# Croatian thoughts...



## Schrody (May 12, 2015)

*WARNING*: Adult content

Don't know what's your opinion on this one, but let's not debate about it. Well mannered discussion is welcomed! 

So, today I read an article about how Croatia have taken a high 5th (hey, it's pretty high in this one!) place when it comes to gay rights. Top five countries are UK (86%), Belgium (83%), Malta (77%), Sweden (72%), and Croatia (71%). Some parameters for calculating the percentage were equality and non-discrimination, family, hate crime, respect of one's body integrity recognized by the law, freedom of gathering and expressing, and asylum. 

Worst countries for that matter are Azerbaijan (5%), Russia (8%), Armenia (9%), Ukraine (10%), and Monaco (11%). 

Croatia still has its Balkans mentality, and you might get your ass kicked just because you're from other town (but I think a**holes don't have a nationality), so I'd say this is a huge improvement. I'm very proud of my country and hope we'll all learn to love our differences.


----------



## dither (May 12, 2015)

Take as you find imo.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (May 12, 2015)

The US has slowly evolved when it comes to gay rights. Maryland is now one of somewhere around 15 to 20 states that now recognizes gay marriage. Twenty years ago Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act to prevent that very thing so we have definitely changed our attitudes on the issue.


----------



## Schrody (May 12, 2015)

mrmustard615 said:


> The US has slowly evolved when it comes to gay rights. Maryland is now one of somewhere around 15 to 20 states that now recognizes gay marriage. Twenty years ago Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act to prevent that very thing so we have definitely changed our attitudes on the issue.



Well, I know California is very liberal about gay rights


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (May 12, 2015)

Maryland is a very good example on how gay rights have evolved, well, gay marriage anyway. Ten years ago the best gays could have hoped for was civil unions. Five years later, we became the first state to support gay marriage in a referendum, followed by Washington State and Maine. 

More recently a court in Alabama, a very conservative state, made a ruling ordering the state to recognize gay marriages. Like I said, things are evolving.


----------



## Blade (May 12, 2015)

Congratulations on that.:applouse: I must say I found it a surprising top 5 aside from Sweden. Things are evolving but in rather erratic leaps and often in surprising places. I would have thought that Alabama would come on board sometime near the end of the century.:-k


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (May 12, 2015)

Blade said:


> Congratulations on that.:applouse: I must say I found it a surprising top 5 aside from Sweden. Things are evolving but in rather erratic leaps and often in surprising places. I would have thought that Alabama would come on board sometime near the end of the century.:-k




Well it was a state court decision. I don't think the politicians there are crazy about it.


----------



## Schrody (May 12, 2015)

mrmustard615 said:


> Maryland is a very good example on how gay rights have evolved, well, gay marriage anyway. Ten years ago the best gays could have hoped for was civil unions. Five years later, we became the first state to support gay marriage in a referendum, followed by Washington State and Maine.
> 
> More recently a court in Alabama, a very conservative state, made a ruling ordering the state to recognize gay marriages. Like I said, things are evolving.



Wow, good for Maryland  I would never expect that from Alabama 



Blade said:


> Congratulations on that.:applouse: I must say I found it a surprising top 5 aside from Sweden. Things are evolving but in rather erratic leaps and often in surprising places. I would have thought that Alabama would come on board sometime near the end of the century.:-k



Yep, we're also surprised. Malta was a surprise too considering they allowed divorces in 2011 (!).


----------



## Blade (May 12, 2015)

mrmustard615 said:


> Well it was a state court decision. I don't think the politicians there are crazy about it.



That would explain it certainly. I don't imagine the general population would be too pleased either.:blue:

Legally it may be a sort of pre-emptive strike figuring that the US Supreme Court would over rule illegality eventually so they could save themselves a lot of time and energy on a lost cause.

As per the top 5 list I should have expected Belgium on it as well. I guess it is one of those places I just don't seem to notice. :scratch: 

I would have expected the Netherlands and Denmark to be on the list though.:thumbl:



			
				Schrody said:
			
		

> Yep, we're also surprised. Malta was a surprise too considering they allowed divorces in 2011 (!).



Was that a court (rather than social) decision as well?


----------



## Guy Faukes (May 12, 2015)

Schrody said:


> Don't know what's your opinion on this one, but let's not debate about it. Well mannered discussion is welcomed!



We don't use the "D" word here at WF.

No, the other "D" word... no, no, the _other _one... no, that one's... never mind...


----------



## bazz cargo (May 12, 2015)

^ Sorry Guy, don't get the joke.

Considering the nasty war, the pre-wall coming down oppression, Croatia has come a hell of a long way in a remarkable short amount of time. You are right to be proud.


----------



## Guy Faukes (May 12, 2015)

bazz cargo said:


> ^ Sorry Guy, don't get the joke.
> 
> Considering the nasty war, the pre-wall coming down oppression, Croatia has come a hell of a long way in a remarkable short amount of time. You are right to be proud.



It's supposed to be the generic post of someone whose  against homosexuality whenever there's progression in gay rights. Might be a bit too dry, though. I'm afraid "discussing" controversial topics online on other venues has made me somewhat jaded on these topics.

But in all seriousness, well done, Croatia! No one should care who you're bedding, as long as your bedding someone (consensually and above legal age).


----------



## Sonata (May 13, 2015)

Guy Faukes said:


> It's supposed to be the generic post of someone whose  against homosexuality whenever there's progression in gay rights. Might be a bit too dry, though. I'm afraid "discussing" controversial topics online on other venues has made me somewhat jaded on these topics.
> 
> But in all seriousness, well done, Croatia! No one should care who you're bedding, as long as your bedding someone (consensually and above legal age).



And in privacy, of course.


----------



## Kevin (May 13, 2015)

Someday it will be a complete non-issue, or... we'll go back to fundamentalism. I miss the Witch-hunts.


----------



## Schrody (May 13, 2015)

Blade said:


> Was that a court (rather than social) decision as well?



Malta's decision to allow divorce? Think so. If referring to Croatia, yeah, they brought the law allowing gays to marry (but not in church, I can't imagine a priest marrying a same sex couple, at least not Catholic) and have (almost all) rights as married and civil unions couples 



bazz cargo said:


> ^ Sorry Guy, don't get the joke.
> 
> Considering the nasty war, the pre-wall coming down oppression, Croatia has come a hell of a long way in a remarkable short amount of time. You are right to be proud.



And corruption... no matter how bad it is at the times, it could always be worse


----------



## escorial (May 13, 2015)

if my son or daughter were either way..wouldn't bother me...5th is good i guess


----------



## bazz cargo (May 13, 2015)

Yay! Esc, good to see ya buddy.


----------



## Schrody (May 14, 2015)

Hey Esc, where you've been?  

I would love my children the same if they announced they're gay


----------



## Raleigh (May 28, 2015)

I know people have a right to their opinion, but I do not think this should be how it is done if you can understand what I am trying to say. I mean, who gives people the right to judge or vote if not gay marriage should be legal or not? Love is love, is there a law that only a guy can marry a girl? No, so why should there be a law?


----------



## dale (May 28, 2015)

Schrody said:


> Well, I know California is very liberal about gay rights



california's a big state. parts of the state are extremely liberal, but the fact is, california put gay marriage as a referendum on a ballot
and the majority of californians voted against it. a federal court overturned the people's majority vote to keep gay marriage illegal.


----------



## Sonata (May 28, 2015)

dale said:


> california's a big state. parts of the state are extremely liberal, but the fact is, california put gay marriage as a referendum on a ballot
> and the majority of californians voted against it. a federal court overturned the people's majority vote to keep gay marriage illegal.



Unless my British English is way off the mark, you have stated an incorrect fact.

If the majority of Californians voted against gay marriage, and a federal court overturned the people's majority vote to keep gay marriage illegal, that does not make sense.

The majority voted AGAINST gay marriage so if a federal court overturned the people's majority vote, they could NOT keep gay marriage illegal.

Work it out for yourself.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (May 28, 2015)

Sonata said:


> Unless my British English is way off the mark, you have stated an incorrect fact.
> 
> If the majority of Californians voted against gay marriage, and a federal court overturned the people's majority vote to keep gay marriage illegal, that does not make sense.
> 
> ...



I think he said that. The court overturned a referendum so it is now legal. The people did initially vote against gay marriage there, however.

Having said that, this vote was quite a few years ago and public opinion nationally has been shifting towards accepting gays. I think the vote today would be much different in California.


----------



## Sam (May 28, 2015)

Jesus, I need my eyes tested. I could swear that said 'Croatoan thoughts'. 

Thought you were about to start talking Lost Colony and Roanoke Island, Schrody.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 28, 2015)

Raleigh said:


> I know people have a right to their opinion, but I do not think this should be how it is done if you can understand what I am trying to say. I mean, who gives people the right to judge or vote if not gay marriage should be legal or not? Love is love, is there a law that only a guy can marry a girl? No, so why should there be a law?



There are checks built into our law making systems, I belive that is why you don't actually elect a president in the U.S., but an electoral college who then elect the president. In the Uk it has been the case for some  time that we don't have capital punishment, this is because of the way parliment is elected, a referendum would probably return a majority in favour. The thing we don't have that you do is a written constitution, so I would guess that the judges who stop referenda from causing laws to be enacted are doing so on the basis that they would be unconstitutional. It works wellon the whole, but I fail to understand why three counts and out for petty criminals does not count as 'cruel and unusual', creating such a high prison population certainly seems unusual


----------



## dale (May 28, 2015)

Kevin said:


> Someday it will be a complete non-issue, or... we'll go back to fundamentalism. I miss the Witch-hunts.



so do i. my ex was a pagan witch, for real. she always enjoyed those role play games, though.


----------



## Kevin (May 28, 2015)

So witch is it?  Your want her to dress up in fantasy outfits, or.... you fantasize about burning her? Yeah... me too.  

It's funny the former red states(Schrodster's list),former ultimate pinkos, are so anti-gay. The pendulum swings


----------



## dale (May 28, 2015)

Kevin said:


> So witch is it?  Your want her to dress up in fantasy outfits, or.... you fantasize about burning her? Yeah... me too.
> 
> It's funny the former red states(Schrodster's list),former ultimate pinkos, are so anti-gay. The pendulum swings



lol. you know the problem with threads like these? they're controversial issues which no opposing view can exist. i skate around this crap lately, cuz i know my views on it truly expressed will get the thread locked or me banned. it's not about gays, man. it's about the abstraction of meanings and cultural definitions. things which define order and chaos. but i can't debate it.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 29, 2015)

Nearly fifty years ago I made the accquaintance of an elderly gentleman called Proffessor Reeves, in the ninteen thirties he had developed the theory for something called 'pulse modulation control' which is behind nearly all our modern communications, though they were unable to build an actual model until the development of semi-conductors in the fifties. Prof.  Reeves was a wonderful person  in many ways, and even as an old man joined in the discussions of us youngsters with his tweed suit, bow tie, and cut glass Oxford accent. I can't remember now when homosexuality was legalised in this country, but it was about this time and a subject of discussion. I remember him saying, "I always try to put myself outside the problem and see if I can take the point of view a Martian might take looking at our society. Here we are on an overcrowded, overpopulated earth. If one section of the society wishes to fullfill its sexual desires without reproducing, why on earth should we object?"


----------



## dale (May 29, 2015)

Olly Buckle said:


> Nearly fifty years ago I made the accquaintance of an elderly gentleman called Proffessor Reeves, in the ninteen thirties he had developed the theory for something called 'pulse modulation control' which is behind nearly all our modern communications, though they were unable to build an actual model until the development of semi-conductors in the fifties. Prof.  Reeves was a wonderful person  in many ways, and even as an old man joined in the discussions of us youngsters with his tweed suit, bow tie, and cut glass Oxford accent. I can't remember now when homosexuality was legalised in this country, but it was about this time and a subject of discussion. I remember him saying, "I always try to put myself outside the problem and see if I can take the point of view a Martian might take looking at our society. Here we are on an overcrowded, overpopulated earth. If one section of the society wishes to fullfill its sexual desires without reproducing, why on earth should we object?"



lol. i actually have this same point of view when it comes to both homosexuality and even abortion. i think, "as overpopulated as the earth is, if the genetically inferior have some way of not reproducing themselves, then who am i to tell them no?"


----------



## Sonata (May 29, 2015)

dale said:


> lol. i actually have this same point of view when it comes to both homosexuality and even abortion. i think, "as overpopulated as the earth is, if the genetically inferior have some way of not reproducing themselves, then who am i to tell them no?"



I am not debating, just asking a question.  Who is to decide if a person is genetically inferior so as to not to reproduce themselves?


----------



## Terry D (May 29, 2015)

I know any discussion of gay marriage, or attitudes about homosexuality in general, will always walk a fine line because of the emotions involved. But this discussion will *not* take a turn toward a discussion of anyone's 'genetic inferiority'. I am loath to lock any thread, but I have my keys in hand for this one. Thanks, in advance, for your cooperation.


----------



## Sonata (May 29, 2015)

@ Terry D - I apologise if my question in message #30 was out of order, but I did not understand what the previous poster had meant by his comment.


----------



## Schrody (May 29, 2015)

Sam said:


> Jesus, I need my eyes tested. I could swear that said 'Croatoan thoughts'.
> 
> Thought you were about to start talking Lost Colony and Roanoke Island, Schrody.



No sweat, I often need to re-read things, especially when they sound vulgar and they're not even close to being that way in reality :mrgreen:


----------



## dale (May 29, 2015)

Terry D said:


> I know any discussion of gay marriage, or attitudes about homosexuality in general, will always walk a fine line because of the emotions involved. But this discussion will *not* take a turn toward a discussion of anyone's 'genetic inferiority'. I am loath to lock any thread, but I have my keys in hand for this one. Thanks, in advance, for your cooperation.



yeah. sometimes i have this really bad habit of shit flying out of my mouth (or off my fingertips, for that matter) without realizing how it sounds. it gets me in trouble a lot. i really didn't mean anything hateful by that comment, it was just one of those "open mouth-insert foot" moments. so i'm sorry if that comment offended anyone.


----------

