Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Swiss politics/news  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 12.09.2021, 14:52
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Zurich
Posts: 5,738
Groaned at 425 Times in 235 Posts
Thanked 6,601 Times in 3,031 Posts
ZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote September 26th

Heavens - as a “gay” I couldn’t give a shit - would never get married - can’t understand it, or the drama drama that it creates. While I agree on equal rights, I am against the institution of marriage. Each to their own medieval misery.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank ZuriRollt for this useful post:
  #102  
Old 12.09.2021, 15:09
ennui's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Kt Zurich
Posts: 1,179
Groaned at 36 Times in 28 Posts
Thanked 3,630 Times in 1,270 Posts
ennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote September 26th

Quote:
View Post
Heavens - as a “gay” I couldn’t give a shit - would never get married - can’t understand it, or the drama drama that it creates. While I agree on equal rights, I am against the institution of marriage. Each to their own medieval misery.
Marriage equality has to do with getting the same benefits and privileges for all committed couples. For example, making sure as a spouse you can call your partner‘s physician, or help manage insurance issues. Ownership of property. Shared benefits. I admit, I’m more familiar with US issues than CH. Even if you think marriage is a crock, the point is that while marriage is an institution that gives advantages in society and protects partners, those advantages and protection should be equal for all couples.
Reply With Quote
The following 11 users would like to thank ennui for this useful post:
  #103  
Old 12.09.2021, 15:19
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Zurich
Posts: 5,738
Groaned at 425 Times in 235 Posts
Thanked 6,601 Times in 3,031 Posts
ZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote September 26th

I agree, but all of these rights can (Ithought they already were) be legally established through a registered partnership here in Switzerland. But am really not up tp date, happy to be informed.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank ZuriRollt for this useful post:
  #104  
Old 12.09.2021, 15:25
ennui's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Kt Zurich
Posts: 1,179
Groaned at 36 Times in 28 Posts
Thanked 3,630 Times in 1,270 Posts
ennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote September 26th

Quote:
View Post
I agree, but all of these rights can (Ithought they already were) be legally established through a registered partnership here in Switzerland. But am really not up tp date, happy to be informed.
My understanding is that they are not. I don‘t have specifics off the top of my head.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank ennui for this useful post:
  #105  
Old 12.09.2021, 15:31
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Zurich
Posts: 5,738
Groaned at 425 Times in 235 Posts
Thanked 6,601 Times in 3,031 Posts
ZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote September 26th

Quote:
View Post
My understanding is that they are not. I don‘t have specifics off the top of my head.
Try filling out a form for rental to an apartment, or in any other ‘official’. Document. You will be asked whether you are single / married / or in a registered “Partnerschaft”
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 12.09.2021, 16:06
NotAllThere's Avatar
Modulo 2
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Baselland
Posts: 15,259
Groaned at 312 Times in 268 Posts
Thanked 23,687 Times in 9,633 Posts
NotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote September 26th

Quote:
View Post
I agree, but all of these rights can (Ithought they already were) be legally established through a registered partnership here in Switzerland.
Which, when this law goes through, it effectively will be (possibly some nuances aside). Nothing to differentiate between marriage and a registered partnership. Some of my "registered partnership" friends refer to each other as husband/wife and husband/wife already!

"Marriage" is just another word. Words change meaning over time.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank NotAllThere for this useful post:
  #107  
Old 12.09.2021, 16:14
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Zurich
Posts: 5,738
Groaned at 425 Times in 235 Posts
Thanked 6,601 Times in 3,031 Posts
ZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond reputeZuriRollt has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote September 26th

Quote:
View Post
Which, when this law goes through, it effectively will be (possibly some nuances aside). Nothing to differentiate between marriage and a registered partnership. Some of my "registered partnership" friends refer to each other as husband/wife and husband/wife already!

"Marriage" is just another word. Words change meaning over time.
Have been through divorce, with a child and non-paying husband. It’s anyway a mess - am glad that I don’t need to repeat it. Separate lives, separate bank accounts - I would recommend this to anyone.

For the ‘should this happen’ case, just draw up a medical agreement.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank ZuriRollt for this useful post:
  #108  
Old 12.09.2021, 17:27
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ZH
Posts: 8,784
Groaned at 109 Times in 89 Posts
Thanked 13,583 Times in 5,529 Posts
doropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote September 26th

Quote:
View Post
Which, when this law goes through, it effectively will be (possibly some nuances aside). Nothing to differentiate between marriage and a registered partnership. Some of my "registered partnership" friends refer to each other as husband/wife and husband/wife already!

"Marriage" is just another word. Words change meaning over time.
Oh, but there are, indeed, differences, in terms of the law.

Quote:
View Post
My understanding is that they are not. I don‘t have specifics off the top of my head.
Yes, you are correct, ennui. In Switzerland, at least, there are legal differences between "marriage" and "registered partnership". At present, homosexual couples cannot marry. That's why, after all, there's even a vote, now, about extending the right to marry, and the rights that married people enjoy, to everyone.
  1. Being in a registered partnership does not facilitate naturalisation for the foreign partner of a Swiss national. Marriage does.

  2. Two people who live in a registered partnership are not allowed to adopt jointly. Married people are.

  3. Two people who live in a registered partnership are not allowed to have children by artificial insemination. Married people are.

  4. Registered partnerships automatically fall under the separation of property, meaning each partner retains responsibility for his or her own property and debts. They can elect, instead, to pool all their property. I'm not sure on this one, but I think that for married people, on the other hand, it is the other way round.

  5. When a registered partnership is dissolved, where one has a child and the other has been present in that child's life, the non-biological parent "can be" (but are not necessarily) granted contact rights to the child. When a heterosexual couple gets divorced, contact to the child(ren) is almost always considered the norm.

  6. The fact that there are two different terms, "marriage" (and "divorce") and "registered partnership" (and "dissolved registered partnership") means that this is what shows in one's official documents which reflect civil status. This necessarily "outs" a person (also the heterosexuals), which may or may not be something that they want. Whether they are currently in a committed relationship, or were formally so, to someone of the same sex or of another sex, is really nobody's business. Personally, I think that a civil status should reflect only "married" or "single" and that what one did in the past should have no legal bearing on the present.
https://www.ch.ch/en/registered-partnership/
Reply With Quote
The following 14 users would like to thank doropfiz for this useful post:
  #109  
Old 12.09.2021, 21:54
mikedragos
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Vote September 26th

Quote:
View Post
The no campaign is homophobic as it compares (in one instance) us (yes, I'm gay) to slave drivers, as we'll be "using" women to create babies if it goes through. It's not a direct homophobic slur in itself, but its very essence comes from a place of homophobia.
And if you think the Yes campaign is heterophobic, then I suggest you look up the definition, as it does nothing to slate or damage heterosexual people, it's only trying to promote marriage equality (which I'm pretty certain isn't going to harm anyone). Futhermore, if you find the images on the poster "disgusting", then I think you may be a bit homophobic yourself ;-)
Stop imputing. For instance, is there anything homophobic in the slogan 'I want one mom and one dad'?

Of course not. On the contrary, slogan goes for the best interest of the child; which no one is bothered with in the yes campaign. Your example (honestly I wasn't aware of it) is fairly true - if the whole push is for you to have the right to 'procure' babies - it is totally disgusting and against any fundamental children's rights. Same applies to heterosexual couples trying to do the same via same means, which is of course criminally wrong. Nothing homophobic there, but applies equally to hetero, gay, or whoever wishes to embark with this.
Reply With Quote
The following 6 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #110  
Old 12.09.2021, 22:01
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 32,723
Groaned at 2,628 Times in 1,870 Posts
Thanked 39,831 Times in 18,788 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote September 26th

Quote:
View Post
The no campaign is homophobic as it compares (in one instance) us (yes, I'm gay) to slave drivers, as we'll be "using" women to create babies if it goes through. It's not a direct homophobic slur in itself, but its very essence comes from a place of homophobia.
And if you think the Yes campaign is heterophobic, then I suggest you look up the definition, as it does nothing to slate or damage heterosexual people, it's only trying to promote marriage equality (which I'm pretty certain isn't going to harm anyone). Futhermore, if you find the images on the poster "disgusting", then I think you may be a bit homophobic yourself ;-)
Alas, while I am leaning to voting 'yes', idiotic posts like this may sway me to vote 'no'.

Tom
Reply With Quote
The following 6 users would like to thank st2lemans for this useful post:
  #111  
Old 12.09.2021, 22:27
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Zurich
Posts: 69
Groaned at 9 Times in 3 Posts
Thanked 96 Times in 36 Posts
zookeeperash has earned the respect of manyzookeeperash has earned the respect of manyzookeeperash has earned the respect of many
Re: Vote September 26th

Quote:
View Post
Alas, while I am leaning to voting 'yes', idiotic posts like this may sway me to vote 'no'.

Tom
Can I ask why exactly?
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 13.09.2021, 09:26
Capitan Harlock's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Geneva
Posts: 128
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanked 99 Times in 48 Posts
Capitan Harlock is considered knowledgeableCapitan Harlock is considered knowledgeableCapitan Harlock is considered knowledgeable
Re: Vote September 26th

If I could vote it would be a Yes on the Gay marriage.

On the 99% proposal from what I understood it was launched by the Young Socialists and even the "senior" part of the Party was not fully onboard with it and had to follow through for unity's sake.

I agree is quite confusing even after reading the materials available both from the Oui side and the Non side.

One of the key elements in politics is to have a clear, simple message on what you are proposing... You should be able to tell me in one sentence what you will achieve with this referendum and I should get a good idea... You get it with the gay marriage one, not with the 99% one.

And BTW I'm always the first in line if we need to tax the rich more but this proposal is...
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 13.09.2021, 11:07
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vaud
Posts: 1,467
Groaned at 115 Times in 75 Posts
Thanked 1,624 Times in 911 Posts
yacek has a reputation beyond reputeyacek has a reputation beyond reputeyacek has a reputation beyond reputeyacek has a reputation beyond reputeyacek has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote September 26th

Quote:
View Post
Good lord, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Well, you can spell out what you think, unless that's all the arguments you can present.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank yacek for this useful post:
  #114  
Old 13.09.2021, 14:26
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vaud
Posts: 1,467
Groaned at 115 Times in 75 Posts
Thanked 1,624 Times in 911 Posts
yacek has a reputation beyond reputeyacek has a reputation beyond reputeyacek has a reputation beyond reputeyacek has a reputation beyond reputeyacek has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote September 26th

Quote:
View Post
In the interests of separation of Church and State formal traditional marriages should be a church-only issue. There are BTW churches who don't have a problem with same sex weddings, and everybody has the right to chose their church or have none. I don't think the churches need the state to spell this stuff out to them.
Well, live with it, this is not only bout perceived injustice, but about changing others as well. That's why the churches are founded via the state, so that the state can have grip on them:
https://www.letemps.ch/suisse/pretre...ebrer-mariages
(one can register and read a few articles in Le Temps for free)

The gist of the article is that the state-sponsored churches have to obey the constitution and it is not yet clear if they can get away with gay-couple "discrimination". Flying Spaghetti Monster sponsored by the state, why not.
A state-sponsored churches are wrong on many accounts, but I doubt they would have the balls to rebel. They have became a theme park because they cannot afford to stand their ground on any matter.

Last edited by yacek; 13.09.2021 at 15:58. Reason: typi
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank yacek for this useful post:
  #115  
Old 13.09.2021, 14:56
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,361
Groaned at 338 Times in 274 Posts
Thanked 26,263 Times in 11,000 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote September 26th

Quote:
View Post
They have became a theme park because they cannot afford to stand they ground on any matter.
i think this is just because the present generation of clergy are weak and have allowed themselves to be put into too much of a compromising position, in part through their own direct actions. The result is that they can no longer afford to bite back.

But i think this can easily change at any time. I have met many priests who in private sing quite a different song than they do in public. The churches are to a large extent being used as a playball by the state, and are always prepared to serve the state when called upon to do so, while the state in return doesn't really care for the churches but sees them as useful idiots. i think as this understanding percolates through the clergy, that we will see some tougher stances and some harder hitting back. Already today the churches with the fastest growth in membership are the ones espousing more conservative viewpoints and prepared to tell politicians what they think.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #116  
Old 13.09.2021, 15:01
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,361
Groaned at 338 Times in 274 Posts
Thanked 26,263 Times in 11,000 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote September 26th

Quote:
View Post

One of the key elements in politics is to have a clear, simple message on what you are proposing... You should be able to tell me in one sentence what you will achieve with this referendum and I should get a good idea... You get it with the gay marriage one, not with the 99% one.
i am actually quite happy that we don't have a twitter democracy but that people still have an attention span sufficient to bring across a more complicated argument. Some issues are complicated and if we only passed one sentence laws, we would not do these questions justice.

but i agree that in this case the motion is a bit misguided.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 13.09.2021, 16:46
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Zuirch
Posts: 52
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 21 Times in 8 Posts
jpjpjpjp has earned some respectjpjpjpjp has earned some respect
Re: Vote September 26th

Quote:
View Post
No, I'm saying that in my opinion I think the traditional family is the best model for children and ideally those adopted would benefit from having a mother and a father.
I guess the really question should be, would you rather a child be raised in an orphanage by the system or by two loving adults(independent of gender/sexual orientation).

I'd venture to say that not all children are adopted and ultimately some are 100% raised by the state. Don't have any stats on any of this but my choice would be to increase the pool of couples looking to adopt so that more children can have a loving home and not be raised by the state.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at jpjpjpjp for this post:
  #118  
Old 13.09.2021, 16:54
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 12,361
Groaned at 338 Times in 274 Posts
Thanked 26,263 Times in 11,000 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote September 26th

Quote:
View Post
I guess the really question should be, would you rather a child be raised in an orphanage by the system or by two loving adults(independent of gender/sexual orientation).
The tragic thing is that lots of kids never get out of orphanages because everybody wants to adopt a cute baby nobody wants pesky older kids or even teenagers who maybe grew up in broken homes and probably have all sorts of incurable behavioural problems.

Making it easier to adopt will not necessarily cure this problem.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #119  
Old 13.09.2021, 17:17
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2021
Location: transcended.
Posts: 126
Groaned at 150 Times in 75 Posts
Thanked 607 Times in 226 Posts
vushka has earned the respect of manyvushka has earned the respect of manyvushka has earned the respect of many
Re: Vote September 26th

Quote:
View Post
I guess the really question should be, would you rather a child be raised in an orphanage by the system or by two loving adults(independent of gender/sexual orientation).
There is no guarantee that the persons adopting will be 'two loving adults' though.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank vushka for this useful post:
  #120  
Old 13.09.2021, 17:47
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SG
Posts: 10,031
Groaned at 579 Times in 419 Posts
Thanked 13,473 Times in 7,006 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote September 26th

Quote:
View Post
I guess the really question should be, would you rather a child be raised in an orphanage by the system or by two loving adults(independent of gender/sexual orientation).

I'd venture to say that not all children are adopted and ultimately some are 100% raised by the state. Don't have any stats on any of this but my choice would be to increase the pool of couples looking to adopt so that more children can have a loving home and not be raised by the state.
The assumption that less than 100% will be adopted seems self-evident.

But you further/beforehand assume that the right to adopt will increase the number of adoptions significantly. What facts (stats) do you base that on? Or is it just wishful thinking you pulled out of your hat?

-------------------------------

Here's an article by Tagesanzeiger (no paywall but in German). The fact that it's a bit dated helps in this case because this avoids today's idiotic allegations about homophobia by the very people who couldn't care less about protecting the children. It provides not just a multi-decade perspective but also a general overview about the number of adoptions, how long it may take, and potential cost of an adoption in CH.

Further, everybody interested in the topic should educate themselves about the topic of adoptions by Swiss hetero couples of babies from 3rd world countries during the 80ies and 90ies, and the consequences adoptions across continents and ethnicities and races can have, this series by Tagesanzeiger presents the perspective of the victims. A (temporary) e-mail address is all you need for a 14-day trial subscription that gives acces to the full articles marked with "Abo". Remember that Tagesanzeiger is center left to alt left, this is not some rightwing outlet.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank Urs Max for this useful post:
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
22nd September 2013: Ticino and the Burka ban vote Sean Connery Swiss politics/news 738 07.07.2014 13:05
Vote in September for new epidemie laws omtatsat Daily life 128 21.08.2013 17:17
Anybody travelling from Zurich to Geneva/Lyone tomorrow - 26th September samofsydney Transportation/driving 0 25.09.2009 15:01
Anyone fany going for a Doggy outing on Saturday 26th September [ZH] Guest Pet corner 1 24.09.2009 12:12
Canton Zurich: Smoking Vote September 28 AbFab Swiss politics/news 246 07.10.2008 23:22


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:08.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0