In Austria, same-sex couples will be able to marry from 1 January 2019. That will bring 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!

Radical Left
Malin Björk (GUE/NGL), Member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs:

Greens
Bodil Valero (Group of the Greens), Member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs:

valeroYes, of course. I think that’s important. Human rights are for all.

Liberal Democrats
Sophia in ‘t Veld (ALDE), Member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs:

sophie-in-t-veld-mepYes. 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…

 

Centre Right
Alojz Peterle (EPP), Member of the European Parliament:

peterleI 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,.

Conservatives
Sander Loones (ECR), Member of the European Parliament:

Eurosceptics

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). 
5-ME&EU-gay-marriage
IMAGE CREDIT: CC / Flickr – European Parliament

With the support of:

 



Who do YOU agree with on this issue?

VOTE!

Results for this issue

See the overall results

1,518 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

    • avatar
      Pierantonio Rizzo

      Andrius Adomaitis and no right to be happy. Equal marriage yes but less equal than the other. 😒

    • avatar
      Duncan

      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. . . . .

  1. avatar
    Bobi Dochev

    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!

    • avatar
      Jakub Rozdżestwieński

      Yes, cause being in orphanage is better than being adopted by same-sex family.

      Sure

    • avatar
      Pedro Castro

      Bad examples like prejudice?

    • avatar
      Paule Egé

      bad examples? have you ever been with a gay/lesbian couple? would you like to be judged? So sad

    • avatar
      Uli Czeranka

      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…

    • avatar
      Ellul Eman

      If you ask me, you’re what’s wrong with this world. Not gay marriage!

    • avatar
      Malik Benbrahim

      The only bad example I see here is you.

    • avatar
      Diego José Costa Pérez

      Same sex marriage and adoption have proved to work perfectly well in all the countries that have legalized it!

    • avatar
      Glyn Welden Banks

      Elton John has adopted children – what’s the problem?

    • avatar
      Nerx Whtvr

      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?

    • avatar
      Philip Spentzuris

      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@@

    • avatar
      Ferdy Araujo

      Bad examples to children like smoking, drinking, swearing? Why not forbid everything btw? Grow up, soviets. You are not in 1945 anymore.

    • avatar
      Jan Winter

      I agree. It’s just not God’s way. Europe should be based on traditions not on cheap liberalism.

    • avatar
      Hanna Maria

      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.

  2. avatar
    Stef Kostov

    The center right guy put it right: ” It should be left to member states to decide. “

    • avatar
      Ferdy Araujo

      Then they should decide on other basic principles too but would have to leave the EU after of course. No à la carte europe.

  3. avatar
    Любомир Иванчев

    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.

    • avatar
      Artur Silva

      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.

    • avatar
      O Bigode e o Chapéu.

      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.

    • avatar
      Любомир Иванчев

      Regulating the activity of religious organizations is also a matter of civil law. That’s why the issue is two-sided.

    • avatar
      Andrei Daniel

      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. :)

  4. avatar
    Paule Egé

    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

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      .

      Until you can give birth to new life you are not equal, the Italian government do not say so, nature does.

    • avatar
      Paule Egé

      then I guess you are not equal too, nature does not give you a vagina mr burrows

    • avatar
      Emanuele Monaco

      we are asking for the right to get married, not to give birth…maybe you’re a bit confused

    • avatar
      O Bigode e o Chapéu.

      Ivan Burrows, so you are against old couples to marry? Or couples who don’t want child? Or couple who can’t have children?

    • avatar
      Victor Popovici

      Oh, come on, we are all equal. It’s just that some of us are more equal than the others.

    • avatar
      Andrea Morrone

      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?

    • avatar
      Janoš Horvat

      Disregard Burrows, he’s a nationalistic backwards shithead.
      Just look at his comments elsewhere.

    • avatar
      Teo Nagy

      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.

    • avatar
      Duncan

      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”?

    • avatar
      PV Pedrocas

      Paule Egé, we are lucky iberians.

  5. avatar
    Vassiliki Xifteri

    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.

  6. avatar
    Arkadiusz Kowalik

    Definitely, but right wing blockheads would use that for their xenophobic propaganda in countries like Poland, Hungary and the rest of Eastern Europe :(

    • avatar
      Dirk Schönhoff

      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.

    • avatar
      Teo Nagy

      I am proud of Slovakia and Hungary that they didn’t allow this and 64 more genders.

    • avatar
      Dirk Schönhoff

      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!

  7. avatar
    Acsai György

    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.

  8. avatar
    Seif Kab

    At the very least there needs to be equivalence. Civil partnerships have to provide ALL the same tax, legal and cvil benefits as marriage.

    • avatar
      Wim Jansens

      So they can have all the same rights and obligations but not the same name? It is a semantics problem for you?

  9. avatar
    Любомир Иванчев

    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.

    • avatar
      João Machado

      It’s called predictive programming.

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      Tiago Pereira

      Only in the minds of fanatics comrade.

    • avatar
      Janoš Horvat

      No, in the minds of people who want unity and peace.
      If you want to get out, there is the UK. Hop to it

    • avatar
      José Bessa da Silva

      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.

  10. avatar
    William Healey

    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.

    • avatar
      Uli Czeranka

      very rational arguments i must say

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      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.

    • avatar
      Evans Fu

      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?

    • avatar
      Javier Mnts

      Cooking food also goes against nature.

    • avatar
      Cormac Begley

      The page is called ‘Rational Ethno-Nationalism’, don’t expect any valid arguments from them lol

    • avatar
      João Machado

      The nature argument is as old and stupid as it can be… Religious based nonsense..

  11. avatar
    José Bessa da Silva

    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.

    • avatar
      Evans Fu

      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.

    • avatar
      José Bessa da Silva

      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.

    • avatar
      José Bessa da Silva

      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.

    • avatar
      Janoš Horvat

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

    • avatar
      Philip Spentzuris

      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!!!

  12. avatar
    Anatilde Alves

    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.

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      .

      Can you make nature bend to the will of political correct ‘human rights’ law ?

    • avatar
      Anatilde Alves

      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 😏

    • avatar
      Evans Fu

      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.

    • avatar
      Anatilde Alves

      Btw marriage in general is not a natural thing. It’s a made by man thing. 😏 don’t see animals getting married.

  13. avatar
    Dirk Schönhoff

    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.

  14. avatar
    Anatilde Alves

    What about society is natural? Is using the social media to be an ignorant naturalist wannabe nature? ? shove that bullshit elsewhere.

  15. avatar
    Anatilde Alves

    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 ?

  16. avatar
    Kirstie Mamoyo Rogers

    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.

  17. avatar
    Darrell Mennie

    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……

  18. avatar
    Laima Vaigė

    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.

  19. avatar
    Evans Fu

    And what exactly gives you the right to take people’s rights away?

    Don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person.

  20. avatar
    Paul X

    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

  21. avatar
    Robert Santa

    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.

  22. avatar
    Arkadiusz Kowalik

    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.

  23. avatar
    Evans Fu

    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.

    • avatar
      Tony Petersen

      Scared? Don’t be: nobody will force you to marry a man.

    • avatar
      George Agavriloaiei

      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.

    • avatar
      Antonia Tilda Nilsson

      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

    • avatar
      George Agavriloaiei

      Creation is the ultimate target. If is not is wrong, ok? I try to be not just a simple animal.

    • avatar
      Janoš Horvat

      You try to not be a somple animal, yet you claim it has to be for creation in order to be ok.
      Contradictory, much?

    • avatar
      Ferdy Araujo

      Then those not willing to breed, the old and/or infertile should be forbidden too by your “logic”.

  24. avatar
    Uli Czeranka

    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.

  25. avatar
    Francisco Guerreiro

    This has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives (whatever that shit is) but with fundamental Human Rights. ;)

  26. avatar
    Andrea Brown

    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.

    • avatar
      JD Blaha

      they are coming to escape American/European funded wars, not to get a same sex marriage.

    • avatar
      Andrea Brown

      JD Blaha Doesn’t matter. If they ahve a problem with any EU minorities then they should either adjust their attitudes or not come.

    • avatar
      Ricardo Santos Marques

      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.

  27. avatar
    Andrea Brown

    If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry someone the same sex. It really is that simple.

  28. avatar
    JD Blaha

    all European Citizens should have equal rights. Pretty radical idea, eh?

  29. avatar
    Andrea Brown

    JD Blaha Doesn’t matter. If they have a problem with any EU minorities then they should either adjust their attitudes or not come.

  30. avatar
    Georgius Portugalus

    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.

    • avatar
      Y a r i

      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.

  31. avatar
    Anatilde Alves

    Btw marriage in general is not a natural thing. It’s a made by man thing. ? don’t see animals getting married.

  32. avatar
    Tony Petersen

    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?

  33. avatar
    Eno Anda Kawer

    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

    • avatar
      Stefania Portici

      i diritti civili , da soli , senza i diritti sociali ed umani “è la vittoria di Pirro ” cioè una battaglia persa

  34. avatar
    Παυλος Χαραλαμπους

    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

  35. avatar
    Andrew Chandler

    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.

    • avatar
      Y a r i

      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.

    • avatar
      Andrew Chandler

      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.

    • avatar
      Eno Anda Kawer

      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.

    • avatar
      Emyr Gruffydd

      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?

    • avatar
      Andrew Chandler

      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.

    • avatar
      Emyr Gruffydd

      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?

  36. avatar
    Wendy Harris

    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.

  37. avatar
    Y a r i

    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!

  38. avatar
    Helena Corte-Real

    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!

  39. avatar
    Helena Corte-Real

    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!

    • avatar
      Adam Pabian

      If it’s a human right then woman can’t get married? What a sexist!

    • avatar
      EU Reform- Proactive

      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!

  40. avatar
    Enric Mestres Girbal

    I think that when homosexual people choose to use a word not ment for them, psicologically accept that they are different to the others.

    • avatar
      Wim Jansens

      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?

    • avatar
      Sarah Geoffrey

      we could call it Gayrriage… maybe ppl would accept it…

    • avatar
      Enric Mestres Girbal

      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.

    • avatar
      Emyr Gruffydd

      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

    • avatar
      Enric Mestres Girbal

      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.

  41. avatar
    Stefania Portici

    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?

    • avatar
      Stefania Portici

      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

  42. avatar
    Stefania Portici

    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?

    • avatar
      Stefania Portici

      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

  43. avatar
    Maria Krasteva

    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.)

  44. avatar
    Danny Boy

    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.

  45. avatar
    Raquel Pereira

    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 ….”

  46. avatar
    Raquel Pereira

    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 ….”

  47. avatar
    catherine benning

    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/

    • avatar
      Duncan

      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.

    • avatar
      Luis Terra

      Of course you’re polish…

    • avatar
      Rajmund Klonowski

      Luis Terra having a problem with someone’s national identity makes you a chauvinist.

    • avatar
      Eric Lyrios

      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.

    • avatar
      Ferdy Araujo

      The Portuguese learnt to smell fascists in the distance. Too much experience with little dictators controlling other people’s lives.

    • avatar
      Georgius Portugalus

      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.

  48. avatar
    Seán Rohan

    Of course…we already voted to legalize it here in Ireland, we are Europeans not backward Americans (or screwed up Hungarians)

    • avatar
      Emyr Gruffydd

      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

  49. avatar
    Stefania Portici

    i diritti civili , da soli , senza i diritti sociali ed umani “è la vittoria di Pirro ” cioè una battaglia persa

  50. avatar
    Wim Jansens

    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.

  51. avatar
    Janoš Horvat

    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.

    • avatar
      Georgius Portugalus

      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.

    • avatar
      Chris Pavlides

      Because they demand to become parents, enter our kids school class & dictate society. Behavior generates behavior.

  52. avatar
    Wim Jansens

    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?

  53. avatar
    Peter Hicks

    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

    • avatar
      Wouter Russchen

      Alexander Glogowski we’re not talking about two friends, we’re talking about two people who are in love

    • avatar
      Ferdy Araujo

      In the past the talk was about “friendship” indeed. Poles still live in the 1930s.

    • avatar
      Beny Simko

      What are the fruits of that love? Children? Or HIV, gonorrhea, papilloma, syphilis..?

    • avatar
      Rajmund Klonowski

      Leah, how a year on a calendar is an argument in a debate? ;)

    • avatar
      Leah Nedahl

      Maybe I’m just ahead of my time, but I really strongly believe in equal rights :)

    • avatar
      Rajmund Klonowski

      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.

    • avatar
      Leah Nedahl

      So you approve of civil partnerships then? – That’s good, a step in the right direction :)

    • avatar
      Tomislav Košta

      This is not debate topic. Why should anyone ask for permission to love or marry who ever he wants?!

    • avatar
      Emyr Gruffydd

      Rajmund Klonowski As a heterosexual man, would you like to marry a man?

  54. avatar
    Teo Nagy

    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.

  55. avatar
    Rajmund Klonowski

    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.

  56. avatar
    Márton Kovács

    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!

  57. avatar
    Dylan Djavit

    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.

  58. avatar
    Andrei Daniel

    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. :)

  59. avatar
    Evelina Okunevic

    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?

  60. avatar
    Raphael Pelengaris

    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..!!

  61. avatar
    Dirk Schönhoff

    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!

  62. avatar
    Mitsos Daniel

    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.

    • avatar
      Stefania Portici

      non è un diritto umano ti correggo è un diritto civile.

    • avatar
      Beny Simko

      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

    • avatar
      Mitsos Daniel

      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

    • avatar
      Mitsos Daniel

      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

    • avatar
      José Manuel Castro Lousada

      I am for the same rights for both unions. Just prefer to have a different name for it, other than “marriage”.

    • avatar
      Ferdy Araujo

      If you don’t like a word don’t use it. It is your problem not other people’s.

    • avatar
      José Manuel Castro Lousada

      Fernanda Parente If we are asked about it´s because one can answer yes or no, don´t you think so?!

  63. avatar
    Spyros Zochios

    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.

    • avatar
      Stefania Portici

      mi sembra il commento più intelligente che ho letto. Al diritto del bambino nessuno lo ha menzionato

    • avatar
      Spyros Zochios

      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.

  64. avatar
    Spyros Zochios

    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.

    • avatar
      Stefania Portici

      mi sembra il commento più intelligente che ho letto. Al diritto del bambino nessuno lo ha menzionato

    • avatar
      Spyros Zochios

      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.

  65. avatar
    Sarah Geoffrey

    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.

    • avatar
      Sorina Alexandra Toltică

      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.

  66. avatar
    Gergana Nencheva

    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.

    • avatar
      Ana Margarida Simões

      might I respectfuly ask in which way do you feel it affects you? (just curious to listen to your reasons really)

  67. avatar
    Sarah Geoffrey

    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.

    • avatar
      Faouzi Siblani

      + polygamy ! ( 2 is good, but 3 is better :) )

  68. avatar
    José Bessa da Silva

    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.

    • avatar
      José Bessa da Silva

      Nem isso é. Geográficamente o correcto seria Eurásia já que a Europa não passa de uma invenção.

    • avatar
      Ana Margarida Simões

      por essa lógica todos os países são também uma invenção :)

    • avatar
      José Bessa da Silva

      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.

  69. avatar
    Paule Egé

    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 :)

  70. avatar
    Μάρω Λιόλη

    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

  71. avatar
    Adrian Wong

    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?

    • avatar
      Ana Margarida Simões

      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

    • avatar
      Emyr Gruffydd

      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?

    • avatar
      Adrian Wong

      @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.

  72. avatar
    Adrian Wong

    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?

  73. avatar
    Viorika Motoi

    Absolutely not,thei live the life an eny case haw they liket ,what for they need marriage ?

    • avatar
      Emyr Gruffydd

      So what’s the need for marriage in heterosexual couples, as they also live their lives as they like?

  74. avatar
    Wim Jansens

    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?

  75. avatar
    Emyr Gruffydd

    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

  76. avatar
    Thomas Beavitt

    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.

  77. avatar
    Chris Pavlides

    Because they demand to become parents, enter our kids school class & dictate society. Behavior generates behavior.

  78. avatar
    Ray Cremona

    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

    • avatar
      Daan Baeten

      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

    • avatar
      Beny Simko

      Ask gastroenterologists and urologists how “healthy” this “natural” practice is…

  79. avatar
    EU Reform- Proactive

    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/

  80. avatar
    José Bessa da Silva

    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.

  81. avatar
    Andrew Chandler

    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!

  82. avatar
    Andrew Chandler

    Campaigning for Gay Rights used to be about campaigning for the right to be recognised as being different, and for a heterogeneous, tolerant society.

  83. avatar
    Emyr Gruffydd

    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?

  84. avatar
    Rado Bozov

    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!

    • avatar
      EU Reform- Proactive

      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

  85. avatar
    Radoslav Bozov

    Liberty is about accepting and/or respecting a choice, but equality of rights due variations of ethical values!

  86. avatar
    catherine benning

    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?

    • avatar
      Duncan

      Catherine, would you like to collate your thoughts and try to form a rational coherent point? Because this just seems meandering.

  87. avatar
    Georg Friedrich

    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.

  88. avatar
    Enric Mestres Girbal

    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.

  89. avatar
    PV Pedrocas

    George Agavriloaiei, nobody died here in Portugal with the gay marriage. Just open your mind and let people be happy.

  90. avatar
    A_Strange_Idea

    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.

  91. avatar
    Devina

    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!!

  92. avatar
    Faddi Zsolt

    I never understood why they want to marry? Why living together as life partners isn’t enough?

    • avatar
      Faddi Zsolt

      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!

    • avatar
      Fabio Van Deun

      Faddi Zsolt What about male-female couples that cannot have children for whatever reason? Sacred or not?

    • avatar
      Faddi Zsolt

      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!

    • avatar
      Renato Tuveri-Ellis

      Faddi Zsolt what you consider “sacred” is only on Churches and mosques. Here we are talking about civil marriage, nothing to do with religion.

    • avatar
      Renato Tuveri-Ellis

      Faddi Zsolt what you consider “sacred” is only on Churches and mosques. Here we are talking about civil marriage, nothing to do with religion.

    • avatar
      Renato Tuveri-Ellis

      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.

    • avatar
      Renato Tuveri-Ellis

      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.

    • avatar
      James Murphay

      “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?

    • avatar
      James Murphay

      “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?

    • avatar
      Dora Sofroniadou

      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..

    • avatar
      Faddi Zsolt

      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…

    • avatar
      Elise Diana

      I never understood why people feed these discussions!

    • avatar
      Richard W. Jacquard

      Lol, you never understood why fellow human beings want the same rights and protections as you? I think that’s called being a sociopath

    • avatar
      Richard W. Jacquard

      Lol, you never understood why fellow human beings want the same rights and protections as you? I think that’s called being a sociopath

    • avatar
      Richard W. Jacquard

      Lol, you never understood why fellow human beings want the same rights and protections as you? I think that’s called being a sociopath

    • avatar
      Nikos Voudouris

      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

    • avatar
      PV Pedrocas

      Faddi Zsolt marriage is a legal contract, giving civil protection in many aspects. You mixing religion with civil rights

    • avatar
      PV Pedrocas

      Faddi Zsolt we are 7 BILLION living in this planet. Are you really concerned about Human reproduction?!

    • avatar
      Faddi Zsolt

      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.

  93. avatar
    Faddi Zsolt

    I never understood why they want to marry? Why living together as life partners isn’t enough?

  94. avatar
    Kelly Émilie Finger

    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.

    • avatar
      Nikos Voudouris

      Is definattely a way to help these people feel at home but just take all these people saying no in the commends

    • avatar
      Iulian Sora

      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…

    • avatar
      Iulian Sora

      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…

    • avatar
      Iulian Sora

      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…

    • avatar
      Renato Tuveri-Ellis

      You already have gay marriage in Greece. Get over, you have serious things to think about.

  95. avatar
    Maria Enea

    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.

  96. avatar
    Viorika Motoi

    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.

    • avatar
      Diana Ndoci

      Lmao your written english is funny😂😂

    • avatar
      Elina Tsopela

      Grow up and mind your own business. Normal is where u can find love, definitely not in your hateful opinions.
      Btw, i’m straight

  97. avatar
    Ricardo Pinhal

    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!!

    • avatar
      Diana Ndoci

      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.

  98. avatar
    Pau Chi

    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!

    • avatar
      Donika Pashoja

      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.

    • avatar
      Pau Chi

      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!

    • avatar
      Pau Chi

      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!

    • avatar
      Galina Dimitrova Valcheva

      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!

  99. avatar
    Pau Chi

    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!

  100. avatar
    Melina Georgiou Tofia

    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

    • avatar
      Richard W. Jacquard

      I’m interested in the dichotomy your answer presents, why not adoption? Are you suggesting same-sex parents are worse than opposite sex parents?

    • avatar
      Richard W. Jacquard

      I’m interested in the dichotomy your answer presents, why not adoption? Are you suggesting same-sex parents are worse than opposite sex parents?

    • avatar
      Richard W. Jacquard

      I’m interested in the dichotomy your answer presents, why not adoption? Are you suggesting same-sex parents are worse than opposite sex parents?

    • avatar
      Harris Tofias

      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..

  101. avatar
    Richard W. Jacquard

    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.

  102. avatar
    Richard W. Jacquard

    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.

  103. avatar
    Richard W. Jacquard

    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.

  104. avatar
    Tony Çk

    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.

  105. avatar
    Nick Hapatidis

    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

    • avatar
      Pau Chi

      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.

    • avatar
      William Healey

      If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry a man? Seems like the simple solution to me.

    • avatar
      Tony Petersen

      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?

    • avatar
      Aisling Grace

      Gotta admire that man’s coherent argument thought ?

    • avatar
      Aisling Grace

      Gotta admire that man’s coherent argument though ?

    • avatar
      James Harris

      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.

  106. avatar
    Oli Lau

    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.

  107. avatar
    Róbert Bogdán

    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.

    • avatar
      Uli Czeranka

      You can help them by shutting the fuck up

    • avatar
      Katrina Di

      You are literally medieval. This is what people in the 15th century believed told by the church.

    • avatar
      Róbert Bogdán

      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?

    • avatar
      Róbert Bogdán

      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.

    • avatar
      Marta Scotti

      There is no medical consensus? Where do you live? They are not ill.

    • avatar
      Róbert Bogdán

      Because you said so? It’s not about taking sides, it’s about understanding these phenomena that are not fully understood.

    • avatar
      Uli Czeranka

      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

    • avatar
      James Harris

      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.

    • avatar
      James Harris

      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.

    • avatar
      Róbert Bogdán

      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.

    • avatar
      Bobi Dochev

      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!!!

    • avatar
      Róbert Bogdán

      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

    • avatar
      Simon Schlegel

      Róbert Bogdán please do a more profund research before claiming such dangerous, unethical and completely non european statements…

    • avatar
      Róbert Bogdán

      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.

    • avatar
      Róbert Bogdán

      Nelson GI thanks man, you just made my point.

    • avatar
      Neal Rush

      Róbert you strike me as a closet case, maybe that’s where all the hatred comes from

    • avatar
      Bobi Dochev

      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 !!!

    • avatar
      Josep M. Martí

      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.

    • avatar
      Bruno Verlinden

      No way. No role for bureaucrats in brussels to enforce moral standards.

    • avatar
      Josep M. Martí

      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.

    • avatar
      Joana Mourato

      God don’t exist!
      And if exist have better things to be offend about that the way of adults choice to live their lifes.

    • avatar
      Marta Scotti

      Have you ever talked with him?

    • avatar
      Dino Šakanović

      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?

    • avatar
      Eugenia Romano

      Didn’t God say love is what really matters?

    • avatar
      Simon Schlegel

      even if he exists, wouldnt it be his fault to begin with and how come he failed in so many species…

  108. avatar
    Mariana Giozova

    No.It is disguisting! It is against God. One man and one woman! Stop with these liberal points that lead nowhere.

    • avatar
      Paulius Paždagis

      God doesn’t care, he’s too busy playing candy crush sweety.

    • avatar
      Mariana Giozova

      Nonsense! When we reject Him, He reject us!

    • avatar
      Arielle Becco

      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.

  109. avatar
    Bódis Kata

    Call it “registered partnership” and not marriage and I think it would be much better tolerated/accepted.

    • avatar
      Joana Mourato

      Fuck you and your “tolerance” in your term’s.

    • avatar
      Rafik Khellouf

      If they have the same rights as heterosexual couples so why they bother by the name of the union :p

    • avatar
      Bódis Kata

      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.

  110. avatar
    Joana Mourato

    Yes, that shouldn’t even be a question in 2017, is a question of basic civil and human rights.

  111. avatar
    Marek Kroufek

    Civil unions should be allowed for heterosexual couples and marriage should be left as a Church institution similarly as baptism or confirmation.

  112. avatar
    Jesse Cortez

    They did it in America. It never stops at marriage. It turns into a minority that can’t be ignored, ever.

  113. avatar
    Mantas R Rukuiža

    Multiple – wife marriages have actual traditions and they are illegal. So this should be legalised first begore sex-driven marriage types are discussed

    • avatar
      Stef Kostov

      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.

  114. avatar
    Rosy Forlenza

    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.

  115. avatar
    Andrea Brown

    Yes, same sex marriage should be put on the same basis as marriage in Europe. That would annoy USA, Russia and Middle East.

    • avatar
      Rafik Khellouf

      Even refugees will return to their countries LOL

  116. avatar
    Marko Martinović

    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.

  117. avatar
    Malik Benbrahim

    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.

    • avatar
      Roman Peterzela

      Religious marriage is no law and can not be adapted like law. That’s why it is not science!

    • avatar
      Alma Brightside

      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)

    • avatar
      Neven Markulin

      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!!?

  118. avatar
    Tomas Lukošiūnas

    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

  119. avatar
    Ivan Burrows

    .

    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.

  120. avatar
    João De Almeida Barata

    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.

  121. avatar
    Blaz Bostjancic

    Yes. It does not bother me if one belives in invisable Granddad sitting on clouds, why should real love bother me.

  122. avatar
    Luísa Cunha Ventura Gagean

    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.

  123. avatar
    Bruno Verlinden

    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.

    • avatar
      Bruno Verlinden

      No way. No need for european union to intervene.

    • avatar
      James Eckford

      Tell that to all the gay couples in countries where they can’t get married.

  124. avatar
    Paulo Especial

    I’d say yes, but that would be interfering with national options. Each nation should decide for themselves.

  125. avatar
    Thomas Beavitt

    Yes, let the EU dig its own grave. Then “we” can all lie down in it together and go to sleep. Silly.

  126. avatar
    Filipe Nunes

    The EU has nothing to do with it, and each member state should decide for itself what works best for its people.

    • avatar
      Timothy Roes

      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?

    • avatar
      Filipe Nunes

      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.

    • avatar
      PV Pedrocas

      Filipe Nunes maravilha, criar um problema jurídico.

  127. avatar
    Yannick Cornet

    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.

  128. avatar
    Maria Krasteva

    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.

  129. avatar
    Chrysiida Katsea

    It shouldn’t even debatable, people. Not within the EU as a body, or any member-state. IT IS UNDOUBTEDLY A “YES”.

    • avatar
      Horváth András

      Because forbidding is fun. Makes you feel important.
      btw: WHY IS MARRIGE A PRIVILAGE? Why do married people get benefits?

  130. avatar
    Aris Olibiakaras Gia Panta

    NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS PROMOTES THE DEVIL AND DESTROYS THE NATURAL STRUCTURE OF THE FAMILY! GOD CREATED ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE! SIMPLE!

    • avatar
      Guilherme Ribeiro De Oliveira

      You have an Anarchist picture as your profile picture and clearly you do not know what it means you moron…

    • avatar
      Aris Olibiakaras Gia Panta

      Guilherme Ribeiro De Oliveira Anarchism doesn’t promote gay people, moron…! Read Mikhali Bakhuini!

  131. avatar
    ελενη χρυσομαλακου

    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.

  132. avatar
    Vali Dobre

    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.

  133. avatar
    Jovan Ivosevic

    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.

    • avatar
      Yavor Ivkov

      Because it is human right to be with the one you want ;) … and it is normal and accepted in the European countries

  134. avatar
    Eugenia Serban

    No. Each country must decide.
    Let s encourage the traditional family as Europe is already depopulated. Young generations should keep up with the demographics

  135. avatar
    Breogán Costa

    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.

  136. avatar
    Jeremy Bornstein

    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

    • avatar
      Alex Sekkpfb

      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.

    • avatar
      Spyros Kouvoussis

      ensuring the rights of a minority is not a tyranny.

    • avatar
      Marko Martinović

      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.

    • avatar
      Elisa Malva

      I wish all countries could enforce such tyranny as ensuring basic human rights…

    • avatar
      Marko Martinović

      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.

    • avatar
      Marko Martinović

      Elisa Malva EU does not have Water as human right. WATER. Think about that.

  137. avatar
    Bobi Dochev

    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!!!

  138. avatar
    Róbert Bogdán

    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.

    • avatar
      Íris Santos

      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.

    • avatar
      Michael Šimková

      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.

    • avatar
      Louis Jeffs

      Ah, I see. Protecting conservative feelings trumps legal equality. Makes perfect sense pally!

    • avatar
      Róbert Bogdán

      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.

    • avatar
      Marcos Markko

      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.

    • avatar
      Róbert Bogdán

      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.

    • avatar
      Spyros Kouvoussis

      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.

    • avatar
      Cynthia Knierim

      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.

    • avatar
      Róbert Bogdán

      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.

    • avatar
      João Machado

      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…

    • avatar
      João Machado

      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….

    • avatar
      Róbert Bogdán

      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.

    • avatar
      Róbert Bogdán

      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.

  139. avatar
    Nikos Kakos

    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.

    • avatar
      Nikos Kakos

      Pedro Castro You are so funny 24/7 or you have breaks too ??

    • avatar
      Elisa Malva

      Thank god EU is a secular entity… (pun intentional*)

    • avatar
      James Malloy Harmon

      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.

  140. avatar
    Sebastiano Schavoir

    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.

    • avatar
      Michael Šimková

      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. ;)

  141. avatar
    Joao Antonio Camoes

    Forbidden? Legalised? Imposed? Each country should decide accordingly its own culture, otherwise EU will be a dictatorship.

  142. avatar
    Márcia Condez

    In Portugal it has been legalized and the world goes on, conservatives remain conservatives, and everyone is free, respecting eachother.

  143. avatar
    Петър Йовчев

    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.

    • avatar
      João Machado

      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.

  144. avatar
    Evans Fu

    We are talking about human rights and you’re leaving it up for discussion?

    • avatar
      Mafalda Ianhez

      lololol “international day against homophobia, but should they get married? it’s up for debate!”

    • avatar
      Evans Fu

      “Vote now and receive a free FUCK YOU sticker so you can show those homosexuals how you really feel!”

    • avatar
      Mafalda Ianhez

      ” 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! :)”

  145. avatar
    Stefania Portici

    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

  146. avatar
    George Koutsoftas

    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.

  147. avatar
    Chris Pavlides

    Rights means space but also lines, responsibility & respect. Behavior generates behavior thus agreeeveness against society do not help.

  148. avatar
    Erika Belair

    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 …

  149. avatar
    Bernhard Leyendeckers

    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.

    • avatar
      Nicola Delvino

      Because of jerks like you is not, yet!

    • avatar
      Valeria Bigi

      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.

    • avatar
      Alejandro Pérez Rodríguez

      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’.

  150. avatar
    Kokonas George

    Restore Democracy first as it is more important for society and leave the individual to please himself with whom he/she likes…after all in some north country’s they are still having sex with animals ….!!! so cut the crap and stop deranging peoples minds morons. Restore Democracy NOW you little fascists.

  151. avatar
    Elisabeth Sommer

    To be against same-sex-relationships is homophobic. To be against same-sex-marriage is politics. – But what can I tell someone who allways is in confusion with the words Europe and EU. There is also a difference.

  152. avatar
    Astrit Disha

    No.. marriage is only to reproductive couples I mean man & woman … that is a reality that is not needed to be changed.

  153. avatar
    Ivan Burrows

    .

    Strange that in another question often asked on here everyone screams the EU is a Christian continent but Christianity says homosexuals will burn in hell for eternity.

    You can’t have it both ways, either its a Christian continent & you condemn homosexuality or it is not in which case gay marriage is allowed.

  154. avatar
    António Pedro Barreiro

    Of course not. Marriage has been consistently regarded as the union between a man and a woman, bearing an emotional side, but also an openness to life through procreation. Homosexuals should not be persecuted, and there may be a legal framework for same-sex unions. But one does not fight discrimination through social engineering. Homosexual unions are not marriages, and cannot be regarded as such.

  155. avatar
    Петър Хлебаров

    Why not ban the hetero marriages,because it’s a discrimination against the fag-nazis? Also allow alive-dead marriages for the necrophiles,they also deserve love and respect.