• HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    2 months ago

    civil unions were sorta funny. it was like bsd. you can have the same thing but you can’t call it marriage. after awhile it becomes obvious its just sorta a stupid waste of time and we will use the same word. Granted I was for it because I know there is a subset of my country that needs the name thing to make it more palatable till their children are grown and don’t care.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      It was straight-up bigotry, and I hate every minute I spent arguing that with douchebags on reddit. Mostly people too stupid to figure out “one man one woman” is discrimination on the basis of sex… or too stupid to realize their smug denial was utterly transparent.

      If men can only do X and women can only do Y, you don’t need a fucking diagram.

    • Zachariah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’d like to see all laws referencing marriage deleted. Don’t let the government specify what it it’s at all. Get out of the church’s business. But also assign zero rights to it.

      If people want to form a union for property ownership or raising children, don’t attach that to the religious concept at all. Just let them do it. This way religious people wouldn’t feel the need to weigh in on who is allowed.

      And then we’re not discussing who the government is allowing to marry. Let each church decide which ones they’ll recognize.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        2 months ago

        Marriage was political before it was religious. Don’t cede aspects of civil life to religious bigots.

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        Libertarian horseshit from people still confused about marriage versus matrimony.

        You can hold whatever religious ceremony you want. You can bless the union of yourself and a horse. But marriage has always been a legal concept, and that union needs to be well-defined to be actionable.

      • jedibob5@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        The problem is that “keeping the government out of the church’s business” is not the goal of the religious right when it comes to gay marriage. They want theocratic rule and the criminalization of what they see as sin. If both sides agreed on the principle of separation of church and state, most battles over LGBTQ rights would’ve been over long ago.

        Separating the legal concept of unions between individuals and the religious institution of marriage would be almost as unpalatable to many evangelicals as fully legal gay marriage, because they’d rather outlaw homosexuality altogether.

      • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I mean marriage is essentially a standard contract where the goverment allows any clergy to act as notaries for some reason. prenups are just modifications to the standard contract.

        • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          In some countries maybe, but in other countries you need a civil mariage first before you can do an optional church mariage ceremony.

          • rand_alpha19@moist.catsweat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Doesn’t that mean that the church won’t marry you if the government hasn’t made it official?

            That just follows the argument that the religious aspect is simply a voluntary add-on to the actual institution of marriage (a government-approved contract between individuals), which is the opposite of what the original commenter was arguing for.

            Matrimony and marriage are separate already. If you want to get church-married, go for it. If you don’t, don’t. Doesn’t sound hard or like it needs to be changed.

            • Successful_Try543@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              According to Wikipedia, the difference between matrimony and marriage isn’t that clear:

              Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union, or legal contract between spouses.

              Matrimony is a socially or ritually recognised union between spouses.

    • 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Opposition in North Africa, the Middle East and parts of South and South East Asia is at least partially explained by religious political ideology.

      Russia, as the biggest area, and China might be fueled by opposition to their percieved cultural enemies.

      I don’t know why India and Japan haven’t legalised marriage equality yet.

      • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Non religious conservatism is a thing. Those countries also tend to be much worse on women’s rights too.

      • pop@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        India? the country with deeply rooted religious society that has little regard for women in general? that India would go for equality?

    • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      eastern countries have varying levels of it. most are fine with couples, but they havent tied the relationship to the legal version of it.

      Taiwan i think is the only region that outright performs it. Thailand is probably up next as they already have many rights in.(edit: they it it very recently) other countries like Cambodia, Japan and such have some rights to gay couples, but they arent entirely 1:1 to their hetero couples yet. The graph probably represents gay marriage being analogous to all rights offered to both types of couples in a binary fashion.

  • Womble@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    I was so sure this map was wrong showing nothing in the UK in the first map, but civil unions came in in 04 not 03.

    Also its crazy how this is almost entirely limited to Europe and places with strong historical ties to Europe (with the notable exception of Taiwan)

    • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Why? Who else would come before that? Europe & North America are the most progressive places on Earth for quite a while now.

      • Womble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Its not that its first that is surprising, its that with one exception its only them.

        • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Again: Who else? The rest of the world is in varying degrees of “ass backwards”, especially regarding social issues. Hell, a lot of them aren’t even moving forward but backward.

          • Match!!@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 months ago

            I’d really expect southeast asia next considering historical support for third genders there

          • Ephera@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            The thing is that Abrahamic religions were extremely ass backwards on this issue for the longest time. My expectation would be that countries with a majority of atheists or buddhists would never have been as ass backwards about gays in the first place.