Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Jonajager91 t1_ir4i1dk wrote

Thats big! Same sex relationships have been taboo when i was there. I'm glad.


squngy t1_ir4kdg3 wrote

This is actually not a very big change.

There are still a lot of homophobes and a law will not change that, but also, same sex couples already had almost all the rights of CIS couples, except that it was called a "union" instead of a "marriage" (edit: in legal documents, in casual conversation both are called marriage).

Aside from the symbolic change of using the word "marriage", the only real change is that they can now adopt freely (before they could only adopt children they were related to)


Jonajager91 t1_ir4kwo7 wrote

There may be plenty homophobes, but acceptation of this is messy. There could be a lot of homophobes. It might get less or less heavy over the years. But it's a sign that lgbtq people can have a normal relationship lawfully.


squngy t1_ir4lkj0 wrote

> But it's a sign that lgbtq people can have a normal relationship lawfully.

They already could.
But now, they can have a more equal standing then before.


m4chon4cho t1_ir5plm7 wrote

If they could not marry and adopt, then no they obviously could not.


squngy t1_ir6fs8a wrote

That would imply that any relationship that is without marriage or children is not "normal"


chihuahuassuck t1_ir6n7sl wrote

No, it's that no "normal" relationship has those restrictions placed on it.


m4chon4cho t1_ir764rn wrote

Without the ability to do so is different than choosing not to. What an absurd rationality.


Extra-Process-9394 t1_ir5zvjd wrote

History has shown that making something like gay marriage legal leads to a large increase in acceptance. Perhaps they are not causal, just correlated, but if you look at gay marriage acceptance in the USA you can see it increased a lot right after being legalized.


squngy t1_ir6h4hv wrote

I feel like a nuance has been missed here, which is probably my fault.

Legally, there was a distinction between a "union" and "marriage" and that was not right and it is good that they can "marry" now, but even before, most people in casual conversation would consider the people in a union to be married.

If you met 2 people in a union they would almost certainly introduce them selves as husbands or wives.

There was effectively already same sex marriage, except in legalise and some articles didn't make a distinction, for example

You can read more here:


Miltrivd t1_ir88vf8 wrote

People do get it, but having restrictions and a different legal name makes it not the same, these things are known to everyone and creates segmentation, even if by a little. Equalizing name and rights officializes acceptance and nullifies legal differences, this helps further normalization making the homophobic reactions more fringe given they are against something that's official, normal, established.

It's not like people think gay couples were actively shunned and this will magically change things overnight, but as it had happened everywhere else where marriages rights get normalized, it also helps normalizing acceptance even further.


rhodopensis t1_ir6hpys wrote

(Psst, it’s awesome that you’re well meaning, and well informed on Slovenia, but cis means not transgender, equivalent to straight meaning not gay or bi. ;) )


squngy t1_ir6ijs6 wrote

Thanks, I thought it meant both not trans and straight at the same time