Argentina legalizes gay marriage in historic vote

[ValerieA 350]

Yes I think anyone who is married and gets a vasectomy should be required to divorce at the same time - now that there is no reason to be married.

What I dont understand is gay divorce. I mean when it's heteros, the woman gets everything and the guy gets a tiny bedsit room in the ghetto and turns into an alky and then dies. How will they decide who gets what when it's two geezers or two short haired ladies ?

Speak for yourself. I was the one who lost everything (well, almost). I didn't know about the bedsit part, I should have read the rulebook. I'm working on the alky part, and everyone dies. I am sure I will at some point too. Maybe.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not necessarily. In areas where they have pushed for equal benefits minus an actual "marriage" it has seemed to be a bit more acceptable. Now there are always those against it no matter what for whatever reason.

Marriage is a religious institution in our Western culture and should be left as such. All unions be it male/female, male/male, female/female should be considered civil unions in government. Leave marraige out completely. It's a civil contract is all it is at the end of the day and should be treated as such.

But it isn't - the religious establishment has long lost its control of that institution. It lost it the moment society deemed that people no longer needed to marry in a church. And so far noone is out there making noise about how civil marriages are any less "valid" than a marriage performed in a religious building by a priest.

As far as the dangerous/backwards thinking comment, not really.... I think anyone who relies on marriage to confirm their relationship is quite pathetic. No matter what orientation they are. Hell, the only reason I'm doing the marriage thing is for immigration purposes. If I had it my way, I see no inherent benefit in having the government recognize my relationship. It's absurd on all levels and why I think it should be completely abolished from government in all honesty.

No inherent benefit? Marriage isn't just an arbitrary symbolic act - it's one that confers the participants with actual, practical legal rights.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Speak for yourself. I was the one who lost everything (well, almost). I didn't know about the bedsit part, I should have read the rulebook. I'm working on the alky part, and everyone dies. I am sure I will at some point too. Maybe.

Ditto. And it looks possible that it might happen again, so I am extracting certain promises in writing right now.

[Captain Oates 910]

Not necessarily. In areas where they have pushed for equal benefits minus an actual "marriage" it has seemed to be a bit more acceptable. Now there are always those against it no matter what for whatever reason.

Marriage is a religious institution in our Western culture and should be left as such. All unions be it male/female, male/male, female/female should be considered civil unions in government. Leave marraige out completely. It's a civil contract is all it is at the end of the day and should be treated as such.

As far as the dangerous/backwards thinking comment, not really.... I think anyone who relies on marriage to confirm their relationship is quite pathetic. No matter what orientation they are. Hell, the only reason I'm doing the marriage thing is for immigration purposes. If I had it my way, I see no inherent benefit in having the government recognize my relationship. It's absurd on all levels and why I think it should be completely abolished from government in all honesty.

It's just a word for contract

I always get married in a government registry office

I give a lifelong commitment every time just as I will to the USCIS re nationality

While it's good - no problema. When It's horrible and she is bonking Jose the gardener, walk away. Don't get messed up by it. After all, god got a virgin pregnant while she was married to someone else at the time and without asking her husband.

Marriage or contract - it's the same.

Edited July 16, 2010 by saywhat

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

No inherent benefit? Marriage isn't just an arbitrary symbolic act - it's one that confers the participants with actual, practical legal rights.

THIS. Marriage is a contract, a civil contract, of partnership. On a basic level, it is something like a merger of interests from which certain legal rights flow. In this country, it is still governed by the state and any religious aspect that attach to it are there only through the interests of the contracting parties. I find it abhorrent to think that people would deny the right of adults of majority age to contract freely, simply because of their sexual preference.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Exactly - for all practical intents and purposes it is the same.

Some people still have the idea that marriage is purely religious institution - something it hasn't been for quite some time. It is a secular, legal institution.

[Captain Oates 910]

Exactly - for all practical intents and purposes it is the same.

Some people still have the idea that marriage is purely religious institution - something it hasn't been for quite some time. It is a secular, legal institution.

and if you have ever been in an institution, either as visitor or inmate, you will note the similarities immediately

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Marriage = between one man and one woman. You don't just get to change the definition of a word. That's absurd. Just how the definition of "gay" has ben bastardized...

A civil union is much more fitting for government for any and all.

There are no benefits really other than the fact that government forces upon you to dictate based on marriage who can be a deciding factor in your life. Personally government has no business dictating this to begin with. If I want John to be my benefactor, if I want him to be the ultiamte decision maker in a time of crisis, then I should be able to deem him as such with a legal document I keep with my lawyer or somewhere secure. I shouldn't have to file and tell the government this. It's none of their damn business.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The meanings of words change, language isn't and has never been static.

As I said, there is more to marriage than semantics. That is perhaps the least compelling argument.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Personally government has no business dictating this to begin with. If I want John to be my benefactor, if I want him to be the ultiamte decision maker in a time of crisis, then I should be able to deem him as such with a legal document I keep with my lawyer or somewhere secure. I shouldn't have to file and tell the government this. It's none of their damn business.

Tough tits. The government has a potential interest in every contract, unless the parties agree to arbitrate outside of the legal system, and even then should the parties break that agreement, the courts will and should step in. Why this contract is so sacred is beyond me.

[BobandXiaomei 14]

The meanings of words change, language isn't and has never been static.

As I said, there is more to marriage than semantics. That is perhaps the least compelling argument.

For some marriage is a sacrament of their church. For others it is a civil ceremony. If a church doesn't want to baptise someone I don't see where the government would have any say in the matter. Same for a church not marrying a couple because they are gay or if one of the hetero couples was divorced. But just because a church won't do it then why would the government deny that?

Yes I think anyone who is married and gets a vasectomy should be required to divorce at the same time - now that there is no reason to be married.

What I dont understand is gay divorce. I mean when it's heteros, the woman gets everything and the guy gets a tiny bedsit room in the ghetto and turns into an alky and then dies. How will they decide who gets what when it's two geezers or two short haired ladies ?

What about when the woman goes into menopause? Tell grandma and grandpa to split up?

[Captain Oates 910]

The meanings of words change, language isn't and has never been static.

As I said, there is more to marriage than semantics. That is perhaps the least compelling argument.

Quite right - look at the word 'rape'

The Americans use it for Polanski having sex with an under age girl who was a total goer by all accounts

Rape should be kept for it's original meaning otherwise it loses it's seriousness.

Jeez there are 16 years olds in Bradford who are on their 3rd kid

Marriage is just 2 people deciding to be together and locked together whether or not they still want to be.

Many of my pals are in their 50's and 60's and have been married donkeys years - you should hear the stories. Sorry to inject a note of social realism here. As I said before, the idea of the other team sharing in the rest of societies tribulations makes me chuckle. Be careful what you ask for boys and forget about having first pick of the TV channel or what time to go to bed or what mp3's you play on your computer.

Edited July 16, 2010 by saywhat

[peejay 327]

"Tradition" and "customs" is a $hit reason to disagree with it.

Sh*t reasons? Is that the best you can do? At least Novotul came up with comparing homosexual marriage to a fundamental core human right, as absurd as that is. Throwing out millenniums of human societal tradition, customs, and values that define marriage as sh*t reasons is pretty pathetic as a debating point.

[^_^ 5,021]

saywhat - statutory rape is a legal term. it applies even when the minor is a 'goer'

[Captain Oates 910]

saywhat - statutory rape is a legal term. it applies even when the minor is a 'goer'

That's the point

We were talking about how word usage changes - and I said that the word 'rape' has only recently been applied (and only in the US) to unlawful sexual intercourse as in the Polanski case.

Therefore the US is in danger of losing the important distinction between violent rape on a stranger for instance, and a 19 year old having unlawful sex with his 15 year old steady girlfriend

I think that using the word rape devalues the offence of violent rape

As a police officer who dealt with both types of offence, I can assure you there is a BIG difference

I do hope this clears the matter up - and the person who called me 'sick' can successfully struggle with this distinction and that we are talking about the changing uses of words rather than this offence itself.