Can we finally stop calling it "gay marriage" and "traditional marriage" and just call it "marriage" now?
good job USA
I'm glad you are finally catching up to the rest of the developed world.
good job USA
I'm glad you are finally catching up to the rest of the developed world.
Some countries where gay marriage is illegal: Germany, Italy, Australia, Japan, Austria, Switzerland, Greece.
Hah, this seems like a strange way to put it -- "get a gay marriage, go to jail". Maybe the word is used in that way, but I'd tend to say something more like "doesn't exist" or "isn't recognised".
Try again...
> I'm glad you are finally catching up to the rest of the
> developed world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#/media/File:...
It's just silly.
But I'm just so pissed, because in my country (Bulgaria) the roma (gypsy) population are always treated (by the media, and unfortunately a lot of people I know) as non-bulgarians, non-citizens, even non-people by some.
Nevermind that black people also come from: Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Thailand, etc.
> Five statistically unlikely people have been shot simultaneously
> Five statistically common people have been shot simultaneously
To say nothing of the killer's explicitly stated racial motives, historical repression, slavery, curtailing of rights, violence, et cetera. :P
See also, "man bites dog".
If the shooting had been in a predominantly non-white society, the headline could well have been what you proposed.
So it's a very uneven treatment.
Also, statistics are unhelpful here. Overall whites are a maj. in the U.S. They may or may not be in the locale where the crime happened, and minorities may or may not be a majority in the place a crime happened. So it very much depends how large you want to make this "place"
Call us when one of you elects a black head of state.
We are the 18th country to entirely legalize gay marriage.
What fraction of the developed world had gay marriage, at what time, such that this statement makes sense?
I mean, Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in, what, 2003?
2001 — Netherlands
2001 — Belgium
2005 — Spain, Canada
2006 — South Africa
2009 — Norway, Sweden
2010 — Portugal, Iceland, Argentina
2012 — Denmark
2013 — France, Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand
2014 — England and Wales
2015 — Luxembourg, Ireland, United States of America
2017 — Finland (the law is voted and signed but not yet in effect)
> I mean, Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in, what, 2003?
It's a good point but not without issues to wit the possibility of discontinuation or invalidation (California, Australian Capital Territory) and the fact that subdivision-level generally lacks many (or even most) of the protections and advantages normally granted (not to mention commonly a complete loss of recognition and attendant rights on moving outside the sub-territory)
It's an astounding feat to have accomplished such a vast cultural change in such a short amount of time. I've read recently that upwards of 25% of the entire US population has shifted its view on gay marriage in just ten years.
Coming from a European, I think that's a bit of unnecessary quibbling intended to justify condescending to the Americans. The United States started out as something like the European Union: a partial union of sovereign countries. As such, the appropriate comparison would be to ask: where's the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights declaring that all EU members must implement gay marriage, or else? Get with the times, you backwards-looking conservatives on the Old Continent!
And, to this day, the separate regions, which are admittedly larger than states, actually do behave somewhat like different countries. The differences become especially visible when you look at public policies and development indices: different states in the USA have various levels of honesty in government, civil rights, economic development, average education, etc. In fact, on a state-by-state basis, some US states are more highly developed than many/most European countries.
So: Netherlands, Belgium, Massachusetts.
You're right that just listing the dates for same-sex marriage doesn't tell the whole picture, but adding civil partnerships and their details would necessarily expand the comment to something closer to a book.
[0] for instance in France civil unions are quite literally a marriage lite, open to all and very commonly used as a legally recognised engagement by heterosexual couples (>90% of civil unions are heterosexual)
That wasn't necessarily the case; a bunch of Full-Faith-and-Credit-Clause cases were also being litigated before this decision. Though it would probably have ended up as more of a complex mess.
Once past the baseline survival of struggling to meet and secure basic physiological needs, arguably established for the majority in the developed nations, our species (not just "the state" groupings) should be blind to which groupings (not just pairings) facilitate the procreation and raising of high-value future adults, and if interfering at all, should instead focus upon which individual "family" groups are producing high-value results, regardless of the structure of the "family".
There are long and interesting discussions about what constitutes high-value; that's politics. But I don't subscribe to the notion that there is a currently-valid "objective interest" in promoting heterosexual families on the basis of straight-out procreation. If the species dropped to a population bottleneck level again, then sure; but absent similar catastrophic situations, I don't see where simply promoting procreation progresses the species' civilization, though I welcome counter-views.