Argentina Approves Gay Marriage

[¿Que?]

Argentina Aprroves Gay Marriage (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/americas/16argentina.html)


BUENOS AIRES — Argentina (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/argentina/index.html?inline=nyt-geo)’s Senate narrowly approved a measure early on Thursday authorizing same-sex marriages (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), making Argentina the first country in Latin America to allow gay couples to wed.
After 15 hours of debate, the Senate voted 33 to 27 in favor of the measure, which was sponsored by the government of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/cristina_fernandez_de_kirchner/index.html?inline=nyt-per). For weeks, she waged a bitter war of words (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/world/americas/14argentina.html?_r=1&ref=americas) with the Roman Catholic Church (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church/index.html?inline=nyt-org) over the measure.
The church organized large protests throughout the country on Tuesday night involving tens of thousands of opponents of the law. Some senators criticized the Senate leadership on Wednesday for not allowing a vote on an alternative bill to authorize civil unions for gay couples.
The same-sex marriage measure will give gay people the same marital rights as heterosexuals, including adoption and inheritance rights.
Mexico City became the first jurisdiction in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriages last year. Two other countries in the region, Uruguay and Colombia, allow civil unions for same-sex couples.
That's pretty much the whole article. What do you guys think? Should we celebrate this as a victory, or is this just the government letting gays participate in what in the final estimation of things, is a bourgeois institution?

[leftace53]

I just dont understand arguments against gay rights. What in the world could they have argued upon for 15 hours? What did the church put in their protest?

Regardless, my vote goes to:

just the government letting gays participate in what in the final estimation of things, is a bourgeois institution
but still, a victory

[Demogorgon]

Marriage long predates the bourgeoisie, so it can't simply be called an institution of that class. It varies over time and where once it was a means to keep women under control, now, at least in some places, it is more a partnership of equals.

As it happens I attended a wedding of a close friend yesterday (heterosexual wedding) and seeing the happiness and the expression of love and so on just reinforces to me how cruel it is to deny that to anyone who wants it.

[counterblast]

What is marriage, besides a word, really?

I'm all for people being monogamous and defining their relationship with whatever term they want, if that's what they enjoy.

But essentializing benefits such as health care coverage, tax reductions, legal recognition of loved ones in emergency situations, and, yes, even religious tradition (eww...) with marriage?

Thats complete nonsense. Anyone with half of a brain can tell you that EVERYONE, whether they are in a monogamous paired marriage, in a relationship that falls outside that definition, or single deserves access to these benefits; and any law that prioritizes marriage over other sexual groupings (or lack thereof) only serves to benefit some, at the expense of those who do not or cannot fit into this definition.

This isn't a victory for gay people, any more than gays serving in the military is. Its the sort of "progress" that takes one step forward while simultaneously taking two backwards.



If the US government proposed that all "illegal" immigrant workers from Mexico, South, & Central America currently living in the US who signed up for and completed English classes could become full-fledged citizens -- while those refusing to take the classes or those who could not complete the classes would be promptly deported; would this be progress?

Of course not. You've merely taken extremely conservative rhetoric (in example A) heteronormativity/"the value of the 'family unit'", in example B) eurocentrism/"the preservation of the 'American [white] way of life'") and distorted them in such a way, that by tokenizing sexual/ethnic minorities, you make them seem far more encompassing and progressive than they actually are and you change the discourse from "Why the fuck are our sexualities being policed by the state in the first place?" or "Why the fuck should anyone be expected to embrace this homogeneous idea of whiteness?" with "How can I be a part of this?".

[meow]

yes. marriage is no business of the state. there should be no marriage.
still good for fight homophobia. by legitimizing being gay this is good. we must fight for poly people as well. and for those who dont just have boring hetro missionary sex. must also legitimize bondage multiple partner sex and all those other "kinks".

[Revy]

It is a victory, because it is equality in how the relationships of gay couples and heterosexual couples are legally recognized. It's not about the benefits conferred upon married couples. It is about the right to be married. It's not even about marriage itself, because gay people would not care if the legal institution of marriage was abolished for everyone. Equality is obviously the motivation, not some allegiance to some ideal of monogamous marriage.

[¿Que?]

yes. marriage is no business of the state. there should be no marriage.
still good for fight homophobia. by legitimizing being gay this is good. we must fight for poly people as well. and for those who dont just have boring hetro missionary sex. must also legitimize bondage multiple partner sex and all those other "kinks".
LOL. Making reference to the other thread. I should probably ignore this, but hey, I'm a sucker for abuse (no pun intended).

Anyway, while I don't condone the government getting into people's sex lives, I think there do exist certain ethics of sexuality and interpersonal relationships. Not everything illegal is morally/ethically wrong, and similarly not everything legal is morally/ethically correct.

I don't have to bring up obvious examples (pedophilia, bestiality) but there are some serious ambiguous areas that justify reconsideration of these issues on the terms I have just laid out in my first paragraph and in the thread you're alluding to (if you actually care to go for some substance, instead of making pot shots).

For example, where does simulated rape fit into this? What about pornography? These are some examples where consent seems like nothing more than moral reductionism.

Also, don't troll.

[meow]

other thread? what one you mean? im not trying to troll.

but simulated rape is fine so long as all agree and are not coerced. what is wrong with that? not gray area.

pornography is fine again. what is wrong about two men having sex for the gratification of another man? (change the gender of the people appropriatly until you disagree with the statement. and then why?) if filming sex is wrong what about two friends having sex and a third watching? if filming sex is wrong is sex wrong? if sex is ok but filming it is not is filming football wrong to? but playing football fine? i know people (mainly women) who watch football because they like big men tackle each other. is that wrong?

[Hiratsuka]

What is marriage, besides a word, really?

I'm all for people being monogamous and defining their relationship with whatever term they want, if that's what they enjoy.

But essentializing benefits such as health care coverage, tax reductions, legal recognition of loved ones in emergency situations, and, yes, even religious tradition (eww...) with marriage?

Thats complete nonsense. Anyone with half of a brain can tell you that EVERYONE, whether they are in a monogamous paired marriage, in a relationship that falls outside that definition, or single deserves access to these benefits; and any law that prioritizes marriage over other sexual groupings (or lack thereof) only serves to benefit some, at the expense of those who do not or cannot fit into this definition.

This isn't a victory for gay people, any more than gays serving in the military is. Its the sort of "progress" that takes one step forward while simultaneously taking two backwards.



If the US government proposed that all "illegal" immigrant workers from Mexico, South, & Central America currently living in the US who signed up for and completed English classes could become full-fledged citizens -- while those refusing to take the classes or those who could not complete the classes would be promptly deported; would this be progress?

Of course not. You've merely taken extremely conservative rhetoric (in example A) heteronormativity/"the value of the 'family unit'", in example B) eurocentrism/"the preservation of the 'American [white] way of life'") and distorted them in such a way, that by tokenizing sexual/ethnic minorities, you make them seem far more encompassing and progressive than they actually are and you change the discourse from "Why the fuck are our sexualities being policed by the state in the first place?" or "Why the fuck should anyone be expected to embrace this homogeneous idea of whiteness?" with "How can I be a part of this?".

Very true. The word should probably just be expelled from the public sphere and its purpose (determining how to separate personal possessions between two or more people) replaced with general contracts that can be formed between anyone. I'd more readily use the word 'marriage' to describe a homosexual polygamous partnership than a crumbling heterosexual relationship stamped by the state.

[Il Medico]

I agree with counterblast's post for the most part. There shouldn't need be a 'legitimization' of queer relationships in the 'traditional' social ideas, such a monogamy and union in marriage. However, the state stopping people from doing what the hell they want is nothing I support.I would never use such a right simply because I really don't want to get married, but a lot of my queer friends do and more power to them. It is a victory in a black and white sense, but a defeat when you look at how it continues to orient the fight towards "Let us be like you" instead of an actual fight towards LGBT liberation.

[gorillafuck]

From an economic standpoint, it is a baby step forward. It's a way of giving gays the economic benefits of marriage, which is good. What should be done is to give all couples the economic benefits of marriage regardless of the circumstances or specifics of their relationship (well actually, capitalism should be overthrown, but whatevs).

From a social standpoint, it lessens the states ability to enforce that heterosexuality is the only "acceptable" sexuality so that is good.

[counterblast]

From an economic standpoint, it is a baby step forward. It's a way of giving gays the economic benefits of marriage, which is good. What should be done is to give all couples the economic benefits of marriage regardless of the circumstances or specifics of their relationship (well actually, capitalism should be overthrown, but whatevs).

From a social standpoint, it lessens the states ability to enforce that heterosexuality is the only "acceptable" sexuality so that is good.

I would dispute that second point.

The discourse around marriage is still based around the heterosexual model; so I would argue that the underlying message is that "heterosexuality and its derivative (the monogamous, committed family-oriented relationship model) is the only 'acceptable'" way to express sexuality.

Or put in other words; that homosexuality and all other forms of sexual variance are wrong, and can only be corrected (ie:deemed acceptable) by adopting heteronormative sex practices.

At the end of the day, heterosexuality becomes the model which all other sexualities must aspire to be.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Not everything illegal is morally/ethically wrong, and similarly not everything legal is morally/ethically correct.

Morality is what you make it. It's quite a relative concept that varies heavily from person to person.

Also:
Morals and ethics are not the same. Ethics are legally enforcible. I learned this in business law and civil litigation classes before I dropped out.

[gorillafuck]

I would dispute that second point.

The discourse around marriage is still based around the heterosexual model; so I would argue that the underlying message is that "heterosexuality and its derivative (the monogamous, committed family-oriented relationship model) is the only 'acceptable'" way to express sexuality.

Or put in other words; that homosexuality and all other forms of sexual variance are wrong, and can only be corrected (ie:deemed acceptable) by adopting heteronormative sex practices.

At the end of the day, heterosexuality becomes the model which all other sexualities must aspire to be.
How is monogamy a heteronormative practice?

[¿Que?]

Morality is what you make it. It's quite a relative concept that varies heavily from person to person.

Also:
Morals and ethics are not the same. Ethics are legally enforcible. I learned this in business law and civil litigation classes before I dropped out.
I can't disagree. Just like objectivity in general, there is no point of reference from which we can truly speak of morality and ethics in universal terms i.e. and objective point of reference. This has implications for science as well, but I digress...

On the other hand, where does that leave rape, murder, abuse, coercion etc. I don't pretend to know the answer to this question. On the one hand you have a strict moral code based on subjectivity and enforced through authority and power (even if it is not institutionalized authority and power, for example, mores and social norms). On the other hand, you have the postmodernesque anything goes, which approximates your statement, and makes it impossible to defend or indict any thing anybody does on moral/ethical terms.

On the distinction between moral end ethical, my guess is that it is a technical distinction applicable only to legal issues. There may be other disciplines which distinguish between the two terms, but ultimately it's a matter of context. Most dictionaries I would guess consider the two synonymous.

[counterblast]

How is monogamy a heteronormative practice?

I said marriage is heteronormative, not monogamy.

Although, statistics do show that close to 60% of LGBT people in the US are non-monogamous (http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/01/29/half-of-all-gay-couples-non-monogamous) (compared to FAR lower rates for straight people (around 5%))-- so this fact alone would confirm monogamy as predominantly heterosexual.

[gorillafuck]

I said marriage is heteronormative, not monogamy.
Oh, my mistake.


Although, statistics do show that close to 60% of LGBT people in the US are non-monogamous (http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/01/29/half-of-all-gay-couples-non-monogamous) (compared to FAR lower rates for straight people (around 5%))-- so this fact alone would confirm monogamy as predominantly heterosexual.
That's really interesting. Is there anything else on that?

[Klaatu]

Marriage itself is nothing more than a legal business contract. And since partners are considered equal, marriage can also be considered to be an important cornerstone of Socialism. That is, fairness and equality in society.

[R_P_A_S]

I also read on Yahoo's main page that Mexico City's major offered an all expenses paid honey moon to the first married gay and lesbian couple from Argentina.. one week in mexico city and then off to Cancun!!!

great gesture!

[Glenn Beck]

On a related note I thought it was odd that the court striking down DOMA got so little fanfare (or screams of outrage).

[Dr Mindbender]

I said marriage is heteronormative, not monogamy.
.

Alright, why is marriage heteronormative?

Before you bring up religous connections, not all marriages are religous.

[¿Que?]

If heteronomrativity refers to the assumptions and values associated with the idea that heterosexuality is a natural and essential condition for human beings, then I think the answer is obvious.

[Saramago]

it's a victory well done argentina.

[Klaatu]

What I find hilarious is the slippery-slope argument that wingnut homophobes use in order to discredit gay marriage: "Next thing ya know, adults will want to marry children. They will marry their dog. Some guy in Japan even married his computer!"

Gadzooks... how far will this go? :D

[The Guy]

I hate how they're making it out to be a privilege rather than a right.

On the other hand, good news at last.

[progressive_lefty]

That's great. We don't even have civil unions in Australia :(.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If heteronomrativity refers to the assumptions and values associated with the idea that heterosexuality is a natural and essential condition for human beings, then I think the answer is obvious.

It's not obvious to me. What is obvious to me is that the more common non-heterosexual marriage is, the more marriage is seperated from the idea that it must by necessity be a male/female pairing.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

It's not obvious to me. What is obvious to me is that the more common non-heterosexual marriage is, the more marriage is seperated from the idea that it must by necessity be a male/female pairing.

What is marriage but a useless perfunctory "solidifying" of a relationship, encouraged by economic, diplomatic and social factors created by the interplay between religion and politics? Abolish marriage.

[¿Que?]

It's not obvious to me. What is obvious to me is that the more common non-heterosexual marriage is, the more marriage is seperated from the idea that it must by necessity be a male/female pairing.
But the very fact that non-heterosexual marriage is restricted, speaks to the heteronormative character of the institution. Gender roles, including heteronormativity, as I understand them are fluid and dynamic, and therefore liable to change (thus socially constructed). Simply because things have the potential to change in the future, doesn't deny their true character in the present.

Your statement basically proves the point. Essentally, it's like your saying non-heterosexual marriage is essential to separating marriage from heteronormativity. Which is basically true except...

...that, as counterblast I think said, it leaves non-heterosexuals as aspirants to the heterosexual model.

[Queercommie Girl]

Small victory, but if the LGBT community start to delude themselves that genuine equality is just around the corner, then it's better to not have this kind of victory. At least the brutal treatment of gays in African countries keep queer people in a fighting spirit.

As the ancient Chinese Art of War says, "people come to life only after being placed into the site of death".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What is marriage but a useless perfunctory "solidifying" of a relationship, encouraged by economic, diplomatic and social factors created by the interplay between religion and politics? Abolish marriage.

Marriage has been around long before capitalism and I suspect your calls for it to be abolished are in vain.


But the very fact that non-heterosexual marriage is restricted, speaks to the heteronormative character of the institution. Gender roles, including heteronormativity, as I understand them are fluid and dynamic, and therefore liable to change (thus socially constructed). Simply because things have the potential to change in the future, doesn't deny their true character in the present.

Your statement basically proves the point. Essentally, it's like your saying non-heterosexual marriage is essential to separating marriage from heteronormativity. Which is basically true except...

...that, as counterblast I think said, it leaves non-heterosexuals as aspirants to the heterosexual model.

Only if you think that heteronormativity is an essential component of marriage, which it is not. Just because slack-jawed reactionaries constantly repeat the "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" canard doesn't mean it's true.

[Ztrain]

Thats cool i dont see any counter arguments marriage has already been defiled by a 50% divorce rate...i dont understand the moral righetousnuss (i know i mispelled that) attached to marriage and im sure communist guy would disagree because hes a christian bastard

[¿Que?]

Only if you think that heteronormativity is an essential component of marriage, which it is not. Just because slack-jawed reactionaries constantly repeat the "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" canard doesn't mean it's true.
Well, the model is there. Whether you think it defines the essence of marriage is another matter, and in my opinion correctly relative to ones individual opinions as they pertain to matters of relationships, and I would guess the hope would be to find some like minded soul.

But the basic structure of marriage as something other than between a man and a woman is something that only came about in our present stage of capitalist development, whatever you want to call it.

And it is also worth considering that marriage, although not necessarily essentially anything, is in practice essentially however it is defined by some sanctioning institution, whether it be the government or church or whatever.

Just some thoughts...

[hobo8675309]

i hate to think of the state having any authority over "official" or "unofficial" marraige. "marraige" is an institution associated with religion, sex, romance, and strong emotions, none of which the government has and justified authority in. instead of marraige, which is a sacred institution, custody rights and financial schemes formerly associated with marraige will be provided in a "two-party protection agreement". perhaps when society becomes more stable, an individual can form protection agreements with several "spouses" of same or different genders, but the world is too conservative to accept such an edict at the moment.

[hobo8675309]

as far as i understand, australia has a fairly corrupt and unfair government, correct?

[Dr Mindbender]

My opinion is probaby going to be unpopular here, but i am a supporter of marriage as an institution, purely because i think theres a large caveat that the anti marriage brigade have overlooked.

Marriage performs an important legal function because it protects both parties from the consequences of less than amicable break ups or seperations. Ok, say for example we abolish marriage. What then, how do you define a relationship in the eyes of the state? Does a one night stand constitute a relationship? Where do you draw the line between a liason and a relationship? For that matter, if youre going to set up a benchmark for what constitutes a binding relationship what is the purpose of abolishing marriage?

If i have casual sex with someone and we stop seeing each other, i dont want to end up in a position where the other party could end up claiming my belongings or assets. Conversely, if i move my posessions into a partners home who i then split up with i want the law to protect me in acquiring my rightful assets for me and child custody rights where appropriate which would be difficult to enforce in a society which has no divorce proceedings or definition of what a relationship means. What marriage does is act as a deal sealer where people have a full understanding of the consequences and seperation terms should the relationship turn sour.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, the model is there. Whether you think it defines the essence of marriage is another matter, and in my opinion correctly relative to ones individual opinions as they pertain to matters of relationships, and I would guess the hope would be to find some like minded soul.

But the basic structure of marriage as something other than between a man and a woman is something that only came about in our present stage of capitalist development, whatever you want to call it.

Wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions) Marriage has been different before and I have good reason to believe it will be different in the future.


And it is also worth considering that marriage, although not necessarily essentially anything, is in practice essentially however it is defined by some sanctioning institution, whether it be the government or church or whatever.

Just some thoughts...

That just means the door is open for marriage in the future to be defined by a more egalitarian body, such as a classless society.