Spain Legalizes Same-Sex Marriages

Latinoboy9

Loved Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Posts
699
Media
34
Likes
612
Points
208
Age
39
Location
CT
MADRID, Spain - Parliament legalized gay marriage Thursday.The measure passed the 350-seat Congress of Deputies by a vote of 187 to 147. The bill, part of the ruling Socialists' aggressive agenda for social reform, also lets gay couples adopt children and inherit each others' property.The bill is now law.
 

woskxn

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Posts
133
Media
2
Likes
3
Points
238
Age
34
The bill will become law in about a month.

This is great to hear, things are finally moving. Congrats to Spain!
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure
bread and circuses, folks. y'all seem to be forgetting that marriage is just a government control mechanism in the first place. it's not a "right", it's an oppression of personal freedom. the only way it will ever become a "right" is if the state and church have nothing whatsoever to do with it. when people are free to make their own decisions about their own lives WITHOUT recourse to bullshit laws and authorities, THEN I'll start congratulating them.
 

steve319

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Posts
1,170
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
183
Location
North Carolina
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Yeah, but as a sign of society perhaps becoming more accepting of non-traditional lifestyles, it seems to be a positive development.

Plus the inheritance and child care issues have massive benefits. So, at least this is a victory of sorts.
 

VinceNYC

Just Browsing
Joined
May 31, 2005
Posts
61
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Age
34
Location
Harlem
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Originally posted by Dr Rock@Jun 30 2005, 07:56 AM
bread and circuses, folks. y'all seem to be forgetting that marriage is just a government control mechanism in the first place. it's not a "right", it's an oppression of personal freedom. the only way it will ever become a "right" is if the state and church have nothing whatsoever to do with it. when people are free to make their own decisions about their own lives WITHOUT recourse to bullshit laws and authorities, THEN I'll start congratulating them.
[post=325332]Quoted post[/post]​
I disagree. Marriage is a religious institution whereby a couple stands in front of their friends, family and community and pledge to share their lives.

Government "marriage" was created as a protection for people who chose to be married in their church, so that there was a legal extension of the religious bond. The laws recognize that these people have pledged to share their lives, and therefore extends to those people certain legal protections not afforded to others who are "living in sin."
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure
Originally posted by VinceNYC+Jun 30 2005, 03:53 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VinceNYC &#064; Jun 30 2005, 03:53 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dr Rock@Jun 30 2005, 07:56 AM
bread and circuses, folks. y&#39;all seem to be forgetting that marriage is just a government control mechanism in the first place. it&#39;s not a "right", it&#39;s an oppression of personal freedom. the only way it will ever become a "right" is if the state and church have nothing whatsoever to do with it. when people are free to make their own decisions about their own lives WITHOUT recourse to bullshit laws and authorities, THEN I&#39;ll start congratulating them.
[post=325332]Quoted post[/post]​

I disagree. Marriage is a religious institution whereby a couple stands in front of their friends, family and community and pledge to share their lives.[/b][/quote]
why? what does it matter what anyone else thinks? if you wanna share your life with someone, it&#39;s between you and them. if you feel the need to have that validated by friends, family, community or a magic fairy in the sky, I really don&#39;t think you&#39;re in possession of sufficient personal faculties to attempt sustaining ANY kind of committed relationship with another real live person.

Government "marriage" was created as a protection for people who chose to be married in their church, so that there was a legal extension of the religious bond. The laws recognize that these people have pledged to share their lives, and therefore extends to those people certain legal protections not afforded to others who are "living in sin."
[post=325366]Quoted post[/post]​
... which is precisely the kinda bullshit I&#39;m talking about.
 

jonb

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
7,578
Media
0
Likes
67
Points
258
Age
40
Actually, marriage primarily is a cultural, although not necessarily religious, institution to untie lineages. Its history isn&#39;t nearly as romantic as it sounds; actually for much of Western history, a marriage was a contract between the groom and the father of the bride.
 

VinceNYC

Just Browsing
Joined
May 31, 2005
Posts
61
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Age
34
Location
Harlem
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Originally posted by Dr Rock+Jun 30 2005, 11:47 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rock &#064; Jun 30 2005, 11:47 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>why? what does it matter what anyone else thinks? if you wanna share your life with someone, it&#39;s between you and them. if you feel the need to have that validated by friends, family, community or a magic fairy in the sky, I really don&#39;t think you&#39;re in possession of sufficient personal faculties to attempt sustaining ANY kind of committed relationship with another real live person.
[/b]

I myself couldn&#39;t care less about marriage or what anyone thinks of me or my partner. My point is that our government&#39;s version of marriage is not religious, and is in fact a protection extended to a certain group of people. I was taking issue with you saying it was a control mechanism, because it really isn&#39;t as much as it is a protection. And of course that&#39;s the crucial test of Constitutionality.

<!--QuoteBegin-Dr Rock
@Jun 30 2005, 11:47 AM
... which is precisely the kinda bullshit I&#39;m talking about.
[/quote]
Me too&#33;
 

VinceNYC

Just Browsing
Joined
May 31, 2005
Posts
61
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Age
34
Location
Harlem
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Originally posted by jonb@Jun 30 2005, 12:04 PM
Actually, marriage primarily is a cultural, although not necessarily religious, institution to untie lineages. Its history isn&#39;t nearly as romantic as it sounds; actually for much of Western history, a marriage was a contract between the groom and the father of the bride.
[post=325389]Quoted post[/post]​
I think we&#39;re both saying the same thing. You are referring to the USE of marriage. You are correct that marriage has been used in many ways, including to control lineage and keep the blood lines "pure." It was (and is) also used to secure financial advantages. Remember that historically religion and government were not separate like the are today, so when you refer to marriage being "cultural" you are essentially saying "religious."
 

jonb

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
7,578
Media
0
Likes
67
Points
258
Age
40
But marriage is not an exclusively Judeo-Christian-Islamic institution as some idiots out there would like us to believe.
 

B_DoubleMeatWhopper

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2002
Posts
4,941
Media
0
Likes
113
Points
268
Age
45
Location
Louisiana
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Originally posted by VinceNYC@Jun 30 2005, 12:48 PM
Remember that historically religion and government were not separate like the are today, so when you refer to marriage being "cultural" you are essentially saying "religious."
[post=325407]Quoted post[/post]​

Not at all. Though a culture and its religion may be intrinsically entwined, they are not one and the same thing. In a secular culture, religion has little significance, so equating &#39;cultural&#39; with &#39;religious&#39; is a fallacy in that context. Just because a couple is married by a Justice of the Peace rather than at a church doesn&#39;t mean that they are any less married. Our culture dictates that such a marriage is valid, though many religions would disagree.
 

DanielForever

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Posts
185
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Age
34
Location
England
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
In Britain, Tony Blair, turning out to be the worlds most &#39;caring&#39; leader, actually dismissed gay marriage, instead decided on a legal document that wasn&#39;t called a marriage, but was the same thing, i could not see the logic.
 

VinceNYC

Just Browsing
Joined
May 31, 2005
Posts
61
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Age
34
Location
Harlem
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+Jun 30 2005, 01:01 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; Jun 30 2005, 01:01 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-VinceNYC@Jun 30 2005, 12:48 PM
Remember that historically religion and government were not separate like the are today, so when you refer to marriage being "cultural" you are essentially saying "religious."
[post=325407]Quoted post[/post]​

Not at all. Though a culture and its religion may be intrinsically entwined, they are not one and the same thing. In a secular culture, religion has little significance, so equating &#39;cultural&#39; with &#39;religious&#39; is a fallacy in that context. Just because a couple is married by a Justice of the Peace rather than at a church doesn&#39;t mean that they are any less married. Our culture dictates that such a marriage is valid, though many religions would disagree.
[post=325416]Quoted post[/post]​
[/b][/quote]
LOL&#33; I&#39;m not sure what we&#39;re talking about anymore&#33; I&#39;m referring to the HISTORY of marriage, and I&#39;m going back way further than you seem to be. Take it back to ancient Rome when the Caesar was said to have been selected to rule by god himself. That&#39;s the history I&#39;m referring to, and religion and "culture" were non-negotiable and inseparable.

Now, I totally agree with what you said above. The LEGAL marriage now exists and allows men and women to marry in a legal way without the religious counterpart. And that was my main point. The legal marriage was created as a way to protect people who were married in a religious ceremony. That makes the legal marriage a protection, and Constitutionally a law cannot protect one group of people [Men & Women] and be withheld from others.
 

VinceNYC

Just Browsing
Joined
May 31, 2005
Posts
61
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Age
34
Location
Harlem
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Originally posted by DanielForever@Jun 30 2005, 01:29 PM
In Britain, Tony Blair, turning out to be the worlds most &#39;caring&#39; leader, actually dismissed gay marriage, instead decided on a legal document that wasn&#39;t called a marriage, but was the same thing, i could not see the logic.
[post=325427]Quoted post[/post]​
Right. This is where the leaders and politicians in the gay community have let us down. We never should have pushed for gay "marriage." What&#39;s needed is exactly what Blair has done--he extended the same protections provided by secular marriage to ALL people, but he didn&#39;t call it "marriage."

He did that because religious people are getting hung up on the term "marriage," and don&#39;t understand the difference between the secular marriage and the historically religious marriage. Which get&#39;s back to my previous posts which seem to be confusing everyone, so I&#39;ll shut up.

Suffice it to say that as a 90% gay person you should be happy with Blair. now our guy is another story ...
 

absinthium

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Posts
425
Media
6
Likes
7
Points
163
Location
Dickcuntsburg, USAtown
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Female
No matter what your definition of marriage, the government recognizing the union of a same-sex couple, to me, indicates that they feel such couples are just as important and deserving of equal treatment as all the breeders out there.
Hopefully as more and more countries become more progressive in their thinking, America will have no choice but to at least pretend to follow suit. From there, perhaps the "fake it until you make it" axiom will come true, and we, as a nation, finally can evolve.
...And then we&#39;ll all get to eat ice cream on the back of our personal, government issued pegasuses (pegusi?) while we fly over a rainbow made of blowjobs.
The future will be GREAT.
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Originally posted by absinthium@Jun 30 2005, 02:09 PM
Hopefully as more and more countries become more progressive in their thinking, America will have no choice but to at least pretend to follow suit. From there, perhaps the "fake it until you make it" axiom will come true, and we, as a nation, finally can evolve.
[post=325436]Quoted post[/post]​

I predict that we&#39;ll legalize gay marriages just after Saudi Arabia does, and just before Bhutan. :angry:
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Well the problem is that the government can&#39;t keep it&#39;s greedy little paws out of anything, and much that could be good is turned sour. An agreement between people to share time together should not need the endorsement of a government agency and in fact does not, so what is being argued for is the host of "priveledges" that the government grants to certain kinds of married couples but denies to others. This is an obivous limitation of freedoms, do it our way or you will have less rights granted to you than other people. It&#39;s bullshit, but we have a long history of that. It just gets discouraging when an issue that is an obvious human rights issue comes this close to the surface only to be struck down. We learn nothing, we don&#39;t grow as a society. The filthiest and vilest from amoung us feel vindicated and we now hear things out in the open about "fuckin&#39; faggits thought they were gonna git their way" and the stupid and the grotesque rise to the top, just like the haters of blacks did at one time. Haters of anyone are always wrong and they always get demolished eventually, but we just can&#39;t get beyond the point where we have to tear our society apart first before good can conquer. THAT&#39;S because stupidity is so strong, and well funded. Nevertheless, the hypo-christians and the faggot haters will fall eventually, hopefully because the rest of the world will lead the way. We are going to lose more than our money through this administration, we are going to lose whatever good name we once had.
 

KinkGuy

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Posts
2,794
Media
0
Likes
157
Points
268
Age
70
Location
southwest US
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 1 2005, 01:20 PM
we are going to lose whatever good name we once had.
[post=325720]Quoted post[/post]​

Future tense? How about "we have lost"................
 

jonb

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
7,578
Media
0
Likes
67
Points
258
Age
40
Originally posted by mindseye+Jun 30 2005, 11:43 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mindseye &#064; Jun 30 2005, 11:43 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-absinthium@Jun 30 2005, 02:09 PM
Hopefully as more and more countries become more progressive in their thinking, America will have no choice but to at least pretend to follow suit. From there, perhaps the "fake it until you make it" axiom will come true, and we, as a nation, finally can evolve.
[post=325436]Quoted post[/post]​

I predict that we&#39;ll legalize gay marriages just after Saudi Arabia does, and just before Bhutan. :angry:
[post=325447]Quoted post[/post]​
[/b][/quote]
Actually, most teens and twentysomethings are in favor of same-sex marriages.