Argentina Approves Landmark Gay Rights Bill

Submitted by: almightybob1 6 years ago in
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66E1IH20100715

Gay couples can now marry and adopt in nominally Catholic Argentina. Is the influence of religion on the wane?
There are 51 comments:
Male 145
@Angilion Well said, if a bit long winded.

p.s. I spill my seed daily.
0
Reply
Male 152
He supports it on "human rights grounds?" Gays are human now? Crap, they`ve infiltrated us! Save your loved ones!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
So...the rise and fall of Rome as a reflection of its attitudes towards homosexuality. A bizarre idea, but I`ll run with it for a laugh.

During the period in which Rome gained hugely in wealth, power, size and civilisation, going from a simple little agrarian city-state to a multi-continental empire renowned for civilisation and technology, homosexual sex was legal, socially acceptable in many contexts and fairly common.

When homosexual sex was increasingly stigmatised and then outlawed, Rome declined and fell.

"obviously", homosexual sex is what causes societies to thrive. Outlawing it can bring down the strongest of civilisations!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote] Never has a nation survived on the basis of sexual desire. When they`ve tried, they`ve collapsed (think Rome). [/quote]

You probably don`t realise what a fool you`ve made of yourself.

If you bother to learn anything about real historical Rome and about the various factors in its downfall, you`ll realise what a fool you`re making of yourself.

I can give you a simple counter-example - the English republic. It lasted 10 years. Rome lasted well over 1000 years, 2000 if you include the eastern Roman empire (Byzantine empire).

You`re talking twaddle. Trying to claim a historical example based solely on your own ignorance of the society in question is laughable.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Besides which, marriage predates your religion. By several thousand years.[/quote]

I`d argue that marriage predates his religion by far more than several thousand years.

It can`t be proven because written records no longer exist, but I think it would be bizarre if humanity existed for so long without any form of marriage. People were building cities at least 8500 years ago. Not just villages of wattle huts, but cities of stone buildings. Things were organised. Besides, marriage makes sense even in nomadic hunter-gatherer days. I wouldn`t be at all surprised if marriage predated homo sapiens, let alone Christianity.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The catholic church does not consider a marriage valid if either party does not want to have children.[/quote]

Please provide evidence to support that claim. You will need to show that the catholic church always, or at least routinely, agrees to annul marriages in which either party does not what children.

To be blunt, I think you`re making it up.

In any case, the catholic church is irrelevant to most marriages.

[quote]Because by allowing marriage to the same sex or to objects you are destroying the purpose of marriage entirely.[/quote]

Only according to your silly and self-contradicting opinion of marriage, which people are not required to agree with. In fact, it`s impossible to agree with you because you`re contradicting yourself.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Last time I checked, you usually don`t find out that you are infertile until marriage. Why should it be dissolved because of this?[/quote]

It`s your argument that says it should, so why are you asking that question of someone who disagrees with you? That makes no sense.

You have said, and repeated, that reproduction is the purpose of marriage. You must therefore believe that a marriage in which reproduction is impossible has no purpose and therefore isn`t actually a marriage.

Also, you generally find out you`re infertile after trying for some time to have a child. That`s not the same as marriage.

[quote]If neither person is unwilling to have kids, then no, they should not marry in the first place.[/quote]

What if they don`t agree with your self-contradicting opinion?
0
Reply
Male 5,617
@JeffBeau
1) WTF are you talking about? Are you thinking that homosexuals somehow MAKE heterosexuals change preference?
You know, in 7B humans, only about 3 percent of the human populous can call itself completely gay.
There is a higher percentage that just plain-old does not want to have children.
You are also assuming that absolutely no homosexuals have children.

2) Sex didn`t destroy Rome, revolting subjugates and Christian terrorists did. What do you think? Hordes of Visigoths came over a hill using expert ass-banditry to convince Romans not to raise soldiers?

3) Non-homo-friendly people are already in power. Why else would the article be news worthy if not to show that a supposed `third world` nation is farther along than the US in an area of human rights?
0
Reply
Male 38,754
boy oh boy.

Madonna does one movie down there and look what`s happened.
0
Reply
Female 385
@JeffBeau: Actually, the reason the vast majority on heterosexual couples marry in the western world is because they love each other. The children are a secondary factor that often don`t come up until years later, if it ever does. No one goes "I really want to have crotchspawn with you, let`s get hitched."

And with the number of children sitting in foster homes and orphanages, there is no logical reason to prevent homosexual couples from getting marries so they can qualify to adopt, when studies have shown that homosexual couples are just as successful at raising children as heterosexual ones.
0
Reply
Male 145
I`m a married heterosexual male with no desire for children. I`ve been having sex with my wife since the first night I met her. I`m also an athiest. Take that, sanctity of marriage.
0
Reply
Male 23
I would think JeffBeau is just drating around and trolling because that poo is so drating ignorant... But then I realize, alot of the world is also just as drating ignorant.

Your theories on the breakdown of society have no factual basis man... Only a bunch of dumb drats that wholeheartedly believe it
0
Reply
Female 1,677
JeffBeau what the hell are you talking about you freak. Ever heard of adoption? The nation is being replenished more than it can handle already dumbass. If "homos" were allowed to marry and adopt like anybody else-- MORE children would be brought up in a two-parent household rather than pooty foster homes (no offense to non-pooty foster homes). Get a grip.
0
Reply
Male 180
@Musko: So in other words, they want what they think is some government gravy. Nations survive only if their native population is steadily replenished, which can only be done via heterosexual sex, preferably in a 2 parent household. The breakdown or subjugation of the nuclear family ends in collapse of a nation (as we`re now seeing in the U.S., especially the ghettos). Hence the rationale for governments to recognize heterosexual marriage with one parent home with the kids.

For the vast majority of heterosexual couples the reason to get married is to raise a family, not to just to have sex. Not so for homos. Never has a nation survived on the basis of sexual desire. When they`ve tried, they`ve collapsed (think Rome).

But ok, so homosexuals want more government involvement in their lives to avoid any `inconvenience`. Just beware what can happen with that control when someone not so homo-friendly gets power.
0
Reply
Male 38,754
this is taking your bromance too far
0
Reply
Male 6,694
Who cares.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
And to think that we here in the U.S thought we were more advanced than other countries. Oh well.
0
Reply
Male 159
whats with all the gay stuff I-A-B.

"I miss it the old days, when gays weren`t so in your face about it"
0
Reply
Male 2,850
"What I don`t understand is why homosexual couples would want to bind themselves into such a decimated concept as marriage."

I know a gay couple who have been together for over 20 years. They got a civil partnership (same legal rights as marriage) not long ago, simply because one of them was going in for a major operation.

Because if something happened on the operating table and he died, the civil partnership would ensure that:

1: his partner would be able to keep the house they`ve shared for 20+ years, without having to go through wills, dealing with inheritance tax, etc.
2: his partner would be able to continue collecting his pension.
3: generally everything would be made easier during such a time of personal tragedy.

These are all things that married couples have. They are not cheating the system; they are merely using the same rights that married couples have.

And after 20+ years together in a solid relationship, who is
0
Reply
Male 103
The problem with marrying a table would be that a table can`t give written consent to the marriage, and as both parties have to give written consent for it to be official marriage between a table and a person couldn`t happen.
0
Reply
Female 130
"Well, aside from the social aspects of being married to someone aside from just dating, there are numerous legal and financial benefits, many of which cannot be replicated in any other way."

Bunk, it`s about equality not beurocratic red tape. the entire system is created and altered constantly, marriages being a relatively late legal addition for many countries when compared to other laws and systems.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Argentina leading the way. Good on them.
0
Reply
Female 385
[quote]What I don`t understand is why homosexual couples would want to bind themselves into such a decimated concept as marriage.[/quote]
Well, aside from the social aspects of being married to someone aside from just dating, there are numerous legal and financial benefits, many of which cannot be replicated in any other way.
0
Reply
Male 189
Reproduction can occur without love just like love can occur without reproduction. Modern marriage tends to represent that a couple is capable of reproducing or have already. There is no "Sanctity of Marriage" when it can occur between two wasted adults in Vegas, two stupid teenagers who didn`t use protection, former one-night stands, and people who generaly hate each other but share children. I can understand how idiots are too scared and confused to try and rethink their meaning of marriage, so they fight change. What I don`t understand is why homosexual couples would want to bind themselves into such a decimated concept as marriage.
0
Reply
Male 52
Can we acknowledge that marriage is not a ceremony unique to Abrahamic tradition-and is actively practiced by the majority of religion no matter the opinion of said faith on homosexuality-Not to mention the fact that marriage predates reliable history-With something so universal and without
0
Reply
Male 94
Laws also will exist for internal stability within a civilization, and the most adventitious system generally pulls ahead.
0
Reply
Male 94
Let`s remove biases and romantic ideas people have. Love is a chemical bond inside the mind between people in order to create a hospitable bond for reproduction and more importantly rearing. Marriage is an institution which is socially recognized in order for hospitable environment for reproduction and child rearing. When you simply look at why certain institutions failed or succeeded many times there are reasons. Ideas evolve as well. Draw your own conclusions.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Religion, go die in a corner somewhere, please. The world would be a better place. Do the Right Thing, like you`ve been telling us to do for the last coupla thousand years.

You know it makes sense to admit defeat and just roll over and die. We`ll even bring you water and read you books and sh*t.
0
Reply
Male 8,302
I don`t want to sound racist or anything, but I thought everyone in Argentina was gay anyway?
0
Reply
Female 1,677
Actually if somebody wanted to marry a table, if they really loved it, then sure, go nuts. My problem was the implication in Dip`s post that gay marriage is as crazy as inanimate-object marriage. It`s the same as the freaks who say bestiality is "next".

You think gays are ruining what marriage stands for? Why aren`t you protesting The Bachelor and all those other cheap reality shows fetishizing marriage-- or better yet, go protest all the drunks getting hitched in Vegas.

A vagina and a penis does nothing at all to legitimize what you believe is the sanctity of marriage. Love should be the only consequential factor. Then again, tell that to people marrying for green cards, or gays (ashamed of their true selves-- gee wonder why?) marrying beards. If your problem is with people not marrying for the "right reasons", then you should go all the way with it. Hypocrite.
0
Reply
Female 385
@ZNaught: Reproduction does not require marriage. Marriage does not require reproduction. These are facts. Your opinions, and the opinions of your altar-boy molesting church officials (who, by the way, aren`t even allowed to get married, so why do they have any say in the matter?) matter not in the slightest.

Besides which, marriage predates your religion. By several thousand years. If your church doesn`t want to recognize marriages performed outside of its tenets, whatever. But the legal institution of marriage has nothing to do with your god or anyone else`s.

Also, many people are born infertile, or become so due to illness or injury. These people are generally aware of it long before marriage. If you believe none of these people should ever be allowed to marry, you are not just a bigot, but a monster every bit as hateful and cruel as the one you worship.
0
Reply
Male 372
Who gives a hot damn what the Catholic church wants. Marriage has long since stopped being about religion. If you don`t want to get married without the church`s consent, or without reproduction in mind that`s your right, but stop bogarting what is now a social norm because FOR YOU it has religious implications.
0
Reply
Male 351
@Yaezakura: Last time I checked, you usually don`t find out that you are infertile until marriage. Why should it be dissolved because of this? If you were religious, you would know there are other reasons for marriage as well, but reproduction is first and foremost. If neither person is unwilling to have kids, then no, they should not marry in the first place. The catholic church does not consider a marriage valid if either party does not want to have children.

@Angilion: Because by allowing marriage to the same sex or to objects you are destroying the purpose of marriage entirely.
0
Reply
Female 385
[quote]Having said that, I do see an indirect point in their original argument. It`s bizarre to marry an object, but why should it be illegal? If ZNaught wants to marry his table, where`s the harm?[/quote]
Well, it mostly comes down to a case of logic. Marriage is a legal contract. A table, having no mind with which to give consent, or to even name a representative, has no ability to enter into a contract.

But don`t worry, ZNaught. You are free to enjoy your relationship with your table in the privacy of your own home. Heck, take it on dates, kiss it in public, hold its leg in your hand as you drag it down the street. I won`t judge you.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Having said that, I do see an indirect point in their original argument. It`s bizarre to marry an object, but why should it be illegal? If ZNaught wants to marry his table, where`s the harm?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]@Boadicea: Well if it is not limited to a man and a woman for the PURPOSE OF REPRODUCTION, then why not with a table? A table cannot reproduce either.[/quote]

I`ll pick this up anyway, as it`s a public forum.

Marriage is not limited TO REPRODUCTION.

If you think it should be, you must advocate that it be made illegal for post-menopausal women to marry and illegal for anyone who is infertile to marry.

That`s if you`re taking a moderate version of your stated position. If you`re going all the way to the logical conclusion of your stated position, you`ll also have to advocate that an existing marriage automatically ends if either spouse becomes infertile. According to your stated position, that would end the entire purpose of the marriage.

Are you going to stand behind your stated position, contradict yourself or change your stated position? You have to do one of those.
0
Reply
Female 385
@ZNaught: By your own logic, no one who is infertile should be allowed to get married. Or couples with no intention of having kids. If already married, and one person becomes unable to reproduce, due to injury or illness, they should have their marriage dissolved immediately. Am I right? Because if the ability to reproduce is the only criteria you accept for who`s allowed to get married, you must believe in all of these things.
0
Reply
Male 473
Yeay GAY rights for Everyone!
0
Reply
Male 351
@Boadicea: Well if it is not limited to a man and a woman for the PURPOSE OF REPRODUCTION, then why not with a table? A table cannot reproduce either.
0
Reply
Female 1,677
Yes because a rational consenting adult is the same as a table.

Dip.
0
Reply
Male 351
Until I can marry objects, I shall not be happy! The government has no right to discriminate against those who may love objects. I have the right just as anyone else to marry what I love.
0
Reply
Male 848
Go Argentina!
0
Reply
Male 621
Way to go Argentina!!! :D
0
Reply
Female 1,963
Good to see that not all countries in the world are as backwards as others. I don`t think that private churches have a duty to marry anyone they don`t want to, but the government has no right to discriminate.
0
Reply
Male 2,649
`I don`t understand what religion has to do with a secular tradition. Personally, I`m against the church marrying anyone.`

im all about freedom. let social institutions do what they want. IMO a law saying people can marry is just as bad a law saying they cant. if you WANT to add religious ceremonies then go for it. adding a religion to a secular ceremony was a choice. just imagine how much easier this whole marriage thing would be if religion was never made in to a requirement in the 16th century.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Hurray for Argentina!
0
Reply
Male 39
congrats gays, now you can be miserable with the rest of us!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I still dont understand what government has to do with a religious tradition. Personally, I`m against the government marrying anyone.[/quote]

I don`t understand what religion has to do with a secular tradition. Personally, I`m against the church marrying anyone.

Actually, I do understand. It`s about power. I`m just using the same wording as you to make a point while going back a little further in time. Marriage used to be secular. Religious ceremonies were often added, but marriage itself was secular. For example, religion wasn`t a requirement in marriages in England until the 16th century.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Hmm...several lists and the UK isn`t on them. The change in the law (2005) caused so little fuss here that maybe no-one even noticed overseas.
0
Reply
Male 2,649
I still dont understand what government has to do with a religious tradition. Personally, I`m against the government marrying anyone.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Link: Argentina Approves Landmark Gay Rights Bill [Rate Link] - Gay couples can now marry and adopt in nominally Catholic Argentina. Is the influence of religion on the wane?
0
Reply