|
17017 Posts
(CNN) -- Argentina became the first Latin American country on Thursday to legalize same-sex marriage.
Lawmakers in the Senate passed the bill after 14 hours of debate that began Wednesday and carried well into early Thursday morning, the state-run Telam news agency reported.
The bill had already passed the lower chamber of Congress.
It gives same-sex couples equal marriage rights, including the ability to adopt children.
The law was backed by the center-left government of President Cristina Kirchner, who has said she will sign it.
The majority Roman Catholic country follows a few others around the world where same-sex marriage is legal. Among them are the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain.
Last month's congressional vote and Wednesday's Senate vote are the latest moves in a pro-gay marriage trend in Argentine politics.
Last year, a judge in Buenos Aires ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage was illegal, paving the way for such marriages in the capital of Argentina.
An injunction by another judge stopped what would have been the first same-sex marriage there.
Ultimately, Latin America's first same-sex marriage happened in Argentina in a southern state with a pro-gay marriage governor.
Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/07/15/argentina.gay.marriage/?fbid=BQXBrPH6uc2
I think it's a pretty big step; Argentina is just one of a few countries which recently (within the past year or so) granted same-sex marriage rights to their citizens. Also, the bill passed despite the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church (which, in light of recent events, seems pretty ironic). Does anyone know if the Catholic Church is losing its sway in Argentina? I know it's been a big problem for them in general in many parts of the world with church attendance dropping massively in the wake of all the sex-abuse scandals.
Anyway, your thoughts? And try to keep discussion civil. It's great to have your own opinion, but please remember not to flame others when expressing them.
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
First Chile now Argentina...South America hear I come!
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
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.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Also, the bill passed despite the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church (which, in light of recent events, seems pretty ironic).
Which recent events? I'm sure I'm gonna feel stupid when you tell me but I can't think of any 
|
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?
|
17017 Posts
On July 15 2010 22:44 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +Also, the bill passed despite the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church (which, in light of recent events, seems pretty ironic). Which recent events? I'm sure I'm gonna feel stupid when you tell me but I can't think of any
The Catholic Church in this instance is ostensibly protecting err..."sexual sanctity" by not allowing gays to marry.
Have you seriously not been aware of the massive scandal involving former Cardinal Ratzinger (now the current Pope) covering up the sexual abuse of underage boys by (probably) homosexual priests?
|
$20 says that this thread will be closed due to excessive controversial discussion that turns into a flame war.
I am personally thrilled that Argentina is making these steps forward. After working for a gay boss over the past two years my perception on homosexuality as a whole has been completely turned upside down. There's really no reason for two men or two women to get married aside from the religious aspect, at least that's what it seems like nowadays. To be honest I don't know why I was against gay marriage prior to 2008 anyway. Bah brainwashing 
|
On July 15 2010 22:45 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 22:44 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Also, the bill passed despite the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church (which, in light of recent events, seems pretty ironic). Which recent events? I'm sure I'm gonna feel stupid when you tell me but I can't think of any The Catholic Church in this instance is ostensibly protecting err..."sexual sanctity" by not allowing gays to marry. Have you seriously not been aware of the massive scandal involving former Cardinal Ratzinger (now the current Pope) covering up the sexual abuse of underage boys by (probably) homosexual priests?
That's not ironic though.
It's perhaps a little hypocritical but then it's not as if they condone what was happening.
|
17017 Posts
On July 15 2010 22:54 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 22:45 Empyrean wrote:On July 15 2010 22:44 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Also, the bill passed despite the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church (which, in light of recent events, seems pretty ironic). Which recent events? I'm sure I'm gonna feel stupid when you tell me but I can't think of any The Catholic Church in this instance is ostensibly protecting err..."sexual sanctity" by not allowing gays to marry. Have you seriously not been aware of the massive scandal involving former Cardinal Ratzinger (now the current Pope) covering up the sexual abuse of underage boys by (probably) homosexual priests? That's not ironic though. It's perhaps a little hypocritical but then it's not as if they condone what was happening.
Err, yeah, I suppose it is hypocritical, but isn't it situationally ironic that the Church would choose to really oppose one and try to cover up another?
Actually I think I just suck at English. I'm a stats major so it's to be expected 
>_>
On July 15 2010 22:52 Amber[LighT] wrote:$20 says that this thread will be closed due to excessive controversial discussion that turns into a flame war. I am personally thrilled that Argentina is making these steps forward. After working for a gay boss over the past two years my perception on homosexuality as a whole has been completely turned upside down. There's really no reason for two men or two women to get married aside from the religious aspect, at least that's what it seems like nowadays. To be honest I don't know why I was against gay marriage prior to 2008 anyway. Bah brainwashing
Haha, I had a little friendly "suggestion" at the bottom of my post for people to stay civil.
Anyway, I was talking to one of my gay friends who had an interesting take on marriage. He pretty much said "all right, you religious nuts [he's also an atheist] can keep your fucking "marriage." Call it a civil union if you want. If I love my boyfriend, we'll have a civil union. Just give us all the tax breaks."
I thought it was pretty interesting. Who cares what you call it as long as you get all the benefits, rights, and love your partner (and others know)?
|
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.
Well, there are also things to consider such as insurance coverage and tax deductions. Maybe not the most important part of marriage but they are still benefits that married couples get which are not given to people who simply live together.
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
On July 15 2010 22:59 zerglin2 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. Well, there are also things to consider such as insurance coverage and tax deductions. Maybe not the most important part of marriage but they are still benefits that married couples get which are not given to people who simply live together.
IMO gay marriage is about two things:
1. Equality/pride (freedom and recognition basically)
2. The right to adopt kids, equal to the one of regular couples and not the one of singles.
|
On July 15 2010 22:57 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 22:54 Klive5ive wrote:On July 15 2010 22:45 Empyrean wrote:On July 15 2010 22:44 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Also, the bill passed despite the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church (which, in light of recent events, seems pretty ironic). Which recent events? I'm sure I'm gonna feel stupid when you tell me but I can't think of any The Catholic Church in this instance is ostensibly protecting err..."sexual sanctity" by not allowing gays to marry. Have you seriously not been aware of the massive scandal involving former Cardinal Ratzinger (now the current Pope) covering up the sexual abuse of underage boys by (probably) homosexual priests? That's not ironic though. It's perhaps a little hypocritical but then it's not as if they condone what was happening. Err, yeah, I suppose it is hypocritical, but isn't it situationally ironic that the Church would choose to really oppose one and try to cover up another? Actually I think I just suck at English. I'm a stats major so it's to be expected >_> Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 22:52 Amber[LighT] wrote:$20 says that this thread will be closed due to excessive controversial discussion that turns into a flame war. I am personally thrilled that Argentina is making these steps forward. After working for a gay boss over the past two years my perception on homosexuality as a whole has been completely turned upside down. There's really no reason for two men or two women to get married aside from the religious aspect, at least that's what it seems like nowadays. To be honest I don't know why I was against gay marriage prior to 2008 anyway. Bah brainwashing Haha, I had a little friendly "suggestion" at the bottom of my post for people to stay civil. Anyway, I was talking to one of my gay friends who had an interesting take on marriage. He pretty much said "all right, you religious nuts [he's also an atheist] can keep your fucking "marriage." Call it a civil union if you want. If I love my boyfriend, we'll have a civil union. Just give us all the tax breaks." I thought it was pretty interesting. Who cares what you call it as long as you get all the benefits, rights, and love your partner (and others know)?
I think the issue that's brought up by the most gung-ho gay-rights activists is the issue of separate but equal. Even though you're not being treated any less than someone who is married, there's a different connotation between the two words. I think the opinion of your friend (and my boss too) is the realization that gay marriage is just not going to happen in their lifetime.
I mean New York has been battling this for years and most people consider the state to be "liberal" about policies, especially with the incredible GLBT population that exists in New York City alone. The state can't pass any legislation due to the 'old ways' of many northerners, but I'm not particularly knocking them because they just don't get it... they just aren't ready... and many people have just accepted it for what it is at the moment.
I think as more and more countries across the world begin to associate the GLBT audience as "equals" in the eye of the law the less people will care about the connotation of the word "marriage" and it's applicability.
|
On July 15 2010 22:57 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 22:54 Klive5ive wrote:On July 15 2010 22:45 Empyrean wrote:On July 15 2010 22:44 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Also, the bill passed despite the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church (which, in light of recent events, seems pretty ironic). Which recent events? I'm sure I'm gonna feel stupid when you tell me but I can't think of any The Catholic Church in this instance is ostensibly protecting err..."sexual sanctity" by not allowing gays to marry. Have you seriously not been aware of the massive scandal involving former Cardinal Ratzinger (now the current Pope) covering up the sexual abuse of underage boys by (probably) homosexual priests? That's not ironic though. It's perhaps a little hypocritical but then it's not as if they condone what was happening. Err, yeah, I suppose it is hypocritical, but isn't it situationally ironic that the Church would choose to really oppose one and try to cover up another? Actually I think I just suck at English. I'm a stats major so it's to be expected >_> Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 22:52 Amber[LighT] wrote:$20 says that this thread will be closed due to excessive controversial discussion that turns into a flame war. I am personally thrilled that Argentina is making these steps forward. After working for a gay boss over the past two years my perception on homosexuality as a whole has been completely turned upside down. There's really no reason for two men or two women to get married aside from the religious aspect, at least that's what it seems like nowadays. To be honest I don't know why I was against gay marriage prior to 2008 anyway. Bah brainwashing Haha, I had a little friendly "suggestion" at the bottom of my post for people to stay civil. Anyway, I was talking to one of my gay friends who had an interesting take on marriage. He pretty much said "all right, you religious nuts [he's also an atheist] can keep your fucking "marriage." Call it a civil union if you want. If I love my boyfriend, we'll have a civil union. Just give us all the tax breaks." I thought it was pretty interesting. Who cares what you call it as long as you get all the benefits, rights, and love your partner (and others know)?
first of all the problem that you usually don't get the benefits in a civil union. Also the interesting question is why SHOULDN'T you allow two homosexuals allow to marry? Where is the need to call it differently? Therefore it's a good step (and it's important that it's called marriage (imo)) for equal rights.
Definitely a good thing without any negative aspects. Marriage is not necessarily religious (and definitely not necessarily christian/catholic) btw.
edit: also what the poster above me said. very good point.
|
17017 Posts
On July 15 2010 23:07 Keniji wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 22:57 Empyrean wrote:On July 15 2010 22:54 Klive5ive wrote:On July 15 2010 22:45 Empyrean wrote:On July 15 2010 22:44 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Also, the bill passed despite the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church (which, in light of recent events, seems pretty ironic). Which recent events? I'm sure I'm gonna feel stupid when you tell me but I can't think of any The Catholic Church in this instance is ostensibly protecting err..."sexual sanctity" by not allowing gays to marry. Have you seriously not been aware of the massive scandal involving former Cardinal Ratzinger (now the current Pope) covering up the sexual abuse of underage boys by (probably) homosexual priests? That's not ironic though. It's perhaps a little hypocritical but then it's not as if they condone what was happening. Err, yeah, I suppose it is hypocritical, but isn't it situationally ironic that the Church would choose to really oppose one and try to cover up another? Actually I think I just suck at English. I'm a stats major so it's to be expected >_> On July 15 2010 22:52 Amber[LighT] wrote:$20 says that this thread will be closed due to excessive controversial discussion that turns into a flame war. I am personally thrilled that Argentina is making these steps forward. After working for a gay boss over the past two years my perception on homosexuality as a whole has been completely turned upside down. There's really no reason for two men or two women to get married aside from the religious aspect, at least that's what it seems like nowadays. To be honest I don't know why I was against gay marriage prior to 2008 anyway. Bah brainwashing Haha, I had a little friendly "suggestion" at the bottom of my post for people to stay civil. Anyway, I was talking to one of my gay friends who had an interesting take on marriage. He pretty much said "all right, you religious nuts [he's also an atheist] can keep your fucking "marriage." Call it a civil union if you want. If I love my boyfriend, we'll have a civil union. Just give us all the tax breaks." I thought it was pretty interesting. Who cares what you call it as long as you get all the benefits, rights, and love your partner (and others know)? first of all the problem that you usually don't get the benefits in a civil union. Also the interesting question is why SHOULDN'T you allow two homosexuals allow to marry? Where is the need to call it differently? Therefore it's a good step (and it's important that it's called marriage (imo)) for equal rights. Definitely a good thing without any negative aspects. Marriage is not necessarily religious (and definitely not necessarily christian/catholic) btw.
And I'd agree with you here, but America is a much more socially conservative country than Germany is, and there are millions of people who will zealously defend marriage as a "religious institution" specifically between a "man and a woman." My friend was just saying how as long as he got equal rights as straight people do, then he couldn't care less what the hell they called it. I just thought it was an interesting perspective.
But yeah, I agree with you that gays deserve all the rights as straights do (and that calling a gay marriage a "marriage" would be a great step). I just don't see it happening nationwide in America any time soon (especially in the Deep South, a historic bastion of ultra-conservative views).
|
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?
|
On July 15 2010 23:12 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 23:07 Keniji wrote:On July 15 2010 22:57 Empyrean wrote:On July 15 2010 22:54 Klive5ive wrote:On July 15 2010 22:45 Empyrean wrote:On July 15 2010 22:44 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Also, the bill passed despite the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church (which, in light of recent events, seems pretty ironic). Which recent events? I'm sure I'm gonna feel stupid when you tell me but I can't think of any The Catholic Church in this instance is ostensibly protecting err..."sexual sanctity" by not allowing gays to marry. Have you seriously not been aware of the massive scandal involving former Cardinal Ratzinger (now the current Pope) covering up the sexual abuse of underage boys by (probably) homosexual priests? That's not ironic though. It's perhaps a little hypocritical but then it's not as if they condone what was happening. Err, yeah, I suppose it is hypocritical, but isn't it situationally ironic that the Church would choose to really oppose one and try to cover up another? Actually I think I just suck at English. I'm a stats major so it's to be expected >_> On July 15 2010 22:52 Amber[LighT] wrote:$20 says that this thread will be closed due to excessive controversial discussion that turns into a flame war. I am personally thrilled that Argentina is making these steps forward. After working for a gay boss over the past two years my perception on homosexuality as a whole has been completely turned upside down. There's really no reason for two men or two women to get married aside from the religious aspect, at least that's what it seems like nowadays. To be honest I don't know why I was against gay marriage prior to 2008 anyway. Bah brainwashing Haha, I had a little friendly "suggestion" at the bottom of my post for people to stay civil. Anyway, I was talking to one of my gay friends who had an interesting take on marriage. He pretty much said "all right, you religious nuts [he's also an atheist] can keep your fucking "marriage." Call it a civil union if you want. If I love my boyfriend, we'll have a civil union. Just give us all the tax breaks." I thought it was pretty interesting. Who cares what you call it as long as you get all the benefits, rights, and love your partner (and others know)? first of all the problem that you usually don't get the benefits in a civil union. Also the interesting question is why SHOULDN'T you allow two homosexuals allow to marry? Where is the need to call it differently? Therefore it's a good step (and it's important that it's called marriage (imo)) for equal rights. Definitely a good thing without any negative aspects. Marriage is not necessarily religious (and definitely not necessarily christian/catholic) btw. And I'd agree with you here, but America is a much more socially conservative country than Germany is, and there are millions of people who will zealously defend marriage as a "religious institution" specifically between a "man and a woman." My friend was just saying how as long as he got equal rights as straight people do, then he couldn't care less what the hell they called it. I just thought it was an interesting perspective. But yeah, I agree with you that gays deserve all the rights as straights do (and that calling a gay marriage a "marriage" would be a great step). I just don't see it happening nationwide in America any time soon (especially in the Deep South, a historic bastion of ultra-conservative views).
I did understand what you were saying and I totally agree with you. I just wanted to add that it is important that you call it marriage (eventually), too. It might be a first step (and a huge one) when you get the equal rights/benefits with a civil union for gay marriage, but eventually it's still not the same. Anyway even tho you can accept and work for the same rights with a civil union (because it's more realistic at least in the USA) you should always aim for total equality which includes calling it marriage.
Go argentina!
|
Religious extremism * is a filthy, dirty thing . . .
|
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.
There are certain financial benefits of being married (gay or not), and I think adopting children becomes easier (?).
|
I think its great, sadly I dont see this happening anytime soon in Brazil
|
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.
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. @ wikipedia
See how there is not a single word about children? It is because that is not the most improtant in marriage. You marry when you love someone not when you want to breed with someone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
