katsaris: "Where is THEIR vote?" (Default)
I've discovered the perfect predictor for the knock-out stage of the FIFA world cup.

A>B>C with:
Group A supports same-sex marriage.
Group B offers civil unions, registered partnerships or some other kind of recognition to same-sex couples.
Group C offers no recognition to same-sex couples at all, atleast not on a national level.

GROUP A: Netherlands, Spain, Portugal
GROUP B: Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, England
GROUP C: South Korea, United States, Ghana, Slovakia, Chile, Paraguay, Japan

A defeats B or C: (Netherlands-Brazil, Netherlands-Uruguay, Spain-Germany, Netherlands-Slovakia, Spain-Paraguay)
B defeats C: (Uruguay-S.Korea, Brazil-Chile, Argentina-Mexico, Uruguay-Ghana)

When (A) faces (A) or (B) faces (B), earliest recognition means victory.

So Spain (SSM since 2005) defeated Portugal (SSM since 2010) and Germany (registered partnerships since 2001) defeated England (civil partnerships since 2005) and Argentina (unregistered cohabitation since 2008)


This gives us the world cup winner: Netherland (SSM since 2001) rather than Spain (SSM since 2005).

It also proves beyond a doubt that the God of Soccer supports same-sex marriage.
katsaris: EU map with reddish sea, and lyrics "it is the music of a people who will not be slaves again" (European Union)
Two important decisions tomorrow: First, the Czech Supreme Court has to decide whether the Treaty of Lisbon is consistent with their constitution. If their decision is negative, I'm guessing the European project will be stalled for a decade or so -- both in its enlargement and in its integration (widening and deepening).

The second is the referendum on the state of Maine in the United States regarding same-sex marriage. It has the best chances of affirming SSM from any of the referendums that have taken place so far -- and it'll be a first for the USA if the people of Maine so maintain SSM.

Here's hoping.
katsaris: "Where is THEIR vote?" (Politics)
A friend of mine, [livejournal.com profile] skaly recently said in his livejournal: "..if "marriage" is such a holy institution, then make up a word that encompasses everything that marriage encompasses, but make it a gay thing. If you call it something else, you'll fool all the idiotic rednecks and religious wackos that they've won, that the sanctity of marriage has been preserved. Give the gays what they want, just call it something different. Again, this is an ideological problem. People are looking at marriage as some kind of ideal, some abstract and meaningful symbol. Look instead at the physical--the real--aspects of marriage and give the gay people what they want. If the symbol of marriage is so holy, then don't call it marriage. Call it a "partnership" or whatever. A "merger." A "union." I don't care. It's just a name."

I disagree. If "marriage" is such a holy institutions, that's all the *more* reason for gay people to want to have the right to it. "Give the gays what they want, just call it something different" is not the solution, because it's also the *name* of marriage that is desired. Civil unions are better than nothing but *neither side* considers civil union an acceptable solution, because both sides tend to see what the real issue is. The real issue is acceptance of homosexuality by society. And same-sex marriage goes hand in hand with that. And *names* are important about that.

Read more... )

Anyway, that was just a minor ramble.


katsaris: "Where is THEIR vote?" (Default)
Aris Katsaris

July 2011

17181920 212223


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags