Argentina Approves Historic Gay Marriage Law
After around 14 hours of heating debate, Argentina’s Senate early Thursday passed legislation that is unprecedented throughout all of Latin America:
It gives gays and lesbians the same marriage rights traditionally given to straight couples.
The final vote for the bill, which was already passed by the Lower House and will now become law, was 33 to 27, with three abstentions. You can read the story we did for The Wall Street Journal by clicking here. (Subscription may be required.)
The law gives gay married couples adoption rights equivalent to those held by straight couples. This had been the main point of contention for opponents, many of whom had protested outside Congress earlier this week.
The bill is bound to enhance Argentina’s already-glowing reputation as a country open to gay tourism.
Popularity: 1% [?]
This is incredible news. Thanks for sharing, Taos. Sometimes it seems like Argentina is very behind in the times, but today the country just took off like a rocket into the future! This certainly rekindles my personal love affair for – and within
– Argentina. Although I am in the US now, I am very much looking forward to returning next month to a country that is far more advanced than the one I am in now. The next bit of legislation that needs to happen is the recognition of same-sex partners in US Federal immigration law. On that front, progress is also being made made with the recent overturning by a federal judge of the discriminatory clause in the Defense of Marriage Act. Perhaps some day soon those of us with partners in Argentina will have the choice of living as a family in either country! Your church may have the right to tell you who to marry, but your government does not.
I do not agree with the result.
The only ones who will profit from it are the proctologists
I believe the Church has a place, same as the temples and sinagoges.
It all has a lot to do with order , and family.
Ha! Mandrake, you’re totally joking, right? Proctologists? huh? The church does has its place – of course. It’s place is within its congregation… Those people who chose to be its members. NOT those who do not. The church has no business influencing the decisions of governments. Sorry, I don’t quite understand how temples and sinagoges play a role in this?? Order… and family…. Ah yes… These are very much at stake here. Somehow… I guess… huh? Mandrake, you really are too funny.
Bravo, Argentina. Soon enough, we’ll all look back on this and thing…. “en serio? there were people who didn’t think everyone should have the same rights?”
Such a sad day for the country… :-/
Some people thought it was sad in 1967 when the US legalized interracial marriage.
Marriage between two people of the same sex but different races is not the same as marriage between two people of the same sex. There’s no point of comparison, Stafford.
I meant to say: ‘marriage between two people of THE OPPOSITE sex but different RACES is not the same as marriage between two people of the SAME sex. There’s no point of comparison, Stafford.’
True!!!
Ivanna your comment is what is truly sad in my opinion. I’m sure when a self serving law is passed your perfectly fine with all its facets. The world is changing and you’re falling behind…..
Aren’t all people God’s people????? Then that would mean that gay and lesbian couples could actually be families too. Wow who would have guessed!!! lol Maybe that means they can be good parents too? Go to church and contribute to their communities even…….
Mandrake order comes in many forms!
Donna, if you’re gonna quote God’s word, I would suggest you read it in depth and then come up with your own conclusions.
While the Old Testament focused on rules and consequences, the New Testament offers a message of love. Even if a person believes that homosexuality is a sin based upon this scripture:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
the next verse does say that homosexuals can inherit the kingdom if they come to the Lord, Jesus Christ:
1 Corinthians 6:11 – “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
So, I think you’re a little confused as to what ‘God’s people’ means.
I still think the passing of this bill is really sad, and I have the right to differ from your point of view. If you’re asking for ‘tolerance’, then you should be able to be more tolerant with people that don’t think the way you do.
Ivanna, based on this and other posts you have made in this forum, it seems to me that you hold the church to be the definitive influence in your life. Your church has interpreted the Bible, its code of law, in its own way and holds this code to be the absolute guide on how people of your congregation should live. An example would be your church’s interpretation of Corinthians 6:9-10. As your priest or minister will likely tell you (hopefully, if he or she has a halfway decent education in Theology), there is much uncertainty as to the definition of the Greek word “malakoi”. “Malakoi” is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as “soft” (King James Version) or as “fine” (New International Version) in references to clothing. It could also mean “loose” or “pliable,” as in the phrase “loose morals,” implying “unethical behavior.” In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. But Ivanna, in the interpretation you choose to follow, this Greek means homosexual. In mine it does not. Should the Argentine and Western European governments pick a certain translation of a single Greek word when they determine these laws? Should they even consider a single religion when the religious make up of their citizens is a plurality?
I don´t known if it is a good or bad news. I can say that I´m a tolerant person, and believe that each person can have an own sexual option. I believe that for a Latin america country, this law is very advance, but I am not sure if most of the argentians are in agreement with it. I live in Montevideo-Uruguay; we are neighbors but we have a very different idiosyncrasy!! I don´t think we are prepared for this kind of legislation. Excuse me for my “bad” english!
Such a sad day! Adoption rights debate should have been deeper! We’ll soon see the consequences!
When same-sex marriage is legalized, this action permanently redefines not only marriage, but also spouse, gender, parent, and family. Same-sex marriage automatically replaces natural parent with legal parent, allowing the state to usurp parental rights at anytime. Consequently, all biological natural parents are diminished to just legal parents, having the same parental rights as same-sex parent’s partners who have no biological tie to the child(ren). Parenting is reduced to a legal status only, involving care giving duties, legal responsibilities, and, progressively invasive state laws. I don’t think many Argentinean parents will be particularly thrilled with their permanent loss of natural parent status.
If you allow adoption, then reproductive technology and surrogacy would have to be allowed where a child can have multiple parents: biological father (sperm donor), biological mother (ovum donor), surrogate mother, legal father(s) and or legal mother(s) and new parental partners who ask to be “legal” parents. Family is now redefined to include multiple parents. Imagine multiple parents trying to get agreement on living arrangements, health care, faith, religious training, schooling, legal documents, etcetera.
Now, those who consider themselves bisexual can ask to marry a man and a woman; thus, the entry of polygamous and group marriage. If you think gender isn’t important to marriage anymore and that sexual orientations reign supreme, then what about incest marriage, human-animal marriage, and human-object marriage? There are people who seriously want these sexual rights to marriage. Based purely on the arguments of adults’ rights, you would have to pass all this too. This is why marriage must remain solely between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others for the sake of our children.
When you give special rights to a tiny segment of society based on fleeting and or changeable sexual preferences and remove civil rights and freedoms from the larger society; you have just created inequality.
Ivanna,
I am going to tear apart your entire argument – point by point. So please forgive me for this, as you seem to be a delightful woman who probably has all the best intentions to be a good Christian.
As to your point about the legalization of same-sex marriage “permanently redefining marriage, but also spouse, gender, parent, and family”, I am lost. Surely it redefines marriage in terms of your government, but it certainly does not do so for your church. I do not understand how it redefines gender, parent, and family. Let’s break that apart. “Parent” is defined as “one that begets or brings forth offspring” or “a person who brings up and cares for another”. Spouse is the other member of a marriage and gender is simply the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex. Webster has several definitions of family. None mention male or female roles. The first definition is “A group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head.” The second is “A people or group of peoples regarded as deriving from common stock.” The third is “A group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation.” And so on. Would you not consider a single parent household, whereby a mother raises her children after the husband has died to be a family? Sorry, I don’t quite see how these definitions change by legalizing same sex marriage.
Now please help me understand how “same-sex marriage [all of the sudden] automatically replaces natural parent with legal parent, allowing the state to usurp parental rights at anytime.” Doesn’t the state already have the privilege to usurp parental rights in cases of neglect, abuse, and absenteeism? Quite frankly I don’t see the connection. Do you think that the institution of which you consider ‘natural’ parenthood and marriage is so weak that same sex marriage somehow threatens it? I find this particular argument to be very weak. But it does bring up another point. It is proven that children raised by two responsible homosexual parents are raised in much better conditions than children who live on the street or in orphanages. Wouldn’t it be these neglected children who would be taken in by same sex couples? Don’t worry, Ivanna, no one is going to come in and steal babies from caring heterosexual couples.
But the weakest of your arguments (I would have left it out if I were you) is that of polygamy. Show me where in the Argentine bill it is written that bisexuals can marry both a man and a woman? I’m afraid this argument does not merit much of a response…
With regard to sexual preference being “fleeting” or “changeable”, well pure science proves that it is not. I have however seen plenty (they say over half these days) of heterosexual marriages end in divorce – often because one of the spouses has uncontrollable sexual desires for someone outside the marriage. That’s ‘fleeting’ and ‘changeable’ in my book. But what do I know of such things? I can only speak about my own experience. I have been a homosexual my entire life. And let me tell you it has not been ‘fleeting’ or ‘changeable’, as much as I may have once wanted it to be. It was also certainly not something I chose. I didn’t ‘decide’ when I was 13 that I wanted a difficult life. In fact I prayed every night before I went to bed that I would be normal. I prayed that I could somehow love a woman. But God works in mysterious ways. Rather than grant me my wish, He gave me the courage to accept myself as exactly how he created me.
Ah and your argument about “where will it end?”… Incest! Human-animal marriage! Human-object marriage! “Lions and tigers, oh my!” Ivanna, my only response to that is simply that I am sorry you are so afraid. Obviously someone has instilled some serious fear into your bones and made you believe that life as you know it is coming to an end. So you clearly understand, my response to your initial comment that “this is a sad day for Argentina,” was in reference to such fears. Yes, people were afraid in 1967 because in the case of interracial marriage, they felt many of the same things you feel today. And when we look back, the past 43 years have proven to us that these poor people were misguided fools.
Ivanna, time will prove – as it already has in Western Europe – that the consequences of legalized same-sex marriage will not threaten your way of life in any way shape or form. The only thing you’ll probably notice is that there will be less parentless children on the streets of Buenos Aires scavenging for their next fix of paco.
Ivanna, I suggest you get to know some healthy homosexuals. Obviously you have not been exposed to any, or else you would not be making the arguments you are making here. I sincerely invite you to join me in my home for dinner. Send me an email – staffordmckay [at] gmail [dot] com and we’ll set it up.
Stafford,
I appreciate you inviting me for dinner but I’m afraid I wont be able to come since I live 12 hours away from BA. Cordoba, that is. Thanks for your suggestion, I may need to meet healthier homosexuals. My two best friends from college certainly aren’t role models. And, by the way, I’m not Christian – even though I may have sounded like one.
Kind regards.
I used to care for very sick patients with terminal aids. The whole ward was praying adn all crying together….
Me like others used to feed, bath, medicate , alleviate their pains, anxiety, and fears night and days, I took this pain home we made quilts with my co-workers while loving and respecting our patients.
Giving emotional support to them and their families….
I have seeing enough human suffering, enough dreadful thoughts in those human bodies consumed by sickness….
Just no I do not agree with the new law.
Sorry.
No need to tear apart any of my points of wiew.
No room for jokes.
There is no jokes here.
Sorry, Stafford.
I do not agree with you in anything