|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted February 04, 2011 09:51 PM |
|
|
The current political controversy over civil unions vs marriage boils down to semantics. Many people attach an aesthetic and/or religious element to 'marriage', whereas civil union refers strictly to the legal/contractual aspect of it.
In my definition of a civil union, same-sex couples would be applicable for it. However, a person and a dog would not be applicable for it, because a dog is not a citizen, does not pay taxes, etc... Likewise a person and a rock could not have a civil union, nor a turtle and an asteroid, etc. However, if a person wants to marry a dog, they can feel free to go to whatever private entity they please and get married. Likewise, two people can go to a private entity to get married, but choose not to enter a civil union, however if they expect to get any legal benefits, they would need to get a civil union.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 10:08 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 22:32, 04 Feb 2011.
|
LOL, look what I started.
Although, I guess I should have put video link here instead, as a followup to my essay on page 3. Oh well.
Regarding the parade discussion: am I the only one who feels that Bak's line of argument seems a little bit like fining wallet manufacturers because innocent people are getting hurt by robbers who are trying to steal wallets?
I mean, I get the point, Bak, such as it is, but I don't think it's a very good one. Homosexuals have a parade, which causes the neanderthals to come out, which puts "innocent" people at risk. But rather than blame the neanderthals, you blame the homosexuals. What the homosexuals get out of the parade isn't really of much consequence. If you're worried about the innocent people, you should be condemning the neanderthals, not the homosexuals. Who are, strictly speaking, also to be counted among the "innocent".
Not that I really get the need for a parade, but so what? It's a free country. Isn't it?
Put it this way. Let's say that the homosexuals propose their parade, and a group of neanderthals threaten hell if the parade goes on. Out of prudence, the homosexuals decide not to have their parade, so as to "protect the innocent people". Everyone sighs in relief. And the neanderthals learn that if they threaten violence, they can always get what they want. Yeah, that seems like a society I want to live in. Might makes right.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2011 10:18 PM |
|
|
Exactly what I said, he's blaming the wrong people.
That's all there is to say about it, and everything else is unrelated.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 05, 2011 02:04 AM |
|
|
Of course it's the cavemen's fault.
Of course Serbia should strive to be a free place.
But the law, as far as I know, requires the city to approve larger meetings and parades. The very fact that a gay parade was held against the original ruling of the city authorities or the general public, and that not even the security advice was listened to, proves that might makes right. It's just might from another source.
If gay parades are to happen, before anything else, the hooligans have to go. You don't arrive home from work to see your apartment burning and head over to your kitchen to make pancakes because it's "not against the law". You'll get yourself hurt, you'll make your family sad, and need to sit still for a bit while the firemen take care of it. Not complicate the problem further.
Ultranationalist fire is, however, incredibly hard to root out, you can't do it just by force (though I personally think that exercising a bit more force on them wouldn't be such a bad idea), you need to go the harder way and actually make things better. So after enough attention is paid to actual problems in the country, when cavemen become fewer in numbers and things get under control again, sure, I'll wave the rainbow flag myself, to celebrate that it's become the biggest of my country's problems.
Well, provided the parade's kept civil (no naked butts and leather pants please).
Whether gay parades should be held annually and whether the participants should be allowed to wear next to nothing and wave dildoes around, should be up to the locals to decide. Not up to foreign pressure. That would, however, probably be impossible, and in that case, I would still be sharply opposed to gay parades. Civilized activists having a walk with banners for what they believe in? Sure. Any time.
I'm glad, though, that we apparently all at least agree, including JJ, that gay parades as they are now are absolutely pointless.
I'm also incredibly sorry if I sound like some kind of bigot* or paranoiac throughout this whole discussion. I knew it might turn up that way.
------
*I'd still wholeheartedly lock up anyone who tries putting a rodent in their anus in a mental institution for a while
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 05, 2011 02:30 AM |
|
|
No, I don't think you sound like a bigot. And I understand (then and now) your point of view. There's a difference between what is right and what is practical. Sometimes people need to understand that just because they're justified in doing something doesn't mean they should do it.
To wit: it doesn't matter how much we try to cram democracy down the throats of people living in the middle east. It's not going to take while the people living there have the mindsets that they currently have. And in fact our efforts - no matter how good intentioned - only make things worse.
I guess in the end, maybe people SHOULD NOT hold a gay parade even though they SHOULD have every right to do it. What homosexuals should be doing is (1) being sensitive to their environment and (2) identifying ways that increase their degree of equality efficiently. Nevertheless, I don't think it's fair to blame the homosexuals when people get injured because other people are bigots.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 05, 2011 04:06 AM |
|
|
I know. Though I tried never to sound like I blame gay people in general. Some of their activists and lobbyists could use a bit of a broader view, is all I'm saying.
We have our good sides, us tribesmen from the caves of Balkan. It's just that we never quite understood how anyone could be a homosexual next to all these hot wommenz around us.
Phew. Sorta glad this discussion seems to be over.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2011 09:41 AM |
|
|
It may be over, but I disagree with the result.
First of all, there have been said a lot of things by some people here in this thread I find unacceptable. Because they are so irrational they become extremely suspicious in this. I won't mention and discusss them, though, because it makes no sense. They won't listen anyway.
However, in my opinion and based on history, living in Germany, Corribus is DEAD wrong. We'll never change anything, if we always look to what seems to be practicable instead of going for the moon.
For Serbia and gayness it's easy to explain, why.
I don't know, how much you people (except Bak, of course) know about Serbia.
Politically it's a democratic republic, but also, Serbia is one of the very few non-arab states where homosexuals are still suppressed. I mean, really suppressed, not just frowned upon. Two thirds of the population think that it's a disease. One fifth are prepared to support or justify violence against gays. It's not a land, like, as Bak may have suggested, where everything is peachy with the gays, where gays just should keep a low profile and everything is fine, and when he mentions "Western activists", he could just as well be some member of a banana republic who means people of amnesty international looking into the torture vaults - they are people who want nothing else than stopping discrimination of gays.
The Serbian-Orthodox Church might just play a role here - it still seems to be quite strong.
However, that is just the gay part. The political part is dangerous. I don't want to bother anyone with details, but Serbia is, politically, an extremely dangerous land, which shows a LOT of parallels to the Germany that lost WW I and built the Republic of Weimar - which is, what we have there now. Ironically, WW I started in what was THEN Serbia, but is NOW Bosnia.
But to make matters short, Serbia not only has been "reduced", blame has heaped upon it for God knows what, and especially for the Balkan Wars in the 90s, they got smacked by the West a couple of times. People there have a hard time - like those in Germany after WW I - to find a national identity, because for a lot of them it will feel ... sullied.
In the end, whoever IS actually to blame how much, INEVITABLY the spectre of national glorification of the old ways will rise; there will be (and there are) those who will claim, that all is a lie, that blame was dished exclusively to the wrong side, that good ole' Serbia was the victim of some plot, that THE WEST, THE US, THE MULTIS, conspired to bring them down - just look back to what they said in Germany, then.
This is a very dangerous situation.
There are still a lot of problems. Serbia's point of view with the Kosovo is, that it is still part of Serbia, now occupied - the same pov that Germany had after WW I - loss of territory -, even though the International Court just declared everything ok with the Kosovo.
There are yet again open border problems with Croatia.
The economic crisis has hit the leftist government hard. Serbia wants to be part of the EU, but the EU, especially the Netherlands - guess why - has been sceptical.
Fact is, Serbia wants into the EU, and fact is, if it will becomes a part of it, "Western activists" WILL be there as a matter of course.
If Serbia wants to be a member of the EU it must prove, that it keeps to human rights; anti-gay action won't help that.
The right-wing nationalist tendencies are obviously a grave problem. A membership within the EU MIGHT solve or at least contain it, since membership with the EU will certainly change a couple of things - moreover, Serbia would receive money from the coffers of the EU that would certainly help them, although a lot depends on themselves.
However, one thing seems clear: the political right is, for the most part FIRMLY anti-gay, and therefore firmly against what has been established as current human rights. A smashed gay parade demonstrates that clearly. It seems right to provoke the cavemen to come out of their holes.
If you consider, however, the initial numbers, two thirds think gayity is a disease, and one fifth would justify violence against gays, the problem runs a little bit deeper than Bak wants to sell here. 20% is a lot - if it was less, the whole affair wouldn't be so much of a problem.
The bottom line is, that the incident - and its justification, and blameing-for - shows that human rights and Serbia are still, let's call it "uncertain" partners.
THAT is, what the gay parade shows. And THAT is why it's been a good thing. As was the soccer incident. You have to identify the problems and point on them, not cover them up.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2011 12:19 PM |
|
|
I think everybody knows those problems already.
You see, you just don't make something controversial in a unstable country to prove the obvious.
Sure, everybody would want to be able to take a hike on a black people's district while being white without fear of being beaten up, but that's not how it works, and no sane person would ever do this, right?
Same thing as with organizing the parade. yes, it SHOULD work that way, but when we already know it DOESN'T, it would be better not to. It's not a contest of proving some obvious points, you know.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2011 02:00 PM |
|
|
Doomforge, what you mean is this:
Situation is: You live in a nominally democratic state of law and DO HAVE certain rights in theory and, with the world watching and the state wanting to be "acknowledged", in practice as well.
HOWEVER: A completely undemocratic, violent minority, that is, in that specific issue, backed by the silent approval of a not so minor part of the whole population, will violently prevent you from making use of your rights, and openly so, so everyone knowing what will happen.
In this situation you say, you should voluntarily renounce your rights.
Why?
To create an illusion that everything is fine? To help those who are both wanting to demonstrate how democratic and everything they are, but can't or won't protect your rights?
Why? To avoid collateral damage - done by others, mind you -, in a population two thirds of which think that you are sick?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2011 02:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To create an illusion that everything is fine?
I actually think that is the point I'm making. But I use this argument for a strictly different theory - that creating an illusion that everything is fine is what we do by ALLOWING that parade.
Things aren't fine.
And when country is not ready for this, why not wait?
It's like organizing a pilgrimage to a country that kills Christians. Sure, it should be possible, but who on earth would allow that? it's death sentence.
Some things aren't meant to be organized just because they in theory SHOULD be allowed. Not yet.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2011 02:45 PM |
|
|
Doomforge, I don't see for whom you are speaking.
Don't you think you should leave the decision to the actual people who are supposed to have the right in question?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 05, 2011 03:02 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 15:14, 05 Feb 2011.
|
Dude. No matter how backwater our country is, it's not a banana republic nor a middle eastern emirate.
"Violence against gays" in general is not supported by people. Some support violently stopping the parade (too many for my taste, yes), that is true, but I still don't know where you got those numbers from. No one asked me for an opinion anyway.
As for homosexuality being a disease, no one claims it's contagious, spread by a virus or anything like that. People say it's a mental illness in a way that your brain hampers your ability to procreate. You are attracted to the same gender and unwilling to have sex with the opposite one. People don't understand why that isn't a kind of natural mistake and why people are constantly denying that. Nature makes mistakes all the time. That doesn't mean anything derogatory against gays, it just means that it's normal to be attracted to the opposite gender, and not the same. That's the attitude of those two thirds. And it's not that it doesn't make any sense. They don't consider gay people unable to be a regular part of society.
Homosexuals, though there are not many of them in Serbia, are for the most part regarded as completely normal people and valued at work according by their professionalism, not much else. My father works at the national television and he had a lot of contact with various homosexual associates, all of them, as he says, respectful people and professionals. They are present on TV, they are present in the worlds of fashion, dramaturgy, etc. They're not sent to concentration camps.
Similarities to Weimar, unfortunately, exist, I agree about that. But we're not in that much danger, as Serbs aren't that full of rage and hate as the German masses were back then. Sure, there's humiliation, economic instability, minority issues and all kinds of stuff, but there is no danger of the holocaust, or anything like that. The hardcore rightwingers wouldn't have enough support to come to power that easily, and I'm pretty sure they are themselves aware of the Western fury they'd bring upon all of Serbia. The country is, however, being pushed to the limit.
Quote:
Ironically, WW I started in what was THEN Serbia
Not really, no. It was THEN Austria, because Austria annexed it. Against the international law, though.
Not that it matters too much.
As long as the USA considers itself above the International Court whenever it doesn't like its ruling, there is no reason whatsoever for my country's officials to accept it, specifically taking Kosovo's, strictly speaking, illegal independence into account. It's an institution without too much credibility, and no real authority, and none of us had any faith in it to begin with. Besides, the worst thing the government could do right now would be to accept Kosovo's independence.
I don't need to see my city burning to be able to identify a bloody problem. It makes it, however, easier for people like you to see, so they can point their fingers and be like "Wow, you should really take care of that".
But let's get this thread back on topic, shall we.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2011 03:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Doomforge, I don't see for whom you are speaking.
Don't you think you should leave the decision to the actual people who are supposed to have the right in question?
You mean Serbians like Baklava? weren't you basically telling him to shut up? 
Or do you mean that only gay people have the right to speak? My friend is gay. I can quote his opinion on this is you want.
Or maybe only gay people of Serbia and the local government?
I'm sort of confused who is entitled for an opinion.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2011 06:44 PM |
|
|
Baklava, in what country do you live, you say?
http://diestandard.at/1277337317967/Serbien-Homosexualitaet-gefaehrlich
This is an Austrian article (in German), that refers to a poll of the Serbian CESID, non-governmental centre for free elections and democracy.
I don't understand the Serbian language, so I can't quote from CESID thenselves, but I haven't got the slightest reason to doubt the results posted in the link, and I'm sure you will be able to check the site and results in Serbian.
They results say: 67% think its a disease
20% would support or justify violence against gays.
53% think that the state should fighty gays
38% think it's something the West invented to destroy family and Serbian tradition.
Strange isn't it?
This might help as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Serbia
@ Doomforge
I mean that it's of course up to the gay community of Serbia to decide whether they want to try and make use of their right and try to get a permit for the parade. It's not for YOU or anyone else to decide, whether they want to see what happens and where they and Serbia stands. As would the right of the WORKER to try for a 1st of May parade. Or the right of the WOMEN to try for a Women's Lib parade.
For me the situation is, that the "cavemen" are doing what a sizable part of society supports, but wouldn't have the guts to do themselves, while people like Baklava blame the gays for everything as well, at the least for being unreasonable and irresponsible.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2011 07:09 AM |
|
|
|
Those statistics are SHOCKING. Geez what a world...
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2011 11:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It's not for YOU or anyone else to decide, whether they want to see what happens and where they and Serbia stands.
Do you see me deciding on anything, or is it that just your massive exaggeration?
Since when expressing concern equals deciding or lawmaking or condemning or accepting or whatever else you might also imply?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2011 01:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think everybody knows those problems already.
You see, you just don't make something controversial in a unstable country to prove the obvious.
Sure, everybody would want to be able to take a hike on a black people's district while being white without fear of being beaten up, but that's not how it works, and no sane person would ever do this, right?
Same thing as with organizing the parade. yes, it SHOULD work that way, but when we already know it DOESN'T, it would be better not to. It's not a contest of proving some obvious points, you know.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Doomforge, bjut this is a clear judgement.
"You just don't do this and that." "WE already know this and that." "It would be better..." "It's not this or that."
And I asked what qualifies you not only for the judgement, but to judge whether it even matters whether it's wrong or right: it may not be a decision of reason of heart.
After all, you are neither gay nor living in Serbia.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 06, 2011 02:36 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 14:37, 06 Feb 2011.
|
Yes but Doom can discuss gay parades in general like everyone else. They do concern all of us.
Yes, those numbers do sound incredibly bad. I did some research on the subject, though, and found out here that, two years ago, only 38% of Serbs considered gays "people just like everyone else", while now that percentage is 52. A 14 percent increase in two years? Attitude toward gay people is a pretty major stance, how can that many people change it just like that? That either means we're getting tolerant like crazy, or proves how arbitrary those polls are (this specific poll was conducted on 1405 people). The ambassador of Holland, for example, stated that the speed of Serbia's advancement on the field of LGBT rights is great, though it needs to advance more.
I admit that my view of the situation might be wrong, though. I see gay people on TV and they seem alright, and my family and close ones always had pretty normal views about it. In school, however, a lot of seemingly regular folks had pretty primitive views on the topic, and if they do, their families probably do too. Perhaps I was a bit too sheltered.
All I'm saying is that there are far worse problems which require immediate attention but are getting none since the government neither cares nor has the funds, and the West isn't pressuring them about it. The Roma situation, for example, along with their living conditions, discrimination against them, their own mentality which worsens in these circumstances etcetera, is far more horrifying, and I'd personally rather concentrate on that issue for now. The French president can round them up, deport them to eastern Europe and feel incredibly good about himself. We are, however, eastern Europe, and have no place to deport them - plus I wouldn't want to do it, they're an integral part of our nation and have been here far before anyone in the world even thought of gay rights. But they have no one out there to back them up.
If the world wants to help, it'd be great if it helped those who need it the most first and foremost.
Then again, if the world had that attitude, there wouldn't be that much starvation and disease in Africa.
Never mind. We're getting off course now.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2011 03:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes but Doom can discuss gay parades in general like everyone else. They do concern all of us.
1) Go back to your original post and read it again. You were dishing out blame, and that's what most of the discussion was about: dishing the blame for "general damage" done in connection with the parade to the gays.
2) No, I disagree. We can discuss PARADES in general like everyone else. But not GAY parades - they don't concern all of us, only the gays. Parades in general concern all of us-
That's simply it.
If gays have the same right than everyone else they have the right to make parades like everyone else. If the police can make one, the workers, the fire brigade, women's lib, AA, whoever, so can the gays, if they have same rights. So either NO ONE can make a parade or ALL.
What you can discuss, seeing GAY parades, is whether there should be clothing regulations or not - for EVERY parade, mind you.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 06, 2011 04:13 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 16:20, 06 Feb 2011.
|
The fire brigade has yet to start parading through the street in thongs with fluffy dildoes. So, as there haven't been too many obscenity problems in parades OTHER than the gay ones, I think it's safe to identify that problem as connected, in some way, to them.
But I agree, the trouble, to me personally, is not that it's gay people parading, nothing against that - the catch is in the For The Love Of God What Is That Thing Sticking From That Young Man's Butt moment.
Parades? Sure. Public pornography? No.
Unless there are hot women involved.
And there aren't.
When something is public, it concerns the public. Especially when it's something like that.
I'd get arrested for doing things like that in the street, for example.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
