Argentine Senate backs bill legalising gay marriage

Jetboogieman said:

You still have yet to prove who it physically hurts. Mental hurt perhaps, to peoples pride. But nothing more then that.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have to physically hurt anyone. What it hurts is the institution of marriage and would be an arrogant judgement of people's morals if they, as a majority, do not believe marriage can be defined as a union between two homosexuals. It hurts no one to not define a homosexual union as marriage either. It's about changing the definition of marriage. I looked for statistics regarding the Argentinian public opinion of gay marriage and this is what I found. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/most_argentines_reject_same_sex_marriage/
A survey by Poliarquía Consultores shows that 35% of Argentinians support gay marriage, 60% oppose it, and 5% are unsure. The government of Argentina is acting in a very bigoted way by imposing their morals upon an entire country of people who by a majority, oppose gay marriage.

digsbe said:

It doesn't have to physically hurt anyone. What it hurts is the institution of marriage and would be an arrogant judgement of people's morals if they, as a majority, do not believe marriage can be defined as a union between two homosexuals. It hurts no one to not define a homosexual union as marriage either. It's about changing the definition of marriage.

Click to expand...

Well then athiests shouldn't be allowed to get married... but they do. Christian couples get divorced all the time, they cheat, they're disloyal and they lie. Marriage doesn't mean much anymore these days, it's a symbolic gesture, but in this day and age, in our society, it seems to carry almost 0 Weight anymore.

Jetboogieman said:

Well then athiests shouldn't be allowed to get married... but they do. Christian couples get divorced all the time, they cheat, they're disloyal and they lie. Marriage doesn't mean much anymore these days, it's a symbolic gesture, but in this day and age, in our society, it seems to carry almost 0 Weight anymore.

Click to expand...

Why shouldn't atheists be allowed to marry? What does that have to do with gay marriage? Marriage is traditionally defined as a union between a man and wife (not two men or two women). Should we further degrade marriage by including homosexuality as a union that fits the marriage definition? The Argentinian society by a majority opposes recognizing homosexual unions as marriage. It would be a bigoted and oppressive imposition of secular morals to nationally recognize homosexual unions as marriage when the majority of people oppose it.

digsbe said:

It would be a bigoted and oppressive imposition of secular morals to nationally recognize homosexual unions as marriage when the majority of people oppose it.

Click to expand...

How is it bigoted? What's bigoted is not giving them their rights.

As far as bringing athiests into it. Marriage is a christain invention, it's always kind of existed but in different forms. Tradition isn't a good enough excuse sometimes to deny people rights.

Jetboogieman said:

How is it bigoted? What's bigoted is not giving them their rights.

Click to expand...

Marriage is a social, religious, and legal institution. In secular democracies religion cannot directly dictate marriage, therefore the religious aspect is irrelevant. The two remaining factors are the legal and social ones. Society dictates how they want to define marriage, and the state takes legal action upon that. Some countries include polygamy as an acceptable marriage, others criminalize it. Some have gay marriage, and others don't. The definition of marriage varies around the world, and it's due to the three factors I stated earlier. It is my belief (and this is shared among the majority of Argentineans) that marriage is not defined as a union between homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. Homosexuals do not have the right to have their union recognized as marriage or as moral by the state. They have the right to be homosexuals, but not to call their union marriage. The right regarding all of this, is that society has the right to define marriage however it wants whether we believe that definition is moral or immoral. It's a clash between moral systems and two definitions of marriage. It would be bigoted for the Argentinian government to impose upon everyone their secular morals and their inclusion of homosexual unions into the marriage of definition. They are imposing their morals upon a majority who do not hold those beliefs, and that majority isn't allowed to have a say in the matter either. Most people don't like when their country does the opposite of what the majority of people want. We wouldn't want the country to start a war when the majority of people oppose it. People wouldn't like it if their government criminalized abortion if the majority of people want it legal. Why should it be ok to impose secular morals and redefine marriage when a majority of the people don't want that?

As far as bringing athiests into it. Marriage is a christain invention, it's always kind of existed but in different forms. Tradition isn't a good enough excuse sometimes to deny people rights.

Click to expand...

Marriage is an aspect of Christianity, but many other religions and cultures define marriage as well. In nations where the majority of the population is Christian you will find Christian definitions for marriage. There is a Muslim definition for marriage (a man may have four wives) and we see that in Muslim countries and theocracies. Why do homosexuals have the right to redefine marriage and impose upon everyone a moral code at the stat level? People have the right to their opinion that homosexuals should be allowed to legally wed, but there is no right that forces that opinion into law in as much as there is no right to impose another moral code into law. The right that exists is the one for society to democratically decide what marriage is.

digsbe said:

It would be bigoted for the Argentinian government to impose upon everyone their secular morals and their inclusion of homosexual unions into the marriage of definition.

Click to expand...

Guy Incognito said:

Click to expand...

I use the word to expose the hypocrisy that many on the pro GM side believe regarding those on the anti-GM side. Many believe that those who oppose gay marriage are bigoted, and that it is bigoted to impose our morals on others. However, in this case they are being bigoted in that they are imposing their morals upon everyone else. And I know what bigotry means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry

big·ot·ry   [big-uh-tree] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Click to expand...

It is stubborn and complete intolerance of another belief/opinion (anti-GM) for the pro-GM group to impose their beliefs upon everyone. They are intolerant of the majority's belief, and therefore impose theirs against the majority's will.

digsbe said:

Marriage is a social, religious, and legal institution.

Click to expand...

Marriage is only a legal institution now days, since it has tax benefits and legal benefits. By denying it to a part of the population who does not choose to marry one of the opposite sex is discrimination at the highest level. It is no different than segregation or apartheid. A part of the population is being discriminated against base on a sexual preference. And in the end, when segregation and apartheid were dismantled it was against the will of the voting population too, but the politicians knew that it was the right thing to do.

Any social and religious aspects of marriage is between you, your partner, family and the religion of your choice.. nothing more, nothing less.

Jetboogieman said:

That would hurt innocent people. Legalizing gay marriage hurts NO ONE.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between not recognizing or encouraging their relationships and hurting them. Marriage is a social institution that serves society's needs, so expanding that institution to cover other relationships needs to be justified in terms of those needs; "it doesn't hurt anyone" isn't sufficient reason.

PeteEU said:

Marriage is only a legal institution now days... Any social and religious aspects of marriage is between you, your partner, family and the religion of your choice.. nothing more, nothing less.

Click to expand...

The law is a fundamentally moral organ. It exists to uphold the moral order of society, and thus it should reflect the social-- and yes, even the religious-- attitudes of society.

Korimyr the Rat said:

... and thus it should reflect the social-- and yes, even the religious-- attitudes of society.

Click to expand...

Assuming, of course, that 'society' as an aggregate can be said to have certain religious attitudes that apply equally to all its members.

If that is not the case (i.e. if you have religious plurality) then I cannot fathom how religion and moral order could intersect at any fundamental level.

Yossarian said:

Assuming, of course, that 'society' as an aggregate can be said to have certain religious attitudes that apply equally to all its members.

If that is not the case (i.e. if you have religious plurality) then I cannot fathom how religion and moral order could intersect at any fundamental level.

Click to expand...

There are always members of society who disagree with the prevailing beliefs and attitudes of the rest of the population. Religious beliefs-- of one flavor or another-- form the basis of most peoples' moral values, thus form a large portion of the basis of society's moral order. Even nations that enjoy religious plurality-- and as a member of a minority religion, I certainly enjoy the religious plurality of our society-- have a certain religious character that influences their moral order.

Korimyr the Rat said:

The law is a fundamentally moral organ. It exists to uphold the moral order of society, and thus it should reflect the social-- and yes, even the religious-- attitudes of society.

Click to expand...

Disagree fully. You can get "married" without the church or any religious/moral ceremony or bindings. I know people who have chosen to get married not because of the moral or religious aspects or societies pressures, but because they needed to get the legalities involved settled. To them getting married was nothing more than signing a piece of paper that then made it possible for their children to inherit and so on. It is basically today a contract between two people, that results in tax incentives and other rights. I also know people who got divorced because of legal technicalities that made it more profitable than staying married. The instituation of marriage is nothing but a religious pipe dream now days.

Now in the past it was a purely religious and moral event, but now days in the 21st century it has been broken down into legal technicalities that makes married folk different than non married folk living together. And that is why denying homosexuals the "bliss" of marriage is wrong... in fact denying these rights to people who dont want to get married but live in a loving relationship is wrong, but that is how our tax and legal system has been influenced by religious dogma and open discrimination.

PeteEU said:

Disagree fully. You can get "married" without the church or any religious/moral ceremony or bindings.

Click to expand...

And you can just as easily get married without the State's involvement.

PeteEU said:

It is basically today a contract between two people, that results in tax incentives and other rights.

Click to expand...

The existence of those tax incentives and other rights says two things: one, that marriage serves a purpose that the State recognizes and encourages, and two, that the State is a party to the marriage-- or the contract, if you prefer. The State thus has a legitimate interest and a legitimate authority in determining which marriages it will recognize, and should exercise their authority according to the purposes that marriage is intended to serve. The problem is that there is a schism within society over what those purposes are-- and a more fundamental problem in that almost none of the advocates for or against gay marriage are willing to address that schism or even articulate their position on what marriage is and what purpose it serves.

PeteEU said:

The instituation of marriage is nothing but a religious pipe dream now days.

Click to expand...

Then it serves no purpose at all and should be abolished. Why fight for the expansion of an institution you don't even believe in?

PeteEU said:

... in fact denying these rights to people who dont want to get married but live in a loving relationship is wrong, but that is how our tax and legal system has been influenced by religious dogma and open discrimination.

Click to expand...

It is funny that you speak of marriage in terms of contracts and legalities, and then make reference to "love". If marriage is nothing but a legal technicality, why should love have anything to do with it? And for that matter, why should the benefits of a contract ever be extended to people unwilling to enter into that contract?

digsbe said:

Regardless, pretty much the only places that legalize homosexual marriages do so at a senate level and not at a popular level. I wonder what the public opinion of gay marriage in Argentina is.

Click to expand...

68,6% are for it.
29,6% against.
1,8% don't know or don't care.

Source: latest poll conducted by Analogías, leading firm in public opinion investigations. If you understand Spanish, the complete study is here:

Analogías - Investigación y Estrategia - novedades

As PeteEU said, marriage is a legal institution. The definition of marriage as a union between man and woman is a religious definition only.

kaya'08 said:

As PeteEU said, marriage is a legal institution. The definition of marriage as a union between man and woman is a religious definition only.

Click to expand...

It morphed into a legal institution because of the implications associated with raising children, and the consequences of divorce as it related to children and property. Never was it meant to formalize two dudes wanting to play house.

Erod said:

It morphed into a legal institution because of the implications associated with raising children, and the consequences of divorce as it related to children and property. Never was it meant to formalize two dudes wanting to play house.

Click to expand...

That is not my point. My point is, marriage exists outside of religion, therefore the definition of it being a "union between a man and a woman" doesn't neccessarily ring true for all marriages (just because religions defined it as such). The definition of marriage outside of religion is made by the law makers, and here, they have made there choice.

IMO in this day and age it is wrong to discriminate the distribution of rights when obtaining a paticular status just because of the sexual nature of the people in question. That is called discrimination for something they can't change, like somebody cannot change the colour of there skin. This is seperatism in a different form.

It may be acceptable inside the walls of the church, but what happens outside of it, religious definitions have no right to dedicate the terms of marriage.

If a Church refuses to wed a gay couple, then thats fine. But done tell me they ruin the institution of marriage.

Erod said:

It morphed into a legal institution because of the implications associated with raising children, and the consequences of divorce as it related to children and property. Never was it meant to formalize two dudes wanting to play house.

Click to expand...

You're dismissing the love between two people as "playing house." Are you married? What would you think if somebody described your relationship that way?
And who cares what some bible-thumpers think it was "meant" to do? The same book that tells them to hate gay people tells them that eating shrimp is an equally grave sin.
Marriage was meant to be a legal contract that facilitates the transfer of property, a category in which the woman involved was included. Should we go back to that?

Erod said:

Never was it meant to formalize two dudes wanting to play house.

Click to expand...

That is simply your opinion, and you are welcome to it. However, the fact remains that gay parents have can raise children just fine. I would wager to say (of course my opinion) that gay parents are in a position to raise children better than single parents.

TheNextEra said:

That is simply your opinion, and you are welcome to it. However, the fact remains that gay parents have can raise children just fine. I would wager to say (of course my opinion) that gay parents are in a position to raise children better than single parents.

Click to expand...

Why do you think that?

kaya'08 said:

Why do you think that?

Click to expand...

Ideally NextEra is right. 2 parents are better then one aren't they? Financially they would be depending on circumstance.

Jetboogieman said:

Ideally NextEra is right. 2 parents are better then one aren't they? Financially they would be depending on circumstance.

Click to expand...

There are two parents involved in a straight family too. I dont get it?

kaya'08 said:

There are two parents involved in a straight family too. I dont get it?

Click to expand...

My comparison was between TWO gay parents and single Parents. In my eyes, ideally, two parents raising kids is better for the child than a single parent in ideal conditions. That includes two straight or two gay parents.

That's not to say single parents are bad or can't raise children, just that I think it is better if there are two parents is all. One situation being better does not make the other situation bad. And of course this is all just my opinion and I am not suggesting any legal matters based on my opinion.

kaya'08 said:

There are two parents involved in a straight family too. I dont get it?

Click to expand...

He said gay couples provide a more stable home than single parents, not straight families.

Korimyr the Rat said:

He said gay couples provide a more stable home than single parents, not straight families.

Click to expand...

:lamo

I read single as straight. And yeah TheNextArea, your obviously right. I used to be against it because i thought that a loss of balance of man/women influence in the household is damaging - but there is no evidence to suggest that and you can even study single parent children - and even if there WAS a negative effect on children with a loss of male/female influences, you would have to ban single parent households too!