Viktor Orbán: “Hungary is a serious country” where gays are patiently tolerated

First, some background to today’s post. May 17 is the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia. Governments in Europe and North America usually release a statement on the occasion, just as President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry did. Obama and the First Lady reaffirmed that “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights are human rights” and said that they wanted “to underscore that all people deserve to live free from fear, violence, and discrimination, regardless of who they are or whom they love.” According to Kerry, “the human rights of LGBTI persons are fundamental and enshrined in the Universal Declaration,” and he reasserted the United States’s “unwavering commitment to advance the human fights of LGBTI persons here at home and around the world.” In Europe, similar sentiments were expressed by leaders of the European Union. Federica Mogherini, high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy, promised the European Union’s support for the LGBTI community. Vera Jourová, commissioner for justice, emphasized that “we are all born equal in dignity and rights.”

I assume that nobody will be surprised to hear that no member of the Hungarian government offered such pledges to the LGBTI community in Hungary. So, on May 18, a day after the International Day Against Homophobia, a reporter from Index decided to ask a provocative question of Viktor Orbán. I am using here a somewhat modified translation of that conversation, provided by the blogger of Congress of Baboons, an English-language site.

Index: As today is the International Day Against Homophobia, politicians worldwide, including conservatives, declared their “Respect for the Gays.” Your government did not make a statement on this subject. Therefore, my question is: As prime minister, what message would you send to the homophobes, and what actions will the government take to ensure that in Hungary non-heterosexual couples can hold hands in public without fear?

Viktor Orbán: This is a question that makes one want to joke around, but I should spare us from anything of the sort. So, . . . I would suggest that anyone who makes public statements about this matter . . . do so with reasonable care. Hungary is a serious country. It is fundamentally based on traditional values. Hungary is a tolerant nation. Tolerance, however, does not mean that we would apply the same rules for people whose life style is different from our own. We differentiate between them and us. Tolerance means patience, tolerance means an ability to coexist, this is the basis of the Hungarian Constitution which clearly differentiates between a marital relationship between a man and a woman and other, different forms of cohabitation. We are going to keep this. By the way, I am grateful to the Hungarian homosexual community for not exhibiting the provocative behavior against which numerous European nations are struggling and which results in an outcome that is the exact opposite of what they want to achieve. I believe that in Hungary, even though the constitution clearly differentiates between marriage and other forms of cohabitation, the people with lifestyles different from our own outlook on life are safe, they are given the respect of basic human dignity that they deserve. I believe that . . . foreigners don’t feel that in this respect Budapest is a dangerous city. This is good, this is how we can live together. If we … make more stringent regulations or the community of homosexuals starts being more provocative, I think that the current peaceful, calm equilibrium will be no more. No one would benefit from this. Everyone benefits from being able to coexist. I believe that as we now are, we can live together.

In brief, people whose sexual orientation is different from the “norm” are not equal to the heterosexual members of society. They are only tolerated, and they are tolerated only as long as they don’t rock the boat.

Orban Debrecen

Of course, Orbán didn’t answer the reporter’s question about the Hungarian government’s attitude toward the International Day Against Homophobia. Instead, in his statement, he tried to explain the place of LGBTI people in Hungarian society and their rights as full members of a national community. In this answer, which he delivered with obvious discomfort, he revealed that their status in Hungary is anything but comfortable. An umbrella organization of LGBTI people in Hungary, Budapest Pride, immediately announced that “the LGBTI people living in Hungary are not at all grateful to Viktor Orbán. Instead of joking about it, perhaps the Hungarian government should do something against the discrimination this community suffers.” Magyar Narancs summarized Orbán’s message well: “A Hungarian doesn’t harass anyone, unless he is forced to harass him in a tolerant manner with mercy in his heart.”

The above exchange prompted some interesting responses. Because of Hungarian intolerance, few people ever admit that they are gays or lesbians. One exception is Klára Ungár, former SZDSZ politician and a member of parliament, who, it seems, got mad enough to out two Fidesz politicians who are closet gays. She was heavily criticized for the indiscretion, but she doesn’t regret her decision. The conversation above also prompted András Léderer, another former SZDSZ politician, to “confess” his homosexuality. In the article he wrote for HVG he accuses Orbán of not too well hidden homophobia.

Orbán’s words also elicited explicitly homophobic outbursts. Zsolt Bayer, a great friend of Orbán and one of those handful of students who established Fidesz, wrote a most disgusting article in Magyar Hírlap, which was openly and viciously homophobic. The article begins: “I was a bit disappointed that he didn’t wear a sheer pink tutu, but I still liked it. It was truly European, and unfortunately there is no cynicism in this. Because today this is Europe.” Bayer was talking about the wedding of Luxembourg’s Prime Minister, Xavier Bettel. He is the first European prime minister to marry someone of the same sex.

The beginning of the article is actually mild in comparison to what comes afterward. “Let’s stop and say it proudly: The hell with the International Day Against Homophobia!” (In the original, “leszarjuk a homofóbia elleni világnapot!”) And, “we have as much right to be homophobes as anyone else.” The prime minister made a mistake by even answering this “European provocation.” The proper answer would have been: “I don’t send any message because I have nothing to do with it.” But because he didn’t tell the reporter to get lost, the “provocation was successful.” As a result, “the domestic Europeans are whining, seething, gnawing.”

A less vituperative article appeared in Napi Gazdaság, which is quickly becoming as unreadable as Magyar Nemzet was a couple of months ago. Péter Szikszai, a young actor, lists all those sitcoms and films with gay or lesbian themes. According to him, there is a steady pro-gay propaganda through television and movie theaters. It is spreading rapidly and occupies “the beachheads of the entertainment industry.”

Jobbik a few weeks ago wanted to forbid the Pride’s demonstration, coming up in July, but “forbidding Pride can no longer help.” And “the International Day Against Homophobia is neither here nor there.”

For the prime minister and his defenders, it’s always them (where the “them” are alleged to be somehow inferior) against us. Their problem is that the “them” are growing and the “us” are shrinking. Perhaps one day in the not too distant future individual rights will be respected in Hungary, not merely tolerated.

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
gdfxx
Guest

Unfortunately, I am much less optimistic than the last sentence of this depressing post.

Webber
Guest
For Eva, and anyone interested – What follows is off topic, and I apologize for that (those not interested, please don’t read the following). I have changed a very few minor details below because I don’t want the patient described below or anyone on staff to have any sort of trouble at all. I visited someone in a ward for terminally ill patients in a hospital in Hungary a day or two ago. There were some unpleasant surprises. But before I mention the unpleasant surprises, I should say that having had many bad (even awful) experiences with Hungarian hospitals and having been shocked by the condition they are in, there were many peasant surprises here too: the ward was spotless, and the people on duty were polite and helpful and doing all they could to make patients’ last days comfortable. They were Hungarians at their best – and that is very, very good indeed. Also (a minor thing), the rooms had televisions. And the patient said the food was plentiful and good. Unpleasant surprises: First: Six (or seven – can’t recall) channels were on the t.v. Of these, four (or five) came in perfectly. Two came in but had no… Read more »
Alex Kuli
Guest
Thanks for that information. I have had horrendous experiences in the Hungarian healthcare service. For example, I long suspected that my GP was particularly nasty to me because I am not a “real Hungarian,” i.e. I was born abroad and speak Hungarian with an accent. He removed any doubt when he published a blog post berating a German patient for what he regarded as his arrogance and presumptiveness. Advancement in the Hungarian medical system depends on one’s ability to kowtow to the foorvos, who never leaves his office without an entourage. There is a similar vibe in Fidesz. It is no surprise that there is a strong synergy between the party and the medical establishment. Still, I wonder if your evidence of Fidesz malfeasance would inspire patients to vote against the state party. Hungarian voters came out in droves to support Fidesz’s 2008 referendum that killed off the 300 forint copays, with the knock-on effect of killing off the nascent private health-insurance scheme. They handed Fidesz a two-thirds majority in 2010 and reconfirmed their decision in 2014, even though Fidesz did nothing to improve the healthcare system. Fidesz’s version of healthcare is Socialist-Authoritarian, and most Hungarians seem to support that.… Read more »
erdő
Guest
Alex, the good thing is that you can go to private health care service providers, at least in Budapest there a few very good ones. I won’t want to advertise them, but you have practitioners there from all fields, most of whom worked abroad, often in the US for many years so they all speak at least English and know what is an expected service. You pay something like 80 dollars per hour for consultation, with legal invoice (more complex procedures cost more of course but still a fraction of the Western prices). Unless you need the most complex surgery which only a few (state-run) hospitals do, these service providers are good for most problems. They really provide service as they should. I almost always go to one of these providers. You really are not bound to your assigned, district GP. By the way yesterday I was in district 5 (which has a really good outpatient health care provider unit) to have my eyes quickly checked and an elderly French lady was there too with her friend who translated in the next room which was open to my room. There was no hálapénz, the service was efficient and professional. Still… Read more »
Latefor
Guest

I am dying to comment, BUT the Wi–Fi is cooking my brains (and I’m too busy biting my nails) as I’m writing this post. I must be allergic to radiation! Every hospital needs a director like the one mentioned by Webber.

Webber
Guest

So, because of your personal political preferences, you think it’s okay if someone else decides what a dying patient can watch or read? (as long as this decision agrees with your personal political preferences, of course).
What the patient wants is to be ignored, if it happens to bother you for ideological reasons?

Latefor
Guest

Webber,
My previous comment has nothing to do with political/ideological preference. In that hospital, there are also healthy nurses and doctors who are looking after those dying patients. What about their needs?

Webber
Guest

The care given is not exceptional, it is the minimum expected of every hospital in the civilized world.

If that, to you, is the sign of a great hospital director, you truly need your head examined.

Your comment was callous, ridiculous, and a little stupid.

Incidentally: what I did not mention, but perhaps should have, is that the doctor took 20,000 forints before “finding” the patient a single room, and each nurse has taken 2,000 forints every week. They expect that money for the care they provide. Given the amount they get in salary, the nurses need that money just to survive (hence the question from the patient about black t-shirts).

That hospital director, who blocks television programs and newspapers because of his ideological leanings, would be fired in any civilized country. Indeed, he might be prosecuted in some. It would certainly be a national scandal in any other country I know in the EU.

Latefor
Guest

Webber,
Ok, my comment was “redicoulos, callous and stupid” – but what do you expect from a “genetically inferior moron”, or “the subhuman animal”
like me? 🙁
How about attacking the problem, not each other?
How about presenting an arguments with a touch of finesse?
How about stop abusing each other?
Why don’t you guys set up a punching bag in you garage to get rid of your vicious anger?
BTW, I have changed the title of one of my books to:
“For the Love of Budapest: The Gresham Symphony” – available on Amazon.com/books.

Guest

You wrote:
“Every hospital needs a director like the one mentioned by Webber.”
After the description that Webber gave of that director that sentence is either a bad joke or extremely stupid imho.
PS:
Relentlessly plugging your book here probably won’t help you – maybe you should look for another audience?

Latefor
Guest

Wolfi –
You obviously get something out of your daily commenting. Why do you want to take this little “reward” away from me? 🙁

Latefor
Guest

Re: Wolfi

That hospital director obviously understands the possible affect radiation can have on a weak immune system.

Guest

So the radiation that M1, M1 etc (aka the North Korean state tv …) emits is not as dangerous as the radiation other tv programs emit?
Oh well …
And now we’re off to the Green Elephant!

Webber
Guest

Latefor – the Wifi was ON!!!
I made that clear in my statement – read it again!
Wifi was on, it just could not be used by the staff or patients – only by major doctors, who are using it on the ward – because it has been coded, and they don’t give the code to peons such as patients or nurses.
The signal in the ward was as strong as it could be – all bars at full strength.

Webber
Guest

Where’d you get the words “genetically inferior moron” and “subhuman animal”? Not from me. Don’t paste those into our little dispute – they have no place here.
I was reacting to what you wrote – your comment about Wifi frying your brains and all the rest. That was a callous, vicious, brutal and stupid comment in reaction to what I wrote.

P.S. Others here also have written books (I know three others here who have, not including myself or you). We don’t plug them here.

Latefor
Guest

Webber, re: frying my brains – Not long ago, over a few nights, there was two light patches (1m x 1m) on my bedroom wall, above the window just above my TV set. The TV was switched off at the main. Do you think I was visited by extraterrestrials?

Webber
Guest
Truly, you are a slave who loves his slavery. Indeed, by your own admission you are a little insane, and perhaps a little less than human(e). “Nothing can be more certain than that every man born in slavery is born for slavery. Slaves lose everything in their chains, even the desire of escaping from them: they love their servitude, as the comrades of Ulysses loved their brutish condition. If then there are slaves by nature, it is because there have been slaves against nature. Force made the first slaves, and their cowardice perpetuated the condition….” “To say that a man gives himself (into slavery) gratuitously, is to say what is absurd and inconceivable; such an act is null and illegitimate, from the mere fact that he that does it is out of his mind. To say the same of a whole people is to suppose a people of madmen; and madness creates no right….” “To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, to surrender the rights of humanity and even its duties. For him who renounces everything no indemnity is possible. Such a renunciation is incompatible with man’s nature; to remove all liberty from his will is to remove… Read more »
Elektrone Motyo
Guest

” people whose sexual orientation is different from the “norm” are not equal to the heterosexual members of society” – clear misinterpretation here. Assuming the translation is correct, Orban says that homosexual cohabitation is not equal to the heterosexual marriage. One must differentiate between individual rights in which we are equal in Hungary and collective rights in which limitations are applied.

But having different collective rights is all around in the world. E.g:
– Right to vote: in many countries not every resident is allowed to vote, only citizens of that country, even though the electoral decision affects everyone’s life in that country.

Gaining collective rights for gay persons is a long way and involves a lot of convincing and effort. Only the democratic way (like in Ireland) can help whatever being the result.

About homophobia: The world is full with stupid haters, but quite often these people just talk but don’t act. Honestly, how often did we say “fuck you”. But did we really intend to have sexual intercourse with that person?

Elektrone Motyo
Guest

Corerction: affects = impacts

Guest

Diverting again?
One just has to read Bayer Zsolt or the comments of your homophobic friends on Hungarian Ambience (you comment there too, don’t you?) and on politics.hu to see through you!

PS and not too much OT:

A long time ago I used to read Hun Ambience (just for fun …) and I found that the first article connected to Germany was an outcry – because Germany got a gay foreign minister -Mr Westerwelle who had the audacity to take his partner with him on official travels, just as many ministers take their wives …
And I don’t have to mention what kind of comments came from the readers of Hun Ambience …

Elektrone Motyo
Guest

Nice! So commenting on websites that you don’t like is a “Totschlagargument” :))

Maybe have a read here regarding “Totschlagargumente”: http://www.stupidedia.org/stupi/Nazikeule#Nutzwert_der_Nazikeule

Guest

Re “commenting on websites that you don’t like”:
Do you agree that Hun Ambience is a far right racist homophobic site?
Do you agree with what is usually written there?
have you ever critised them?

Btw you wrote here once “Mr Kein Abitur Schulz” (I corrected the spelling).
Why is it important (for you?) whether a politician has an Abitur?

Elektrone Motyo
Guest

Why should I discuss with you off topic subjects here, send me a private message if those subjects really interest you – you know where to find my email, don’t you? :)))

Guest

If you wrote it here then it’s not off topic!

Elektrone Motyo
Guest

The “Schulz” story is off topic here, it belonged to a previous topic. You missed that train.

Guest

And you didn’t answer any of my questions – just as I expected.

Webber
Guest

Gay people only want the rights that straight people have. Nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing “collective” in that. It’s a demand for an end to (the tradition of) legal discrimination against gay people.
Straight people can marry: gay people want to marry. Etc. (n.b. this does not mean that churches should be forced to marry anyone at all – civic marriage is fine).

Elektrone Motyo
Guest

The subject is more complicated than “who wants what and why can’t he get it”. Since marriage requires at least two persons it is a collective action thus it belongs to the set of collective rights.

Webber
Guest

No, marriage is not a “collective right.” It is a contract between two individuals, nothing more.
Gay people are not asking for anything special that other people don’t enjoy. They are asking to be treated like everyone else in society, like the majority. They are asking that laws discriminating against them be repealed. They don’t want some sort of unique treatment, or some sort of special autonomy not enjoyed by the majority. They simply want what everyone else has had for long centuries.
And what they are asking for is very private. They are asking for the right, as private people, to do what other people do as private people.
Every marriage a very private thing. It is not the business of anyone other than the two people involved. It is not a “collective” act or a collective right.

gdfxx
Guest

Actually it is not completely private. What gay people also want is that they have the same legal rights through marriage that straight people enjoy: shared healthcare benefits, right to inherit, right to make healthcare decisions for the other side when necessary etc.

Webber
Guest

All that, also, is private.
Unless, that is, you wish to argue that decisions about healthcare and inheritance are not private individuals’ personal business (I know full well that in some cases the state does step in – I don’t think that’s right).
If you want to go down that lane… think about it. People you dislike very deeply might end up making certain decisions about your healthcare, simply because of biological factors.

gdfxx
Guest

Just to clarify: generally, married people make health care decisions about each other when one of them is not capable to do it (possibly being on a ventilator or such). In many cases gay couples do not have this privilege. And yes, in these cases parents of gay people make those decisions, in some cases parents who have not talked to their children for ages. The shared healthcare benefits apply probably in the US only, where usually individuals’ health insurance applies to a spouse also. And the inheritance is automatic to a spouse in most jurisdictions…

Guest

“.. in many countries not every resident is allowed to vote, only citizens of that country, even though the electoral decision affects everyone’s life in that country.”

On the other hand in Hungary hundred thousands are allowed to vote even though the electoral decisions affect their lives in another country in no way.

petofi
Guest

@Jean P

Yes, our fearless leader has apparently mis-translated the American revolutionaries who declared: “No taxation without representation!”

Orban’s unique Hungarian twist to this is: “Representation without taxation!”

Victor: “That’s the same thing, isn’t it?”

The Hungarian Way.

Hajra Magyarok!!

spectator
Guest
Maybe it’s time to clear up the differences between the ”Universal Human Rights” and “Civil Rights” – obviously not only Orbán needs help on the subject. Civil Rights granted by the legal system of the country or state where you live, sometimes some of them based on/guaranteed by international treaties, but far from being equal and universal. Having equal and unconditional Human Rights you don’t have to do a thing, its your elementary right, nobody entitled to take away from you, not even if a Viktor. Pretext: you supposed to be a Human Being, nevertheless… Oh, well… Just to refresh the basics: Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person… Read more »
Elektrone Motyo
Guest

Come to the point!

trackback

[…] Balogh published a summary of Zsolt Bayer’s piece in the Hungarian Spectrum, as well as a round-up of some of the other […]

exTor
Guest

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world/europe/in-early-vote-count-ireland-appears-headed-toward-legalizing-same-sex-marriage.html?emc=edit_na_20150523&nlid=52537220&_r=0

I was going to break from posting. News from a country said by some to be ‘more Catholic than the pope’.

MAGYARKOZÓ

Yugo Bella
Guest

In this case these fidesznik trolls above don’t realize that they are on the losing side of the discourse just as the Hungarian left-wing was drawn into a (for them losing) game by Fidesz so many times before.

In Hungary (perhaps no so much in Iran or Uganda) the opponents are also supporting the gay rights just by entering and maintaining the discourse which was initiated by the gays themselves. So it doesn’t really matter whether they oppose gay rights or not because they simply cannot stop the robust trend to which they also contribute — as the incoming generations are much more pro-gay or at least simply don’t care about the gays as older folks do (and who tend to dislike them).

All the more so because in the Western world now there’s an immense political pressure to accept gay rights and thereby finally claim, achieve a Great Moral Victory because this discourse of course obscures more important, but much more complex discourses like that about inequality, poor people, integration of immigrants etc.

Webber
Guest

Everything you wrote is fine, though the term “pro-gay” seems wrong, because I don’t think anyone is or can be pro-gay (or pro-straight for that matter). “Pro-gay” sounds like rooting for a football team, or something similar. There is no team. Also, it sounds like the darkest fears of some fideszniks – on which, just as civil rights people didn’t want others to turn black, gay rights people aren’t trying to make other people gay (either you are, or you aren’t).
So, I’d say fidesznik trolls are on the losing side of the argument because ordinary people don’t care that much about other people’s sexuality, don’t really want to know what their neighbors are getting up to when the lights go off, and certainly don’t want the state to get into the issue (or their bedrooms).
Live and let live.

Yugo Bella
Guest

Sure, bad choice of words.

exTor
Guest

A minor slip, Yugo Bella. You could have said “the younger generations are much less antigay.” You could also have said “the younger generations are more positive about equal rights for gays.”

Not a biggie, YB. The tone was good.

MAGYARKOZÓ

Guest

Not too much OT:
And now for the good news:
Irish voters have said yes to gay marriage!

For me there is still one question:
Fidesz is fighting against the values of the “degenerate West” – what does this all mean?
Does Orbán really want to leave the EU?
If not then why does he risk to be the laughing stock of Europe?
I get asked so often about “those crazy Hungarians” and I have to tell my friends: No it’s just this right wing loonie party, most Hungarians are quite ok and really nice …

MusicLover
Guest
I think it is a mistake to equate homophobia with Fidesz, implying that those who don’t vote for them are pro-gay. I have a horrible feeling that Orbán’s comments reflect a very large swathe of public opinion in Hungary. Even friends who were west European liberal SZDSZ voters used to surprise me with their vehement homophobia. The only segment of society that seemed tolerant were educated urban women, but only some of them. I’m not gay, so perhaps my perception is skewed and possibly someone who is can tell us their own experiences. But I don’t think there is much understanding of homosexuality in Hungary. On the other hand, it is amazing how things change. We have just seen it in Ireland. And in the UK, in the late 80’s, the Conservatives passed the quite ill-conceived clause 28 (which I don’t think was ever acted upon, but it was still a pointless piece of legislation), and yet two decades later, Cameron forced through the gay marriage thing (and I don’t doubt his sincerity), there are openly gay conservative MPs and even a junior minister (Nick Bowles) who is married. In just over two decades, society moved on and now all… Read more »
TeamBritanniaHu
Guest
I think the Hungarian constitution is right to distinguish between the two types of relationship.They are not the same, for obvious biological reasons, but they are equal before the law, or should be, through civil unions or partnerships. However, the argument for change in the West has been based on two ‘errors’. One is that marriage is mainly about affirming romantic and erotic love, and that it should be equally available to all partners. In fact, the biblical understanding (shared by Islam and Judaism) is that is mainly for the procreation and nurturing of children, and for life-long companionship. Whilst I support the right of same-sex couples to adopt, I believe that children have a birthright to be brought up by two parents of opposite sex, as well as a right to be born into the world by natural means, wherever possible. As a socialist, not a liberal, I believe that traditional families, both nuclear and extended, are the basis of a civilised society, while alternative lifestyles should be fully tolerated. For Christians who are LGBT, this could (and in my view) should mean blessing their relationships in Church, in the same way that marriages are recognised after a legal… Read more »
Webber
Guest

TeamBritanniaHu you wrote “some Christians could not, in conscience, support this, and their views should be respected and ‘tolerated’.”
If all you mean is that churches should not be forced to marry gay people, I agree. Civil marriage is always available, or should be.
If you mean something else, – that people should not be able to marry because some Christians dislike it – I couldn’t disagree more.
Some denominations of Christians cannot tolerate consumption of alcohol, yet we who drink alcohol do not “respect and tolerate” their views in that sense, nor should we. We don’t mind that they don’t drink and leave them alone, but expect them to leave us alone if we want a glass of wine with dinner.
We do all sorts of things that other people think are wrong, nearly every day – some of us eat pork. We may smoke. We use certain language. That is our business, not theirs. Society would be awful if we all had to conform to everyone else’s beliefs all the time – and society has been pretty awful to gay people for too long.

spectator
Guest
Those two ‘errors’ needs some completing, a further explanation perhaps? Raised some questions as well: -Why should the method of reproduction defined by a constitution at all? In time of the Scriptures wasn’t functional ‘technology’ used to help along Nature, so it hardly surprising that there isn’t a single word about, what the approved way of choosing sperm donor. But there isn’t a word about defibrillators either, or who may tamper into the way of Nature, yet it happens on daily basis. Then we are back to basics again: isn’t “Fundamentalist Law” would have been more appropriate to the wannabe Hungarian constitution? -If tolerance required regarding some ‘fundamentalist’ Christian views too, where to draw the line, who supposed to tolerate what by whom? -Marriage isn’t exclusively affirmation of love, its also a bound with economical consequences. As I understand the Hungarian law still distinguish betven married couples and those who live in (any kind of) recognised partnerships. This count as discrimination in my view, and having put it in the “Fundamental Law” made it even worse. Finally, not a Bible/New Testament, not even the “UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS” accept discrimination of your fellow Human Beings, not for any reason!… Read more »
Guest

“I believe that children have a birthright to be brought up by two parents of opposite sex”
So what do you think about divorced couples, single mothers etc? Should they be forced to stay together/be married forcefully to someone?
Afaik around 50% of marriages today (all over Europe as well as in the USA and other countries) end in divorce and of course there are many children being born where the father has no intention of staying with the mother …

My favourite example is one of Germany’s most prominent politicians, Mr Seehofer (CSU). While in Berlin he had a long lasting affair with his secretary and when she got pregnant he left her with his child and returned to his wife and their children – probably because he feared for his career …

So all this seems to me rather hypocritical – especially if these pints come from “Christians” (or Jews or Muslims who have similar crazy ideas …)!

PS:
In the end the best thing you can hope for often is what we call in German a patchwork family, i e adults which together care for children, independent from the question of the biological parents …

gdfxx
Guest

This is a slight exaggeration. At least 50% of the children do grow up with their two parents (straight or gay) and nobody believes that this would not be the best outcome.

Guest

I don’t know the percentages, but I know that there are enough children raised by a single parent …
And who says that being married means you have to produce children?
The last guy who tried to force that on people was Adolf imho!

Webber
Guest

You are right. I haven’t seen data for Germany, but in the US about 33% (1/3) of all children are raised by single parents. There are differences between ethnic groups here, as in so many other things in the US.
Detailed data here:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-number-of-children-living-in-single-parent-homes-has-nearly-doubled-in/

gdfxx
Guest

I did not mean the best outcome for the marriage. The best outcome for a child (to have two parents).

Webber
Guest

You mean best outcome, wolfi was referring to reality.
Your best outcome cannot be achieved by law. You cannot stop people from having children out of wedlock, or from divorcing after they have children. No such law should ever be imposed.
Your scenario is the best outcome if the child has two loving parents.
As you know, that is not the reality for all children with two parents. For instance, if just one parent seriously abuses the child, it is not the best outcome. It may even be the worst outcome.

gdfxx
Guest

Well, yes, there are abusive parents. I hope that is more of an exception than the rule.

Member

Alhough not a EU member state – Islands former prime minister deserves mentioning. She was the first ever politician all over the world who married her same sex partner during her office tenure. Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir was one of the most popular politicians ever born.

Member

Although not a EU member state – Islands former prime minister deserves mentioning.
I meant Iceland’s former prime minister Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir. Sorry for the typo!

wpDiscuz