Denmark approves same-sex marriage

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18363157

7 June 2012 Last updated at 22:37 GMT Share this pageEmail Print Share this page

Denmark has become the latest country to approve same-sex marriage.

The law was passed with an overwhelming majority in parliament, and also covers weddings in the Church of Denmark.

Denmark was the first country in the world to recognise civil partnerships for same-sex couples in 1989.

However, no further steps were taken under the previous centre-right government, while other countries have passed laws extending marriage to same-sex couples.

The bill put forward by Denmark's centre-left government was passed in an 85-24 vote on Thursday.

"This is equality between couples of the same gender and couples of different genders. A major step forward," Danish Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs Manu Sareen said after the vote.

The legislation takes effect on 15 June.

And the hold of the religious bigots continue to weaken.

[Zor]

Good for them. I am only surprised it took them this long to do so.

Zor

[Bernkastel]

This is very good news, as it always is when victories like this are achieved. But I must in agree with Zor in that I am surprised that this had not been done already.

[Haruko]

Heh, I was thinking it was already legal in Denmark.

[SpaceMarine93]

Another great victory. We'll win the war against intolerance and march ever forwards towards equality for all, one country at a time.

[amigocabal]

Another great victory. We'll win the war against intolerance and march ever forwards towards equality for all, one country at a time.

Are you implying that same-sex marriage should be recognized in Saudi Arabia?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Another great victory. We'll win the war against intolerance and march ever forwards towards equality for all, one country at a time.

Are you implying that same-sex marriage should be recognized in Saudi Arabia?

Yes. That's what equality for all means.

[amigocabal]

Another great victory. We'll win the war against intolerance and march ever forwards towards equality for all, one country at a time.

Are you implying that same-sex marriage should be recognized in Saudi Arabia?

Yes. That's what equality for all means.

Of course, actually trying to convince Saudi Arabia to adopt same-sex marriage would be near-impossible, given that their culture does not even have the same framework. Many of them think the lack of same-sex marriage does not infringe on equality. After all, nobody in Saudi Arabia gets to marry someone of the same sex, they would argue, so everyone is already being treated equally with respect with the ability to marry someone of the same sex. I would imagine almost all Saudis believe that it was wrong for Denmark to institute same-sex marriage.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Of course, actually trying to convince Saudi Arabia to adopt same-sex marriage would be near-impossible, given that their culture does not even have the same framework. Many of them think the lack of same-sex marriage does not infringe on equality. After all, nobody in Saudi Arabia gets to marry someone of the same sex, they would argue, so everyone is already being treated equally with respect with the ability to marry someone of the same sex.

Of course marriage equality would be near-impossible to adopt in Saudi Arabia due to its incredibly high level of homophobia and not to mention sexism, adherence to a hardcore-patriarchal culture and religious fundamentalism. This is why the route to adopting equal marriage laws in Saudi Arabia starts in gradually changing its culture, politics and society. It takes time but it's the overall goal.

I would imagine almost all Saudis believe that it was wrong for Denmark to institute same-sex marriage.

Whether or not they believe is wrong for Denmark to institute equal marriage laws is irrelevant. Anyone with any sane moral system and an accurate understanding of LGBT individuals can see that homophobia (and in extension, denying same-sex couples equal marriage rights) is wrong.

[Lolpah]

Heh, I was thinking it was already legal in Denmark.

They had registered partnerships in Denmark, which is almost the same as marriage, but not quite. In fact, Denmark was teh frist coutnry in the world to have it. Many countries that do not yet permit gay marriage do allow registered partnerships, e.g. Finland.

[Lord Relvenous]

Yes. That's what equality for all means.

Of course, actually trying to convince Saudi Arabia to adopt same-sex marriage would be near-impossible, given that their culture does not even have the same framework. Many of them think the lack of same-sex marriage does not infringe on equality. After all, nobody in Saudi Arabia gets to marry someone of the same sex, they would argue, so everyone is already being treated equally with respect with the ability to marry someone of the same sex. I would imagine almost all Saudis believe that it was wrong for Denmark to institute same-sex marriage.

Just because something is unlikely to happen anytime in the near future doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. The fact that Saudi citizens have no support for same-sex marriage does not absolve the government of not allowing it.

[amigocabal]

Yes. That's what equality for all means.

Of course, actually trying to convince Saudi Arabia to adopt same-sex marriage would be near-impossible, given that their culture does not even have the same framework. Many of them think the lack of same-sex marriage does not infringe on equality. After all, nobody in Saudi Arabia gets to marry someone of the same sex, they would argue, so everyone is already being treated equally with respect with the ability to marry someone of the same sex. I would imagine almost all Saudis believe that it was wrong for Denmark to institute same-sex marriage.

Just because something is unlikely to happen anytime in the near future doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. The fact that Saudi citizens have no support for same-sex marriage does not absolve the government of not allowing it.

This, of course, assumes that not allowing same-sex marriage is something the Saudi government has to absolve. But if you ask the citizenry, let alone religious or political leaders, they would say that Denmark's recognition of same-sex marriage is something to absolve.

In effect, one would have to demonstrate the existence of absolute system of moral values, binding upomn every person that lives and who had ever lived, with which to judge Danish and Saudi values, respectively. That would be necessary before you can even demonstrate that Saudi values with respect to same-sex marriage are wrong. (The same argument applies in reverse. Saudis would have to convince Danes that their Islamic values are the absolute system of moral values in order to convince Danes that it was wrong to recognize same-sex marriage.)

[Pint0 Xtreme]

This, of course, assumes that not allowing same-sex marriage is something the Saudi government has to absolve. But if you ask the citizenry, let alone religious or political leaders, they would say that Denmark's recognition of same-sex marriage is something to absolve.

In effect, one would have to demonstrate the existence of absolute system of moral values, binding upomn every person that lives and who had ever lived, with which to judge Danish and Saudi values, respectively. That would be necessary before you can even demonstrate that Saudi values with respect to same-sex marriage are wrong. (The same argument applies in reverse. Saudis would have to convince Danes that their Islamic values are the absolute system of moral values in order to convince Danes that it was wrong to recognize same-sex marriage.)

In order for you to make the above statements you must assume the following should not be moral values adopted universally:
1.) All individuals regardless of sex or sexual orientation should be treated equally.
2.) Same-sex relationships are intrinsically identical to opposite-sex relationships, which are all deserving of the same respect and dignity in identical situations.



Failing to adopt either of those two values either makes you a prejudiced fuck or an ignorant idiot (or both). Are you arguing that it's morally acceptable for some people to not adopt either of those values?

[amigocabal]

This, of course, assumes that not allowing same-sex marriage is something the Saudi government has to absolve. But if you ask the citizenry, let alone religious or political leaders, they would say that Denmark's recognition of same-sex marriage is something to absolve.

In effect, one would have to demonstrate the existence of absolute system of moral values, binding upomn every person that lives and who had ever lived, with which to judge Danish and Saudi values, respectively. That would be necessary before you can even demonstrate that Saudi values with respect to same-sex marriage are wrong. (The same argument applies in reverse. Saudis would have to convince Danes that their Islamic values are the absolute system of moral values in order to convince Danes that it was wrong to recognize same-sex marriage.)

In order for you to make the above statements you must assume the following should not be moral values adopted universally:
1.) All individuals regardless of sex or sexual orientation should be treated equally.
2.) Same-sex relationships are intrinsically identical to opposite-sex relationships, which are all deserving of the same respect and dignity in identical situations.



Failing to adopt either of those two values either makes you a prejudiced fuck or an ignorant idiot (or both). Are you arguing that it's morally acceptable for some people to not adopt either of those values?

I will quote Jeff Jacoby about the criteria of whether a moral value should be adopted universally

If something is morally wrong, it is morally wrong always. That a society may tolerate -- or embrace -- an indecent practice does not make it less indecent. Chattel slavery was and is an abomination, no matter how many 19th-century Americans (or 20th-century Sudanese) thought otherwise. Suttee -- the Hindu custom of cremating a deceased man together with his living widow -- was evil, no matter how many Hindus believed it honorable. Apartheid was immoral, no matter how many South Africans approved of it.
....

All through the centuries of American slavery, there were men and women who cried out against it. There were always voices raised against suttee. Apartheid was condemned the world over.

And likewise every other wrongful societal practice. Europeans abused Indians in the New World? Bartolome de Las Casas, who sailed with Columbus, spent his last 50 years denouncing "the robbery, evil, and injustice" done by European colonists. Women were denied political rights? In 1777, Abigail Adams begged, "Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of husbands." From child sacrifice to anti-Semitism, from selling indulgences to selling women, there have always been moral teachers and people of conscience who refused to keep silent.

[Alkaloid]

I see. So treating all races equally is morally wrong because there have always been people who have argued against that? Interesting.

[General Zod]

That doesn't sound like a very strong argument in favor of moral absolutes, sounds more like rationalization in hindsight. Let's try a simple logic path:

"Killing is wrong."

"What if it was self defense?"

"Pre-meditated killing for anything but self defense is wrong."

"What if a wife was trying to escape an abusive husband? Mitigating circumstances."

"Well let's call it justifiable homicide. Maybe she doesn't deserve to get punished for it."

See where I'm going?

[Simon_Jester]

See, amigo's response doesn't present me with any problems; I already knew I was a moral absolutist.

And Zod, if you had a set of absolute moral rules that would work in all situations, who says they'd be simple? There's an infinite number of things people can do. Most of them aren't quantifiable, so we can't just assign a number and say "whenever the Justice Balance Score of an action is more than six, it's right to do it."

Suppose you knew a set of perfect rules. And you write the rules in terms of a phrase. "Killing is wrong except in defense and there are mitigating circumstances blah blah blah... [three thousand words of details]" might really be how it looks.

Did anyone ever promise you that the truth would be simple?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

In order for you to make the above statements you must assume the following should not be moral values adopted universally:
1.) All individuals regardless of sex or sexual orientation should be treated equally.
2.) Same-sex relationships are intrinsically identical to opposite-sex relationships, which are all deserving of the same respect and dignity in identical situations.



Failing to adopt either of those two values either makes you a prejudiced fuck or an ignorant idiot (or both). Are you arguing that it's morally acceptable for some people to not adopt either of those values?

I will quote Jeff Jacoby about the criteria of whether a moral value should be adopted universally

If something is morally wrong, it is morally wrong always. That a society may tolerate -- or embrace -- an indecent practice does not make it less indecent. Chattel slavery was and is an abomination, no matter how many 19th-century Americans (or 20th-century Sudanese) thought otherwise. Suttee -- the Hindu custom of cremating a deceased man together with his living widow -- was evil, no matter how many Hindus believed it honorable. Apartheid was immoral, no matter how many South Africans approved of it.
....

All through the centuries of American slavery, there were men and women who cried out against it. There were always voices raised against suttee. Apartheid was condemned the world over.

And likewise every other wrongful societal practice. Europeans abused Indians in the New World? Bartolome de Las Casas, who sailed with Columbus, spent his last 50 years denouncing "the robbery, evil, and injustice" done by European colonists. Women were denied political rights? In 1777, Abigail Adams begged, "Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of husbands." From child sacrifice to anti-Semitism, from selling indulgences to selling women, there have always been moral teachers and people of conscience who refused to keep silent.

First of all, you did not answer my question. Are you or are you not arguing that it's morally acceptable for some people to not treat LGBT individuals and their relationships with the same level of respect and dignity as straight individuals and their relationships?

Secondly, if you're trying to argue for a specific condition for which we consider something to be a moral absolute, then your argument is both a non-sequitur and is a very useless (not to mention unfalsifiable) method of determining morality. How does it logically follow that if there is historical sentiment for a moral value then it must be true? If there have been "moral teachers" or "people of conscience" who have historically spoken against racial equality, does that make racism just? How can you account for a seemingly endless list of moral values that could be considered absolute including contradictory ones since there have usually been at least one person arguing for it?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

See, amigo's response doesn't present me with any problems; I already knew I was a moral absolutist.

It's not the moral absolutism that is in question here. It's the method in which is being used to determine which values are absolute and which are not. And amigo didn't answer my frakking question.

[General Zod]

See, amigo's response doesn't present me with any problems; I already knew I was a moral absolutist.

And Zod, if you had a set of absolute moral rules that would work in all situations, who says they'd be simple? There's an infinite number of things people can do. Most of them aren't quantifiable, so we can't just assign a number and say "whenever the Justice Balance Score of an action is more than six, it's right to do it."

Suppose you knew a set of perfect rules. And you write the rules in terms of a phrase. "Killing is wrong except in defense and there are mitigating circumstances blah blah blah... [three thousand words of details]" might really be how it looks.

Did anyone ever promise you that the truth would be simple?

That's not really what I'm getting at. If your morals are absolute, then there's no room for exceptions. If there are situations where your commandments don't necessarily apply, then how can you call it absolute?

[Simon_Jester]

That's not really what I'm getting at. If your morals are absolute, then there's no room for exceptions. If there are situations where your commandments don't necessarily apply, then how can you call it absolute?

A complete representation of a good absolute moral law might be really complicated- less like the Ten Commandments and more like some massive contract law.

Now, you might be able to take that absolute set of rules that works every time even when something weird happens, and distill it down. And you'd get a nice simple set of rules that works like 95% of the time. But you'd be doing that by pruning out the complexity that lets you cover the special cases. So you'd end up with something easy to understand, but that doesn't work 100% of the time. And you'd have to fill in the gaps with ideas like "moral sense" and "spirit of the law" and "mercy and prudence."

It's like physics. Newtonian mechanics is simple, works for almost all problems in everyday life, is a gross oversimplification of reality. Relativity and quantum mechanics are right- but magnificently complex, so much so that most people don't even try to understand them.

The real physicists swap effortlessly between the two models, using Newton where they can and Einstein and Schroedinger where they can't. If one is educated, one knows where to use each set of rules, which cases are borderline. And when analogies to simplistic classical situations will work (making them powerful tools) and when they won't (making them useless.

Why shouldn't ethics be like that, with a simple usually-right version and a complicated always-right version? The complicated version is still "absolute," but it may well be beyond easy understanding- even beyond human understanding altogether, I don't rule that out, we might need a smarter brain than evolution gave us to work the problem correctly. The simple version doesn't always give the right answer if it's followed in a simple way- because it's "true" only for a given value of "true," much like Newtonian physics.

[General Zod]

That's not really what I'm getting at. If your morals are absolute, then there's no room for exceptions. If there are situations where your commandments don't necessarily apply, then how can you call it absolute?

A complete representation of a good absolute moral law might be really complicated- less like the Ten Commandments and more like some massive contract law.

Now, you might be able to take that absolute set of rules that works every time even when something weird happens, and distill it down. And you'd get a nice simple set of rules that works like 95% of the time. But you'd be doing that by pruning out the complexity that lets you cover the special cases. So you'd end up with something easy to understand, but that doesn't work 100% of the time. And you'd have to fill in the gaps with ideas like "moral sense" and "spirit of the law" and "mercy and prudence."

It's like physics. Newtonian mechanics is simple, works for almost all problems in everyday life, is a gross oversimplification of reality. Relativity and quantum mechanics are right- but magnificently complex, so much so that most people don't even try to understand them.

The real physicists swap effortlessly between the two models, using Newton where they can and Einstein and Schroedinger where they can't. If one is educated, one knows where to use each set of rules, which cases are borderline. And when analogies to simplistic classical situations will work (making them powerful tools) and when they won't (making them useless.

Why shouldn't ethics be like that, with a simple usually-right version and a complicated always-right version? The complicated version is still "absolute," but it may well be beyond easy understanding- even beyond human understanding altogether, I don't rule that out, we might need a smarter brain than evolution gave us to work the problem correctly. The simple version doesn't always give the right answer if it's followed in a simple way- because it's "true" only for a given value of "true," much like Newtonian physics.

Then isn't it misleading to call it absolute?