The constitution which is now being drafted at the behest of the ruling Fidesz-Christian alliance will declare marriage suitable only for men and women, according to a section of the draft document seen by MTI.
Further the draft states that “the family is the alliance of the generations,” and a sentence in support of bringing up children and work will also figure in the document.
The Socialist party and green formation Politics Can Be Different also represented in the committee drawing up the new supreme law said they objected to the proposal to set in stone outlawing gay marriage.
Where’s wolfi when you need him to condemn these fascist homophobes?
In effect, the new constitution enshrines that the
only lawful political alliance is that between the
fascist ideology and the power of state.
“..well, then, good night Hungary”-Imre Kertesz
A big step backward! These homophobes are simply
fulfilling by prophesy that says in the last days
some will be hindered from marrying. So hurrah for proving the bible right!
Since when the State has rights over whom you sleep
with? They are avoiding the rights of their citizens
just because of sex?
@waffles by name…
Wow! I never realized this meant that the state has rights over who you slept with. Perhaps you’d be good enought to point to the place where this article says that?
Not surprised to see this proposal. Should the Hungarian government enshrine this type of short-sighted bigotry into its constitution, it will be a very sad day for civil rights in Hungary. The EU has already given the green light for gay marriage bans.
It will be interesting to see in what other ways the church and state are fused in the new constitution.
It is being put into the constitution to avoid costly and unnecessary legal battles later if it was just a law passed by parliament. They are not at all stating that homosexuals should not have their private lives and do not say anything about who you sleep with, but they do have the obligation to protect the benefits that come from a nuclear family.
Good day for the natural family, the straightaphobes and the Christophobes are going to have a field day with this one……
@Gandi: Just curious – does polygamy count as
“natural marriage”?
“straightaphobes” there’s some twisted logic. So, if someone supports equal rights for woman they are man phobic, or if they support equal rights for blacks they are white phobic?
And how is the nuclear family harmed if gays are allowed to marry? I live in Massachusetts where gay marriage has been in place for several years. There has been no rise in the divorce rate. My heterosexual marriage and those of my hetero friends have not suddenly deteriorated.
What’s happened in MA is that we now have a whole new class of people who can form nuclear families. I in no way feel threatened by their desire to have long-term stable monogamous relationships that are legally recognized by the state.
This trend toward acceptance of gay marriage is likely to continue in the US, since the overwhelming majority of those under 30 support it. I don’t know the stats about Hungarian youth, but they are part of a global culture that is more accepting of gays than their parents and in time I expect that Hungary will come around to acceptance of gay marriage also.
I personally do not object to gay marriages. I object to it being called ‘marriage’. I would prefer to see it called ‘united’ or something along that line.
Semantics…sure. But, a marriage between a man and a woman can produce a live offspring. Gay couple can not BY THEMSELVES do this.
At the end of the day, to me marriage is a fancy name for procreating, continuing the species.
“but they are part of a global culture that is more accepting…”
hmmm…global culture….workers of the world unite…hmmm
@ justasking
You remind me of my next door neighbour who is the nicest woman you could meet and as the saying goes, she is more Catholic than the Pope
She basically expressed the same opinion as you that gays should have equal rights and should be able to have a legal union, have the same legal rights as heterosexuals but they should not refer to their union as a “marriage”.
How can something be “equal” if it’s not called a “marriage” is beyond me.
Re: “But, a marriage between a man and a woman can produce a live offspring. Gay couple can not BY THEMSELVES do this”.
What happens to heterosexual couples who cannot have children or don’t want children or choose to adopt like gay couples?
I am sure you know married couples with kids who should never have had them, in fact you wouldn’t let them have a dog, yet these people can procreate to their hearts content and no one questions their rights to marry.
I met a gay couple at a party a month or so ago who hired a “wedding planner”, I laughed when I heard that and then I immediately felt guilty; why shouldn’t they?
Global culture has nothing to do with “workers of the world uniting” it has to do with the ease with which information and ideas are shared across electronic media. Nice try at red baiting.
On the right track. FANTASTIC.
@Olga,
“How can something be “equal” if it’s not called a “marriage” is beyond me”
Easy, they have the same legal rights which would make it equal.
“What happens to heterosexual couples who cannot have children or don’t want children or choose to adopt like gay couples? ”
Not being able to have children/not wanting to have children is different from INCAPABLE of having children due to physical/biological difference.
Heterosexual couples have the equipment together to make children, gay couples don’t. Simple.
We are put on this earth to reproduce our species and try and ensure their survival so that they can go on to reproduce.
Marriage is a romantic idea that makes us feel warm and fuzzy and tries to ignore the fact that we are no more special than any other animal on this earth.
perhaps Ricsi needs to check his circumference.
Cinaed@ Get alife,get a wife-drop the gay is right attitude-nature abores an abomination.
Bob,
There is no reason that gay people should not be allowed to marry. You are accumulating a great record of extreme right views.
Your country is so out of the main stream that it has little chance of catching up. Talent and money flows to cites and countries that espouse tolerance, not little havens of ignorant nationalist bumpkins.
You would be laughed out of the great cities of the world like New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, Berlin, etc.
Steve,
That is crap. Lot of gay couples in the United States have children.
There have been no problems. The problem is your bigotry.
Actually, nature loves diversity…it’s people
that don’t. Besides, why shouldn’t gays have the
right to marriage? You have the right to be an ass
and I know which one is more offensive.
-
Actually, now that I’ve been drawn in, I used to
rent a room from a woman who was a lesbian.Back
when the current Pope was appointed, she was
watching for what the church’s response to gay
marriage would be.I asked her, ‘why would you want
to participate in an institution that is used to
exclude you?’ She said ‘because if I really love
my partner, I want to be able to express that the
same as anyone else.’ Her thing was not so much
about rights, or equality for its own sake.She
wanted to have her love recognised and demonstrate
her commitment to a partner of her own choice.She
was a hard-working, reliable, honest and all-round
good person.Why shouldn’t she be able to marry her
partner? …oh, that’s right, because the
constitutional right to be an ass supersedes the
right to freedom of expression and the freedom to
marry a partner of one’s own choice. Call it what
you want, I don’t care…marriage, civil union,
whatever. Just let people do something that can be
a benefit to them at no harm to you.
-
btw. I have a wife, and guess what, she’s from
YOUR country.
Ricsi and Justasking,
Having children is not part of the definition of marriage.
Do you want Hungary to be considered a modern country or to remain backward and behind the times?
Go London, go to Paris, go to New York. You will see there a dynamism that cannot be equaled by a people wallowing in conservatism.
Cinaed@I guess you were addressing me? so nature loves diversity? YES, this leads to evolution,but an abomination like ‘gay’ leads to a total dead end.
I can see the ‘Frankfurt school’ did a great job on your education:)
Good night and good luck.
Anonymousv Go to Moscow, Bejing or Mumbai and you will see prosperous future world leading nations not encumbered with pathetic ‘gay rights’ liberal shit-Go to Paris,New York or London and you will find desperate,bankrupt neo-liberal systems.
(Okay so India is perhaps a bad example,thanks to the caste system,but look at Moscow and Bejing streaking ahead)
“nature abores an abomination” that’s funny because there is lots of accumulated evidence that nature actually creates homosexuality.
Lots of sociological studies that also show that people who have gay neighbors or co-workers tend to be much more tolerant of homosexuality. You tend to see them as people first and not as some gay caricature you’ve invented in your head. This means that ignorance breeds bigotry. It would be a shame to see Hungary write ignorance into their constitution.
Ricsi, get out, meet some gay folks, share a beer or palinka with them. You might find out they are not that different from you and I. Or perhaps you are afraid of what what you might discover about yourself?
I did not realize that embracing a conviction is now bigotry. If you have a conviction to believe that homosexual marriage is acceptable, I do not criticize you, I may criticize your belief but not you as a person. Should I call you a bigot towards my beliefs?
Marriage has had a definition for a very long time and there is a reason. In my OPINION and those of the modern majority, whether you like it or not, the best option for a child to be raised is by a married, heterosexual couple. It is not impossible for 2 homosexual people to love each other and yes it is possible for them to adopt children or conceive through other means. That does not make it the preferable choice.
New York, London, Paris – if you want to speak truth, ask what the people of those municipalities really want and really believe, dont assume that a single judge or a counsel of politicians making a decision reflects what the majority feel.
I am sure you know people in these areas, as do I and people have different opinions on both sides of the issue in each of these modern capitals you claim.
Steve, actually marriage has not been defined the way it is today for a very long time. Today affection and love is a central part of it. That is a very modern concept and that is the part of marriage that interests most of my gay friends.
And if marriage is about procreation and sex, then should the Hungarian constitution also outlaw sex outside of marriage? And as long as we are relying on Catholic convictions, how about banning birth control too? Why is the line drawn at same-sex marriage?
If you have a conviction that gay marriage is wrong, then don’t marry a man. I am sure you have lots of convictions, why should you expect people to live by yours and not their own?
I had no time today to join in this – so I thank Cinaed and PeteH and Olga and the other “usual suspects” for upholding the ideas of tolerance vs the usual hating assholes …
“Where’s wolfi when you need him to condemn these fascist homophobes?
bobscountrybunker at October 21, 2010 11:59 AM”
@bob: There are enough sane people out there – they don’t need you or me …
Since when the State has rights over whom you sleep
with? They are avoiding the rights of their citizens
just because of sex?
waffles at October 21, 2010 1:04 PM
The comment referenced above is possibly the most assinine thing I have read in a long time. I certainly don’t have the time or the energy to deconstruct this pablum, but anyone with functioning synapses in their brain shouldn’t even need it. It is a damn shame and a sign of the Apocolypse that such a measure as the one contemplated in the article even needs to be codified. Perhaps we need to put in the constitution that only women can bear children and that rain is wet as well.
@Anonymous
There is no reason that gay people should not be allowed to marry. You are accumulating a great record of extreme right views.
Anonymous at October 21, 2010 6:51 PM
Hungary is sinking into homophobia, jobbik-style,
fascism, revisionism, state controlled economy, and
what not.. but, the good news, is that by doing she
is taking her well deserved place along as the holy-
crown of the Balkanic tribes.
btw, Freddie Mercury was a homosexual ( a “queen”)
If he were alive today would he be allowed to
perform again Tavaszi Szel in Budapest ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqouPRe_9I4
Bobby writes:
“And the majority of people believe it, 4/6ths of parliament say it, and the consitution will embody it, there’s no sense in which such a view is “extreme”. It is by definition: mainstream. And it is YOU who are the extremist for seeking to impose your fringe and minority view on everyone else.”
For arguments sake, lets say that a proposal was put forward to include the old pre-WWII Jewish Laws in the new constitution. Among the other vile provisions of those laws included one that prohibited Jews and non-Jews from having sex or marrying.
I would consider that an act of extremism, even if the majority of people had voted for a government that proposed it.
I guess some of us can pretend that Hungary is an isolated country with no reason to care how the rest of the western world views their actions.
One of the things I value in my democracy is that the constitution protects the rights of the majority. This protects against the tyranny of the majority. Perhaps some of the commentators here do not value this concept.
What Hungary is about to do is codify the tyranny of the majority into its most important legal document. I have to wonder why a law would not suffice. In that case if the nations view changes, it will be much easier to change its laws.
Given my set of personal values, I find the idea of including a constitutional ban on gay marriage to be an act of right wing extremism.
@Pete H.
For arguments sake, lets say that a proposal was
put forward to include the old pre-WWII Jewish
Laws in the new constitution.
Pete H. at October 21, 2010 11:34 PM
@It’s called: a tyranny.
joboby…homosexuality is not a political system (as
tyranny or democracy), neither and ideology or an
economic doctrine/policy
@Jasshole
Many would disagree with you, that although
individual homosexuals are not, the gay lobby
(including both homosexuals themselves and many
liberally minded heterosexuals too) is clearly,
definitely and identifiably political.
When the desire is to radically alter the
established framework of society, and to effectively
abolish the institution of marriage as it has been
known throughout recorded human history: only a
particularly special kind of moron would be stupid
enough to say that these were not political acts,
with political motives and political ramifications.
And I would have to ask, yet again, what the hell
ANY of this has with Jobbik. All the same bullshit
is coming out, “Jobbik” the “extreme right” and
“tyranny” etc. etc. etc.*yawn bloody yawn-
But this has absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with Jobbik.
Sure they might agree with the policy but, this
means absolutely nothing because their vote
counts for absolutely nothing. They have NO
political power in Hungary whatsoever and every
single proposal or ammendment they have ever
submitted in parliament has been rejected by
Fidesz.
Read the article you morons. It is FIDESZ
who are doing this. You know, the guys who got two
landslide election wins here this year?
Take it up with them please!
They have such a total and complete hold on power
that they could do absolutely anything they
wanted. And they obviously think the majority of
the Hungarian people want this. So unless
you want to justify an extremist minority imposing
its opinion on the mainstream majority view, I’m
afraid you’re just going to have to swallow this
one, and just wait until you finally build all
those cultural re-education camps for us that
you’d love to have us all put through.
“you propose the tyranny
of the minority.”
Hahahahaha…. So, is there anybody here fighting
for EVERYBODY to get a gay partner? No. It is just a
minority trying to keep being a minority. There
wouldn’t be no abolition of the marriage institution
as it would be there for the heteros, don’t worry…
By the way, ABOMINTION!!! Really? Idolatry and
witchcraft are also abominations if you need bible
to guide a State. Eating certain animals as well.
So, what is the guideline here?
Marriage is an institution invented by women. It’s a license to own a man, or at least his worldly possessions. It should be banned, let divorce lawyers starve. People who want to live together are free to do so, regardless of race, religion, gender and filthy sexual habits as long as they keep it private.
There’s your equality, no reason for any more disgusting gay parades.
GOOD
….will declare marriage suitable only for men and women, according to a section of the draft document seen by MTI.
))
I maybe mistaken.According to the statement in this article only men and women are allowed to get married. It does not say only with each other
or does it? I read from this that animals will not get permission to get married in Hungary.
That’s sounds good to me. However ,did you need to
write this in a new constitution???
Bob, nobody is going to force you to marry a man and in no way is this going to have an impact on heterosexual marriages. All gays are asking for is the same rights as heterosexuals. It’s absurd to suggest that this is a case of the tyranny of the minority. By your logic any case of minorities asking for and being granted rights equal to the majority would be a case of a tyranny of the minority. That is absolute bull.
@Pete H.
Bob, nobody is going to force you to marry a man and in no way is this going to have an impact on heterosexual marriages. All gays are asking for is the same rights as heterosexuals. It’s absurd to suggest that this is a case of the tyranny of the minority. By your logic any case of minorities asking for and being granted rights equal to the majority would be a case of a tyranny of the minority. That is absolute bull.
Pete H. at October 22, 2010 2:13 PM
This is perhaps the most frigthening part of the political Left. The way they think they own language and may do whatever they want to it. It doesn’t matter if a word doesn’t mean what we now intend it to, just change the meaning, keep the word.
In the pursuit of “equality” all things must be made to serve the cause. If you have already abandoned truth, then language is the logical next step.
“And people altered, at their pleasure, the customary significance of words to suit their deeds: irrational daring came to be considered the “manly courage of one loyal to his party”; prudent delay was thought a fair-seeming cowardice; a moderate attitude was deemed a mere shield for lack of virility, and a reasoned understanding with regard to all sides of an issue meant that one was indolent and of no use for anything.”
Thucydides, 3:82
“We’re getting the language into its final shape — the shape it’s going to have when nobody speaks anything else… …It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words… …Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
George Orwell, 1984
Why do I find all your carping about “tyrannies” so unconvincing Pete H., when everyone knows that the way tyrannts cement their rule is by changing the meaning of words, from the truth, to what they want the truth to be?
@bob “Marriage is, and has always been, between a
man and a woman.”
joboby, until recently (19th century) freedom in US
had always been “for white people only”, the blacks
were salves (in South US), the right to vote for
women was not given in Europe until the beginnigs of
20th century…and so on.
The new Hungary’s constitution wants to enshrine old
prejudices, short-sightedness, nationalistic
mythology, and bigotry as state’s law.
@ Bob
Society changes and what was not acceptable in the past is now the norm.
Copy and paste:
“With so many marriages happening in the United States, it is hard to believe that as recently as 1966, 17 states actually had laws against interracial marriage. And all of the states regulated marriage between whites and other races. The Supreme Court overturned every states antimiscegenation laws (laws against marriage between different races) in 1967 (Myra 18). In the legal case of Loving vs. State of Virginia, a white man and black woman won the right to return home after having fled their state to avoid a year’s jail sentence for getting married (Myra 18). “But as late as the seventies at least twelve states still had laws forbidding marriage between whites and other races” (Perkins 30). Why have such laws? A person should not have to worry about a law when marrying the person they love. If the United States is really a melting pot, then citizens should not have to worry about falling in love and having laws that could separate them.
How is this different from gay marriages? It was illegal, now it’s legal in certain States and Provinces and in 50 years people won’t know it was a big deal way back in 2010
At this point, I am glad my children are not gay because I would not want them to suffer all the prejudices, 20 years from now probably I wouldn’t care.
bob: Leaving aside arguments of tyranny and
traditions etc.I’m just wondering if you would
object to the idea of ‘civil unions’ for gay
couples that grant them the same legal rights as
married couples.I know that the concerns gay
people I have known have been things like ‘next of
kin’, inheritance, property etc.I know that in
many places now their are ‘effective rights’ that
grant these things, but they can and often are
challenged in such a way that excludes partners
from many simple things like being allowed into
hospital wards to visit partners when they are
considered ‘non family’.
-
So I see that quite a few people, and even some of
the more vocal anti-gay contributors say that they
don’t care what people do in the privacy of their
own homes, which at least implies some degree of
tolerance of homosexual relationships, but then at
some point, relationships are also lived out in
public, either through affection or simple
commitment. When a family excludes a same-sex
partner on the basis of a relationship, I don’t
see that as fair.
-
So honestly, I’m not trying to bait you, I’m just
interested to know where you stand and the above
really just serves as an example, not a ‘mouse-
trap’. (cont)
Personally, I see society as being over-rated
generally; such is the life of a sociologist I
guess. However, I do recognise that some people
cling to traditions such as the ‘sacredness’ of
marriage.I am married, and I love my wife very
much…but to be honest, whether I married her or
not, I would still love her and be just as
committed.Nevertheless, being married does give us
many more rights that we otherwise simply would
not have(spouse visa rights…etc).For those
committed gay partners, this would be impossible.
-
One of the things that has influenced me on this
are studies of gay partnerships in which many
participants report a strong desire to conform to
social norms on partnership, commitment and
responsibility, however, their exclusion from
legal marriage (or civil union if you prefer) in
effect ‘forces’ them to live in an ‘iniquitous’
lifestyle which is often inaccurately associated
with promiscuity and permissiveness.(this topic is
really interesting in relation to China)
(cont)
Now I’m not denying that promiscuity exists in the
gay community, but then it also exists just as
prominently in the straight community too, just
look at the amount of sexual references and
innuendo that appears here, so that to me is
moot.I’m talking about committed couples, of which
I have met many.
-
By the way, I also must agree that I am not a fan
of overt sexual parades.I do support the principle
of the gay pride events, but I don’t see the need
or the place for taking to the street what should
remain inside…just the same as I would not think
it appropriate to have a ‘hetero-pride parade’.
(of course, places like Brazil have their
‘Carnaval’, which interestingly grows out of the
European tradition…but that’s another topic)
-
In the end, what concerns me is that for the sake
of a choice which affects no-one but the people
involved, a certain group of people are denied the
chance to experience what is a universal human
experience of love, devotion and long-term
partnership.Ultimately, marriage itself is not a
‘natural’ phenomenon in the sense that it is a
human social institution.It is the essence of
relationship that is ‘natural’, and as far as that
goes, homosexuality is also a universal experience
in all human cultures.
-
So if the heart of the problem relates to
traditional notions of what constitutes the
institution of ‘marriage’, can there be an
equivalent for non-heterosexual couples?
…and just one more thing for the discussion in
general. For those who advocate all manner of
negative consequences for homosexual individuals, I
ask: “Does the sanctity of marriage over-rule the
sanctity of human life?”
-
If the answer is that sexual preference or identity
reduces the inherent value of a human being to the
point where their right to human dignity is
forfeit, then I would argue that this is not a
tradition worth keeping, and nor is it one based on
any core value of Christianity, in which the value
of human life always takes precedent over lifestyle
or identity.
@jasshole
“Marriage is, and has always been, between a
man and a woman.”
joboby, until recently (19th century) freedom in US
had always been “for white people only”, the blacks
were salves (in South US), the right to vote for
women was not given in Europe until the beginnigs of
20th century…and so on.
Jassi at October 22, 2010 4:20 PM
Wow, not sure why or if I should join in this one because I love my gay friends and family members, whom are quite aware of my views, and we have decided to agree to disagree. I also respect Olga, Bobscountrybunker and Cinead for their sane commentaries and logic. I am against gay marriage but am more in agreement with Cinaed’s proposal:
“I’m just wondering if you would
object to the idea of ‘civil unions’ for gay
couples that grant them the same legal rights as
married couples.”
I hate the “Gay Parades” and not because they are gay but because they seem so garish, burlesque and hedonistic. I would prefer to see them more conservative, creative and artistic. This is my opinion only and perhaps, I am just a conservative person. I would not enjoy this same type of parade with just heterosexuals. I find gay parades extremely tacky, attention seeking and in poor taste. I do not care what gay people do in their bedrooms anymore than I care what heterosexuals do in theirs. Not sure where this puts me on the scale but I hope that in the future “Gay Parades” would gain some class as many gays do have class.
@olga
Society changes and what was not acceptable in the past is now the norm.
olga at October 22, 2010 4:24 PM
@Cináed
Leaving aside arguments of tyranny and
traditions etc.I’m just wondering if you would
object to the idea of ‘civil unions’ for gay
couples that grant them the same legal rights as
married couples.
Thanks Cinaed for your wise words – I really mean it!
It’s interesting that homophobic bob (there must be something deep down in him …) comes out again – other important topics did not concern him – but same sex marriage does …
As usual he is rather verbose but off:
“Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. Saying so is not a right-wing extremist statement, it is a statement of historical fact.
bobscountrybunker at October 22, 2010 3:56 PM ”
Well, I remember reading a lot about polygamic and polyandric marriages, ie between one man and many women and vice versa – what about that ?
It was/is common in many societies but expressly forbidden now in many countries
Those examples about US laws forbidding interracial marriages were also very instructive – it is the way of societies that they change …
Wasn’t there also a law somewhere in the US that forbade oral intercourse – and a husband and wife went to jail because someone watched them doing it ?
I wrote about it here a few weeks ago that into the 1960s German law had prison sentences for homosexual acts – and adultery and procuration and abortion and sterilisation and …
Maybe bob wants a return to the “good old times”
…
I had to laugh so much when some time ago bob worried about the German foreign minister being accompanied by his partner, traveling to Japan or wherever. Now Mr Westerwelle has married his partner – is that a problem for bob again ?
Really strange, this ..
@puppy
Perhaps you should check the first post on this thread.
ROFL
bob:Thanks for taking the time to answer.For what
it’s worth, I can understand why some people are
opposed to the militant activism of parts of the
gay community.In my last teaching assignment, I
had a gay student.He was studying in the US, born
in Romania, to Hungarian parents.Anyway, he was a
Grade ‘A’ Arsehole.His total lack of empathy and
sensitivity around the much quieter, shy Chinese
girls in the group was astounding.It was really
hard to deal with because of the potential for
accusation of ‘homophobia’ if I told him where he
could take his ‘opinions’.Certainly, people like
him do his cause a disservice and only serve to
polarise the community against them.
-
With that said, I do think that the gay movement
in general has been very shrewd about its path
into the political world, and given the kind of
outright persecution they have experienced, it
doesn’t surprise me that some have become so
‘motivated’.(In my naivety when I was younger, I
asked a gay co-worker why he carried a whistle on
his key ring.A very serious and dark look told me
why)
-
Without going into depth, my experience of many
relationships makes ‘marriage’ synonymous with
incredible abuse, manipulation and cruelty.Perhaps
this is why my attachment to the term is less
secure than yours.My interest is in ‘actual’
rights first, and then language second.The first
step is addressing basic human need.If that means
calling it ‘civil union’ then that to me is a fair
compromise.
-
Hope you’re well.
@joboby “In fact two very good male friends of
mine are in precisely such a union…. But it is
NOT, and never will be a marriage.
..
It is a (de facto) marriage but it isn’t one
between a man and a woman.
You are obssessed with preserving the word
‘marriage’ for the man-woman union while for the
man-man and woman-woman you would like a different
word.
But it isn’t the wording which is the trouble it
is the legal status (de jure) of the gay union
which should be acknwoledged by the law with all
the implications just as it is the case of the
man-woman union.
The difference is given that ‘marriage’
is a has legal/statutory implication. The same
legal is asked for the gay-unions.
@bobtheidiot:
“Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman.”
You perfectly know that you’re wrong there – you didn’t answer my question about polygamy etc …
What do you think about that ?
Anyway we know you and your problems (sorry, interests) …
@jasshole
It is a (de facto) marriage but it isn’t one
between a man and a woman. You are obssessed with preserving the word ‘marriage’ for the man-woman union while for the man-man and woman-woman you would like a different word.
But it isn’t the wording which is the trouble it
is the legal status (de jure) of the gay union
which should be acknwoledged by the law with all
the implications just as it is the case of the
man-woman union.
Jassi at October 22, 2010 7:27 PM
bob is getting very aroused, excited, agitated, exhilarated, fevered – my dictionary gives these words as synonyms…
@puppy
@bobtheidiot:
“Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman.”
You perfectly know that you’re wrong there – you didn’t answer my question about polygamy etc …
What do you think about that ?
wolfi at October 22, 2010 7:37 PM
bob is getting very aroused, excited, agitated, exhilarated, fevered – my dictionary gives these words as synonyms…
wolfi at October 22, 2010 7:48 PM
@bob:
You really are getting aroused ?
You should read what I wrote – I asked you about polygamy, because you wrote:
“Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman.”
Anyway the Hungarian constitution (or rather the nonsense that Fidesz wants to put in there) is rather irrelevant – unless Fidesz really wants to say goodbye to the EU …
Perhaps wolfi, I could start by getting “married” to the Hawaiian Tropic bikini team?
http://www.ntnews.com.au/images/gallery/remote/2009/04/08/53761.jpg
@wolfi “..unless Fidesz really wants to say goodbye
to the EU”
He can’t say ‘bye’ without ruining the country, it
won’t happen anyway, all this theater is to satisfy
the unwahsed masses but makes the country looking as
a homophobic balkanic tribe.
@Jassi:
Yes, it’s a sad spectacle, especially if you look at the real problems in Hungary. I just commented on it on realdeal – of course jobos living far away from Hungary have different interests …
Still I wonder what the mamnagers at Audi or Suzuki or Tesco think about all this – I’m sure they don’t just look at the money side.
At least some of them (have to) live here and will feel not only the economic climate but also the general sentiments of the people.
But in the big cities the situstion probably looks different – in Héviz also nobody cares about all that crap – although they just elected a Fidez mayor, wonder what he’ll do differently from the old one …
PS: For the jobos to gloat: The ex-mayor Vertes Arpad is a Jewish member of SZDSZ …
Did you hear that LYNCH and the gang ?
@Bob, since you seem to pride yourself on your historical and logical “accuracy”, I need to throw it back at you.
“Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. Saying so is not a right-wing extremist statement, it is a statement of historical fact.”
You are wrong on both points.
First the “has always been”: I recall that the Greeks and Romans during some periods of time allowed gay marriages.
Second the “is”: And as it turns out, recent history has cases of legal gay marriage (Several states in the US, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden).
Seems you don’t have your historical facts straight. Please say your sorry or I’ll force you to marry my cat.
@ Pete H
If your going to challenge bob, there’s something your missing…. EVIDENCE. Yes that paper stuff they use to prove what they saying is correct etc.
Eg saying ”I recall” doesn’t constitute as evidence. That is like me saying ”I recall when Hitler married Stalin.” I cant claim it to be true unless i provide evidence!
Also ”recent history has cases of legal gay marriage (Several states in the US, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden).” Means shit. Really it does. PROVIDE A AN EXAMPLE. Two would even be better.
Until you PROVIDE evidence, GTFO or continue with your argument. Thank you.
Bob is absolutely right. Words are important.
Marriage, man and wife, bride and groom, mom and dad, etc. Should we throw all these out not to offend the noisy gay minority? Political correctness has a limit, don’t push it.
If you cannot make up a new word for your purposes, use something else, marriage is already taken. I don’t care if you get the same benefits as married couples, whatever they are. I’m against misusing the word “marriage” and also the adoption of kids. If you prefer sodomy over sex, that’s your problem, keep it private, that’s all.
@Sam
Quite so. And it is not only the words that
we throw out, but the complex concepts, entities and
institutions that these words represent, and the
deep history they bring with them.
This was the point of Newspeak in 1984, not only
destroying certain ways of saying, but by
through this means destroying ways of being.
Bob and Sam,
Words evolve over time. That’s the reality. Language and culture are not static, even though it is clear you would freeze society into a Norman Rockwell picture.
Gay marriage is the logical fulfillment of equality before the law – enshrined in the 14th Amendment.
I frankly think the two of you are in the ashheap. I don’t any educated people who really defend the idea that gays should be second class citizens. Denying them marriage is discrimination. Giving them marriage, but refusing to call it marriage is silly and hypocritical.
Attila, those are examples of nations that have legal gay
marriage. Bob said marriage is between a man and a
woman. My point is that in many nations it is not
restricted that way. So I will not GTFO.
quote American in Budapest.
“Gay marriage is the logical fulfillment of equality before the law – enshrined in the 14th Amendment.
I frankly think the two of you are in the ashheap. I don’t any educated people who really defend the idea that gays should be second class citizens. Denying them marriage is discrimination. Giving them marriage, but refusing to call it marriage is silly and hypocritical.
American in Budapest at October 23, 2010 12:47 Pm”
———–
American in Budapest.Have a read of this article by an American in America.http://takimag.com/article/gay_marriage_who_cares
As for this……
“Gay marriage is the logical fulfillment of equality before the law – enshrined in the 14th Amendment.”
That is an outright lie and false.
Bobby, let’s consider other words whose meaning was
“destroyed” by the tyrannical left. In the US voting was
defined as something only done by white males. The “way of
being” that discriminated against women and blacks was
replaced with a pluralistic way of being and the meaning of
the word changed too.
Not really the scary 1984 analogy you suggest. For
someone who prides themselves on their logical thinking skills
you sure have a habit of using false analogies.
Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. Saying so is not a right-wing extremist statement, it is a statement of historical fact
bobscountrybunker at October 22, 2010 3:56 PM
—
“While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. It is believed that same-sex union was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history
These gay marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed”
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
-
So it seems like Christian tyrants changed the concept of “marriage” some time ago and Fidesz is continuing that line of Christian tyranny
Maybe it is time to restore the usage and institution of “marriage” to its original thought – a publicly declared union between two persons?
@Sam
Re:If you cannot make up a new word for your purposes, use something else, marriage is already taken. ”
You sound like my next door Catholic neighbour – she was ok for gays to marry at City Hall as long it was not called “marriage” because it did not “feel right”
I don’t know what she meant by “feeling right” but the point of gay marriage is equality and if the same rules do not apply, then one cannot use the word equal
If you haveblack people sit at the back of the bus and say it didn’t matter, the bus will take them to the same destination as it takes the white people, does not sound equal to me. ( the boring argument being that civil unions have the same legal rights)
@Swedish Chef
Well that makes perfect sense. Because if you are
willing to ignore truth and tear up language to
forward your extremist minority political
ideology, fabricating history is just the next
step. Only you would be stupid enough to cite
propaganda from the gay lobby and think people
(other than wolfi) would accept this as
“evidence.”
For the thousandth time.
YOU!
It is for YOU to make a convincing case why
the status quo should be destroyed and replaced.
Not say that anyone who says it shouldn’t is an
extremists, and then just sullenly refuse to
entertain the matter further.
On this issue in Hungary YOU are the member of the
extremist fringe minority who wants to impose
their own radical view on everyone else. A
extremist view that the Hungarian mainstream and
the democratic majority DO NOT WANT.
Justify your extremism with something more
substantial than “it is believed”!
Come up with something more concrete, or piss off.
Don’t you get it? You are not permitted to tear up
a country’s traditions, institutions, history,
culture and language. Just because of wikipedia
(FFS) articles that contain made up history.
Jesus!
You are not permitted to tear up a country’s traditions, institutions, history, culture and language. Just because of wikipedia (FFS) articles that contain made up history.
Jesus!
bobscountrybunker at October 23, 2010 3:58 PM
—
I understand why you use the name of “Jesus” then you think that the destruction of different “country’s traditions, institutions, history, culture and language” was OK, when it was done in his name
You have the references pointed out in the Wiki-article so then all those references “contain made up history” in your world
So convenient and convincing
Not that you prove that it is all made up
Not that you prove your original point:
“Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. Saying so is not a right-wing extremist statement, it is a statement of historical fact
bobscountrybunker at October 22, 2010 3:56 PM”
-
The “historical fact” depends on which period of civilization you refer to, things do change over time
Marriage is: “When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part.” [G.B. Shaw]
Here’s a really nice article on marriage and love:
” Marriage and love have nothing in common; they are as far apart as the poles; are, in fact, antagonistic to each other. ”
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/goldman/aando/marriageandlove.html
As usual it is the same old story. You have
NOTHING to prove your case. And you just think
that sulking and needling makes your case for you.
Well no it doesn’t.
The people disagree.
And you can bring no good reason whatsoever to the
table why they should think otherwise.
That’s what so fucked up about progressives. You
are just SO used to having it your own way, that
the idea that anyone might require you to actually
justify your driving a bulldozer straight
through the institutions of society: actually
amazes you.
So much so, that you have now evolved a complete
inability to do so. So you just grasp desperately
at rhetorical bullshit and made up claptrap (that
you just know to be claptrap), and then
pretend like a man on a stage whose trousers have
just fallen down, that nothing of the kind has
happened.
You were asked to provide any single compelling
reason why the established order should be torn
down and destroyed and replaced by your MINORITY,
FRINGE, RADICAL, EXTREMIST views. That virtual no-
one in Hungary shares and you would have imposed
upon on us against our will.
You have not. Because you cannot.
The debate is therefore: closed.
Thanks for stopping by.
I rather think this bit of Shavianism is a far
more apposite one given the nonsense you and your
chums are peddling on this thread Pete H.:
“When a stupid man is doing something he is
ashamed of, he will always declare that it is his
duty.”
@arousedbob:
Are you married ?
Do you love your partner (wife) ?
@Wolfi,
@arousedbob”
Jesus Christ man…
That’s right up there with Law having written to Pava:
“Lova ya Pava”
Have you lost your mind?
Well I guess that’s it. If Bob says the debate is closed, it’s closed. Thanks Bob, without your wise leadership we’d be so lost.
“Bigotry and intolerance, silenced by argument, endeavors to silence by persecution, in old days by fire and sword, in modern days by the tongue.”
Charles Simmons
And Bob as far as shame goes, I feel none. Perhaps you are projecting? And funny how you have this habit of declaring when a debate is over and declaring yourself the winner. Don’t you feel silly doing that? I usually let a third party decide. Control issues perhaps?
@Pete H.
Well I guess that’s it. If Bob says the debate is closed, it’s closed. Thanks Bob, without your wise leadership we’d be so lost.
Pete H. at October 23, 2010 5:54 PM
——
Yes indeed. The debate IS closed. Because you were all given multiple opportunities to justify your extremist opinions and their imposition on a people that didn’t want them: and you did not.
How many times I am require to repeat this?
You just needle and nitpick, assuming as you always do that you argue from a position of moral authority and that it is for everyone else to prove you shouldn’t do whatever you want with society, language, truth and history; and whatever else your minority ideology requires.
You can only have a debate with someone if you exchange your thoughts. But on this issue it isn’t possible.
Because you are zealots. And zealots don’t think. They just react.
——-
@justasking
I don’t know why wolfi is so obsessed with my being “aroused,” perhaps he’s heard the rumours that I would ruin him for ordinary men…
A while back he thought he was being a genius by saying gay “marriage” was ok, because at some time thousands of years ago we were all in polygamous “marriages” aparrently.
To which I asked if it was possible for me then to get “married” to the Hawaiian Tropic Bikini team?
Sadly he never answered, Which is a shame because it is the closest he has ever come to changing my mind on anything.
http://bit.ly/lFPDc
I mean, now that would get me aroused
Bob take a good look in a mirror.
“I don’t know why wolfi is so obsessed with my being “aroused,” perhaps he’s heard the rumours that I would ruin him for ordinary men…”
)
Whatever ‘floats your boat’ I always say
@Pete H.
Ok. Done.
And from where I’m sitting. I am still the
one arguing cogently for the maintenance of the
status quo.
While you are still the one stating,
insisting, screaming that you should be
free to tear it down against the will of the
people and replace it with an edifice solely of
more liking to your own ideology.
And of course screeching at anyone who
might question your automatic right to do so, that
they are an “extremist”.
The only thing that’s different about this
situation since before you made your last
comment, is that I have now made a note in
my diary that I must see my barber next week.
So what was your point exactly, or were you just
being childish?
Told you pal, didn’t I?
The.
Discussion.
Is.
Over.
Have you got that straight now schnookums?
Now if you’ll excuse me, it’s Saturday night
and Daddy’s got to go out and do lots of grown up
stuff…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCgX4ixCRcQ
It’s sad to see this thread has gone to the dogs
like so many before it. …so much to say, so
little space.
It’s really funny – bob complains about “screaming” etc – actually he’s the only one doing that …
PS: Look at who wrote the first comment on this thread – there have been a lot of similar topics wher bob had to come in …
I still wonder why it’s so important to him:
He doesn’t live in Hungary, he’s not gay – so why does he get so excited about this ?
The rest of the EU has already moved on …
“The rest of the EU has already moved on …”
Good. Let them go. We’re getting sick of their silly attempts enforcing minority rule. Give the majority a chance to have a saying on how to run their lives.
Gays, gypsies, jews are getting far more attention than they deserve. It’s time to pay attention to more serious problems. I’m sure there’s a 99 year old guy somewhere, in need of being nazi-hunted.
@Einstein,
“I’m sure there’s a 99 year old guy somewhere, in need of being nazi-hunted”
————————————————–
Careful what you wish for…the survivors of these Nazi’s might be the ones targeted next once the originals have died off.
That seems to be the theme anyway. The ‘direct descendants of said survivors’ taking up the torch via Class action Lawsuits.