June 15 - Switzerland votes YES to Schengen and gay marriage, all in one day
On June 5, Switzerland voted Yes to Schengen by 54.6% . This means that Switzerland has to give up doing systematic border checks, but it does not mean that there’ll be completely free movement as in the other Schengen nations – that vote is coming up in September. What’s interesting, and funny, is that you could see from a geographical standpoint that the western side of the country (the French part), voted yes, and the eastern side of the country (the German part), voted no. I’ve heard that this is usually how the votes end up, with the eastern side being very conservative.
Also on June 5, Switzerland voted Yes to gay partnership rights by 58%. I actually met a girl my age who was against gay rights while on my tourism class trip. I was really curious to hear what she had to say. She was from a pretty rural and conservative canton (i.e. equivalent to our provinces) and I guess that may have explained part of it. I didn’t get to talk to her long, or else we would have had some argument.
If someone else’s decision has no negative effect on society, then who are the rest of the population to constrict their freedom? [This vote does not allow gay couples to raise children, although empirical evidence from a multitude of psychological and social studies has consistently shown that children raised by gay parents are just as “normal,” emotionally healthy, and no more likely to be gay themselves than children raised by opposite-sex parents.]
Secondly, if her argument was based on religious ideals (which I have a strong feeling that it was): there is more than one religion in the world, as well as those who have no religion. If your country supports freedom of religion, then there is no rationalization for allowing the ideals of one religion to restrict the freedoms of all people. It would be a shameful example of hypocrisy.
It’s true that a substantial amount of law is based on what is generally accepted as “right” and “wrong” within a society, and that much of this is historically connected to religion. However, this was during a period where religion was much more consistent across a given population so that the beliefs of one religion was aligned with the beliefs across a society. This is no longer true. What is taken as “right” and “wrong” are no longer as deeply rooted in religious convictions and, ergo, these convictions cannot be used as justification for applying a law to the whole of society.
I’ve definitely been going on rants lately. I expected this piece to be only 2 paragraphs…
Also on June 5, Switzerland voted Yes to gay partnership rights by 58%. I actually met a girl my age who was against gay rights while on my tourism class trip. I was really curious to hear what she had to say. She was from a pretty rural and conservative canton (i.e. equivalent to our provinces) and I guess that may have explained part of it. I didn’t get to talk to her long, or else we would have had some argument.
If someone else’s decision has no negative effect on society, then who are the rest of the population to constrict their freedom? [This vote does not allow gay couples to raise children, although empirical evidence from a multitude of psychological and social studies has consistently shown that children raised by gay parents are just as “normal,” emotionally healthy, and no more likely to be gay themselves than children raised by opposite-sex parents.]
Secondly, if her argument was based on religious ideals (which I have a strong feeling that it was): there is more than one religion in the world, as well as those who have no religion. If your country supports freedom of religion, then there is no rationalization for allowing the ideals of one religion to restrict the freedoms of all people. It would be a shameful example of hypocrisy.
It’s true that a substantial amount of law is based on what is generally accepted as “right” and “wrong” within a society, and that much of this is historically connected to religion. However, this was during a period where religion was much more consistent across a given population so that the beliefs of one religion was aligned with the beliefs across a society. This is no longer true. What is taken as “right” and “wrong” are no longer as deeply rooted in religious convictions and, ergo, these convictions cannot be used as justification for applying a law to the whole of society.
I’ve definitely been going on rants lately. I expected this piece to be only 2 paragraphs…
posted by lilswtamy at 10:23 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home