All kinds of loopholes in relation to other laws need to be checked, etc, especially since the law is based on a citizen initiative. There was also some political play involved too though, they could have gotten the law out faster if they really wanted to.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Same-sex marriage is now legal in Finland
- Thread starter GCX
- Start date
- Status
The World Map is now a little bit less grey, but still not quite enough.
Seems like there's still a long way to go before "the gays" take over the world and outlaw heterosexual marriage.
I am so happy that this finally happened. Even if my gay friends said that they are not going to get married, at least they now have the choice.
I hated that the "true marriage" people tried to rescind the new marriage law by counter Citizen's initiative. Their counter initiative was rejected only two weeks before the new law going live.
I hated that the "true marriage" people tried to rescind the new marriage law by counter Citizen's initiative. Their counter initiative was rejected only two weeks before the new law going live.
RocknRola
Member
Seems like there's still a long way to go before "the gays" take over the world and outlaw heterosexual marriage.
Honestly in regards to Africa and Asia all we really need is one or two big/important countries to do it. A lot of others would follow their lead, for sure.
Granted, countries where religion (be it whatever it may be) plays a role in politics will have a harder time getting these sort of things done. I know in Portugal, despite the majority agreeing with it, there is still quite a vocal minority against it (mostly religious too).
I really do not understand why LGBT community demanding marriage? I mean they could be a partners under civil union, why marriage? also why they want to adopt kids? I like to understand their concept of this matter.
please don't be too sensitive with me, I'm just asking honest question, nobody can learn without asking.
please don't be too sensitive with me, I'm just asking honest question, nobody can learn without asking.
gutter_trash
Banned
we are in 2017 bro, those arguments that you hold are the type that used to be used 10 years ago.
everyone should have the right to love
damn, people why you need to be too sensitive? where is "denying the right of love" in my post? if you can answer then be my guest or you can ignore it like it's never there.
gutter_trash
Banned
I am not being sensitive, I am being sensible. Big difference.
One of the biggest disadvantages for the LGBT community with creating civil unions instead of allowing same-sex couples to marry, is that civil unions can end up having fewer rights than marriages. Giving everyone the right to marry makes it so that same-sex couples aren't in as much risk of losing rights compared to straight couples. At least, that's how I see it.
Also, I don't see any reasonable argument against allowing same-sex couples to adopt kids, so why not allow it? What if they're sterile or don't want to go through whatever process it is that lets one of the partners have a child with a surrogate?
when a person ask a question you can answer or ignore, you don't have to give lectures about rights or 2017 like it will make a point.
very good argument really, I can't say it's very convincing but it's a good one.
NumberThree
Member
Because there is no reason for same-sex relationships to have different terminology. And if someone knows you're in a civil union they know you're in a relationship with someone of the same sex, which is really none of their business.
Why wouldn't they want to adopt kids? Why does anyone want to adopt kids? Oh right, to have kids.
because it's different? I mean the relationships in the human world is something that to be build on the identity of the 2 parties, e.g: Father-daughter relationship different than a brother-sister relationship also should be the husband-wife relationship different than the same-sex relationships, it does not have to be the same to be legal.
and for one more time people, I don't attack rights, I simply discuss terminologies and concepts of this matter.
From a legal point of view, what advantages does it offer to use different terminology for straight and gay marriages when they are legally the same thing and offer the same rights? We're talking about laws here and they should be logical and equal.
Can you elaborate on your question "why they want to adopt kids?".
Are you asking why married couples of the same sex would want to to adopt? Or why they should be allowed to adopt? Two different questions I couldn't tell which you were attempting to ask.
Yes, maybe you are right at this one "legal point of view".
I'm asking the first one.
How is the relation between husband-wife and wife-wife and husband-husband so meaningfully different to require the latter two to not be able to marry? Why should marriage be restricted to heterosexuals? What good purpose would that serve?
For the same reasons as anyone else.
They want to adopt children for the same reason a heterosexual married couple wants to have children or adopt.
I'm not sure how it's a good argument but also somehow not convincing...?
aspaceman55
Member
[]
well, I think I have said "not very" convincing, also the argument could be good but not necessarily decisive.
Because it's the only way to legally join together in love and partnership.
Civil unions became even more of a non-starter once conservatives started stripping rights away from them just to spite LGBT couples, or outright banning them in addition to marriage. Civil unions were nowhere near the same as a marriage.
killer rin
Member
Congrats Finland! Great news
Complete opposite is true as far as I know.
The Supreme Court needs to hear a case as a challenge to the ruling first. It would probably need to be brought by a state trying to pass marriage restriction laws. Said case would need to advance all the way up to SCOTUS, which can simply choose not to hear the case at all. Even if it does, Courts are reluctant to go against precedent, especially such a recent, high-publicity precedent.
Meanwhile, say marriage equality was passed in Congress under a narrow Democrat majority and a Democratic signature in the White House. All it would take to reverse it now is a simple majority vote in the same Congress/White House now owned by Republicans.
While the court route may seem less legit, it was the best way, aside from a full-on Constitutional Amendment, to ensure the rule stays in place for a long time.
SkeptiMism
Member
About time. Congratulations to anyone getting married. Some of the animosity towards it has been sickening to watch especially from certain Christians (not all of them obviously) who think they're so holy and righteous. Not that the animosity will go away either, but maybe we can get over at least some of the talking points now and move on to other things that threaten God's creations.
I'll quote myself from the thread I made about the parliament's decision in 2014. Obviously I am and was (when I gathered these) slightly biased, but I swear all of these were used against it and if there had been any even slightly redeeming context, I would've put it in:
----
I might not be giving you much clear answers here, because to be honest, there isn't any single all convincing fully rational reason why they want to be married. Like, there are obvious good arguments like the one brought up about how being in a civil union instantly tells your sexuality, but the biggest argument isn't really all rational. In the end it mostly comes down to the feeling "this isn't equal, we don't want this" and that feeling comes from so many things. I think it would be good for you to engage yourself in the thinking what all could affect it. As just a couple of hints, maybe it has something to do with the historical discrimination of the community. Maybe it has something to do with the sheer resistance against the idea that they should get married.
I'll be happy to share more thoughts if you want to think about it more.
I'll quote myself from the thread I made about the parliament's decision in 2014. Obviously I am and was (when I gathered these) slightly biased, but I swear all of these were used against it and if there had been any even slightly redeeming context, I would've put it in:
----
One thing to ponder here is who should be the one to say to loving couples that "no, your relationship is too different so you don't get to be married, you can have your own thing"? Like, isn't it the best to ask first how the group in question feels? Even the word "different" there is very questionable - you call it different, but what do you think the LGBT community thinks about it? Do you think that they think their love is so different from straight couples? It's only 50 years ago when 72% of Americans opposed the legalizing of interracial marriage - how do you think American interracial couples felt back then about their love being supposedly so different that they shouldn't be able to get married? Yes, that last one particularly might be a bit loaded rhetorical question, but I guess part of the point here is that even though a lot of things might seem different to outside if you're not familiar with them, maybe it's worth trying to look inside.
I might not be giving you much clear answers here, because to be honest, there isn't any single all convincing fully rational reason why they want to be married. Like, there are obvious good arguments like the one brought up about how being in a civil union instantly tells your sexuality, but the biggest argument isn't really all rational. In the end it mostly comes down to the feeling "this isn't equal, we don't want this" and that feeling comes from so many things. I think it would be good for you to engage yourself in the thinking what all could affect it. As just a couple of hints, maybe it has something to do with the historical discrimination of the community. Maybe it has something to do with the sheer resistance against the idea that they should get married.
I'll be happy to share more thoughts if you want to think about it more.
- Status