Love is love

[Risto the Great]

The nut busted ages ago. LoL

[Vangelovski]

I bet everyone is busting a nut waiting to hear what I think

[Redsun]

I'm only interested in the voting process.

Does anyone else think it was conducted on unfair grounds?

I think a portion of the "yes" voters didn't actually make a decision, so forget morality values and religion. How many young men had been manipulated into voting "yes" regardless of how they felt, a form of emotional trickery was used to manipulate the voters. "Yes" advocates engaged conversation with straight couples, friends and family instead of talking about "marriage" and "rights" they questioned the love between existing couples. How inconsiderate and rude to question a couples love or to even try to compare it with another or theirs, what a disgusting tactic.

This seems to be a common form of the question: "Two people that love each other should have the right to get married, don't you think?" How many young men had to agree because they were with their partners at the time this question was sprung on them, many young men don't know how to say otherwise because they didn't even consider or think of the word "right" they heard the word "love" and are more concerned of the repercussions that may happen when their love is brought into question.

The "yes" voters have a had years and years of preparation and practice pushing their agenda. When did the "no" voters become aware that they were "no" voters. People that have voted "no" have never campaigned or fought like the opposition had. I don't think its fair to question the "no" campaigners statements, most of them are frightened parents and are laughed at as unprogressive. They have been victimized as people that oppose human rights when it was the law this whole time that had prevented gay marriage.

This vote has divided the people, there have always been homophobes and yes some people didn't like the thought of gay marriage. But there was no opposition because no one thought about gay marriage or even considered gay marriage to be serious or to even actually come to vote.


I believe homosexual and lesbian couples should have the right to marry, yet I voted "no".

This was forced upon me, I don't have a full understanding on adoption laws. I could not make an educated decision at the time.

I do not oppose or support gays and lesbians adopting. The discrimination will not stop and I think this may have a different outcome then what they had hoped for, they cannot produce children so they must adopt and if they brought children from their previous relationship they will face the same discrimination.

They had experienced being discriminated when perhaps at time of high school. But there children will receive some form of it before they have even reached high school.

How many parents will allow their children to visit the child's friends place that has two gay fathers. Regardless if they are homosexuals, they are parents so you expect them to be responsible and keep homosexual paraphernalia away out of eyesight, and they will yet that wont stop you fearing over the thought of their behavior towards one another cuddling, contact, affectious giggles, ass grabbing and other subtleties. The fear that that child after seeing his parents kissing many times, may kiss your child. Birthday parties and after school the kids social circle at school would be something. There are people that would warn their children not to associate with "that boy".

The poor child will feel the discrimination without being gay, and the gay parents will relive it through them.

[tchaiku]

That's just your opinion and I must assume you would expect more jurisdictions will accept homosexual couples as parents for an adopted child. My opinion is different and at the risk of repeating myself, I still believe that (all things being equal) a child is better off with a man and woman as parents. Notwithstanding this, Elton John can adopt me if he wants.

Well it is still better than to be homeless.

[Starling]

There are many theories as to why Pausanias assassinated Filip but yes one of them is that because he was jealous of Filip's marriage to Cleopatra, a marriage supposedly out of love which would of ended Filip's relationship with Pausanias, causing Pausanias to murder the king out of loss.

I'm not entirely clear on how new marriages affect the previous ones or the status of lovers. In the middle ages it was pretty typical for kings to have concubines they might marry like king Henry "I'm so desperate to escape accountability for my inability to have a male heir I invented divorce" VIII, but those were monogamous marriages, while I'm pretty sure none of Philip's marriages were annulled since that wasn't really a thing at the time. The falling out between Alexander and Philip was because someone called into question the legitimacy of his status as heir and Olympias felt slighted but I'm not quite sure how many half-brothers and it's likely Philip still would've died before any children from that marriage were old enough to challenge his claim to the throne.

Alexander married both Roxana and Darius's daughter Stateira II 3 years apart, though apparently Roxana killed Stateira after Alexander's death so even without any restrictions on informal relationships beyond the legitimacy of any resulting children the main issue is that it would be more logical to kill the rival lover than the person they're in love with/married to, so Pausanias is more likely to have been jealous of Philip over Cleopatra. Doesn't necessarily mean Philip didn't have a male lover though.

My general impression is that it was probably political rather than a lover's spat. From what I've read of the political situation pre-Philip and post-Alexander, it would've been pretty typical of the political situation of the time.

Actually, it is not a basic right at all. You might want it to be . And I am sure it makes you feel good thinking about it as a basic human right. But it isn't. Here is article 16 from the United Nations universal declaration of human rights:

Article 16: Right to marriage and family
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Ethnic Albanians in Macedonia are a minority who are seeking to enforce their perspective on the majority of the State. I find it similar and I am sure they believe they have rights being violated.

That's false equivalence.

The Albanian situation is colonialism. Same sex marriage is an attempt to seek the same legal rights pertaining to the management of property, visitation and other matters concerning next of kin and partners, which only really affects their lives specifically. Why should the opinion of someone completely unaffected by someone else's ability to manage their combined property and finances the same way you do in your marriage deny them the same security you have a right to? You don't even need to visit a church to marry. You can just go sign the paperwork for the legal aspect and that's it, you're married. Otherwise atheists wouldn't be able to marry either now would they.

Article 16 doesn't actually specify men and women with eachother but rather men and women receiving those rights. In fact the mention of being free of religious discrimination is most relevant to same sex couples. It could use an update to make it less ambiguous but you can't really argue it excludes same sex couples in this phrasing. And even if it did it wouldn't be the first time a marginalized group was denied basic human rights afforded to others.

[Risto the Great]

The only relevant point I can see regarding SSM and existing child adoption is that the parental bond/status will be strengthened to the benefit of the child.

That's just your opinion and I must assume you would expect more jurisdictions will accept homosexual couples as parents for an adopted child. My opinion is different and at the risk of repeating myself, I still believe that (all things being equal) a child is better off with a man and woman as parents. Notwithstanding this, Elton John can adopt me if he wants.

Hypothetically speaking, if the proposed Bill is to your liking, would you support SSM?

The current Bill is not to my liking. But I would embrace civil unions under different legislation.

No I don't agree. Awarding Albanians rights such as equal language status has direct, immediate consequences on the Macedonian State. Allowing same-sex couples to marry is a basic right that has no impact on your life. Gays are not going to take over the country and declare independence.

Actually, it is not a basic right at all. You might want it to be . And I am sure it makes you feel good thinking about it as a basic human right. But it isn't. Here is article 16 from the United Nations universal declaration of human rights:

Article 16: Right to marriage and family
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Ethnic Albanians in Macedonia are a minority who are seeking to enforce their perspective on the majority of the State. I find it similar and I am sure they believe they have rights being violated.

SSM allows two people that love each other to marry, end of story. It's a benefit that has no impact on your life, unless you personally know a gay person. Age of consent does not have such immediate benefits, nor is it even in the same sphere of debate as SSM.

I don't even know why you are using "SSM" as a descriptor. I am not sure if homosexual marriage is what we are talking about either. The law proposes genderless definitions. No reference to men or women so as not to violate the rights of "non-binaries" I imagine.

It might impact my life. I guess we will see. But, like the ethnic Albanians having their language in Macedonia, I can't see things ever going back.

One of my employees just told me her 12 year old daughter has a schoolmate in class who recently declared he is bisexual. That's cool how he knows it all already.

[Liberator of Makedonija]

Interesting. It hadn't occurred to me that could've been a motive to his assassination. It's been said he married his last wife Cleopatra out of love, given it was a major faux-pas that created a rift between him and Olympias and Alexander he was starting to mend. His assassin apparently had getaway horses so other people were involved.

As for Alexander, it was said his marriage with Roxana was out of love and he definitely had something with Hephaestion as well. He compared their relationship to Achilles and Patroclus, who are also considered to have been lovers. They were also likened to two men of one soul and people accused him of being 'led around by Hephaestion's thighs', which seemed to be phrased more like a complaint of favouritism than about them having a sexual relationship.

Given polygamous marriages were also common, later historians hid those details and wrote Alexander's love life in the manner of the typical renaissance Englishman for a time. The main reason people don't hear about homosexuality among historical figures is because a lot of people put a lot of effort into hiding that information. Christianity isn't inherently against same sex relationships. That was the result of later clergy inserting their views into it. Pretty much every major religion has some variation of "Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself". I figure most people wouldn't enjoy being forbidden from marrying their spouses for such an arbitrary and discriminatory reasons, so don't subject others to that.

There are many theories as to why Pausanias assassinated Filip but yes one of them is that because he was jealous of Filip's marriage to Cleopatra, a marriage supposedly out of love which would of ended Filip's relationship with Pausanias, causing Pausanias to murder the king out of loss.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

You don't believe any new legislation will add to this? You say "most". Would it be "less" jurisdictions soon enough?

The only relevant point I can see regarding SSM and existing child adoption is that the parental bond/status will be strengthened to the benefit of the child.

I was referring to people supporting homosexuals. They believe they are progressive nowadays and forward looking.

Some might have that attitude, but there's nothing wrong in supporting equal rights. To assume that people are advocating for SSM because it's 'cool' is a massive assumption.

OK. So the vote was useless then and the devil will be in the detail.

Here is the bill

https://www.scribd.com/document/355646076/Marriage-Amendment-Definition-and-Religious-Freedoms-Bill-2017

Here are some issues specifically in relation to the proposed bill as it drafted now:

The vote was a waste of time and money. Public sentiment was already evident. As for the bill you posted, like I said, I agree that the church should have a choice whether to perform SSM or not. What I don't agree with is the last point. If we head down that path it's no different to a cake maker refusing to bake a cake for someone of another religion. Such a provision would be too extreme and essentially institutionalise discrimination into everyday business activities.

I am glad you remember it. As mentioned earlier, with the right level of detail I may have voted YES. But I do like detail and I cannot accept how a vague affirmation becomes a green light for dramatic social upheaval in a functioning society.

That's just the nature of a referendum-style system. The campaigns were designed to fill in these details, yet unfortunately it became a platform for scare mongering. Hypothetically speaking, if the proposed Bill is to your liking, would you support SSM?

In fact, it is much more like ethnic Albanian rights in Macedonia. Wouldn't you agree?

Would you accept the result of a vote about the age of consentual sex being 13 in France? They are progressive and forward looking in France!
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireSto...nsent-51146035

No I don't agree. Awarding Albanians rights such as equal language status has direct, immediate consequences on the Macedonian State. Allowing same-sex couples to marry is a basic right that has no impact on your life. Gays are not going to take over the country and declare independence.

Just because I support SSM, it doesn't mean I support every 'social change.' I believe the age of consent of 16 (as it is here) is sufficient. I highly doubt the overwhelming majority of French citizens support an age of consent of 13. How is this relevant though? SSM allows two people that love each other to marry, end of story. It's a benefit that has no impact on your life, unless you personally know a gay person. Age of consent does not have such immediate benefits, nor is it even in the same sphere of debate as SSM.

Pelagonija has already brought up the typical pedophilia 'argument' against SSM and homosexuality (it only took 4 short pages). If that's where this discussion is heading, then I won't be participating.

[Starling]

For the love god I do not see you as a baby maker.. how dare you make such an ill informed comment..keep your warped views on life and leave the children alone.. let them grow up normal without being subjected to gay propaganda..

Typical leftist attitude, anyone that does confirm to your warped views is branded a simple deplorable.. the only red flag is your hatred of anything normal.

What next? peodophiles deserve equality too?

Pot and Kettle. You misunderstood. The mention of people regarding women as baby makers was in relation to where the "nice guy" comments tend to crop up and quite frankly, you clearly don't think of women regardless, the same way your claims of not hating gay people are entirely meaningless in the wake of what you've said against them.

And then you equate taking offense to sexist comments as irrational anger rather than an entirely reasonable response to your thoughts on women.

That's a fallacious statement.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

Mate I ain't back peddling and why is it relevant wether I hate gays or not? Does it bother you?? My argument is that ssm, safe schools and the constant propaganda will have consequences hence will further damage society.. Traditional family is the building blocks of a successful society, look at our grandfathers/parents they had morals, christian values, strong work ethic and they fought bloody hard to bring food on the table and fight for our independence. We must have standards.

Hate fuels irrationality. If your arguments are based on an underlying motive of hate, then I don't really have time for you.

I like tradition too, but I'm not religious. I don't really want this discussion to divert into an argument on morals and religion; that's been done to death in other threads on this forum. It's true, our grandparents in particular had an extremely good work ethic and family values. But in general, their views and beliefs are largely incompatible with the realities of the modern world. In their generation women stay home to cook/clean, people get married before 20, you marry a Macedonian Christian, divorce doesn't exist, you go to church every week, and the list goes on. Today, upholding these traditions are not practical nor realistic. And despite their intentions being good, some of these values are inherently sexist and racist.

If you want to go and build a traditional family, go for it. Nobody is stopping you. Just like a same-sex couple has no impact on your life.

You're accusing others here of being 'sheep' in a progressive society. What do you think being a blind follower of the church is then mate? If I'm a sheep then so are you. The moment we let the church decide what is 'right' and 'wrong' for us is the moment we lose our independent moral compass.

FYI Mate don't let the the system/uni buddies emasculate you..we are not all equal, straight women don't like soft nice guys deep down no matter how nice you are.. Deep down they want the alpha male.. strong, manly and dominant. They want the male that's going to produce offspring and support the family. Even the ones married to 'nice' men

Macedonia is the extension of our family, if we are not strong then we will die away and replaced by another culture.. what's the purpose of this forum and our interest in anything Macedonian?

For what it's worth, if anything Uni has moved me more to the centre. I don't associate, nor agree with the antics of some of the 'socialist' groups on campus. These are my own beliefs.

Haha we aren't living in the jungles anymore mate. If you think women are that shallow in what they want then you have no idea. I hope for your sake your wife (assuming you have one) likes you for more than being an 'alpha male.' Does hating on gays or Muslims make you feel masculine?

[Pelagonija]

As a woman I assure one of the quickest ways to find yourself dateless is to tell a woman about that whole "alpha male" nonsense. That's a massive red flag right there. Also women generally don't much care for men explaining to them who they do and don't like. The way you use the "nice guy" bit is another point against you, as it's pretty typical of someone who feels entitled to a woman's affections and only sees us as baby makers. Way to add sexism to the conversation.

Your entire argument is based on discriminating against same sex relationships under the flimsy basis of "having standards" and "christian values". Homophobia has no place in such communities and rural, hard working societies are perfectly capable of going on without it. Those same arguments have also been used to advocate for slavery, racism and antisemitism and they were wrong every one of those times. That you clearly don't think gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else is entirely relevant.

For the love god I do not see you as a baby maker.. how dare you make such an ill informed comment..keep your warped views on life and leave the children alone.. let them grow up normal without being subjected to gay propaganda..

Typical leftist attitude, anyone that does confirm to your warped views is branded a simple deplorable.. the only red flag is your hatred of anything normal.

What next? peodophiles deserve equality too?

[Starling]

Mate I ain't back peddling and why is it relevant wether I hate gays or not? Does it bother you?? My argument is that ssm, safe schools and the constant propaganda will have consequences hence will further damage society.. Traditional family is the building blocks of a successful society, look at our grandfathers/parents they had morals, christian values, strong work ethic and they fought bloody hard to bring food on the table and fight for our independence. We must have standards.

FYI Mate don't let the the system/uni buddies emasculate you..we are not all equal, straight women don't like soft nice guys deep down no matter how nice you are.. Deep down they want the alpha male.. strong, manly and dominant. They want the male that's going to produce offspring and support the family. Even the ones married to 'nice' men

Macedonia is the extension of our family, if we are not strong then we will die away and replaced by another culture.. what's the purpose of this forum and our interest in anything Macedonian?

As a woman I assure one of the quickest ways to find yourself dateless is to tell a woman about that whole "alpha male" nonsense. That's a massive red flag right there. Also women generally don't much care for men explaining to them who they do and don't like. The way you use the "nice guy" bit is another point against you, as it's pretty typical of someone who feels entitled to a woman's affections and only sees us as baby makers. Way to add sexism to the conversation.

Your entire argument is based on discriminating against same sex relationships under the flimsy basis of "having standards" and "christian values". Homophobia has no place in such communities and rural, hard working societies are perfectly capable of going on without it. Those same arguments have also been used to advocate for slavery, racism and antisemitism and they were wrong every one of those times. That you clearly don't think gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else is entirely relevant.

[Risto the Great]

Again, adoption by same-sex couples is already permitted in most Australian jurisdictions. Today's results had/will have no impact on this.

You don't believe any new legislation will add to this? You say "most". Would it be "less" jurisdictions soon enough?

So people choose to be homosexual because it's 'cool'? So I guess the overwhelming representation of LGBTI people in suicide statistics is a part of this 'cool' trend too? Why is supporting a framework of acceptance and equality for these people a bad thing?

I was referring to people supporting homosexuals. They believe they are progressive nowadays and forward looking.

Because the vote wasn't about those consequential issues. If you frame it in the negative, this mindframe basically rejects ones' rights on the unsubstantiated presumption that maybe this will happen, or maybe that will happen. That is simply not fair. If debate on fundamental rights is continually stifled based on downstream, disconnected 'what ifs,' then it is likely we'd still live in an age where slavery is accepted, women cannot vote and Indigenous people have no rights.

Furthermore, from a purely procedural point of view, history shows that public votes/referendums will be unlikely to address the question in contention if it is worded in such a way, or bogged down to such an extent that the reasonable voter is unsure what it is asking. To this extent, they will opt for the status-quo, and the true public perception will not reflect the voting results. Here the question was simple, should same sex couples be allowed to marry. Yes or No. No 'ifs' or 'buts' or 'what about safe schools'...the question is on marriage equality.

OK. So the vote was useless then and the devil will be in the detail.

Here is the bill

https://www.scribd.com/document/355646076/Marriage-Amendment-Definition-and-Religious-Freedoms-Bill-2017

Here are some issues specifically in relation to the proposed bill as it drafted now:

• whether religious celebrants will be required to solemnise same sex marriages;
• whether other celebrants, not formally associated with a religious group, will be so required;
• whether religious groups will be required to host same sex weddings on their premises;
• whether public servants who are employed in registry offices will be allowed to exercise their religious freedom to decline to solemnise such marriages;
• whether small business owners in the “wedding industries” (such as cake makers, florists, photographers, stationary designers, and wedding organisers) will be permitted to decline to use their artistic talents for the celebration of a relationship that God tells them is not in accordance with his purposes for humanity.”

From memory, you weren't too fond of the Macedonian parliament specifically amending the constitution to define marriage as between a 'man and a woman.' I'm not being smart, I'm genuinely interested in your reasons for strongly rejecting the substance of this vote. I'll admit I'm actually surprised, it's not something I thought we'd be in strong disagreement about.

I am glad you remember it. As mentioned earlier, with the right level of detail I may have voted YES. But I do like detail and I cannot accept how a vague affirmation becomes a green light for dramatic social upheaval in a functioning society.

It's relevant in the sense that identity is comprised of more than ethnic origin. It defines who we are. Macedonians have and continue to have their identity and rights denied. Homosexuals have and continue to have their identity and rights denied. Take the context out of each scenario, and both are largely fighting for the same thing, just to different degrees based on where they reside.

In fact, it is much more like ethnic Albanian rights in Macedonia. Wouldn't you agree?

Would you accept the result of a vote about the age of consentual sex being 13 in France? They are progressive and forward looking in France!

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/child-sex-rape-french-set-age-consent-51146035

[Pelagonija]

Back-peddling and saying that you don't hate gays isn't going to make your argument any more credible. You made your 'angle' more than clear from the outset.

Mate I ain't back peddling and why is it relevant wether I hate gays or not? Does it bother you?? My argument is that ssm, safe schools and the constant propaganda will have consequences hence will further damage society.. Traditional family is the building blocks of a successful society, look at our grandfathers/parents they had morals, christian values, strong work ethic and they fought bloody hard to bring food on the table and fight for our independence. We must have standards.

FYI Mate don't let the the system/uni buddies emasculate you..we are not all equal, straight women don't like soft nice guys deep down no matter how nice you are.. Deep down they want the alpha male.. strong, manly and dominant. They want the male that's going to produce offspring and support the family. Even the ones married to 'nice' men

Macedonia is the extension of our family, if we are not strong then we will die away and replaced by another culture.. what's the purpose of this forum and our interest in anything Macedonian?

[Starling]

Bisexuality was common in pre-Christian Europe, the Ancient Macedonians were no acception to this and there have been rumors Aleksander was a homosexual. It is more likely he was bixsexual yes, as was Filip. One of the theories for Filip's assassination was that his assassin was a jealous lover.

Interesting. It hadn't occurred to me that could've been a motive to his assassination. It's been said he married his last wife Cleopatra out of love, given it was a major faux-pas that created a rift between him and Olympias and Alexander he was starting to mend. His assassin apparently had getaway horses so other people were involved.

As for Alexander, it was said his marriage with Roxana was out of love and he definitely had something with Hephaestion as well. He compared their relationship to Achilles and Patroclus, who are also considered to have been lovers. They were also likened to two men of one soul and people accused him of being 'led around by Hephaestion's thighs', which seemed to be phrased more like a complaint of favouritism than about them having a sexual relationship.

Given polygamous marriages were also common, later historians hid those details and wrote Alexander's love life in the manner of the typical renaissance Englishman for a time. The main reason people don't hear about homosexuality among historical figures is because a lot of people put a lot of effort into hiding that information. Christianity isn't inherently against same sex relationships. That was the result of later clergy inserting their views into it. Pretty much every major religion has some variation of "Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself". I figure most people wouldn't enjoy being forbidden from marrying their spouses for such an arbitrary and discriminatory reasons, so don't subject others to that.

Which ad are you referring to?

I generally don't bother remembering names involved for that sort of thing. It's basically the video version of what was written on that petition posted earlier. Here's an Australian news story about it with clips:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE3HM2IV91s&ab_channel=9NewsPerth

Now here's a video simply clarifying the legal purpose of marriage and why same sex couples should have that right:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHLDEcVJj1Q&ab_channel=TheSydneyMorningHerald

The far left is equally as loopy as the far right when one looks at the recent case in Canada where a newborn was officially deemed as "genderless".

People only find that strange because it's not considered the default. That doesn't necessarily hold true for all cultures, the same way there are still parts of the world where exposed breasts are perfectly normal and non-sexualized. I'd recommend reading about the case where a male child was raised as a girl in an attempt to prove that gender could be changed by upbringing. Despite expressing desire to be a boy rather early on, he was forced to conform to feminine gender roles, down to not even being allowed to play with trucks instead of dolls, the same way a lot of boys who want to play with dolls are often discouraged from doing so. He had a terrible childhood and committed suicide after his twin brother died of a drug overdose. A lot of the hardships that kid experienced are what trans people have to deal with their whole lives.

Raising a child without a gender preference until they express one themselves isn't that strange. Boys used to wear dresses most of their childhood, so in a sense they were already raised in that manner before arbitrarily declaring specific things as masculine or feminine, usually making masculine the default and feminine something boys aren't allowed to have. Eyeliner and high heels were once something anyone could wear without being considered effeminate.



I've known a few gay men, bi and lesbian women and a trans man. They're all normal people same as everyone else. You wouldn't even know the difference unless they told you or met their spouse.

Hence why I included the geographic qualifier. Just look at the Middle East, Africa and Chechnya for example. I’d say the plight of homosexuals in some of those countries is akin, if not worse than the deprivation of rights against Macedonian minority groups in select SE-European States. Macedonians in the past were beaten, killed and discriminated against for simply standing up and embracing their identity. The same is true here for gays in a number of countries.

And additionally people can be both. What happens to the Macedonian gay men and women who struggle to find a place where both their ethnic identity and sexual orientation are accepted? Black gay people in the US experience discrimination for both their ethnicity and sexuality, so it's already a known problem to an extent.