|
On July 16 2010 04:16 AttackZerg wrote:It makes me feel sick. + Show Spoiler +that third world countries are more socially evolved then my own Damn republicans =(
Uhh... Argentina is economically speaking an emerging market => not even close to a third world country.
I loved the vid of Wendy Wright. There is no evidence!
|
This is such wonderful news! Big congrats to gay community!
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
|
|
Well good for gay couples ^^, lets see how this turns out with the kids they raiseits going to be an interesting think to watch
|
Just waiting till they legalise it in Korea so I can marry Reach
|
On July 16 2010 04:35 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 04:21 IntoTheWow wrote:On July 15 2010 23:51 ggrrg wrote:On July 15 2010 23:32 Keniji wrote:On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote: In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges? Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then). So yes, they should receive all of those privileges. Well, when a gay couple adopts a child they have skipped the 9-month pregnancy. A gay couple can rent an uterus, which costs a lot of money. Also, if an heterosexual couple adopts a child they skip the 9-month pregnancy as well. They still get the benefits. Shhh, don't let a little logic get in the way of him! Them heteros, who have on average like two or three babies over the course of a marriage, get lifelong benefits because the wife is physically unable to work due to child birth for 27 months!
It seems like both of you decided against reading the whole thread... But I'd gladly cherry-pick the relevant parts for you:
On July 16 2010 00:43 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 23:56 BillyMole wrote:On July 15 2010 23:51 ggrrg wrote:On July 15 2010 23:32 Keniji wrote:On July 15 2010 23:15 ggrrg wrote: In principle I don't see a reason why homosexuals shouldn't express their affection for eachother by getting married. However, when you think about it marriage doesn't only mean that you are allowed to have a big celebration, but also comes with many financial priviliges that are meant to encourage couples to be together and get children (e.g. tax cuts, money when you get a child, lower insurance rates, etc.). Most of those financial priviliges exist because for a family it means that they will lose income during the wife's pregnancy and while the child is very young. On top of that women are generally paid less than a man for an equal job. Financial advantages through marriage are meant to counteract those issues. However, in gay couples at least some of those issues don't exist. So what I wonder is: Should married gay couples really recieve all or any of those priviliges? Same-sex couples often do marry because they want to adopt kids. Why shouldn't they get the same financial privileges? Also there are a lot of straight married couples without kids, too. That women get paid less is a whole different problem which has nothing to do with financial benefits a marriage couple gets (besides a couple of two women should even get more money then). So yes, they should receive all of those privileges. Well, when a gay couple adopts a child they have skipped the 9-month pregnancy. If the child is not a newborn they have eventually skipped the first 9-12 months of the child's upbringing, which is a critical period in which a women cannot work. Thus such gay couples wouldn't suffer the loss of income a "normal" couple would have. In addition a women that gets out for pregnancy has severely diminished chances of being promoted (making a career) than both partners in a gay couple that can work without a break, when adopting (this also applies to lesbian couples, unless one of the partners gets artificially impregnated). Ultimately, I don't know what would be the best legislature on gay marriage. I agree that homosexual relationships should be accepted and not viewed as wrong. However, in many cases it seems difficult to justify all of the financial benefits gays would get by having a standard marriage. Maybe there should be special legislation on gay marriage taking different factors in consideration (e.g. female or a men couple). Again, see above. The laws predate the relatively modern convention that both parents work, and are from a time where women did not work at all. Moreover, having separate laws governing the same thing has never, ever worked well at any point in history, regardless of whether or not it makes sense. It's just a bad move, because it generates unrest amongst the segments of the population that get the worse deal. Basically, until the laws are equal, the lobbying to change it is never going to end. It doesn't matter what the origin of the law is. These laws have changed and developed through the years. Fact is, nowadays financial benefits for couples are a government incentive for family life with the final idea of getting children. Basically the benefits of marriage are a way to secure the future population of the country, especially in Western countries where people have generally become quite materialistic and the general trend is having a few (if any) children, because of the financial diffictulties they create. I agree that in sterile couples and couples who don't want children the marital benefits don't cause the effects the government wants them to, but in same-sex couples there isn't even the chance that those benefits would make them bear children since it is generally biologically impossible for them to do so. On the other hand you are completely right that separate laws about basically the same thing, would most likely cause unrest in parts of the population. So at the end it is probably the best to grant homosexuals the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. It still feels partially "unfair" to normal couples.
|
Lesbian couples have a chance of carrying their child through artificial insemination. If anything, the economic advantages of marriage benefit lesbian couples the most. The work wives generally make less than their male counterparts.
It's not as simple as saying, because many homosexual couples can not take full advantage of the government subsidies (lets be honest that's what that is), there should be a separate clause in it for them. Like a poster said before, "separate but equal" doesn't work well.
|
That's one small step for man, and one giant leap for Argentina.
Cliched allusions aside, I've always believed that homophobia is just a stones throw away from racism, anti-semitism, etc. because it revolves around the ugly core idea of prejudice and hate. With the amount of mindless hate for homosexuals in this world brooding itself to despicable masses in schools, extremist churches - even politics, (if it was a legendary moment of history to wtfpwn all the KKK and racist redneck douchebags of the US by electing a black president, then imagine the impact of electing a gay one) I thought for sure we had taken one step forward and three long strides back. Thankfully Argentina is here to save the day.
In Canada, I feel that the level of acceptance for homosexuality here is drastically higher than the southern states or middle eastern countries. (I'm pretty sure you can have a civil gay marriage, that is with a judge, but I'm not sure about a religious one. I'll have to check up on that.) Make no mistake, It's been a battle for us to convert all the narrowminded, pinheaded pricks to accepting, logically thinking individuals. It's a battle we're still fighting and will forever fight, but even if one homosexual can be shielded from the disgust, isolation, and alienation that festers within the plague of prejudice, then our efforts were successful. To quote Pierre Trudeau, former Prime Minister, "Canada does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation." That is to say, stop feeling so insecure by enforcing the need to judge people over their private lifestyles, which in no feasible way brings harm to another human being.
Prejudice taints our minds when we are afraid of something different and allow ourselves to feed that fear, accepting misinformation without making an introspective analysis but rather joining the bandwagon of hate. People need to actually stop and think for themselves, and I know that's asking a lot but you must trust me on this one. It's irrelevant whether or not babies are genetically born gay, or what a 2000 year old book written in a completely different society preaches, or what political figureheads think can be distinguished as black and white with being gay. The point is to love someone for the love they give and the love you recieve. That doesn't require the ancient formula of man + woman = marriage to make it "feel right." Man + Man or Woman + Woman = relationship, whether it be expressed sexually or not. Some people view this as a chink in armor, an imperfection of nature, but that simply isn't the case because if you are someone judging that armor chink, that imperfection, then you're refusing to look beyond surfaces, instead feeling dissapointed or dismayed by what you first find. I think the most beautiful and fascinating things in the universe are those we find mysterious.
|
Good for them, no good reason not to legalize it imo. Hopefully other countries start to follow the lead as well.
|
If I was gay I wouldnt wanna marry in a church for people who have degraded me for around 2 thousand years but if they want if ofcourse they should be allowed to.
|
is awesome32269 Posts
On July 16 2010 15:34 Sl4ktarN wrote: If I was gay I wouldnt wanna marry in a church for people who have degraded me for around 2 thousand years but if they want if ofcourse they should be allowed to.
Argentina did not legalize religious marriage. They legalized civil marriage for same-sex couples.
|
good for them!! lol @ U.S.
|
Very good news. Wish America would finally wake up already.
|
On July 15 2010 22:45 Zurles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers. A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption? if you want kids to become mentally scarred through teasing at school because they have 2 dads then go for it
it's akin to child abuse , you are naive to think bullying won't happen to these kids from other kids at school
|
On July 16 2010 15:53 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 22:45 Zurles wrote:On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers. A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption? if you want kids to become mentally scarred through teasing at school because they have 2 dads then go for it it's akin to child abuse , you are naive to think bullying won't happen to these kids from other kids at school
kids bully kids anyways, your argument could be used against many, many other groups.
|
Problems are not other kids bullying. Kids bully... Flashnews!
Problem are other, retarded backwards thinking parents bullying the gay parents and their children...
|
On July 16 2010 15:53 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 22:45 Zurles wrote:On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers. A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption? if you want kids to become mentally scarred through teasing at school because they have 2 dads then go for it it's akin to child abuse , you are naive to think bullying won't happen to these kids from other kids at school
And you are naive to think that bullying only occurs on people who have gay parents. Kids are bullied due to a plethora of reasons. Just because this could possibly be one does not mean gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Instead, we could get rid of this bullying by explaining to kids there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay.
|
On July 16 2010 15:53 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 22:45 Zurles wrote:On July 15 2010 22:42 Magic84 wrote: I don't see the point of this marriage. For me marriage is about making and raising offsprings, two people passing on their bloodline together as nature intended, marriage also ensures protection for mother with kid financially most of the time. Without it you can just as well live together without any official procedures and papers. A lot of same sex marriages are for raising offspring through adoption? if you want kids to become mentally scarred through teasing at school because they have 2 dads then go for it it's akin to child abuse , you are naive to think bullying won't happen to these kids from other kids at school
Kids are bullied because one parent is white while another is black. Do you think we should ban interracial marriage too?
You're naive to think your argument is anything but ridiculous.
|
Absolutely awesome. I'm really pumped that another country is progressive enough to legalize same-sex marriage. I can only hope that other countries follow suit.
|
|
|
|