in public???? As they say you can’t fix stupid@@
Bad examples to children like smoking, drinking, swearing? Why not forbid everything btw? Grow up, soviets. You are not in 1945 anymore.
I agree. It’s just not God’s way. Europe should be based on traditions not on cheap liberalism.
I am against anyone being discriminated or treated poorly because of their sexual orientation and I can tell this story: discussing this topic with my boyfriend some time ago he unexpectedly revelead that he was against homosexuals having children and said basically the same things as the poster above. He is from a catholic country and is thus shaped by this growing up. I tried to argue against his position, but he didn’t change his mind. I anyway accepted it but hoped he would sometime change his mind. After this, he has become friends with a gay friend, Friend A. Seeing this debate I turned to him and asked: “Do you think Friend A should be forbidden to ever have children?” And he replied No. He had changed his mind about homosexuals having children.
In other words: it’s easy to have prejudice and deny rights to people who in your mind are far from you, but once you really get to know a person, you will realize we as humans have more things that united us than divide us.
I strongly disagree with this statement. I believe That everyone should have equal rights no matter their sexual orientation
This is a not fair. I wrote many times that I disagree and that people here or generally in the West do not like the truth. John Kennedy the 35th American president said that the truth is always inconvenient.
The center right guy put it right: ” It should be left to member states to decide. “
Then they should decide on other basic principles too but would have to leave the EU after of course. No à la carte europe.
Civil gay marriage should be legal, but gay marriage as a religious ritual should be decided by the different religious churches and organizations. It is their right to decide for themselves if they allow it. The two types of marriage are a different thing and should be viewed as different matters because of secularism. There is separation between state and church and this is how it should be.
For your information, matrimony is always done in church and has no legal value on its own. Marriage is a legal, non religious ceremony. So yes marriage should be legal for everyone.
Matrimony in church, marriage outside the church, people mistake this often.
The only thing that matters is the civil law of each country, therefore, what is important is civil marriage because it gives important rights to couples. Religious marriages is out of the debate. It’s up to each religion what they want to do and how idiots and bigoted they want to be. But the state shouldn’t have his laws based on religions issues, so civil marriage should be open to all couples.
Regulating the activity of religious organizations is also a matter of civil law. That’s why the issue is two-sided.
Любомир Иванчев The only country that forces the church to perform same-sex religious marriage is, if I am not mistaken, Denmark, because of them being a religious state, there is an oficial state religion and is regulated. It’s just how their constitutionalism works. :)
Yeah respect, kindness, chivalry and do as we say…
WHY should be my rights on a debate? It feels horrific. I am so happy to be Spanish, been legal since 2005 and no problem. Eastern Europeans and the Italian Government will not accept we are all equal
.
Until you can give birth to new life you are not equal, the Italian government do not say so, nature does.
then I guess you are not equal too, nature does not give you a vagina mr burrows
we are asking for the right to get married, not to give birth…maybe you’re a bit confused
Ivan Burrows, so you are against old couples to marry? Or couples who don’t want child? Or couple who can’t have children?
Oh, come on, we are all equal. It’s just that some of us are more equal than the others.
Actually guys… In italy it’s been a while already since the civil union law passed, and it differs from a marriage only for the adoption policy, which is now being worked on separately by the government, to reform the whole adoption system, so that then the same right will be granted to homosexual couples too.
I agree with Paule, how on earth someone can think they’re superior enough to debate on someone else’s rights?
How can anyone say “No you cannot do that! but YOU can!” and then think they support equality for all human beings, as our Human Rights Declaration, heart of EU, states?
Disregard Burrows, he’s a nationalistic backwards shithead.
Just look at his comments elsewhere.
Legalise also drugs and pedophily and tell the nation it’s great to do, cause we’re all different.🙄 Slovakia has 20 times lower AIDS % than UK, Spain for example. In last years AIDS started spreading in EU again . Guess why? I am proud of Slovakia , that they didn’t let this happen and even strictened the laws on it here.
Two, so you think the way to stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases is to outlaw people pairing off into monogamous relationships for life, effectively increasing the number of possible transfers of the disease from 1 person, to however many people that legally mandated carrier can have sex with? What have I missed, because by my calculations this cannot be right. Are you certain people in Slovakia aren’t just “not getting any”?
Paule Egé, we are lucky iberians.
Alberto Pérez
Alberto Pérez
According to my beliefs there can be no same sex marriage, there can be no civil marriage as well. But, because not all people have my faith and my beliefs, and people are people, we need to see it as it is. Two people want to bond legally so as to be able to share assets and act as legal partners for one another. If the case did not involve any sexual connotation why two people who want to live together and share legal burdens should not? There are also many loners who are simply friends into this world who would benefit from such a law.
Or course.
Of course.
Of course
Definitely, but right wing blockheads would use that for their xenophobic propaganda in countries like Poland, Hungary and the rest of Eastern Europe :(
Arkadiusz, Orban and Kaczyński won’t last for ever. We are going through a period of nationalism. In the long run there has always been a steady developpment towards more enlightenment. We need to fight but also have faith to tackle this absurd situation. The brave polish people already show how strong they are opposing this Kaczyński period.
Dirk Schönhoff
If believing in a failed European experiment of the 1950’s is ‘enlightenment’ then you really are in trouble.
Fascism, Nazism, Communism & now Europeanism, only the colour of the flag changes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/07/top-world-britain-outpace-g7-next-three-decades/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw
I am proud of Slovakia and Hungary that they didn’t allow this and 64 more genders.
Teo Nagy, what a pitty a guy with your chances and talents does not make use of what was given to you. It’s not Putin or Orban giving you the freedom to live and travel where ever you want. It is the idea of equal chances and freedom besides national boarders to developp your own ideas . Be fair and allow just the same to other people. Think about it and I am counting on your support!
Why limit the number of people involved? If you want to get rid of one criterion (opposite sex) “just because”, why would you stop here? Alternative lifestyles are limitless.
At the very least there needs to be equivalence. Civil partnerships have to provide ALL the same tax, legal and cvil benefits as marriage.
Andrius Adomaitis and no right to be happy. Equal marriage yes but less equal than the other. ?
Can never be married.
Can only be a civil union!!!
So they can have all the same rights and obligations but not the same name? It is a semantics problem for you?
Yes, I know. How is that in any conflict with what I said? I am just saying gay marriage should be legal, but religious organizations should have the right to refuse performing gay weddings.
.
Why are you obsessed with this ‘Across Europe’ nonsense ?
Because EU will be a state!
It’s called predictive programming.
Tiago Pereira
Only in the minds of fanatics comrade.
No, in the minds of people who want unity and peace.
If you want to get out, there is the UK. Hop to it
My nation has no war in it’s land since the first half of the 1800’s. Finally, as a croatian you are quite hypocrite with that argument. Why haven’t you stayed within Yugoslavia? O right. Go preech in the Balkans.
Why is this even up for discussion? Of course it should be. We are a modern, tolerant continent, it doesn’t hurt anyone and it would make many people very happy.
No. What’s next, paedophilia and incest “marriages”, because why not, according to such liberal degenerate doctrines.
very rational arguments i must say
Uli Czeranka .
Rationally speaking nature says male+female = new life, not male+male.
It is you that is being irrational by putting personal sexual preference above the natural order.
Homosexual marriage involves 2 consenting adults with no family ties, what gives you the right to decide someones else’s rights when it doesn’t infringe on yours?
Ivan, explain this ‘natural order’ please.
Cooking food also goes against nature.
The page is called ‘Rational Ethno-Nationalism’, don’t expect any valid arguments from them lol
The nature argument is as old and stupid as it can be… Religious based nonsense..
Sure!!
The is nothing “across Europe”. Europeis not a state and it will never be and the EU is a useless, incompetent and corrupt institution that shall be dissolver sooner rather then latet.
So why are you here?
Without the EU there’s no buffer, there’s nothing to prop up the smaller countries, Portugal would be one of the countries that would crash and burn because we simply don’t have economic nor diplomatic strenght to holds us up.
Lol…Portugal is one of the oldest countries in the world. We don’t need the EU to have a diplomacy that suits our needs, in fact we always pushed above our weight. I guess you never saw an history book And certaonly never read a newspapet. Also, economically, Portugal already “crashed and burned” and that is EU’s fault. Our purchasing power was bigger in 1974 after the Colonial War, than today. Our debt, made rescuing banks that the ECB was charged to control, was never as high, not even in 1891 when we last bankrupt. That is enough to “crash and burn” your theory. The EU brought us nothing but poverty and subjugation.
I wonder were all of you lesser educated and certainly less polite “we know better and facts don’t count” were living when there was no EU and countries like Portugal had strength to do what they wanted. In fact I would like to know where do you live this days because foreign policy is still in part a national matter. I wonder what you would say to tiny Switzerland or the unpopulated Iceland. Better! What would you say to the absurdly rich Singapure. Please tell them they have no strength in the international stage a then explain them how wonderful it is to be a broken country within thr “powerful” and “transparent” EU. What a bloody joke. The mathmatic is simple. The portuguese are poorer now than before the EU logic shows the EU was a disgusting deal. Now, call me a “nationalistic cunt” because I desagree with you foolishness, but stats will not change and history is there to be seen.
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED BY MODERATORS FOR BREACHING OUR CODE OF CONDUCT. REPLIES MAY ALSO BE REMOVED.
I agree with you Jose,, Greece is sitting in the same situation and believe me we don’t belong in the EUROZONE!!! I’m all for Grexit!! This debt was never Greece’s debt!!!
It’s ridiculous it’s a discussion still. The EU should definitely pressure these eastern countries on human rights issues. This is not a religious thing it’s a human rights thing. Religion has no place in politics or law because it’s nonsense.
.
Can you make nature bend to the will of political correct ‘human rights’ law ?
If you want to be a naturalist, go into the jungle and hang out with irrational animals, don’t come here to the human rational world making statements 😏
Ivan Burrows No one is talking about nature, we’re talking about human rights.
Furthermore, it doesn’t even matter because homosexualism is natural since it naturally occurs in nature between animals.
Btw marriage in general is not a natural thing. It’s a made by man thing. 😏 don’t see animals getting married.
.
Who are you to tell whole populations what they should be, the gay Mafia ?
Should be legalized all over the world — happily married taxpayer.
Arkadiusz, Orban and Kaczyński won’t last for ever. We are going through a period of nationalism. In the long run there has always been a steady developpment towards more enlightenment. We need to fight but also have faith to tackle this absurd situation. The brave polish people already show how strong they are opposing this Kaczyński period.
Yes, individual freedom and rights should always come first.
NO, NEVER!
What about society is natural? Is using the social media to be an ignorant naturalist wannabe nature? ? shove that bullshit elsewhere.
Yes, without any doubt. It harms noone and protects citizens.
Buggers!
If you want to be a naturalist, go into the jungle and hang out with irrational animals, don’t come here to the human rational world making statements ?
I’d rather have the discussion about why people still think marriage is a good idea. I personally don’t see the need for marriage to be a ‘thing’ and why as a single person I cannot have the same tax breaks as a married couple whatever their sex.
Yeah!!!!
Gay marrages are more stable and lasting than same sex. Children growing up in this have the foundation of a stable family. Oh the horror……
It would be wonderful, but the EU hardly has the competence to introduce such a unified solution. However, legally contracted marriages should not lose their status, when they move across the borders. That is a real obstacle to free movement.
And what exactly gives you the right to take people’s rights away?
Don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person.
Those pants needs to be taken to the dry cleaners.
Yes of course
Why stop there, why not polygamy as well? …At the end of the day people should be free to have relationships with whoever they choose, the issue comes when you use the word “legalise”….once this happens the law becomes the stick for the PC liberal left to beat into submission those who’s beliefs are being fundamentally challenged
Of course!
No.
Well, that is somewhat unrealistic in the next few years, but it is important to ensure that marriages conducted by any given EU member are recognized across the continent, as are adoptions. Without that freedom of movement is not properly working. This needs to fully extend to SSM.
Yes!
Dirk Schönhoff I agree, but these kind of policies, like forced migration quotas, or forced gay marriage legislation are fueling right wing populism and increase their chances to re-election. Kaczynski and his party were opposing the EU law about domestic violence. I see that you have some knowledge about Polish politics, but to give you some perspective, CDU would be called in Poland leftist. That’s how right-wing our current parliament is.
Yes
That is for the churches to decide, and not you.
It’s illegal to force a priest/church to marry someone they don’t want to so all the gay people that do get married there, it’s because the priest wanted to.
No, it is a joke.I am scared.
Scared? Don’t be: nobody will force you to marry a man.
I know i will not be forced, but i will see that, i will live with that in my comunity, it s hard to see that, is hard to see two people that do things against nature.
Then look away.
There are 168 species that exhibit homosexual relationships, and only one species that exhibit homophobia. Grow up and stop using “nature” as an excuse for your bigotry
Creation is the ultimate target. If is not is wrong, ok? I try to be not just a simple animal.
You try to not be a somple animal, yet you claim it has to be for creation in order to be ok.
Contradictory, much?
Then those not willing to breed, the old and/or infertile should be forbidden too by your “logic”.
:] + special fasion preseted under song “money’ https://youtu.be/H4xW3U8Azxw
Yes,this is not religious thing,but human right thing.
Dirk Schönhoff
If believing in a failed European experiment of the 1950’s is ‘enlightenment’ then you really are in trouble.
Fascism, Nazism, Communism & now Europeanism, only the colour of the flag changes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/07/top-world-britain-outpace-g7-next-three-decades/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw
Of course it should be. The fact we’re even discussing this still is an embarrassment.
Ivan Burrows marriage is a construct of culture and society. What exactly the relation to making babies (in a natural sense) is, you need to show me. Anyway my remark was against the equation gay marriage, pedophilia and incest.
No.
This has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives (whatever that shit is) but with fundamental Human Rights. ;)
Yes absolutely!
Yes. Also people immigrating to Europe should be asked if they accept same sex marriage, gender equality, disabled equality, human rights, etc. Refusal to do so, should result in immediate deporation.
they are coming to escape American/European funded wars, not to get a same sex marriage.
JD Blaha Doesn’t matter. If they ahve a problem with any EU minorities then they should either adjust their attitudes or not come.
What Andrea means is that they should be asked that in order to understand if they are prepared to integrate our society and accept our cultural values.
If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry someone the same sex. It really is that simple.
IF you want to destroy and deprive a civilization .. go on on this way!
all European Citizens should have equal rights. Pretty radical idea, eh?
JD Blaha Doesn’t matter. If they have a problem with any EU minorities then they should either adjust their attitudes or not come.
Yes of course! But in countries like Poland will be very difficult to see the law pass in parliament since the Catholic church has too much influence in the society.
I am in Italy, in Rome, where the Catholic Church is not only an influence, it actually resides here. If we did the civil union law, you can do the same, and both can advence to the marriage step, which for us it would only require to add the adption policy to the now existent civil union.
No
NO!
Never!
Btw marriage in general is not a natural thing. It’s a made by man thing. ? don’t see animals getting married.
Nonsense, big no, it’s foolishness. Great sin
Is the Pope Catholic? Of course it should – yesterday.
If I mention the Pope, it’s cuz marriage, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, is a civic bond between two consenting adults that has no relation to faith or religion. Anything else is bigotry and discrimination. Now can I get an amen in here?
Amen
It is a human right. Identical to the human right already granted for non-same-sex marriages. A right is nothing to discuss, neither to vote for. It just needs to be granted
i diritti civili , da soli , senza i diritti sociali ed umani “è la vittoria di Pirro ” cioè una battaglia persa
It’s harm’s no one and it’s the right of those people to be treated as equal. .off corce adoption of children from those couples should be debated more on the basis of the childs interest
Yes!
No. Social and religious issues like this should be decided on by individual member states, whatever the predominant views might be across the EU. Hungary’s constitution has a clause recognising marriage as between a man and a woman. If you think imposing one EU view is more important than European unity, I don’t, but I do support recognition by states of equal rights across a range and variety of partnerships.
I want my brothers and sisters in Hungry to have all the rights that equal human beings have according to our European values, and i certainly want them to have as much civil rights as i do have in Italy, because they are not different than me. Why should i let them be less? Why should i let Hungry’s government treat LGBT people like second-class citizens just because they’re a few kilometres across the alps from me? No.
EQUALITY IS EQUALITY, and it is not “a view”, it is one of our, the EU, fundamental principles.
LGBT people ARE treated equally in Hungary. It’s just that same-sex partnerships are seen as being different which, of course, they are. Being equal is not about being the same.
So, your ‘unity’ is based on surpressing other people. Thanks, we don’t want your unity. Obviously; you just want our money, it’s time for the EU to through hungary out. Democracy gone, human rights gone, there is not much european culture left in hungary. Go russian, putin will show you (again) how much a hungarian life is worth for them. A unity right the way you like it, I guess.
Andrew Chandler How are they different? Is it not a committment based on love, trust and stability, just like the marriage of a heterosexual couple?
The Bible (New Testament as well as Old, including Jesus’ teaching on marriage, Matthew 19), states clearlz that marriage is between one man and one woman. Hungary has chosen to put this definition into its constitution. It is entitled, as a sovereign nation state, to do so, even if other states and institutions within the EU take a contrary majority view. Some of these distinguish between secular rights and religious sacraments, as I do, and my churches do (Anglican and Baptist). According to their teaching, laws and liturgy, one of the purposes of marriage is procreation. That purpose is clearly not present in a same-sex union and therefore the relationship is fundamentally different in that respect. For some countries, like Hungary, this is a practical issue, as a combination of high emigration and low birthrate leads to a weak demographic structure compared with other countries in the EU with high levels of immigration. It is possible to support a traditional definition of marriage and the family while supporting equal rights for other types of relationships and families. That’s what toleration means. Forcing everyone to be the same is not liberalism – it’s dictatorship or even fascism.
true :)
Also, you have just called me a fascist. Are you aware what fascism is? How is allowing two people of the same sex to get married in a civil ceremony (nobody’s forcing your church to marry anyone, don’t sweat) fascism? Are you aware how serious using that word is?
No
yes! of course!! every human being with the same rights!!
Is this a question?? Really?? Where are u living, guys? XXI century…
OMG, what a nightmare !
no
Of Course, however the EU can not even handle basic issues at the moment.
NO
With time, yes.
It should be left to individual countries to decide when.
I have always felt that gay marriage should be a separate act of union to heterosexual marriage. There should be equal rights given to gay and straight couples who have made a lawful commitment to each other but why can’t one be called marriage and the other something else? They are two clearly different things in terms of the sex of the couples involved so why homogenize the two? The very word ‘gay’ was chosen, by gays, to define their sexuality. Can they not choose a word to define their legal union? And why not have their own words to replace husband and wife?
If the word marriage was confined to heterosexual union then all of the difficulties and prejudices associated with gay marriage would dissipate. The primary objection seems to be the attempt to legislate dogs into cats instead of allowing them to be two different things with an equal right to exist and to have their own ceremonies.
wich same sex between 124 sexes recognized in the world? just stupid question
there are only 2 though
not at all unfortunatelly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAHvLAJ-5aQ
Хартия търпи всичко! EPISTOLA NON ERUBESCIT!
Хартия търпи всичко! EPISTOLA NON ERUBESCIT!
freaks
Of course. No debate on human rights, and no voting. According to our core principles, people MUST be treated as equals, that’s it. Give all the citizens the same civil rights!
Yes
Yes…But, don´t worry about those things…Europe is falling down, worry about that instead! Do a usefull job telling people how to prepare themselves for what´s coming: the fall of EU and the 3rd world war!
Yes…But, don´t worry about those things…Europe is falling down, worry about that instead! Do a usefull job telling people how to prepare themselves for what´s coming: the fall of EU and the 3rd world war!
Yes, a right to marriage is a basic human right.
If it’s a human right then woman can’t get married? What a sexist!
Nu
Yes. People should just accept the fact that people now do sex for pleasure, not for reproduction.
Without going into more details of your half baked comment- you seem to suffer from illusory superiority, amorality & arguing from ignorance. Not even any great religion concurs with your statement. Sorry, fake “FACTS” from A-Z!
Yes
Yes
I think that when homosexual people choose to use a word not ment for them, psicologically accept that they are different to the others.
So if we pick a different word and attribute all the same rights and obligations this type of commitment, that would be ok for you? It is a semantics problem for you?
we could call it Gayrriage… maybe ppl would accept it…
Wim Jansens Let’s put it this way….if the sea is blue, why call it pink? either is a lie or somebody is got strabism.
Però a veure, qui diu que no és una paraula que no els convé? Ho vols dir de punt de vista catòlic? Pq es veu que al 2017 es pot casar-se per l’estat i fora de l’església eh… no sé si estaves al dia amb això Enric
Casament no és nomes referint-se als catòlics…..a tot el món casament és la unió de un mascle i una femella, però actualment els “progres” , els dels miembros y miembras, han posat de moda aixó de dir “matrimoni” a la unió homosexual, només per tocar els penjolls a la gent normal.
Yes
vi risulta che uomo e donna non si sposa quasi più nessuno perchè la UE ha tolto loro i diritti fondamentali dell’esistenza ? Gli omosessuali si sposano per condividere il destino di quale vita ? Stessi diritti di buttarsi giù dal ponte, cioè nessun diritto sociale per nessuno. Ma quale società si sta costruendo ?
There is that man and woman are not married hardly anyone because the EU has taken away their basic rights of existence? The homosexual get married to share the fate of what life? Same rights to jump off the bridge, ie no social right for anyone. But which company you’re building?
l’amore non ha bisogno di sottoscrivere nessuna carta. Il matrimonio è un contratto per condividere diritti e doveri oltre l’amore I doveri li conosciamo sono tantissimi e i diritti quali sono ? Portando i ragazzi a non avere un futuro perchè la UE ha creato disoccupazione ! Toglie le pensioni ! Se qualcuno ha un bene può fare testamento non ha bisogno di sposarsi. La famiglia è un bene per la società e non è protetta dalla UE, da qualche anno la distrugge . Ci parlate di diritti omosessuali quando non rispettate i diritti fondamentali di nessuno
vi risulta che uomo e donna non si sposa quasi più nessuno perchè la UE ha tolto loro i diritti fondamentali dell’esistenza ? Gli omosessuali si sposano per condividere il destino di quale vita ? Stessi diritti di buttarsi giù dal ponte, cioè nessun diritto sociale per nessuno. Ma quale società si sta costruendo ?
There is that man and woman are not married hardly anyone because the EU has taken away their basic rights of existence? The homosexual get married to share the fate of what life? Same rights to jump off the bridge, ie no social right for anyone. But which company you’re building?
l’amore non ha bisogno di sottoscrivere nessuna carta. Il matrimonio è un contratto per condividere diritti e doveri oltre l’amore I doveri li conosciamo sono tantissimi e i diritti quali sono ? Portando i ragazzi a non avere un futuro perchè la UE ha creato disoccupazione ! Toglie le pensioni ! Se qualcuno ha un bene può fare testamento non ha bisogno di sposarsi. La famiglia è un bene per la società e non è protetta dalla UE, da qualche anno la distrugge . Ci parlate di diritti omosessuali quando non rispettate i diritti fondamentali di nessuno
Of course! It’s ridiculous that we can be married in one country, but the second we cross a border, it no longer counts. The legal repercussions of that alone are a nightmare, plus it messes with one of the fundamental freedoms (movement of people.)
Any European country that fails to legalize same sex marriage cannot at the same time criticize Islam,or any of the backward states like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.
You are no better then they are.
There is no debat possible, this is nobody concern except the ones getting married, therefore I don’t understand how can be illegal. Maybe on top of this the human rights art. 16 should be changed. It states “1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.”, maybe it should say “1.2 or more humans of full age ….”
There is no debat possible, this is nobody concern except the ones getting married, therefore I don’t understand how can be illegal. Maybe on top of this the human rights art. 16 should be changed. It states “1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.”, maybe it should say “1.2 or more humans of full age ….”
Never
Absolutely YES!
No. Same sex marriage is not marriage at all. Marriage can only and is only valid between a man and a woman. The dynamics are not at all equal. Not in any way.
In fact, it is well hidden but, this practice has been quite disastrous for the institution of marriage in its meaning.
http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2004-018.pdf
In the UK the laws on marage to make it possible for Same Sex couples had to be changed to allow for infidelity. And numerous other unacceptable requirements for devotion to each other from the participants.
Read this for enlightenment as to how marriage in the UK is no longer for people who are devoted to each other of opposite gender, both physically and spiritually. It is an outrage.
http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2014/03/28/six-facts-about-gay-marriage-and-number-four-will-surprise-you/
And here you will read of the Lords who gave good reasons to vote against.it passing into law.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/18-arguments-made-against-gay-marriage-house-lords
And last but by no means least, those children who suffer terribly because of such a law having been in the West who tell us they criminalise abuse of children.
https://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/same-sex-parenting-is-child-abuse/
Catherine, criminalise abuse of children? That’s been a criminal act here far longer than same sex marriage has been legal. . . . .
As for no longer being for people of opposite gender, that would be the entire point of it surely? To make it for all people who connect to another human physically and spiritually? I might not understand the mindset of those who are attracted to people of the same sex, but that doesn’t mean I, or anyone else has the right to try to prevent them from thinking that way. That kind of thinking is . . . . . Ethically reprehensible at best. And so if they can feel about a person who is the same gender as them the way I can feel about a person of the opposite gender then why should they have less right than me to publicly declare this with a state ceremony? My religion may not support this, and I see that as right also. But why should these people have less state given rights than any other member of our state? Care to give a single rational argument for why? Who do they harm with such an action? It might offend certain bigoted thinking individuals, but it doesn’t harm them. My counterpoint would be that bigoted opinions offend me, but they are still legal. If we banned everything that offended anyone we wouldn’t be allowed to do anything at all.
@catherine benning, did you understood what I meant with my comment here? I do not know why Debating Europe has not posted it yet.
No of cours
Absolutely No
Of course you’re polish…
You’ve got a problem with that?
Luis Terra having a problem with someone’s national identity makes you a chauvinist.
I don’t agree with Jaroslaw, but trying to point his nationality as the problem is a despicable act. Shame on you Luis Terra. I’m Portuguese too and this is not how we should behave babes.
The Portuguese learnt to smell fascists in the distance. Too much experience with little dictators controlling other people’s lives.
I can’t understand why is this still a matter of debate… are these people consenting adults? Yes? Than why do they need the authorisation of the rest the society? Two consenting adults should always be able to marry if they chose to.
Of course…we already voted to legalize it here in Ireland, we are Europeans not backward Americans (or screwed up Hungarians)
Yet you have some of the most restrictive abortion rights in Europe. Hopefully that can change soon, because that’s pretty backward, in all honesty
i diritti civili , da soli , senza i diritti sociali ed umani “è la vittoria di Pirro ” cioè una battaglia persa
Ivan Burrows If we want to base it on a natural reproductive criteria then sterile people or older people shouldn’t be allowed to marry either. If we want to argue that only natural sexual orientations are allowed then we should actually allow gay marriage as it occurs naturally in the world in many different species.
Ivan Burrows if you equate all of these isms as the same, you have some serious brain damage.
Last time I checked, the EU didn’t exterminate Jews, didn’t build gulags.
Why is Ivan Burrows such an edgy alpha primitive fuck?
They should reduce marriage, not enlarge it
NO!
I can’t understand why is this still a matter of debate… are these people consenting adults? Yes? Than why do they need the authorisation of the rest the society? Two consenting adults should always be able to marry if they chose to.
Because they demand to become parents, enter our kids school class & dictate society. Behavior generates behavior.
We live in the 21st century…yes
Of course. It shouldn’t even be a debate
Andrius Adomaitis A common problem with no adoption; A man has a child with a woman; turns out he is gay and leaves the woman to marry another man. The man gets custody of the child and they have a family, two dads one child for over a decade. Then the natural father dies, and leaves a husband and a child behind. But regardless how close the band between the father and the son, they are not allowed to legally recognise that relationship? Or would you allow an exception to this situation? If so what is the difference with just allowing adoption altogether?
Yezz
yes explain? We are all of this earth and so we as humans are of natural order so our actions however horrific or evil or just gay is of natural order. There are no rules in this life and there should be no self proclaimed judges except for in a court of law. Unless you go by fundamental religious views which have no standing then live and let live.
Ps… not gay just human
It shouldn’t.
It shouldn’t. It is not a “marriage” at all.
then what is it, babe? :))))
Just nothing more than friendship.
Alexander Glogowski we’re not talking about two friends, we’re talking about two people who are in love
In the past the talk was about “friendship” indeed. Poles still live in the 1930s.
What are the fruits of that love? Children? Or HIV, gonorrhea, papilloma, syphilis..?
Never.
Yes. It’s 2017 – how is it still even up for debate?
Leah, how a year on a calendar is an argument in a debate? ;)
Maybe I’m just ahead of my time, but I really strongly believe in equal rights :)
Well, homosexual people have an equal right to marry now — that is, to enter a legal union between a man and a woman called marriage.
So you approve of civil partnerships then? – That’s good, a step in the right direction :)
Ja pierdolę :D
This is not debate topic. Why should anyone ask for permission to love or marry who ever he wants?!
Rajmund Klonowski As a heterosexual man, would you like to marry a man?
Legalise also drugs and pedophily and tell the nation it’s great to do, cause we’re all different.? Slovakia has 20 times lower AIDS % than UK, Spain for example. In last years AIDS started spreading in EU again . Guess why? I am proud of Slovakia , that they didn’t let this happen and even strictened the laws on it here.
Absolutely.
Well, homosexual people have an equal right to marry now — that is, to enter a legal union between a man and a woman called marriage.
Good for you Paule keep it to yourself, don’t promote it. Gay marriage isn’t a basic right let me remind you. Left argues that if we don’t let gays to marry we discriminate them. Well that’s not true by definition, in countries where gay marriage isn’t legal, gays are NOT discriminated. Because gays have the exact same rights as heterosexuals, they don’t have any less rights as they can use the bathroom they want (There is no such thing as gay bathroom or gay sink like there was for african americans in early 20th century), they can do what they want with each other, etc. They live the exact same freedom. When gay marriage is allowed it equals as a ‘normalization and promotion’ of being gay. When debating, you are not talking about your rights, you are talking about everyone’s rights. Because if it is legalized then I get that right too. And as a citizen I am free to say that I don’t want that right!
Yes it should :) any human has the right to marriage if he or she understands what it means for his/her happiness and as a value for the society.
Ja pierdolę :D
Любомир Иванчев The only country that forces the church to perform same-sex religious marriage is, if I am not mistaken, Denmark, because of them being a religious state, there is an oficial state religion and is regulated. It’s just how their constitutionalism works. :)
Rajmund Klonowski Nope, the definition of marriage quote: the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship. But historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman.
Also it is a good example of how much impact a society has on us. If we were never told by the society and could form our opinion on gay people purely from our observation and self growth, how that would change our thinking?
Surely it’s nobody’s business . If you are against simply don’t marry someone of the same sex .
Since when are we “debating” human rights of any group?
Of course it should be legalised!
Yes, of course!!! 💖
Yes, of course!!!
Τίνα Α.
Τίνα Α.
People..! PLEASE Read YOUR HISTORY..!!!
Gay people is not something new..!!
Just every single time religions and politicians says that is not right and turn people against the own nature..!! Just start Sharing the true history..!!
END OF STORY..!!
Teo Nagy, what a pitty a guy with your chances and talents does not make use of what was given to you. It’s not Putin or Orban giving you the freedom to live and travel where ever you want. It is the european idea of equal chances and freedom besides national boarders to developp your own ideas . Be fair and allow just the same to other people. Think about it and I am counting on your support!
Of course it should be.
Yes. According to our core European principles, people must be treated as equals. There’s no voting or debate regarding human rights. Just grant them already.
non è un diritto umano ti correggo è un diritto civile.
They are treated as equals: any man (regardless of his sexual orientation) can marry a woman and vice versa, what you are talking about is not marriage
Any person should have the right to marry whoever they want. No matter the sex. That’s what i’m talking about – the right to marry. It’s a fundamental human right that should include everyone. This what equality means. It’s simple really
No. We should treat as equal what is equal.
And what’s unequal between you and a person who was born to have a certain sexual orientation ? Just the same random way yours was ‘decided’ that way too ? Makes zero sense dude
I am for the same rights for both unions. Just prefer to have a different name for it, other than “marriage”.
insane
If you don’t like a word don’t use it. It is your problem not other people’s.
Fernanda Parente If we are asked about it´s because one can answer yes or no, don´t you think so?!
Of course it shouldn’t.
It is not that easy to express yourself with a simple YES or NO. Showing respect be in compliance with human rights the answer must be yes, for it is the right of each individual to live the way he desires provided he/she showw respect to human laws and most importantly to NATURE΄S Laws. Yet, i wonder why do we have laws concerning marriage, what is the reason for getting married. Men in particular had many problems and still have if they do not like to get married the woman they have relation with. Why is it necessary to be married and not have free relations. I guess it must the children΄s interest and protection from vulgar human curiosity and brutal behavior that made societies establish laws that you have to be married to have children. If this is the case there is no reason or necessity for homosexual humans to get married. Provisions regarding their legal protection for any aspect of their cohabitation and liberty are enough. If they are for more rights as state benefits or children adoption then it must be condemned and be considered immoral action. I support this stance of mine for i have always condemned the adoption normal couples do. It is correct, it is devine to adopt a child abandoned from parents provided the child at a certain age be informed who his/her parents are. It is inhuman and brutal action not let you know who you are. We all know what happens when children are informed that their parents are not their real parents. What a traumatic experience. One can imagine the trauma of the children when they realize that only women give birth to children or will not be easy to understand why two men should share the same bed. And when they reach the age all children do not accept the wisdom of parents one can realize what the rection of the children. I have red interviews of homosexual parents who say how they achieve the adoption The cost is about 150000 dollars. The case is carried out by lawyers. It is of great importance that the mother need the money so that when the moment to realize, during the pregnancy the crime she is going to commit comes she must not be able to refuse compliance with the agreement and refuse to give the child. I can no find and use proper words to characterisee the attitude of people who are given the right to behave so brutally.. I might aknowledge their right to adopt children provided the child isis old enough to know and understand the rules, to know what will happen in the home, to be reassured that when decides to leave΄΄parents΄΄ will have the right to do so and the parents will be obliged to support the child until a certain age. Respect to human indignity and rights above all.
mi sembra il commento più intelligente che ho letto. Al diritto del bambino nessuno lo ha menzionato
Stefania Portici Stefania ti ringranzio. Sono fermamente convinto che l΄uomo ama solo se stesso. Non e la mia filosofia, ma ΄΄homo homini lupus e un grande verita.Quindi io sostegno, e mi opognio a lidea che lui chi mostra mancanza di rispeto a le leggi della natura non possono pensare che hanno la possabilita di adotare bambini. Scuza mi per i sbagli linguisti.
It is not that easy to express yourself with a simple YES or NO. Showing respect and be in compliance with human rights, the answer must be yes, for it is the right of each individual to live the way he desires provided he/she show respect to human laws and most importantly to NATURE΄S Laws. Yet, i wonder why do we have laws concerning marriage, what is the reason for getting married. Men in particular had many problems and still have if they do not like to get married the woman they have relation with. Why is it necessary to be married and not have free relations. I guess it must have been the children΄s interest and protection from vulgar human curiosity and brutal behavior that made societies establish laws that one must be married to have children. If this is the case there is no reason or necessity for homosexual humans to get married. Provisions regarding their legal protection for any aspect of their cohabitation and liberty, are enough. If they are looking for more rights, as state benefits or children adoption it must be condemned and be considered as an immoral action. I support this stance of mine, for i have always condemned the adoption normal couples do. It is correct, it is devine to adopt a child abandoned from parents, provided the child at a certain age be informed who his/her parents are. It is inhuman and brutal action not let you know who you are and people hide your identity. We all know what happens when children are informed that their parents are not their real parents. What a traumatic experience. Furthermore one can imagine the trauma of the children when they realize that only women give birth to children or will not be easy to understand why two men should share the same bed. And when they reach the age all children do not accept and reject parents΄ ΄΄wisdom΄΄, one can realize what the reαction of the children. I have red interviews of homosexual parents who give details of the procedures and how they achieve to avoid traps and adopt a child The cost is about 150000 dollars. The case is carried out by lawyers. It is of great importance that the mother need the money so that when the moment to realize, during the pregnancy, the crime she is going to commit comes, she must not be able to refuse compliance with the agreement and refuse to give the child. I can not find and use proper words to characterise the attitude of people who are given the right to behave so brutally.I might aknowledge their right to adopt a child provided the child is old enough to be able to know and understand the rules, to know what will happen in the home, to be reassured that when he/she decides to leave΄΄parents΄΄ will have the right to do so, and the parents will be obliged to support the child until a certain age. Respect to human dignity and rights above all.
mi sembra il commento più intelligente che ho letto. Al diritto del bambino nessuno lo ha menzionato
Stefania Portici Stefania ti ringranzio. Sono fermamente convinto che l΄uomo ama solo se stesso. Non e la mia filosofia, ma ΄΄homo homini lupus e un grande verita.Quindi io sostegno, e mi opognio a lidea che lui chi mostra mancanza di rispeto a le leggi della natura non possono pensare che hanno la possabilita di adotare bambini. Scuza mi per i sbagli linguisti.
I can’t understand why is this still a matter of debate… are these people consenting adults? Yes? Than why do they need the authorisation of the rest the society? Two consenting adults should always be able to marry if they chose to.
Unfortunately, some countries around Europe are still very religious and quite homophobic. Europe is not as homogeneous in values and way of thinking as it might seem.
I can not even call them marriages.These sorts of strange human relationships shouldn`t be part of our everyday life nor debated all over the world.
might I respectfuly ask in which way do you feel it affects you? (just curious to listen to your reasons really)
sure, why not? who cares?
Most European countries (if not all) are secular states. I understand no one can force a church, and a religion, to accept religious gay marriages, but civil marriage, in Secular States, should be allowed to any consenting adults. I can’t understand why we need to debate this.
yes
It should!
+ polygamy ! ( 2 is good, but 3 is better :) )
The is nothing “across Europe”. Europe is not a state and it will never be and the EU is a useless, incompetent and corrupt institution that shall be dissolved sooner rather then later.
que eu saiba é um continente
Nem isso é. Geográficamente o correcto seria Eurásia já que a Europa não passa de uma invenção.
por essa lógica todos os países são também uma invenção :)
Exactamente. Todos os países são uma invenção. Mas a Europa é o único continente que não obdece às regras. A lógica também diz que país e continente não são a mesma coisa. Em suma ficamos na mesma. A Europa não é nada.
que eu saiba é um continente
Abnormal behavior of Europe. You will be destroyed one day and soon !!!
Yes, of course
Nem isso é. Geográficamente o correcto seria Eurásia já que a Europa não passa de uma invenção.
Not at all! Fuck the idea
Fernanda Parente If we are asked on the subject it´s because one can answer yes or no, don´t you think so?!
Well, it is sad to see young people with these thoughts. You cant imagine the suffering of the gay community in countries like yours. Be proud of Slovakia but I do not think you represent the European values :)
No!
Of course it should.That’s a given actually, I can’t even begin to understand why I still have to worry about this in 2017
ρε τι διαδηλωση εκανες παλι?
Debating λεει , πες κι εσυ τη γνωμη σου
Βαλε ταξη ρε Μαρω
pizza and burgers is life
Πηνελόπη καταλαβες οι ασυνειδητοι
Γιώργος Χριστόπουλος οχι αυτη τη γνωμη 😂
:(
ρε τι διαδηλωση εκανες παλι?
Debating λεει , πες κι εσυ τη γνωμη σου
Βαλε ταξη ρε Μαρω
Πηνελόπη καταλαβες οι ασυνειδητοι
Γιώργος Χριστόπουλος οχι αυτη τη γνωμη ?
Yes
No…..if they say yes…then should those who does not support it have their right not to support it in anyway? The EU looks after the individual rights of everyone, is tr true? Or they will only be liberal and tolerant with those who are in sync with them? Or if they do not get what they want, those tolerant people will go around rioting and destroying other people’s property?
what? everyone has the right to either support it or not. Then the votes are counted, and if the ones who support are the majority, they win and those who don’t support will always have the right to not support it and speak freely about it. It’s called democracy and freedom of expression
Adrian, how would same sex marriage affect your right to be married? Or how would it affect your right to hold views? Would it affect it in a negative manner?
@Emyr, your definition of freedom to love does not cater to you only. If one group of people can have that..so will another…such as paedos…you are talking about diversity, equality and individual human rights, are you not?
It is not how it would affect my right to my views but rather can those so called liberal and tolerant people allow me to hold my views, usa is a good example.
So yes, it would impact on the whole in a negative manner because anyone with a short circuit fused brain will want their rights to do what they want.
por essa lógica todos os países são também uma invenção :)
Good…please tell those liberal and tolerant people about that. That means to say you agree that a pastor has the right not to solemnised gay marriage and a bakery have the right not to bake a wedding cake for gay marriages, right?
Yes!
Absolutely not,thei live the life an eny case haw they liket ,what for they need marriage ?
So what’s the need for marriage in heterosexual couples, as they also live their lives as they like?
Ok so under a different name you would be perfectly fine with a gay couple commiting to the same right and obligations as a straight couple could do under a legalised marriage. The two situations would have the same legal consequences but the name would be different?
Però a veure, qui diu que no és una paraula que no els convé? Ho vols dir de punt de vista catòlic? Pq es veu que al 2017 es pot casar-se per l’estat i fora de l’església eh… no sé si estaves al dia amb això Enric
What is needed is not “gay marriage” but precisely privacy. But people don’t even seem to want that so I expect they will get the Europe they deserve.
Just sitting back and watching the closet haters and extremists out themselves on here.
Yes
Because they demand to become parents, enter our kids school class & dictate society. Behavior generates behavior.
Extreme…liberalism….will bring about more resurgence of extreme fundamentalism…we should promote what nature intended for us…on the other hand leave a,lone people having private life styles
Nature? There’s +1500 species on earth of which we know they perform homosexual acts for several reasons and there are also some papers out there suggesting some reasons why it’s also common with humans, so not sure what you are seeing as “natural” here
You can always use the unnatural thing called Google scholar on the PCs that grow from trees to look into research
Ask gastroenterologists and urologists how “healthy” this “natural” practice is…
Obviously
Yes, what’s the big deal?
It was mentioned it’s none of the EU’s business and I concur.
What else do THEY want to regulate and decide upon? The EU already fails in their core business of economic transformation. Just a diversion to gain popularity?
If ethics are moral principles influenced and shaped by cultural practice, religion & prevailing social norms- one can imagine if one or more of the (three) principles change – ethics will change with time as well.
If that is for better or worse- unstoppable global evolution in cultural change, norms and progress in medical and science technologies will determine it pace & outcome.
Personally, I am disgusted by the exhibitionist gross & tasteless nature of gay parades. Rub it in- or be decent, private and reserved about it?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3284025/
Exactamente. Todos os países são uma invenção. Mas a Europa é o único continente que não obdece às regras. A lógica também diz que país e continente não são a mesma coisa. Em suma ficamos na mesma. A Europa não é nada.
Eno Anda Kawer I’m not suppressing anyone and neither, in my opinion, is the Hungarian State, which respects gay rights. You know nothing about me, so please don’t assume that you do. I pay taxes in the UK and Hungary, am a British subject living in Hungary, earning a quarter of what I earned in the UK. I have campaigned for gay rights since the 1970s, and have many gay friends, some of whom are married and others who, like me, share the Christian definition of marriage. Like I said, you know nothing!
Campaigning for Gay Rights used to be about campaigning for the right to be recognised as being different, and for a heterogeneous, tolerant society.
Sure.
Great, thanks for that, now you can answer a few questions:
Am I right to believe that it is possible to get married by the state in Hungary, without the blessing of the church? (A man and a woman, I mean)? Am I also right in believing that only a civil service is legally valid in Hungary, and not a religious service on its own, which has no legal value? As God is not “present” in a civil, state service, how is the religious definition of marriage relevant in this case? And does the fact that God is not present in a non-religious marriage (a civil marriage) take away a man and a woman who have got married by the state the right to call it a “marriage”?
Secondly, you talk about pro-creation. If a 65 year old heterosexual couple were to meet, fall in love and get married, logic says (and biology too) that they will be unable to procreate. Does this take away the right to call their union marriage?
You talk about it “being a practical issue”. Hungary just held a racist referendum on refugees as they don’t want immigrants yet complain about a falling birth rate. Are you suggesting that gay people should start entering in unhappy, psychologically damaging heterosexual relationships in order to procreate? Or do you respect people’s right to live their lives in the most natural manner possible?
Ethics never change, it is a constant of time, however, reaching enriched ethical values might require inputing predictive algorithms of possible behavioral relations. Avoiding corruption has been considered ethical. Avoiding killing has been considered ethical. Marriage , by definition, and by virtue of reality, is a consideration of a union between opposite genders in order to possibly yield an offspring, a fundamental feature of biological processes. Same sex unions cannot be placed thereafter under the a nominator of a common realization. But, the right of choosing a lifestyle should remain an objective to parameters regarding once ability to judge reality through his/her own education, cultural, and ethical agenda acquired by the process of educating oneself onto biological principles. It seems that financial benefits regarding marriage constrains could be differentiated based on a predictable behavior of expenditure. Generally, same sex marriage should not fall under jurisdictional values of heterosexuals. Although rights to adoption may be considered equal, same sex union, SSU, should be distinguished from the epistemological and the ontological values of a heterosexual union called marriage!
Hi Rado, – “never” or evolutionary? If ethics is subject to evolution and serves to extend the survival of our species- than it may follow that same sex marriage can & should reduce overpopulation (one of several probabilities)- and save part of global humanity from itself. “Generally” laws are made for all (majority)- otherwise everyone invents its own bubble & own law.
However, if spearheaded by politicians of an “extinct” going EU population- ethics should not (be) change(d) but should remain true to its more traditional norm. One may conclude: promoting “s.s.m.” legislation is another counterproductive policy to reverse Europe’s falling birth rate . It is driven by the system and their liberal lawyers & politicians to satisfy a (liberal?) minority- not the majority- to comply to “modernity” and out of self-interest.
Yesteryear’s norm (ethic) has to give way to new criteria to sync with the latest interpretation of today’s “HR laws”. This can only accelerate the end of a traditional European society, where ethics is/was thought to be static.
http://www.evolutionaryethics.com/index.html
No, why should you interfere?
Liberty is about accepting and/or respecting a choice, but equality of rights due variations of ethical values!
Definitely not!!
Yes.
Very few countries on the planet allow same sex marriage. This list below is a group of them. Meaning, in the democratic sense, the planet is against such a union for whatever reasons. And remember many European countries still do not allow or want SSM. And only one country in the world had a referendum for their people on it. Ireland. Which one does have to question. It seems very odd they oppose abortion but welcome SSM. When something doesn’t make sense it’s usually not true.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/saeedjones/76-countries-where-anti-gay-laws-are-as-bad-as-or-worse-than?utm_term=.plkj0Y1ng#.tswQAxeaD
Then there are the voiceless. Children. The ones we want to deny exist as part of this issue. Politically correct data doesn’t like opposition in any form.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/12/study-finds-host-challenges-for-kids-gay-parents.html
And, has anyone correlated the decade when same sex relationships became acceptable? Wasn’t it after the spread of AIDS. Now, how could you be treated for a disease, thought at the time to be spread via homosexuality, when that practice was considered illegal?
Catherine, would you like to collate your thoughts and try to form a rational coherent point? Because this just seems meandering.
Homosexuality means death: any children, any survival of society and nation.
Only heterosexuality can secure this.
So why something, what is so little valuable in biological sense, must be considered as “equal” on the legal level (institution of marriage)? Its make no sense.
Casament no és nomes referint-se als catòlics…..a tot el món casament és la unió de un mascle i una femella, però actualment els “progres” , els dels miembros y miembras, han posat de moda aixó de dir “matrimoni” a la unió homosexual, només per tocar els penjolls a la gent normal.
Yes it should
Wow, lets see who is from the medieval world and who lives in the 21st century…..
@ D. Whittington
The Roman world was nothing but a promoter of homosexuality until they outlawed it as a result of unwanted disease and social one upmanship. A head would be cut off if a man of higher birth allowed a slave to penetrate. Only the higher caste was allowed to be on top.
http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/roman-law-and-banning-passive-homosexuality-00832
Medieval life was inundated by all kids of sexual prohibition. Not simply homosexuality. And it was carried out as a result of family inheritance. The passing of wealth from one generation to another. It was then decided by wealthier families that sodomy prohibited family inheritance.
http://www.historychannel.com.au/articles/medieval-sex-and-sexuality/
There are much more issues to debate in Europe.
Wow, lwt us see who is a deluded idiot and who has a bit of a common sense…
George Agavriloaiei, nobody died here in Portugal with the gay marriage. Just open your mind and let people be happy.
Paule Egé, we are lucky iberians.
Yes, but no major media coverage. Marriage is a symbolic bond between people and no one should interfere in their choices. At the same time it does not deserve any special attention, because it should be no different than a regular marriage.
Yes, same sex marriage allows people to be free and be who they are. It is exactly the same as a regular marriage. This is the 21st century, people are allowed to marry who the want to marry, people are allowed to be attracted to whoever they want!!
Here are the views of adults raised in SSM households. It is dire and not something that should not be discussed because political correctness doesn’t like to hear the truth.
http://australianmarriage.org/quartet-of-truth-adult-kids-of-gay-parents-speak-out/
I never understood why they want to marry? Why living together as life partners isn’t enough?
Why does anyone want to marry?
Hanne Cokelaere Marriage is something sacred. A woman and a man can reproduce themselves, and marriage has benefits for them. Same sex marriages aren’t sacred, and they cannot reproduce themselves!
Faddi Zsolt What about male-female couples that cannot have children for whatever reason? Sacred or not?
Fabio Van Deun of course sacred! I can tolerate homosexuality when it is out of my sight, out of my yard! When i read such a provocative article, i immediately began to radicalize!
Faddi Zsolt what you consider “sacred” is only on Churches and mosques. Here we are talking about civil marriage, nothing to do with religion.
Faddi Zsolt what you consider “sacred” is only on Churches and mosques. Here we are talking about civil marriage, nothing to do with religion.
Faddi, so you can tolerate me and my husband. Very happy about that, I will tolerate you as well, out of my sight of course.
Faddi, so you can tolerate me and my husband. Very happy about that, I will tolerate you as well, out of my sight of course.
“I can tolerate homosexuality when it is out of my sight”…Funny enough I can’t tolerate bigoted pricks whether in my sight or not. If two men or two women choose to marry, what the hell has it got to do with you?
“I can tolerate homosexuality when it is out of my sight”…Funny enough I can’t tolerate bigoted pricks whether in my sight or not. If two men or two women choose to marry, what the hell has it got to do with you?
Partners for life, one of the two dies and 50% of his fortune goes to nephews and other relatives who had been judge mental and mean to the couple since forever. The other partner left alone, in grief, lost his property amongst all… let someone else judge them, the sacredness of marriage is about love, not reproduction.. reproduction has to do with animal instinct and continuation of the species.. get your story straight and let people do what they want and need, they do not harm you in any way..
Dora Sofroniadou this philosophy leads to extinction. Human reproduction isn’t just animal instinct, it is the meaning (one of) of existence. By the way, i mentioned above, that i don’t have anything against them to live together or to love each other…
I never understood why people feed these discussions!
Lol, you never understood why fellow human beings want the same rights and protections as you? I think that’s called being a sociopath
Lol, you never understood why fellow human beings want the same rights and protections as you? I think that’s called being a sociopath
Lol, you never understood why fellow human beings want the same rights and protections as you? I think that’s called being a sociopath
Hear hear
Hear hear
Hear hear
Nice faddi took the lowest animal instic and presented it as the meaning of everything… well here goes all the philosophy of humans being better than other animals
Faddi Zsolt marriage is a legal contract, giving civil protection in many aspects. You mixing religion with civil rights
Faddi Zsolt we are 7 BILLION living in this planet. Are you really concerned about Human reproduction?!
First: I’m not religious. Second: I answered on a question. Third: I and another 6.99 billion people are against same sex marriage, especially against male-male marriage. I don’t think that we can continue with argumentation, because I am against it. It is only my opinion.
I never understood why they want to marry? Why living together as life partners isn’t enough?
Parisa Shirazi interesting re: your diss last year
ohh, thanks Rach! :)
Not for it but it’s better to recognize those communities so they won’t hide from the entire society and hurt people or themselves by using different-sex partners for having children or have heavier psychological issues. Alternative words to marriage should be ok.
Is definattely a way to help these people feel at home but just take all these people saying no in the commends
yeah, good luck pulling this one in eastern europe :))))))
Unfortunately..
Daniel Tufeanu sry mate, i’m actually happy it happens like that… that’s why i laughed in the first comment :)))) out of my sight out of my mind… cand vad cum isi dau limbi in public si se uita zeflemitor in jur sa vada reactii , aia nu mai e de tolerat… they’re just asking for it…
Daniel Tufeanu sry mate, i’m actually happy it happens like that… that’s why i laughed in the first comment :)))) out of my sight out of my mind… cand vad cum isi dau limbi in public si se uita zeflemitor in jur sa vada reactii , aia nu mai e de tolerat… they’re just asking for it…
Daniel Tufeanu sry mate, i’m actually happy it happens like that… that’s why i laughed in the first comment :)))) out of my sight out of my mind… cand vad cum isi dau limbi in public si se uita zeflemitor in jur sa vada reactii , aia nu mai e de tolerat… they’re just asking for it…
ΝΟ
ΝΟ
ΝΟ
You already have gay marriage in Greece. Get over, you have serious things to think about.
Yes
Yes
No.
No.
James Murphay just fuck off simply
Yes, of course. It should be a civil right equal for all, no matter the religion, sexual orientation or any other criteria. I have the freedom to choose the person I marry and should be the same for everyone.
I m with you! 👍🏻
Me too
Me too
Me too
No ,never ,hawever thei live haw thei like ,the next step is to recive the aceptacion of oll the society and thei want to adopt children like a normal family is a big mistake to go in this direccion.
Lmao your written english is funny😂😂
Grow up and mind your own business. Normal is where u can find love, definitely not in your hateful opinions.
Btw, i’m straight
I m with you! ??
No!
Νο
Νο
NO !!!!!!!
NO !!!!!!!
Amazing how in the 21st century still people saying no this, of all the places, in Europe. Why does it bother some people so much? Don t be ridiculous, let them marry and adopt! Fucking losers!!
Why not?
Not yet?
Absolutely NOT.
why?
why?
I don’t think she has a reason beyond hatred
I don’t think she has a reason beyond hatred
I don’t think she has a reason beyond hatred
Richard W. Jacquard I do have, and many!! But first I want to say that i’m not homophobic! I respect them and what they want, I simply do not believe in it! And I have all the rights to think as I want to, and I will not agree for them to get married in church, it is unacceptable! I believe in God and i’ve been raised and I have proven, myself, that there is only one love, the one between a man and a woman! There is brotherly love between brothers and sisters or even friends, and the friendly love between friends, but i will never believe that exists love between a man and another man! It can be attraction or something in their head making them believe it’s the same love of a man and a woman but no, it isn’t! And I repeat, everybody’s free to do and to be with whoever they want, but marriage is too much, it is against nature.
Lmao your written english is funny??
If you see the map, it’s still funny seeing how western member states are more advanced and developed in social rights. Eastern Europe should take advantage of this to evolve accordingly, so I don’t get the point of anchoring themselves in the past and against human rights!
Evolve like Germany, Sweden and France… Thanks but no thanks. We will just stay as “backwards” Eastern Europeans to the rest of Europe and nosy outsiders…each nation can decide what’s best for their nation.
What’s wrong with the German, Swedish and French evolutions? I find in those member states really developed societies that, by the way, are very advanced in diversity, inclusion and equality as well as follow the European Chart of Human Rights. If you are talking about following Russia as a model, I hope you’re just representing a minority among Eastern Europeans!
Besides, since the Treaty of Lisbon, Member States pulled more than 65% of sovereignty into the EU, so technically they are not nations anymore – only from a cultural and historical point of view. So we discuss in Brussels and agree on policies instead of making wars… but we’re so connected that if a woman married another woman in Portugal or the Netherlands, they should have the same social rights in Poland and in Rumania!
Donika Pashoja Agree! Tired of this so fake tolerance all around and the normal ordinary people are the one to be discriminated! You Pau Chi stay away from Eastern Europe if you don’t like it. We are not keen you to like us!
If you see the map, it’s still funny seeing how western member states are more advanced and developed in social rights. Eastern Europe should take advantage of this to evolve accordingly, so I don’t get the point of anchoring themselves in the past and against human rights!
Absolutely yes!
Absolutely yes!
Of course It should but not the adoptions in any other matter it’s a civil right for everyone to live there lives as they wish
I’m interested in the dichotomy your answer presents, why not adoption? Are you suggesting same-sex parents are worse than opposite sex parents?
I’m interested in the dichotomy your answer presents, why not adoption? Are you suggesting same-sex parents are worse than opposite sex parents?
I’m interested in the dichotomy your answer presents, why not adoption? Are you suggesting same-sex parents are worse than opposite sex parents?
Obviously she means that a baby needs a mother figure,and taking that away from him it’s a criminal act,not talking about the kids who lost their parents ofcourse but to deprive a kid a mother is just cruel, and anw the kid is entitled to a mother and a father anything depreived by another human being is a criminal offence and should stay that way..Don’t get me wrong about opposite sex i’m not a racist or anything but i believe this is the natural way..
YES
No
Let the migrants in, they will solve this problem for the developed west Europe.
Let the migrants in, they will solve this problem for the developed west Europe.
Let the migrants in, they will solve this problem for the developed west Europe.
I love how all the homophobic bigots respond NO! And when questioned have no argument or defense beyond silence or #becauseprejudice
Get with the program and realise you don’t have the right to oppress people. And no, equal marriage at a civic level does not remove your religious freedom one iota, in fact people with different views living the life they were born to, essentially coexisting actually enhances and protects everyone’s rights.
I love how all the homophobic bigots respond NO! And when questioned have no argument or defense beyond silence or #becauseprejudice
Get with the program and realise you don’t have the right to oppress people. And no, equal marriage at a civic level does not remove your religious freedom one iota, in fact people with different views living the life they were born to, essentially coexisting actually enhances and protects everyone’s rights.
I love how all the homophobic bigots respond NO! And when questioned have no argument or defense beyond silence or #becauseprejudice
Get with the program and realise you don’t have the right to oppress people. And no, equal marriage at a civic level does not remove your religious freedom one iota, in fact people with different views living the life they were born to, essentially coexisting actually enhances and protects everyone’s rights.
Yes!
Faddi Zsolt Imagine if a gay would flirt with you lol
I’m straight but apart that they have they own life and we shouldn’t interfere there’s actually some benefits there for all.
Just gonna mention two : Adoption, and the second as harsh as it may be refering to reproduction … the world is already overpopulated.
Yes
DEFINITELY YES! Every person in Europe are equal.
Yes. Why not?
Marriage is not just two people sharing expenses and the same house.It’s an emotional, spiritual and sexual bond between man and woman in order to give birth to children and raise a family. That is why there are legal implications regarding a marriage aiming at protecting the mother and the child. Same sex couples are just two persons who share a distorted sexual behaviour and it’s their right if this what they want. However they cannot be defined as husband and wife because they cannot fullfil such a definition
So basically you´re saying that your views are the only views that are right, based on judgements, and that you want to impose them to all of us. I do believe in a society to defend equality, equity and same access to human rights; instead of a society that defends a biased homophobic speech. Again, my hope is you represent very few Europeans.
Let’s change the definition then and leave bigotry behind. You know, evolve…
You don’t change the rules, Machado, simply because you don’t like them. It doesn’t really work this way…
No, No, No and again NO!!!
If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry a man? Seems like the simple solution to me.
Of course it should. And if you don’t want to marry a man, marry a woman just like vegetarians should not be made to eat meat. Now can I get an amen in here?
Gotta admire that man’s coherent argument thought ?
Gotta admire that man’s coherent argument though ?
Repeating the word “no” doesn’t make your argument any more convincing. Marriage may historically belong in a religious context, but this doesn’t mean that religion owns the definition of marriage; inherently, the core meaning of marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with “god” or religion, and is simply the recognition of a loyal, loving, committed union between two people. It has long since primarily become a ceremony legally recognising love, and the sex/gender of the two individuals has become irrelevant anyway; if marriage is about the starting of a family, then why do we allow infertile heterosexual couples, or heterosexual couples too old to have children, or heterosexual couples who have no intention of having children, to get married? The “traditional definition” of marriage has ALREADY changed, and allowing gay couples the same rights as straight couples, will not affect anything about any existing or future heterosexual marriage. Straight people whining about the “sanctity” of marriage being under threat are like petulant children at a party refusing to allow other children to sit at their table even though there’s plenty of seats to spare.
Yes, or at least marriages in one EU member should be recognized in all.
A better option should be that the state stop managing private contracts such as this one. There is strictly no need for that if both persons are adults, free and responsible.
Christians could reclaim their marriage institutions and gay could develop their own ones.
No, I consider this people ill, they have a pathological psychiatric disorder and they need to be helped, not accepted as having a normal human behavior.
You can help them by shutting the fuck up
You are literally medieval. This is what people in the 15th century believed told by the church.
Sure, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder back in ’73. After 23 years in which it had been listed as a mental disorder. Why was it decided, at that particular point in time, that it was not pathological? Because gay activists threats and intimidation accomplished what discussion could not?
There’s no medical consensus that homosexuality is a “normal” condition, or a normal ‘lifestyle variation’ on a par with being introverted versus extroverted. But true, neither would I regard homosexuality to be a psychopathology in the same sense as schizophrenia or phobic disorders.
There is no medical consensus? Where do you live? They are not ill.
Because you said so? It’s not about taking sides, it’s about understanding these phenomena that are not fully understood.
So why do you take sides? you call them ill and now you claim that its not fully understood? i also never heard that extrovert cant marry an introvert? i think you dont understand the concept of marriage in the modern world and generally. Marriage is a cultural concept, not connected with medical conditions
Marriage may historically belong in a religious context, but this doesn’t mean that religion owns the definition of marriage; inherently, the core meaning of marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with “god” or religion, and is simply the recognition of a loyal, loving, committed union between two people. It has long since primarily become a ceremony legally recognising love, and the sex/gender of the two individuals has become irrelevant anyway; if marriage is about the starting of a family, then why do we allow infertile heterosexual couples, or heterosexual couples too old to have children, or heterosexual couples who have no intention of having children, to get married? The “traditional definition” of marriage has ALREADY changed, and allowing gay couples the same rights as straight couples, will not affect anything about any existing or future heterosexual marriage. Straight people whining about the “sanctity” of marriage being under threat are like petulant children at a party refusing to allow other children to sit at their table even though there’s plenty of seats to spare.
Homosexuality occurs naturally amongst a minority of the human population worldwide, and even amongst many animal species. The definition of “illness” can only apply to a condition that is in some way harmful or detrimental to an individual’s rational perception of reality or their psychological or physical well-being – but the only harm that occurs from people being gay is the physical abuse/violence they suffer from homophobia, which is external to their sexual nature. In an overpopulated world, there is nothing “ill” about homosexuality – it is a harmless minority sexuality that can exist harmoniously alongside heterosexuality, and even helps ease the rise of unsustainable population levels. I’m gay, and there’s nothing whatsoever that suggests I’m ill in any way.
It is as natural as being heterosexual… http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
I stated my own opinion based on what information I gathered on the subject. Then I made the observation that the problem is more complex and there’s no consensus yet, I accept the existence of other opinions and I consider the debate is still open on the subject. But I didn’t do judgement on you or others who doesn’t embrace my views. It’s not about faith, or about what we want to believe. And it’s not about feelings. You’re entitled to your opinion and I will listen to your arguments, but “it’s obvious” is not enough.
Andreia Teixeira Are you animal! OK then, lets equate the homosexual to the animals and then just stop the debate! It works fine for me!!!
Bobi Dochev is right, let’s extend marriage to zoophiles and pedophiles too. Goats would make especially fine brides for some, I think. And it doesn’t affect me directly, right? So why not? :D
Róbert Bogdán please do a more profund research before claiming such dangerous, unethical and completely non european statements…
Simon Schlegel I was sarcastic, evidently. Since when is dangerous and non european to have a moral compass? To have conservative set of values and objectives? Anybody who is not convinced by now that progressive values are superior then the conservative ones, the ones which made our society as prosperous as it is today, I might add, should be ostracized? I thought social progressivism meant to be tolerant. But all I can see from the liberal left is argumentum ad hominem, bullying and name-calling.
Nelson GI thanks man, you just made my point.
Róbert you strike me as a closet case, maybe that’s where all the hatred comes from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201509/when-homosexuality-stopped-being-mental-disorder
Yes, civil rights should be the same across the Union.
Should we allow the paedophilia? There are already people who what that and fight for their “social rights” to have sex with infants. Do you want some bloody old bastard to have sex with your child – according to you he has social rights as well !!!
Are you talking about Catholic Church priests? No, I think they are not all paedophiles, only some of them. And even those have civil rights.
No way. No role for bureaucrats in brussels to enforce moral standards.
Bureaucrats in Brussels? No, civil rights are for the people. Churches, fascists and far-right politicians are trying to impose moral standards. When you allow same-sex marriages you are giving rights, but no one is forced to marry, no one is imposing moral standards. While, when you forbid same-sex marriages, you are imposing your morality and discriminating your fellow citizens.
No. It is a horrible lifestyle that brings no happiness and offends God.
God don’t exist!
And if exist have better things to be offend about that the way of adults choice to live their lifes.
Have you ever talked with him?
To them it bring happiness, and God can defend itself if need ;)
P.S. Homosexuality isn’t “lifestyle”. Rock and roll or bicycling is lifestyle. Homosexuality isn’t choice. Are you choice your sexual orientation?
Didn’t God say love is what really matters?
even if he exists, wouldnt it be his fault to begin with and how come he failed in so many species…
Yes, ok …and how about same wage, while you re at it…
No.It is disguisting! It is against God. One man and one woman! Stop with these liberal points that lead nowhere.
God doesn’t care, he’s too busy playing candy crush sweety.
God is against nature.
Nonsense! When we reject Him, He reject us!
You should read again the sacred books. God is with the poor, the offended ones. In that case he would be with the ones others like you reject… the Gay community.
Call it “registered partnership” and not marriage and I think it would be much better tolerated/accepted.
Fuck you and your “tolerance” in your term’s.
If they have the same rights as heterosexual couples so why they bother by the name of the union :p
Because that would remove the excuse for resistance by traditionalists, who consider gay marriage a degradation of the institution of marriage. You cannot just go and oppress your views on more traditional societies. Calling it something else would be a very reasonable compromise. The gay community usually wants the legal status of marriage, they could have it without calling it a marriage.
Marriage by tradition is the foundation of a new family that will produce offspring.
Nope.
Yes, that shouldn’t even be a question in 2017, is a question of basic civil and human rights.
Yes. Without any doubt.
“If you hate gays, don’t marry a gay person” – (c) Jim Jefferies
Civil unions should be allowed for heterosexual couples and marriage should be left as a Church institution similarly as baptism or confirmation.
Sure, the EU must be a push for progress wherever it is lacking
They did it in America. It never stops at marriage. It turns into a minority that can’t be ignored, ever.
Yes but should be step-by-step for each individual country.
Multiple – wife marriages have actual traditions and they are illegal. So this should be legalised first begore sex-driven marriage types are discussed
Traditions aren’t always something well thought and positive. Polygamy should never be legal, a stable society is based on the marriage between one man and one woman.
it would be good but i think you need to give people time, sometimes pushing something like this creates a nasty backlash, so sometimes you need to give countries time to get used to it, others adapt much more quickly so maybe stagger it. Personally i think it would be great but realistically it could if a country or society is not ready, create very nasy backlashes.
Yes, same sex marriage should be put on the same basis as marriage in Europe. That would annoy USA, Russia and Middle East.
Even refugees will return to their countries LOL
EU should not force laws on its members. That would be tyranny. I stand for equal rights. Forcing laws will put a final nail in the coffin of EU.
Yes definitely. Let those people who think it’s against God know that religion has nothing to do with the state. Let those people who think they can make a distinction between other people based on a preference that doesn’t affect their lives in any way and can’t be helped know that they’re the unwanted ones. Let anyone living or moving within your EU borders know they are safe if LGBT+, make sure people in Europe or moving there know they may not like LGBT+ but they WILL respect their rights.
Civil marriages …Yes. But not religeous marriages !
Religious marriage is no law and can not be adapted like law. That’s why it is not science!
It’s ok, but wouldn’t allow kids adoption
Why? It’s legal for a guy (and a woman of course) to leave a child, never see them again, let them grow up with one parent or no parent and definitely be negatively impacted but it’s for example not okay for two loving mothers to care for a child instead. Fine. Then there should be a law that forbids people to leave their children (last statement is sarcasm)
Kids need mother and father !
And it’s wrong to say “when father or mother to leave…”
It means that gay community doesn’t have problems!!!
You want to say that gay people get separated!!?
It depends on people, civil rights are important and we are all equal, but we need to look at the national tradition of each member state. Registrated partnership would be accepted, but marriage in Church should be left for heterosexual ,because it is an old tradition
Live and let live. Its that easy. Just try it … :-)
Absolutely!
I think NO ,but that is just my opinion :)
.
If marriage is a union in the eyes of god and homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of god how can it be acceptable ?
Ps. before the haters start with their abuse please note I am an atheist.
Marriage is a contract
Ricardo Moreira Rodrigues
You are incorrect.
Marriage is a religious union, it is a ‘ritually’ recognized union of faith, the same faith that condemns homosexuals to eternal hell & damnation.
A civil partnership is a ‘contract’.
It is all words… but marriage is a contract. Call it what you want and celebrate it in whatever way you want. It is still a contract.
Nando Aidos .
You can call it what you want but the reality ‘marriage’ is a religious event, why would someone go through a religious ritual knowing that religion condemns them ?
He is not incorrect, you are incorrect. A marriage is a contract, you uneducated Brexit supporter.
Rodrigo Salgado de Oliveira
lol, there is the hate I was talking about from pro EU nut jobs.
Thanks for that comrade lol
http://www.times-news.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/marriage-a-religious-term-before-it-was-a-legal-term/article_49e0eec1-a33f-5af7-827d-85a2d641207c.html
Marriage is a contract. Nothing to do with gods.
Does it matter?
James Eckford
It does if you are a Christian and if you believe ‘Europe’ is a Christian continent.
Yes. No one but yourself should concern about your own wedding. It’s your liberty to choose who you marry and who you want to spend your life with. It’s not damaging anyone or anything. It’s not a threat to the state, to the people, to nature, to economics, to religion, to nothing. Pure liberty.
Yes. It does not bother me if one belives in invisable Granddad sitting on clouds, why should real love bother me.
shure, why not? who cares what people doing with each other if they want do it?
This is the real problem. When you use something as gay marriages to justify doing this to generations to come….. But ultimately, if 2 adults want to be together they can be. There is no need for anybody else to dictate to anybody what they can do as long that doesn’t come at expense of someone else.
https://www.facebook.com/jookosnews/videos/10154453885523277/
We must work a lot more in much more important affaires in Europe. We are near a war in the balcans, GB Just left EU, much more to come with elections.
It seems that either the EU will fall apart or its families…
This is exactly why people stop supporting the EU. There is absolutely no added value in trying to interfere with the democratic processes on this that are solidly based in the countries. The EU has to focus on subjects where synergies exist, competition erodes or working together strengthens everyone. Defence, border protection, economic distortions, international policy, food protection,.. Not mariage laws.
Human rights.
No way. No need for european union to intervene.
Tell that to all the gay couples in countries where they can’t get married.
yeah it should
I’d say yes, but that would be interfering with national options. Each nation should decide for themselves.
Yes, let the EU dig its own grave. Then “we” can all lie down in it together and go to sleep. Silly.
The EU has nothing to do with it, and each member state should decide for itself what works best for its people.
It does have something to do with it. Let’s say Tony and John got married in the Netherlands and then move to Poland, are they suddenly no longer considered married then?
Timothy Roes, if they decide to move to Poland, they have to take Polish laws into account when they make that decision. This goes for marriage laws, fiscal system, social security, healthcare system, and so on. What the EU should and does establish is their right to move to Poland.
Filipe Nunes maravilha, criar um problema jurídico.
I don’t care so much about the sex of those committing to live and share some portion of life together, but how about being able to marry more than one person anyway? Serial monogamy is popular enough, I’d introduce flexibility for overlaps.
Of course. It’s ridiculous that an LGBT+ couple goes from legally together to single by crossing a practically non-existent border. Their rights (e.g. spousal visit in hospital, any parental rights to the children they might have adopted, etc, etc.) Vanish. There are those who say “well, just don’t go where you don’t have the same rights” – that is in direct violation of the freedom of movement of people, which is one of the backbones of the EU.
It shouldn’t even debatable, people. Not within the EU as a body, or any member-state. IT IS UNDOUBTEDLY A “YES”.
Yes. Let’s get it over with.
I don’t even get why this is even still debatable. Of course it should.
Each country decision, not EU
Why should same-sex marriage be forbidden?
This is the better question.
Because forbidding is fun. Makes you feel important.
btw: WHY IS MARRIGE A PRIVILAGE? Why do married people get benefits?
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS PROMOTES THE DEVIL AND DESTROYS THE NATURAL STRUCTURE OF THE FAMILY! GOD CREATED ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE! SIMPLE!
You have an Anarchist picture as your profile picture and clearly you do not know what it means you moron…
Guilherme Ribeiro De Oliveira Anarchism doesn’t promote gay people, moron…! Read Mikhali Bakhuini!
Should we be asking these kind of questions in 2017?
Depends on the country.
If by marriage are getting civil and low benefits yes
Yes, absolutely
I think that State and Society interfere with individuals’ rights if and only if this interference is beneficial for such wider entities as the State and Society. So the State provides individuals with rights such as the right to live(the State needs people),the right to have property(the State needs taxes) ,the right to marry(the State needs more people to secure its future).So for the purposes of State and Society, marriage among people is meaningful when it follows the laws of human reproduction.
No absolutely. Especially the “rights” upon children. They are not pets.
Όχι
It should. Immediately.
You can ask him to marry you anyway ;)
It is a conduct I cannot promote. I can sustain freedom of speech and opinion, the protection of the vulnerable, a better life for the people with disabilities, anything that need human compassion but whatever it will be decided I can’t do anything to stop this LGBT agenda; the only thing I can do is to sustain my principles. What other people do is their bussines not mine.
Should marriages with multiple partners be legalized across Europe?
simply NO
How about fix the Euro’s flawed design first and stop smoking the Austerity crackpipe second? Gay and straight people will thank you for both.
why this is necessary?!
Because it is human right to be with the one you want ;) … and it is normal and accepted in the European countries
No. Each country must decide.
Let s encourage the traditional family as Europe is already depopulated. Young generations should keep up with the demographics
Should Debating Europe Stop Asking for the Obvious?
Of course, yes
Europe is dying slowly…and now its worried about same sex marriage..? WTF… no wonder its languishing…
I’m straight, and I have nothing against same-sex marriages, good if they can be happy and, in any case, their personal lives and sexual-orientation it’s their business, not mine.
Same sex married: FORBIDDEN!!!!!!! NEVER!!!!!
WE WAZ SOSHUL DEMOKRATS , Europe needs less Poz ,not more , Based Slavs are happy not to have GRIDS and bug chasing ,most gays don’t marry ,they are degenerate
Why a minority of people can’t enjoy the same rights as everyone else !
Without any doubt.
If you do it by force, you will lose. EU is becoming tyranny. Use force and you fall appart
You are right… the right strategies must be applied in every case in order to get a natural social acceptance as opposed to forcing it.
ensuring the rights of a minority is not a tyranny.
Sexual orientation is not ethnic group. Equal rights are important, but the issue here is definition and semantics. This can be overcome, but if you try force you will get backlash. Also using force is undemocratic. This will break EU.
I wish all countries could enforce such tyranny as ensuring basic human rights…
Depends what constitutes as human rights. Being forced at something can be breach of rights. Just a reminder that Saudi Arabia is on woman rights comitee, and EU is fine with it. How about starting to condemn legal murder of gays and atheists and christian and jews in certain countries EU trades with.
Elisa Malva EU does not have Water as human right. WATER. Think about that.
You ask same question again and again, I’ll give same answer again and again – NO, NO, NO!
First we should remember that PACE accept the position that each country should decide on its own for this question, taking in mind what is the best for the children – but this is the least important here.
The desire for own family and rising of children is natural and even the gay-couples could have it, but this issue should be looked from the position will it be in the best interest of the child, not from the position of the gay-couples. Their will is totally irrelevant here!
And I truly believe that it is not in favour of the child, to be adopted and raised in homosexual marriage and there are plenty of reasons why – not only my common sense, but the science and researches show it. (Unfortunately it is hard to be found in the media, because the gay “issue” is 100% media propaganda and only the “right political line” is allowed).
Each child has the right to grow up in a good, healthy environment, which gives it the freedom to self-determine as a person, to have the possibility to grow in heterosexual environment where it can observe both genders and build its own conception of right and wrong. Only when it reaches 18 years and the society accept it as “Free” and “conscious” person it can do the sexual choice.
It’s a fact that homosexual marriage can’t give the possibility to observe the other gender – it is one sided view. Another fact 26% of the 12 years old children are insecure in its sexual orientation, but only 2-3% of adults is homosexual. This shows that almost all of the insecure children will grow as heterosexual, but only if they are not put under the influence of the gay-couples or sexual violence.
There is more, the attitudes of the homosexual part of society, where homosexuality and pedophilia are largely overlapping, are really disturbing. If we look back at the history, the New York gay organization Cay Activist Alliance, established in 1969, since the first day of its existence, insist the age limits which prohibit adults from having sex with children to be dropped.
The gay men are heavily attracted to young boys, regarding some researches over 80% of the interviewed admit they had sexual act with boys under 15 years and younger. Research made over 260 pedophiles convicted of crimes against children, show that from the all three categories – hetero, bisexual and homo way over 40% are homosexual and bisexual, having in mind the fact that just about 3% of the population is homo and bi we end up with the conclusion that there is extremely high percentage a tendency to pedophilia among them.
Even if we assume that for this children, who would be adopted by gay-couple, have no potential risk from aggression, violence or seduction it is still questionable if this adoption is “In the best interest of the child” and how secure for the child us the environment, when the partners are not only from same sex but also very inconsistent.
The statistic shows the homosexual relationships are indiscipline. A research over the “male couples” shows that only 0.5% of the homosexual had no sexual contact with others except with their partner. However even this couples had partnership relation with the same partner for less than 5 years. ALL THE REST – 99.5% admit that during their relationships they had sex with other partners, as the number of the partners’ varies between 100/500 to a 1000!!! Other researches show that the average duration of the homosexual relationship between gays, who live together is between 2 and 3 years.
With such facts can we have any guarantee that the child will not be relinquished at the breakdown of apparently fragile gay relationships, even if everything else is “normal”? If the child grows up with parent, who changes his partners often then what kind of role model will it gave? How we can guarantee the safety of this child? Even if his adoptive parent take care, what are the guarantees that none of the different partners he has will not attempt to seduce or force the child?
The risk for the emotional, psychic and even physical health of a child raised under such conditions is unduly high. This is amplified for a child raised in state institution before the adoption.
That is why my strong position is AGAINST THE ADOPTION OF CHILDREN IN GAY-MARRIAGES!
THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD!
This should be the only motive, not the gay “rights”!
Having said all that as a base on my personal view I’ll go one step further – all in all pederast and LGBT are just sick bastards and need serious medical attention. Homosexuality isn’t natural instinct and I can’t find a single reason why we should tolerate it. Humans are supposedly thinking creatures, which are able to form society – the ability of making society is the ability to control our mind and actions. If somebody cant, why should be assigned to the human race and have the same rights?!
This should be more then enough reasons to say NO,NO,NO!!!
sure, why not??
Nope. A lot of Europeans are conservatives. And when today’s progressive millennials will reach 40, their views will change too. Well, some will remain infantile, I guess.
Don’t count on it, buddy.
Homosexuality is not a trend. It exists since humankind exists. The difference is that people nowadays feel more at ease to express who they really are.
No, we more likely will remain aware that we occupy an unimaginably tiny point on a speck of dust lost in the middle of an incomprehensibly large cosmos and find more dignified pursuits than jumping about and hooting like excitable chimpanzees over some meaningless and arbitrary cultural taboo against same sex attraction.
Ah, I see. Protecting conservative feelings trumps legal equality. Makes perfect sense pally!
Louis Jeffs the question is, does it do good ? Not does it feel good. Feelings are irrelevant. We can have all the sympathy and understanding for all the diverse forms of sexuality, but still, accepting them as the new norm, I can’t see how this would be beneficial to a society, in the long run. It’s one thing to accept that nobody is pure and perfect, to be tolerant ’cause we all are sinners, trying to live a moral life, and a whole lot of another to legalize the sin. And I’m not a religious nut-job, I just value the christian moral code.
Infantile. Right. How do you get to decide who is right and who is not buddy? If according to your view, everyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong or “infantile”, that means you asume you are always right. But if by any chance you happen to not be right, then you wouldn’t know and so you would stay mistaken forever. Think about it. You can thank me later.
Marcos Markko that’s what debates are for, we share our views, seeing things from different angles could bring us closer to the right answer. Convincing others doesn’t happen in an instant, we tend to stick to our principles even when others have better arguments. But progress is made only when conflicting views are discussed, when everybody are clapping hands and nodding, things are stalling.
Róbert Bogdán so, do you also stone people for working on Saturday or give women to be raped? because this is the christian moral code. No?
You don’t need to convince others. When the Bill of Rights was signed in the US the vast majority of white people opposed it as they opposed MLK and the movement of colored people. Should their feelings triumph over other people’s rights? Absolutely not.
Yes, of course the question is, does it do good? And of course the answer is yes, it does. Of course it is beneficial to a society, in the long run, for more couples in love to marry each other and commit to caring for each other for life, in sickness and in health and so on, and for their commitments to be respected by society. People committed to taking care of each other is what society is all about. And when those couples are less likely to accidentally worsen the overpopulation problem by having unwanted babies they’re not well prepared to raise, so much the better.
What can you possibly worry would be *bad* about same-sex marriage? You can’t stand the idea of children growing up without same-sex parents? First of all, large numbers of couples don’t have children at all, so no children will have to be raised them, so surely you must agree that there’s no reason to discriminate against those couples. Second, children are regularly raised by different numbers and genders of parents for a wide variety of reasons, and if you haven’t met anyone who was raised by same-sex parents, you need to get out more often and start talking to more people, because then you’d find out for yourself that same-sex couples make very good parents; but in the meantime, you can also read plenty of research studies on the topic, which also consistently find that same-sex couples make very good parents. Third, if you’re still so terribly worried about children growing up without a parent of one gender or another, try doing something useful to actually alleviate the problem, rather than just discriminating against those children’s families: for example, set up services to match lesbian and gay couples who want to parent together so both couples can be involved in caring for the child. And how about this: encourage grandparents and other extended-family members to show proper respect for same-sex marriages so they can get along well with the same-sex parents in their families and be a welcome part of the lives of those children. Encouraging people to get along and respect each other benefits society. Encouraging people to discriminate and reject one another over the gender of their spouses does not.
Spyros Kouvoussis chill man, why are you so angry? And where exactly says in the Bible that Christians should stone people or rape women? Are you sure you’re talking about the Christian moral code??? And the American Bill of Rights was against the wish of the white people? In what alternate reality? Actually the Founding Fathers were pretty religious, mostly protestants. The Republican Party (conservatives) was the party of abolition of slavery. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican president. And the Civil Rights final law passed with the votes of Republicans and Northern Democrats, in Congress. Check your sources.
Róbert Bogdán last time I checked most democracies in Europe are secular, there’s a separation of church and state. So you should keep your Christian moral code to yourself and out of civil society where it does not belong, especially if it’s serves the purpose of influencing legislation that affects people that can’t care less about your religion. It’s funny that you mention America’s founding fathers that were “pretty religious”, and then again 50% of them were slave owners…
And your first comment is so patronising… As if all millions of millennial will have a revelation when they turn 40 and realise how wrong they were all their lifes with their “liberal” values. Please….
The Republican Party wanted to achieve the gradual extinction of slavery by market forces, for its members believed that free labour was superior to slave labour.
Of course democracies are secular, nobody talks here about religious fundamentalism. But the core values of western democracies are rooted in christian morality. That’s what I believe, but you’re free to believe that its roots are in fact in the polytheist antiquity, or something else.
EU and America are trying by force to legalise anything and that’s the problem. Our society ain’t ready yet. Of course same-sex couples have all the rights as heterosexual couples have and they should be allowed to have a political marriage. But you can’t force the church to accept it or every human because they will react badly to that even if it isn’t a bad thing.
You mean like women voting?
Pedro Castro You are so funny 24/7 or you have breaks too ??
Thank god EU is a secular entity… (pun intentional*)
Considering the fact that straight people continue to disappoint generation after generation by producing rapists, child abusers, and homophobes, I’d say we’re not ready for straight marriages either. Yet, we have them.
I am homosexual, but I am afraid of bisexuals, hence I’m biphobic. My she-brother is transgender, but is afraid of homosexuals, hence homophobic, but she accepts bisexuals. Hence, we need to make a distinction between these kinds of phobias.
Sounds like the perfect topic for the next European parliamentary session. You should propose it so they can feel important, and maybe it will even provoke an entertaining outburst from Nigel Farage so he can feel important. ;)
Yes. Without question.
Forbidden? Legalised? Imposed? Each country should decide accordingly its own culture, otherwise EU will be a dictatorship.
no…
In Portugal it has been legalized and the world goes on, conservatives remain conservatives, and everyone is free, respecting eachother.
marriage itself is a part of the human history, gender etc. are also a relative concept nowadays, the marriage in many countries is a deal, in USA or India for instance – I do not have any problem with this, being with strictly strait sexuality by the way.
So what’s the logic after all!? If it’s a contract why should it be reserved for straight couples? You can’t deny people of their rights just because you don’t agree with their life choices. Why is other people’s sexuality your business?! Your comment says nothing whatsoever. Other than showing that you’re a bigot.
Yes!!!
Tъп ли си?
А ти?
Why not call it registered partnership and get over with it.
this is not a main problem …
Why not? Is there an explanation?
We are talking about human rights and you’re leaving it up for discussion?
lololol “international day against homophobia, but should they get married? it’s up for debate!”
“Vote now and receive a free FUCK YOU sticker so you can show those homosexuals how you really feel!”
” And if you vote yes, well, that sticker is for YOU! Vote now and you’ll get a SECOND sticker so you can stick it on your gay boyfriend’s back while you fuck him in the ass you fucking disgusting pig! :)”
No, that’s final.
si sposano e poi che fanno ? Vanno a dormire sotto i ponti ( e crollano anche quelli ) come le coppie tradizionali . Si sposano e poi ? Prendono un utero in affitto e fanno un figlio ? Disoccupazione, lavori instabili , mutui per comperarsi casa che non viene erogato se non si ha una sicurezza stabile lavorativa, pensioni che si vedono sempre più lontani….. Chi si sposa ? Prima si pensa ai diritti sociali che tutelano e incrementano a far famiglia , quando si hanno i diritti sociali allora vengono i diritti civili. Altrimenti è una presa in giro ! Se mi togli i diritti sociali però mi dai i diritti civili ….è carta (straccia ) che vale come un soldo falso
Why do you have to tell to everyone what a fuck you doing with your life’s. Do it and shut a fuck up… We don’t care and we don’t wanna know about it.
Rights means space but also lines, responsibility & respect. Behavior generates behavior thus agreeeveness against society do not help.
The decision should be left to the individual countries by choice or by referendum …not all eastern european countries may be ready to accept same sex marriage…if given time to open up and adjust at a later time they will find it less difficult…may be better to raise awareness first …
Exactly
Away with that bourgeois ceremonial, why do I have to sign a contract if I want to live with someone together? Legal Rights on what? Where to put my dick or not? Who to name my Kids? Grow up please, and start to be yourself for a change. Society will get you back if you are in your coffin.
I agree, away with that bourgeois ceremonial.
a same sex relationship is not marriage
Because of jerks like you is not, yet!
That proves how very civilized and articulated you are: a perfectly able spokesman for your cause. Resorting to insults has always been a clear sign of complex reasoning.
Valeria, have you actually done something different? You have not even supported your troll-like sentence with any factual reasoning or justification. Again, a ‘a perfectly able spokesman for your cause’.
Of course it should.