Thank you ECJ

The rights of same-sex spouses must be recognised by every member of the EU, even if a country’s government has not authorised gay marriage, the European court of justice has been advised.

In what has been hailed as a major step forward for equal rights, Melchior Wathelet, a Belgian advocate general in the Luxembourg court, said gay spouses had standing in countries even where governments were implacably opposed to same-sex marriage.

Opinions given by ECJ advocate generals are non-binding on the court’s judges but are normally followed by the full court. A final decision will be delivered in the coming months.

Wathelet’s opinion was given in the case of a Romanian national, Adrian Coman, who wanted to be able to build a life in Romania with his American husband, Claibourn Robert Hamilton, with whom he had been living for four years in the US before marrying in Brussels in 2010.

Romania prohibits marriage between people of the same sex. It is one of six EU member states, along with Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Latvia, that offer no legal recognition for same-sex relationships.

theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/11/gay-spouses-rights-all-eu-countries-european-court-adviser

Why is gay marriage memed so hard? Gay relationships are inherently worthless.

bout time

It's about equality. Gay rights are human rights.
Agreed.

But gay people have exactly the same rights as straight people already

Can they marry in your country?

Our governments don't recognize same sex marriages and civil unions registered in other EU countries. This is untenable position because it curtails freedom of movement within the EU.

>It's about equality.
But they're not equal things, straight relationships are more important.

Yes, they can marry with opposite sex, just like straight people

To destroy the historical concept of marriage (which was religious, a civil marriage is just paper work) and the nuclear family.

kek

This.

>gaytugal

Northern Ireland is the odd one out in this map.

The historical concept of marriage is political. Inheritance and bloodlines.
Religions are shaped around marriage customs.

How so? Marriage is not necessary for procreation.
And even if they were how would legal gay marriages in any way impact straight ones?

Marital benefits should exist to promote natural nuclear families as it is the most OP combo. The best way to understand the value of relationships is: No straight people->humanity ends, No gay people->less AIDS

Gay marriages don't impact straight ones but they are silly so shouldn't be taken seriously.

Marital benefits exist for whatever purpose a culture puts on them. And since "no straight people" is a occurence that will never happen your fear for such a future should not be taken into consideration in any way.

Since you base your statements on nothing but opinion I suppose the discussion is finished.

>nuclear families
>natural
Nuclear family is anglo-protestant shit and literally existed nowhere in the world before the protestant reformation.

The GAELIC Fine is the superior familial grouping

ofcourse a muslim country (al-Andalus) is against this

Do you think there will be less gay people without them marrying?

>nuclear family
An American invention made by GE, GM and the construction industry to break up extended families post WW2 to make it easier to move labourers around the country.

ok we must all accept refugees and make gay marriage legal
is this really what the eu has turned into?

EU should be much more active in civil rights issues. Eastern Europe needs a bit of nudging in the right direction.

>right

>the historical concept of marriage (which was religious, a civil marriage is just paper work)
Why do Christcucks keep saying this bullshit? Marriage was celebrated even under the Romans and it had very little religion concerned.

« Se potessimo vivere senza donne faremmo volentieri a meno di questa seccatura (ea molestia) ma dato che la natura ha voluto che non potessimo vivere in pace con loro né vivere senza di loro, bisogna guardare alla conservazione della razza piuttosto che ricercare piaceri effimeri.»

Marriage was literally about ensuring that the population kept growing.

there isn't any right or wrong direction. the eu should focus on improving countries economies and make sure there is peace, unless several countries are going to leave the union once they realise the eu is nothing but a tool to push an agenda

>discarding good ideas because of their genesis
that's poor form

even if you go by that, gay marriage doesn't help the population grow. it actually does the opposite

I'm not saying that gay marriage does that, I'm only pointing out that Christians talk about marriage like they were the ones who created it, when they're not.

>good ideas
>>>
>>
>

Besides, you called it "natural"

it doesn't matter who invented what. marriage has been a religious tradition for centuries and are mainly held in churches, so acting like it suddenly has zero to do with religion is just stupid

>it doesn't matter who invented what
It does when you use it as an argument in a secular country. Civil obligations should be independent from their eventual religious counterparts.

my country isn't secular yet the argument is used here

No, but I don't think anybody should be forced to recognise obviously silly things like married lesbians or men LARPing as women.

Natural as in without resorting to memery like adoption, surrogacy, stepparenting etc.
Yes man+woman+children is the ideal scenario, why do you hate it so much?

Go back to the middle east

Excuse me but I am not saying to throw gay people off the roofs.

>Natural as in without resorting to memery like adoption, surrogacy, stepparenting etc.
Families had children before the Anglos invented the wagecuck family

>Yes man+woman+children is the ideal scenario, why do you hate it so much?
I don't hate it, I just recognise the basic superiority of basically any other set up. If you want to live in picrelated and work in toilbergs factory then I suppose the nuclear family is grand

correction, I will concede that single mothers are worse

>for the last 6 months EU has been screeching and kicking about da ebil Polish government breaking Polish constitution
>now EU advices everyone to break the Polish constitution becaause muh bugcatcher feelings

Oh fuck off.

Just as a reminder. Chapter I, Article 18.
www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm

>I just recognise the basic superiority of basically any other set up.
But people who come from other sets up are violent and insane, with identity or attachment issues arising from paternity issues and spousal turnover.

monogamous marriage is literally a greco-roman 'secular' institution that christianity adopted from the pagans

>But people who come from other sets up are violent and insane
every human before capitalism was violent and insane?

People from nuclear families are soulless, rootless, docile, soyboy, narcissist, nihilist last men.

>with identity or attachment issues arising from paternity issues and spousal turnover.

marriage was celebrated since ancient Egypt Giovanni, the world didn't start with Rome.

t. ancient Egypt pro

that's a bit reductive too. a lot of other places (in europe and elsewhere) had basically nuclear family setups. Todd even hypothesized that it was actually a really old system that survived best in the margins of eurasia and in the more middle regions it was replaced by other systems. not sure i exactly buy most things on this topic in general but either way

>People from nuclear families are soulless, rootless, docile, soyboy, narcissist, nihilist last men.
Where do you get your wrong ideas? A strong father and mother is clearly the path to produce righteous men.

Nice reading comprehension. I said "even under the Romans", nowhere did I say that they were the first ones.

hard to tell for sure. for example, single mother outcomes don't seem to be worse compared to mom-and-dad if the single motherhood is the result of paternal death rather than other things. this also ties in with a lot of research that seems to indicate parenting might be a bit overrated in adult outcomes

also a lot of other family structures produced populations that did quite well on their own terms...

>Where do you get your wrong ideas?
Observation

>A strong father and mother is clearly the path to produce righteous men.
A wagecuck father who doesn't even own land is not a "strong father", and a womanlet mother who can't even work in the field is not a strong mother and father. Not to mention the fact that the uncles, aunts, grandparents godparents, friends and neighbourhoods all have a hand in rearing a good child. The jewclear family is the root of most of society's problems. The difference between the nuclear family and the single parent is negligible. It was designed to create rootless, transportable, legible and easy to govern workers and to destroy any metis that communities had.

A nuclear family is a possible subunit of a community or extended family, what you really hate is poor communal ethics
>complaining about people not working the fields
wtf are you the unabomber

need to bring back the spirit of the bronze age like our aryan ancestors with their extended families marauding eurasia from end to end...

>A nuclear family is a possible subunit of a community or extended family
When talking about the nuclear family in social terms, as opposed to a simple collective name for mother, father and child, the nuclear family refers to a family in which the marital bond is the fundamental basis of the family, all other ties being superfluous. This is opposed to basically every other society in which ties of kinship make up the bonds of family.

>what you really hate is poor communal ethics
Nuclear families beget poor community ethics.

>wtf are you the unabomber
Doesn't have to be literally working the fields, I simply expect a basic degree of self-sufficiency and independence from the state and from the market, as well as a genuine communal home and not a mcdwelling where you don't know your neighbours