The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© 2013 AFPFrench president signs gay marriage into law
PARIS©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© 2013 AFP
8 Comments
Login to comment
No Miso
Allez France!
SushiSake3
Another big win foe basic human rights.
smithinjapan
Good on France for showing the world how to make true progress. I hope more countries follow suit.
amida
"Gay marriage"? What is that?
Wolfpack
Except for all of the other potential combinations of marriage partners or groups of partners that are being left out. Still discriminating against the bisexual woman that wants to marry a man and another woman. The polygamist man that wants to marry six women. The adult man who wants to marry is mother. The 35 year old woman that wants to marry at 14 year old boy. Since marriage has been opened up to "all" now, then let's really make "marriage for all" - not just for those favored by the political Left.
No Miso
Having a bad day?
Marriage is, by definition, a monogamous relationship. So this isn't possible. You could marry multiple women under Sharia law, and as Sharia isn't recognised by most states, you'd get away with it.
Well, you might know of genetic reasons NOT to do that.
The legal age for marriage and consent is set in law and applies to everyone (varies by country though). So not a valid argument.
All in all though, you aren't really supporting these are you? Just protesting against the fact that gay people are being given rights they actually deserve, right?
Elbuda Mexicano
And Mexico City has already had this kind of law for at least 5 years!! So “thanks to France" the rest of us can learn from her??
Wolfpack
@No Miso:
Not really - just another day of pointing out the fallacies put forth by gay "marriage" proponents.
What we have all learned from recent events is that the definition of marriage is not set in stone anymore. It used to be. It used to be restricted to one man and one woman - by definition. So with that most fundamental definition of marriage no longer operational - I see no reason why any and all other are not also open to re-interpretation. That's simple logic.
Not if one of the people involved in such a marriage is incapable of having children. Say the woman is past her child-bearing years. There are no genetic consequences of such a match - just as there are not any between homosexuals. Would you deny her human right to be happily married to anyone she wants? Apparently so.
Wrong again. Actually, there is a precedent for adults marrying minors. Besides, marriage is open to interpretation now - you cannot deny two people their human right to love and be loved regardless of there age. For the law to discriminate against a 15 year old girl that is capable of having a child would be just as wrong as preventing two gay men from marrying. Again, the definition of marriage is no longer set in stone.
Personally, I don't care what two people do with each other. What I do care about is the government endorsing something that I find every bit as abhorant as pedophilia or bestiality. And no, I am not religious. The government should not be in the marriage business at all. The government has no business being involved in the personal lives of it's citizens. When it comes to benefits, people can still enter into civil contracts without having to adhere to whatever the latest definition of marriage is. If you want to get married, find a church and get married - the government should just stay out of it - period.