By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Argentina Legalizes Gay Marriage and Adoption, 1st country in Latin America

highwaystar101 said:
zexen_lowe said:
highwaystar101 said:

Perhaps I should explain a little more. In many places civil unions are brought in to give homosexual couples the same rights and privileges from the government as married heterosexual couples, except for a few cases where it is open to heterosexual and homosexual people. Essentially my idea would be to recognise all relationships as civil unions so that we all get the same rights and privelages, regardless of sexual orientation.

If you want to get married, you need to apply for civil union to be recognised as a couple. And then if you want to get married a religious organisation working independently from the government will recognise your relationship, but it will not have anything to with the government. The marriage will just be recognised by your church.

That's exactly how it works (now) here, only that the civil union figure is called "civil marriage". Religious marriages can be performed at will, but only by previously civil married couples, and of course, it has no validity whatsoever to the gov't. I don't see where the difference is, at all

 

Yeah, it does work like that in some countries, but not all of them. It just seems like the logical way it should work though.

Well, I don't know, we've had civil marriages since 1888, I haven't ever compared religious to civil marriages since they're totally different things...in fact the former requires the latter, hence why I don't understand why religious people said in the debate that surged previous to the promulgation of the law about the religiousness of marriage...when marriage (the one that counts for the state) hasn't had anything to do with religion since almost 120 years here




Around the Network
highwaystar101 said:

Yeah, Torillian explained what I meant, so I'll leave it to you Slimebeast.

However, tomorrow I'm going on holiday for a week. So I'm afraid that I probably wont be able to reply to your post for a while.

-edit-

Perhaps I should explain a little more. In many places civil unions are brought in to give homosexual couples the same rights and privileges from the government as married heterosexual couples, except for a few cases where it is open to heterosexual and homosexual people. Essentially my idea would be to recognise all relationships as civil unions so that we all get the same rights and privelages, regardless of sexual orientation.

If you want to get married, you need to apply for civil union to be recognised as a couple. And then if you want to get married a religious organisation working independently from the government will recognise your relationship, but it will not have anything to with the government. The marriage will just be recognised by your church.

I agree with this. Separate the marriage label from civil unions and keep that a religious thing.

The big problem with civil unions is where to draw the line beyond gay couples - will we allow polygamy, and partnerships between mother and son, between brothers etc and recognize them as civil unions with the same rights and privileges as hetero couples?

I'm not saying I know where to draw the line, and that's kinda my point, it's difficult to draw the line for what is an accepted civil union and what is not.



When you say mother and son I hope you mean when the son is of the age of reason and not a child.

My point is, aslong as a relationship is between consenting adults I don't really see the problem. I do however have a problem with a person wanting to marry a child because children aren't mentally fully developed and its robbing them of their childhood. Furthermore adults have power over children as many studies have shown that childrens brains are hardwired to listen and go along with what a repstected adult says. Anything in my mind that takes away the right of a child to be a child or doesn't involve consent between adults is wrong.

Whilst distaintful to my mind, I honestly couldn't care if a man has multiple husbands or multiple wives or a woman has multiples wifes or multiple husbands. As long as its all openenly consented too by adults then who am I too stop them?

Of course the issue is, most people that want multiple wives are generally very religious (most poeple seem to only want one partner onces they've found someone suitable anyway). And it becomes very hard I should think to differentiate between women that may be forced into it and those that chose it. Furthermore many of these sects only allow multiple women to marry one man  and don't allow it the other way around, which is sexist and inequitable. So unless its going to be equal both ways, I cannot support such a preferentially male driven law.



FaRmLaNd said:

When you say mother and son I hope you mean when the son is of the age of reason and not a child.

My point is, aslong as a relationship is between consenting adults I don't really see the problem. I do however have a problem with a person wanting to marry a child because children aren't mentally fully developed and its robbing them of their childhood. Furthermore adults have power over children as many studies have shown that childrens brains are hardwired to listen and go along with what a repstected adult says. Anything in my mind that takes away the right of a child to be a child or doesn't involve consent between adults is wrong.

Whilst distaintful to my mind, I honestly couldn't care if a man has multiple husbands or multiple wives or a woman has multiples wifes or multiple husbands. As long as its all openenly consented too by adults then who am I too stop them?

Of course the issue is, most people that want multiple wives are generally very religious (most poeple seem to only want one partner onces they've found someone suitable anyway). And it becomes very hard I should think to differentiate between women that may be forced into it and those that chose it. Furthermore many of these sects only allow multiple women to marry one man  and don't allow it the other way around, which is sexist and inequitable. So unless its going to be equal both ways, I cannot support such a preferentially male driven law.

Yes a mother and an adult son, not a child.

With these civil unions taking so many different forms I am thinking why would the state acknowledge them at all? Why would a union get certain benefits compared to single people?



Gay people are just normal people with a different sexual orientation. It's only fair for them to have the same rights that heterosexual people have. That doesn't give anyone, no matter the sexual orientation, to be displaying in public explicit sexual acts. I remember seeing some gay people carrying a giant penis during a protest and they were not told by anyone of the other gay people there to take it away. I'm against those kinds of people, who think they have instantly gotten the right to do anything they want in regards to their sexuality just because they have been granted some missing civil rights. The law should still be the law.

Gay pride parades shouldn't be allowed to be done in public places, because they are sexually suggestive as per se and also because they are not necessary at all as they are inciting homophobic people to respond. There's no such thing as "white people pride parades", "Jew's Pride Parades" or "male pride parades", because they would be considered either racist, fanatist or sexist. In that same regard, sexuality oriented pride parades are useless and should be punished.

One personal opinion on homophobic people. It's only natural of human beings to feel repulsion over something that's not following the lines of our natural ways of behaviour. I'm not even justifying homophobic people at all, because that's terrible, but you can't be angry over someone feeling repulsion after seeing 2 gay people kissing on the streets (so long as there is no agression or discrimination). I'm sure many would feel repulsion over a father and a daughter kissing or having sex, or people eating excrements, because those are things that go against the basic human instincts and what has been in our genetic memory for millions of years with the purpose of preserving the species. I'm not saying those are wrong, as in morally wrong, but they can be disturbing for some people and that needs to be aknowledged by the people performing such acts and so they should think whether it's appropiate or not to do it in X place at X time.



Proud poster of the 10000th reply at the Official Smash Bros Update Thread.

tag - "I wouldn't trust gamespot, even if it was a live comparison."

Bets with Conegamer:

Pandora's Tower will have an opening week of less than 37k in Japan. (Won!)
Pandora's Tower will sell less than 100k lifetime in Japan.
Stakes: 1 week of avatar control for each one.

Fullfilled Prophecies

Around the Network

Country number 10 ^_^

It is only sad that if you count all the countries together it is only a region of around 200-250 million people:

 Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina.



 

trestres said:

Gay people are just normal people with a different sexual orientation. It's only fair for them to have the same rights that heterosexual people have. That doesn't give anyone, no matter the sexual orientation, to be displaying in public explicit sexual acts. I remember seeing some gay people carrying a giant penis during a protest and they were not told by anyone of the other gay people there to take it away. I'm against those kinds of people, who think they have instantly gotten the right to do anything they want in regards to their sexuality just because they have been granted some missing civil rights. The law should still be the law.

Gay pride parades shouldn't be allowed to be done in public places, because they are sexually suggestive as per se and also because they are not necessary at all as they are inciting homophobic people to respond. There's no such thing as "white people pride parades", "Jew's Pride Parades" or "male pride parades", because they would be considered either racist, fanatist or sexist. In that same regard, sexuality oriented pride parades are useless and should be punished.

One personal opinion on homophobic people. It's only natural of human beings to feel repulsion over something that's not following the lines of our natural ways of behaviour. I'm not even justifying homophobic people at all, because that's terrible, but you can't be angry over someone feeling repulsion after seeing 2 gay people kissing on the streets (so long as there is no agression or discrimination). I'm sure many would feel repulsion over a father and a daughter kissing or having sex, or people eating excrements, because those are things that go against the basic human instincts and what has been in our genetic memory for millions of years with the purpose of preserving the species. I'm not saying those are wrong, as in morally wrong, but they can be disturbing for some people and that needs to be aknowledged by the people performing such acts and so they should think whether it's appropiate or not to do it in X place at X time.

Great post. I agree 100% on every word.



Lostplanet22 said:

Country number 10 ^_^

It is only sad that if you count all the countries together it is only a region of around 200-250 million people:

 Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina.


What about Amsterdam?



 

Seece said:
Lostplanet22 said:

Country number 10 ^_^

It is only sad that if you count all the countries together it is only a region of around 200-250 million people:

 Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina.


What about Amsterdam?

Thats the capital of Holland. (Netherlands) I'm guessing someone didn't do Geography.



FootballFan said:
Seece said:
Lostplanet22 said:

Country number 10 ^_^

It is only sad that if you count all the countries together it is only a region of around 200-250 million people:

 Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina.


What about Amsterdam?

Thats the capital of Holland. (Netherlands) I'm guessing someone didn't do Geography.

Is it? .. wow

I loved geography but we learnt about tigers and my local city ><