# Gay "matrimony" in Mexico city



## Miguelillo 87

What do you think about in Mexico City (not in all the country) the ALDF has just accepted the "unión libre" between men and women?
For me it's a step ahead in Human right and in civilization, accepting wat it's a reality. 
As a matter of fact I think it's a perfect solution for gay couples so they can provided IMSS (medical service) to their couples, and now right of thes couples are being respected.

What's oyur opinion?

Note. I know there are a lot of threads about that, but I'm talking specially of MEXICO, this law in Mexico.


----------



## Chipolata

Ya era tiempo, ¿no?
Supongo que es un gran escándalo en ciertas partes de la sociedad mexicana, pero ya hay que ir para adelante... 
Un pareja, para mi, son dos personas que se comprometen a suportarse en lo bueno y en lo malo... El matrimonio es una forma de concretizarlo pero personalmente, no creo en el matrimonio. Soy heterosexual pero no tengo porque meterme en la vida de las demás parejas. Llevo cuatro años viviendo con mi novio y somos familia. No estamos casados y no vemos realmente la necesidad de hacerlo. Estamos comprometidos a nuestra manera. 
Por lo tanto, deseo felicitar a todas las parejas gays del DF: ¡ya reconocieron que tienen el derecho a manejar su vida como mejor les parezca!


----------



## .   1

I believe that this demonstrates that Mexico is a country where citizens have respect from their government.

.,,


----------



## Layzie

I find it very ironic that Mexico beat the United States to this. Excuse me for generalizing, but I think people will understand when I say that Mexican immigrants here in the U.S tend to  have a very "macho" manly man attitude and are religious so naturally they abhor homosexuality and one of the biggest offenses to them is calling them "maricon" or "culero"(derogatory terms for a male homosexual). All I can say to this is "Viva Mexico!"


----------



## roxcyn

Para mí no me sorpendió porque hay muchos países con una ley como esto


----------



## rajel

. said:


> I believe that this demonstrates that Mexico is a country where citizens have respect from their government.
> 
> .,,


Hi there! I..think I'd argue that, because a big majority of the current government is highly conservative therefore they strongly opposed the idea of gay marriage, it was in fact the so called oposition the one that advocated for gay marriage and it was a noticeable step for human rights.


----------



## Outsider

Layzie said:


> I find it very ironic that Mexico beat the United States to this.


But there are already states in the U.S. where civil unions are legal, too.


----------



## marcos_ipn

Pienso que esta ley, permite el reconocimiento de los ciudadanos llegando a una igualdad a pesar de ser un duro (y efectivo) golpe a la doble moral, a los grupos exageradamente (y a mi parecer ridiculamente) conservadores y a la iglesia católica que no pregunta a sus seguidores sino que simplemente publica lo que para ellos es "bueno" o de lo contrario es pecado.

Era necesario que se impulsara este tipo de reformas a las leyes mexicanas y ojalá en un futuro, se aplique en mas partes del país, probablemente en ciudades como GDL, Juárez o MTY, lo cierto es que es apenas ahora en que los poderes legislativos tanto federales como estatales se han puesto a trabajar a favor de todos los ciudadanos, algunos por los migrantes en Estados Unidos y otros como el caso de la Asamblea Legislativa del Distrito Federal por fin atiende a la demanda de la comunidad LGBT.

En horabuena por México y esperemos ver pronto mas cosas que nos encaminen para que en un futuro el concepto de IGUALDAD sea mas visible y no se este hablando de democracia, derechos humanos o respeto a medias.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Outsider,

Does it matter when the widower of a gay Congressman, Gerry Studds, from the state of Massachusetts, the only state where gays can legally marry, will not receive the pension provided to surviving spouses of former members of Congress due to the federal ban on same-sex marriage?

This is a perfect illustration of how important it is for the federal government to step up to the plate and recognize the civil right of all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, to be married under the law. 

Anyway, there are only two states that presently allow civil unions: Vermont and Connecticut... with New Jersey's legislature soon to determine whether their same-sex couples deserve only civil unions or are entitled to marriage with all the inherent benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.

I am curious.  Not knowing what this civil union entails in Mexico City, would a widower of a congressman there be able to receive the benefits of a deceased gay "spouse?"


----------



## BlueWolf

Miguelillo 87 said:


> What do you think about in Mexico City (not in all the country) the ALDF has just accepted the "unión libre" between men and women?



Except for the fact I don't approve it, but does it make any sense to accept it only in a city?


----------



## Outsider

I was thinking about that, too. Other countries have also legalized same-sex unions in only one part of their territory (Argentina for example, if I remember well).
Perhaps it makes sense when there are still many regions in the country where the population is very conservative, and would rise up against such a law. In the big cities, people are usually less mindful of the morality of others. Mexican gays just have to find a way to move to the big city.


----------



## .   1

BlueWolf said:


> Except for the fact I don't approve it, but does it make any sense to accept it only in a city?


My thoughts are that this is an attempt by Mexico to introduce the legislation by virtual stealth.  In the city nobody knows their neighbours as well as they do in the bush.  People in the city are time poor and often do not have enough time to interact with their family much less their neighbours so they don't care about what they don't know.
I predict that as the rest of the country sees that the sky does not fall on the city it will slowly come to be seen as being provincial to discriminate against gay marriage which will become accepted at the grass roots level and legislation will eventually follow.
I'm led to believe that Mexico City is a pretty big joint and it could hardly be implied that Mexico was legislating only in a small part of the country.

.,,


----------



## tvdxer

Miguelillo 87 said:


> What do you think about in Mexico City (not in all the country) the ALDF has just accepted the "unión libre" between men and women?
> For me it's a step ahead in Human right and in civilization, accepting wat it's a reality.
> As a matter of fact I think it's a perfect solution for gay couples so they can provided IMSS (medical service) to their couples, and now right of thes couples are being respected.
> 
> What's oyur opinion?
> 
> Note. I know there are a lot of threads about that, but I'm talking specially of MEXICO, this law in Mexico.



I think it's disgusting.  Sexually abnormal "unions" between two members of the same sex should not be sanctioned by the government and given status equal or similar to that of marriage; it would be better to recognize homosexuality as a social problem, at least in my opinion.  It's too bad that even a fairly conservative country like Mexico has to fall to this level.


----------



## .   1

tvdxer said:


> ... it would be better to recognize homosexuality as a social problem...


Why is homosexuality a social problem for you?

.,,


----------



## loladamore

Chipolata said:


> Soy heterosexual pero no tengo porque meterme en la vida de las demás parejas. Llevo cuatro años viviendo con mi novio y somos familia. No estamos casados y no vemos realmente la necesidad de hacerlo. Estamos comprometidos a nuestra manera.


 
Las leyes civiles mexicanas ya te protegen. Si vives en *unión libre* tienes prácticamente los mismos derechos que una persona casada, en términos de una herencia o una pensión. También tienes derecho a servicios de salud pública gratuitos si tu pareja cotiza al IMSS o al ISSSTE.
Hasta ahora, si dos personas del mismo sexo vivían juntos 40 años, de todos modos, al morirse uno de ellos, el/la sobreviviente no tendría esos derechos.

I agree with you, Miguellillo, in that it's a step forward. I think it's heartbreaking that long-term couples are not considered as 'family' or next-of-kin, to the extent that they are prevented from visiting their loved ones on their death-bed, or that blood relations could kick them out of their home when they are 'widowed'. This law at least allows you to say goodbye and not find yourself homeless.

It's worth pointing out that Mexico City (the _Distrito Federal_) is more significant than 'only a city', and not just because of the approximately 20 million people who live there. Innovative laws that are passed there often find an echo in other states and are then put in place. Legislation regarding domestic violence is a case in point. Up until recently, it was legally impossible for a man to rape his wife. Legislation passed in Mexico City was replicated in other states.

I can understand why people might object to civil unions for religious reasons, but they might like to bear in mind that these are indeed *civil* unions. Just as you have the right to get married in church, other people have the right to register their union in the eyes of the law.

EDIT: If you would like to have a look at the problems regarding the definition of *violación marital*, you can *start here*, where it says, among other things, that La doctrina jurídica tradicional estuvo muy condicionada por el concepto de _débito conyugal_ (es decir, la obligatoriedad recíproca de complacer sexualmente al cónyuge).
I would call _*that '*_disgusting' and 'a social problem'.


----------



## rajel

Layzie said:


> I find it very ironic that Mexico beat the United States to this. Excuse me for generalizing, but I think people will understand when I say that Mexican immigrants here in the U.S tend to  have a very "macho" manly man attitude and are religious so naturally they abhor homosexuality and one of the biggest offenses to them is calling them "maricon" or "culero"(derogatory terms for a male homosexual). All I can say to this is "Viva Mexico!"



I'm mexican and I'm sure that a "culero" is not a Homosexual it is used for a very contemptible person. an example would be something like; you see a person taking advantage of a kid then you say "no seas culero dejalo en paz"


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

And when you say taking advantage of a kid, what do you mean?  Consider this education of a guero from a Mexican?  I am in very desperate need of education of the thoughts from a Mexican as a Caucasian because I have to admit that as a gay American, I have had nothing but fear and aversion of the machismo of Mexicans.

I can't help but tell you that  it is part of my fears of the "Mexican invasion."

Please do enlighten me.


----------



## Layzie

tvdxer said:


> I think it's disgusting.  Sexually abnormal "unions" between two members of the same sex should not be sanctioned by the government and given status equal or similar to that of marriage; it would be better to recognize homosexuality as a social problem, at least in my opinion.  It's too bad that even a fairly conservative country like Mexico has to fall to this level.



They are fully functional human beings that do everything straights do except when it comes to mate preference. The government should recognize their right to do what they want because it doesn't negatively impact society.


----------



## loladamore

jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> Please do enlighten me.


 
You could perhaps start *here*.


----------



## rajel

jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> And when you say taking advantage of a kid, what do you mean?  Consider this education of a guero from a Mexican?  I am in very desperate need of education of the thoughts from a Mexican as a Caucasian because I have to admit that as a gay American, I have had nothing but fear and aversion of the machismo of Mexicans.
> 
> I can't help but tell you that  it is part of my fears of the "Mexican invasion."
> 
> Please do enlighten me.


What I wanted to ilustrate is for example taking something from a kid, candies, a toy,money,(bullying) and it was just to explain the use of  the word culero "Deja a ese niño en paz, no seas culero!"this is something I'd say to a bully. somebody used culero as an offensive synonim of Homosexual, but look...being gay in Mexico is not completely accepted just like anywhere else in the world and about the macho thing well...it's not like most people think. don't be affraid of Mexicans I know that most of them are really busy minding their own business and trying to make a living, nowadays I've heard many people saying "Cada vez hay mas y mas gays o no?"(there are more and more gays aren't there?)and I personally think that there have always been a lot of gay people but now more and more are coming out of the closet.I'm straight; and I believe that everyone has the right to live the way he or she likes! this is one of the best expressions of freedom..... si o no? take care.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> And when you say taking advantage of a kid, what do you mean? Consider this education of a guero from a Mexican? I am in very desperate need of education of the thoughts from a Mexican as a Caucasian because I have to admit that as a gay American, I have had nothing but fear and aversion of the machismo of Mexicans.
> 
> I can't help but tell you that it is part of my fears of the "Mexican invasion."
> 
> Please do enlighten me.


I mean maybe US people believe that Mexico it's full of machos, but certanly don't I mean I know a lot of husbands who are "Mandilones" I know a galore of gays, and believe me machos are in extintion I think every society has a part of machos in its lines. For example oyu are gonna say me that Eminem it's the perfect symbol of respect and equality, I mean of rme He is a MACHO and he is not mexican, It's the same in Mexico some ar machos some others "mansos como un gatito" You cannot generalize.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

rajel said:


> Hi there! I..think I'd argue that, because a big majority of the current government is highly conservative therefore they strongly opposed the idea of gay marriage, it was in fact the so called oposition the one that advocated for gay marriage and it was a noticeable step for human rights.


A mí también em sorprendio, pense que la iban a dar pa' tras, pero ¡qué bueno que no! 
Algo muy importante que hay que señalar es que lso gays no buscan el matrimonio por casarse de blanco y decir, 'Mira mira ya me case! Obvio que no, lo que se busca es que se reconociera la igualdad de derechos que tiene una pareja tanto gay como hetero, que trabajan juntas hacen un patrimonio juntas y que se respete ese derecho a _"heredar" a tener seguridad social, a que se reconosca una unión


----------



## Miguelillo 87

BlueWolf said:


> Except for the fact I don't approve it, but does it make any sense to accept it only in a city?


I thonk it's important 'cause as Mexico City it's the capital of Mexico, it's where all the important desitions comes form, Also as other have said, Mexico city is not a normal city, we have mora than 20 millions of persons in our territory, so You're talking of a vast majority.


----------



## .   1

Miguelillo 87 said:


> For example oyu are gonna say me that Eminem it's the perfect symbol of respect and equality, I mean of rme He is a MACHO and he is not mexican, It's the same in Mexico some ar machos some others "mansos como un gatito" You cannot generalize.


Are you saying that eminem is considered to be macho? 

.,,


----------



## Miguelillo 87

For me yos, He beats up her woman, He hates gays, He is a closed mind guy, That is a macho, the one who doesn't care about his family only for his own sake and he has to put down the persons in order to fell better than. 

A macho it's not a semental woth mustacha and a big hat, As hollywood make you believe at leat not in the mexacan definition


----------



## BlueWolf

Miguelillo 87 said:


> I thonk it's important 'cause as Mexico City it's the capital of Mexico, it's where all the important desitions comes form, Also as other have said, Mexico city is not a normal city, we have mora than 20 millions of persons in our territory, so You're talking of a vast majority.



I see your point, but I can't understand how a thing can be allowed in a city (even if it's the capital), and not in all the rest of the country. How can a thing be right/legal in a place and wrong/illegal in an other place of the same country?


----------



## .   1

Miguelillo 87 said:


> For me yos, He beats up her woman, He hates gays, He is a closed mind guy, That is a macho, the one who doesn't care about his family only for his own sake and he has to put down the persons in order to fell better than.
> 
> A macho it's not a semental woth mustacha and a big hat, As hollywood make you believe at leat not in the mexacan definition


That makes sense.  So eminem is an effiminate white macho man trying to imitate a black tough guy - seems like the reverse of Michael Jackson.  This may explain their cross-over appeal.

.,,


----------



## Miguelillo 87

. said:


> That makes sense. So eminem is an effiminate white macho man trying to imitate a black tough guy - seems like the reverse of Michael Jackson. This may explain their cross-over appeal.
> 
> .,,


I think you "le diste al clavo" (have made the point) 
Exactly for be a macho you don't need to be mexican or latin, Machos are all around the world.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

BlueWolf said:


> I see your point, but I can't understand how a thing can be allowed in a city (even if it's the capital), and not in all the rest of the country. How can a thing be right/legal in a place and wrong/illegal in an other place of the same country?


Me neither, but I don't know how italian governament works, but in Mexico, United states of mexico, Each STATE has its own governament and its own laws, so mayeb in Colima there's no gay population or it's a minority in minorities, so Why to make a law for preserve their right,if nobody cares about them, but maybe in Mexico city Gay population it's millions!!! So governament has to care about this population's interests.
For example Why to create a law about farmers if in the city we don't have farms, but in sates with a lot of farms We need it!!!

Note, I'm only supposing in order to our italian fellow understand, I know that in DF there are farms and that in Colima are gays


----------



## .   1

Miguelillo 87 said:


> Me neither, but I don't know how italian governament works, but in Mexico, United states of mexico, Each STATE has its own governament and its own laws, so mayeb in Colima there's no gay population or it's a minority in minorities, so Why to make a law for preserve their right,if nobody cares about them, but maybe in Mexico city Gay population it's millions!!! So governament has to care about this population's interests.
> For example Why to create a law about farmers if in the city we don't have farms, but in sates with a lot of farms We need it!!!
> 
> Note, I'm only supposing in order to our italian fellow understand, I know that in DF there are farms and that in Colima are gays


G'day Miguelilo,
Spoken like a real human being.
Why are there not more people like you running the world.  It would be a far happier and equitable place.

.,,


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Miguelillo 87,

You have hit the nail on the head (le diste al clavo) regarding the fact that that there are macho guys all over the world.  In my part of the US, though, you generally only encounter the macho Mexican.  Without sounding prejudiced, I hope, I'd like to make the point that the types of jobs that attract Mexicans here tend to attract the macho ones.  That's all I was saying.  When I lived in El Paso, I encountered a greater variety of Mexicans.


----------



## DCPaco

Layzie said:


> I find it very ironic that Mexico beat the United States to this. Excuse me for generalizing, but I think people will understand when I say that Mexican immigrants here in the U.S tend to have a very "macho" manly man attitude and are religious so naturally they abhor homosexuality and one of the biggest offenses to them is calling them "maricon" or "culero"(derogatory terms for a male homosexual). All I can say to this is "Viva Mexico!"


 
I don't think this is the issue...I think the issue is that in Mexico, there is a more marked distinction when one says: separation of church and state. Because the United States was founded by Puritans and Religious Separatists that were often religious fundamentalists, the concept of separate church and state seldom exists. Besides the fact that the McChurches are appearing everywhere taking progress back to the middle ages and crusading upon all sorts of freedoms.

"very macho" often becomes "machito calado" 

And then, there's also: "los machos de Guadalajara"


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Miguelillo 87 said:


> A mí también em sorprendio, pense que la iban a dar pa' tras, pero ¡qué bueno que no!
> Algo muy importante que hay que señalar es que lso gays no buscan el matrimonio por casarse de blanco y decir, 'Mira mira ya me case! Obvio que no, lo que se busca es que se reconociera la igualdad de derechos que tiene una pareja tanto gay como hetero, que trabajan juntas hacen un patrimonio juntas y que se respete ese derecho a _"heredar" a tener seguridad social, a que se reconosca una unión


This is the point that is missed by many straights. Their prejudice prevents them from seeing this. An apt cartoon in Time magazine captured this issue well: A man is shown holding his wife's hand as he says, "Honey, I am going to save our marriage," to which she responds, "You mean you're going to quit drinking, cheating on me, beating me, and go to marriage counseling." And he says, "No, I am going to vote to ban gay marriage." I think Matthew 7:5 speaks to this: " First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye." That's why this can also be construed as a religious issue, although I fear that many Bible thumpers wouldn't cite the same verse. 

Anyway, whether one respects the "gay lifestyle" or not, all should be treated equally before the law. That's where I really admire Canada. That country doesn't just pay lip-service to the idea of "all men are created equal." They practice it!!


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

BlueWolf said:


> I see your point, but I can't understand how a thing can be allowed in a city (even if it's the capital), and not in all the rest of the country. How can a thing be right/legal in a place and wrong/illegal in an other place of the same country?


It doesn't seem quite right, though, does it?  Unfortunately, government and politics in practice are not really about doing the morally right thing, in many cases.  I have heard the argument, very strong in the US particularly, that each state has its right to make laws that suit the people of that state, which is basically what Miguelillo has said.  Federalism vs anti-federalism has a history as old as our country.  My personal opinion, though, is that civil rights SHOULD be legislated on the federal level because all are affected by the issue regardless of where s/he lives.  The right to a strong state government, nonetheless, is all too often an excuse to write discrimination into the law and the constitution, something which is very lamentable!!!


----------



## loladamore

jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> It doesn't seem quite right, though, does it? ...
> My personal opinion, though, is that civil rights SHOULD be legislated on the federal level because all are affected by the issue regardless of where s/he lives.


 
I agree with you on both points. 

Being optimistic, I would say that the advantage of the federal system in Mexico is that a law such as this, that would have very little chance of nationwide approval, gets passed in Mexico City, and then other states can follow.

Mexico City, or the _Distrito Federal_ ('Federal District') is more than just a city and is equivalent to a state. It is difficult to calculate the exact population as many parts of the urban sprawl traditionally thought of as belonging to Mexico City are in fact part of the neighbouring _Estado de México_. According to *INEGI* the DF has a mere 8.6 million inhabitants , compared to over 13 million in the _Estado de México_, the most heavily populated state in the country. However, that 8.6 is still hugely significant, making the DF the country's second most populated state, and being the seat of the capital, it is more influential in many ways than other states. It is also home to the UNAM, the university that is generally regarded as the best in Latin America and which competes among the best in the world, according to several international rankings.

Innovation catches on and spreads from there.

I can't see this law getting passed in states governed by the PAN, but you never know. Jalisco has a considerable gay-related income, from a thriving alternative scene in Guadalajara, to Vallarta, Jalisco's coastal *"**gay paradise**"*.

We may think it's about civil rights, but as often as not, it's to do with money. There are probably numerous politicians who would promote gay marriage and come out of the closet if they thought it would bring in more revenues (i.e., make them rich).

I can see myself on the verge of drifting considerably off-topic, so I'll leave it there. 

Saludos a todos.


----------



## BlueWolf

Miguelillo 87 said:


> Me neither, but I don't know how italian governament works, but in Mexico, United states of mexico, Each STATE has its own governament and its own laws, so mayeb in Colima there's no gay population or it's a minority in minorities, so Why to make a law for preserve their right,if nobody cares about them, but maybe in Mexico city Gay population it's millions!!! So governament has to care about this population's interests.
> For example Why to create a law about farmers if in the city we don't have farms, but in sates with a lot of farms We need it!!!
> 
> Note, I'm only supposing in order to our italian fellow understand, I know that in DF there are farms and that in Colima are gays



Oh, yeah, I see what you mean, I forgot Mexico is a federal country. Thanks.


----------



## rocioteag

En lo personal, me ha dado un gusto enorme el reconocimiento de esta situación, pues no solo ha favorecido a los gays, ha ido mucho mas allá al reconocer a las parejas que sin matrimonio, han formado familias completas, uniones de muchos años que al fallecer un miembro de la pareja, se veian acosados por la "familia" del difunto.

Estoy, en cierta medida, de acuerdo con que existen grandes lagunas, y que las mismas deben ser reevaluadas para poder aplicar la ley en forma efectiva, pero considero que es un paso en cuanto a la tolerancia, que ciertamente es necesaria.

Y por lo que respecta a las uniones de miembros del mismo sexo (gays) creo que es un paso adelante en el reconocimiento de sus derechos, y a favor de la no discriminación por cuestiones de orientación sexual.


----------



## tvdxer

. said:


> Why is homosexuality a social problem for you?
> 
> .,,



Because it is a disordered inclination, and fewer and fewer Americans are recognizing that while homosexual groups and liberal institutions shove their "orientation" and demand for acceptance of it as equivalent to life-creating straight relationships into our faces.

Do we need to go into this again?  I don't think so.


----------



## .   1

I must be like the many Americans who do not understand what a 'disordered inclination' is.  Is this a recent buzz-phrase to label the necessary social minority.
Drug missuse sounds like a 'disordered inclination' as does car theft and arson but I just can't fit it into your context.

.,,


----------



## loladamore

tvdxer said:


> Because it is a disordered inclination,  eh?
> and fewer and fewer Americans I thought we were talking about Mexico are recognizing that while homosexual groups and liberal institutions shove their "orientation" and demand for acceptance of it as equivalent to life-creating straight relationships into our faces.


 I know several sets of infertile married-in-church-straight couples - where do they fit in? - and numerous gay parents (apparently some of them have fully-functional "life-creating" reproductive systems, too) some of whom had children before coming out, and others who chose to become parents of the 2 mums and/or 2 dads variety.



> Do we need to go into this again? I don't think so.


 
Do we have to bring catechism into this? I don't think so. All this 'disordered inclination' business lumps all kinds of non-marital sexual activity together, not just gay sex. Hang on - I'm lost... my understanding of inclinations and "moral evil" is that ANY sex outside of marriage is BAD. So, is it a 'disordered inclination' if you only have gay sex within marriage? Oh sorry, that's right - a civil wedding is not "holy matrimony".

Sorry to pick on you. You just brought back a whole load of bad memories of people who lay down "god's rules" and beat children (or worse).


----------



## tvdxer

I've already explained this many times before.  Infertile couples are still capable of performing an act that is procreative by its nature, but sterile by accident.  

The idea that homosexuals should be able to marry is a recent one, a product of post-modern libertinism and an "anything goes" mentality that usually does not admit the existence of natural law or morality.  This is the wrong way for a society to go.

Great ad hominem there.  I have no association with any person who beats children by laying down God's rules.


----------



## .   1

tvdxer said:


> I've already explained this many times before.


I'm sorry if I pop your bubble but I have to inform you that not everybody reads every post by every forer@.
I still do not know what you mean by disordered inclination.

.,,


----------



## loladamore

I apologise for not having ever come across any of your posts before, tvdxer, and I also apologise for presuming you were Catholic. I made that assumption on the basis of your reference to terminology disseminated by the Holy See.


----------



## Macunaíma

É inacreditável a hipocrisia da sociedade em que vivemos: as pessoas nunca se divorciaram tanto, o casamento já há muito atingiu o estágio da extrema banalização, todos os dias nós vemos celebridades se casando só pela publicidade e pelas fotos que isso gera...e diante disso ninguém vem reclamar da "santidade do casamento", pregar o "valor da família"....

O casamento é uma intituição falida; ninguém mais acredita nisso, ninguém em sã consciência faria a besteira de se casar formalmente, assinando documentos e todo aquele teatro lamentável. O que me espanta é que agora casais _gay_s, na contramão dessa marcha rumo à obsolescência do casamento, estejam tão empenhados em...se casar !!!

Bem, nada contra casais _gay_s viverem juntos, serem felizes e expressarem seus sentimentos livremente, mas eu acho que eles prestariam um grande favor a si mesmos e à sociedade que já está farta de hipócritas se simplesmente desprezassem o casamento como uma farsa.

O que me irrita nessa história toda é que o Estado esteja em uma posição de dizer o que é certo e o que é errado, na posição de fazer julgamentos morais. Casar-se é estúpido, não tenho dúvidas, mas casais _gay_s também têm o direitos de cometer esse erro estúpido. É nesse ponto que eu sou a favor do casamento _gay_: O ESTADO NÃO EXISTE PARA FAZER JULGAMENTOS MORAIS _essa é uma função que cabe aos indivíduos, muito menos para se meter a cientista, definindo um casal como um par sexualmente apto à reprodução, isso é ridículo !!! Casais heterosexuais usam métodos contraceptivos e nem por isso são proibidos de se casar.

A Igreja deve ser ignorada. Tudo o que a Igreja fez durante todo o período da história em que teve poder para ditar as regras foi impor o terror e o obscurantismo. 

Enfim, se os _gay_s querem se casar, que se casem; mas que isso é patético, é.


----------



## cuchuflete

Macunaíma,
Fascinating point of view!  
Muito obrigado.



> É inacreditável _historicamente normal e lamentável_ a hipocrisia da sociedade em que vivemos


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:


> I think it's disgusting.  Sexually abnormal "unions" between two members of the same sex should not be sanctioned by the government and given status equal or similar to that of marriage; it would be better to recognize homosexuality as a social problem, at least in my opinion.  It's too bad that even a fairly conservative country like Mexico has to fall to this level.




Mexico has, at least in the DF, just displayed some all too rare common sense, and acknowledged that humans come in more than one form and style.  I think it is not disgusting, but very sad, that some people go around acting self-righteous and all-knowing, and try to impose their narrow and broken and illogical notions of morality on other people.  Such childlike presumptuousness—that of the "I know what is right, and it is my way, and all other ways should be called bad names." flavor—is a serious social problem.  

I applaud Mexico for eliminating, at least in its largest city,  some immoral repression and arrogance.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

tvdxr, 
It sounds like we do need to go into this again.  I am an open-minded person who can be convinced by sound reasoning, yet I haven't seen you offer a cogent reason for why you believe it is a "disordered inclination."  I am tempted to believe you may "know of" some gays and lesbians but don't really know any.  I suspect that if you knew gays, you might have a different attitude.  
A common accepted definition of a disorder is "an ailment that affects the function of mind or body."  If we can agree on this definition, one would be hard pressed to characterize homosexuality as a disorder.  Gays that I know function well in society.  Do you know gays who don't function well in society due to their homosexuality?  

Let's have a candid conversation based on logic, not on religion or some other irrational belief system.  This should be a new thread, though, and I will open it, if you are up to it.


----------



## GenJen54

tvdxer said:


> Because it is a disordered inclination, and fewer and fewer Americans are recognizing that while homosexual groups and liberal institutions shove their "orientation" and demand for acceptance of it as equivalent to life-creating straight relationships into our faces.
> 
> Do we need to go into this again?  I don't think so.



You always have the choice (another buzzword so endearing to you) to refrain from any utterances of disdain against people you find so repulsive. 

The Catholic Church is taking such great strides in their humane treatment of this "disorder."  Now, they have a "don't tell, but come to our Way of thinking anyway" policy. How charitable.

I'm repulsed by the "moral crusaders" continuing to knock on my door and demanding my acceptance of their Deity and religious beliefs, when I already have very valid spiritual beliefs of my own.  Is this a disordered inclination, too?  When was the last time homosexuals knocked on your door telling you to accept their lifestyle or you would go to hell?

I have a lesbian couple living across the street from me, as well as another gay neighbor.  None have "shoved" anything in my face, nor "demanded" acceptance of anything, even so much as a "Welcome to the Neighborhood" basket of cookies.  Thanks to the close-mindedness of my surrounding society, they live very much behind their own closed doors.

I applaud the residents of Mexico City for having the cojones to stand up for social and moral equality in the world.   Perhaps after this past week's elections showed, the U.S. has an opportunity for enlightenment and balance once again.


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:


> I've already explained this many times before.  Infertile couples are still capable of performing an act that is procreative by its nature, but sterile by accident.


_You _may have - that doesn't make it part of any God's ordinances!




> The idea that homosexuals should be able to marry is a recent one,


So is the idea that women should have a say in politics, or that children should not be subjected to parental violence as a form of 'correction.




> an "anything goes" mentality that usually does not admit the existence of natural law or morality.


 You have memtiomed this 'natural law' before and I asked for details of it. I am still waiting. "Morality" is no help to us in legislation as there are different valid moralities in many different countries.




> Great ad hominem there.  I have no association with any person who beats children by laying down God's rules.


 Don't you mean to say "my God's rules" there? You always speak as if there is only one God - the one you believe in. You seem to be disinclined to acknowledge that other people have other Gods.




tvdxer said:


> Because it is a disordered inclination, and fewer and fewer Americans are recognizing that while homosexual groups and liberal institutions shove their "orientation" and demand for acceptance of it as equivalent to life-creating straight relationships into our faces.
> 
> Do we need to go into this again?  I don't think so.



No, we don't - but you insist on trumpeting your standards every time one of your trigger words is mentioned. You are the one shoving demands and opinions in our faces.

* PS *Have you left a word out in the second-last paragraph? You say ".... that while homosexual groups .... " but don't finish off with anything which relates to the "while"?


----------



## cuchuflete

Tony,
You persist in looking for logic or facts to support the absurdly disordered notion of 'natural law'.  Here are some facts:

There are roughly 6 billion people on the planet.
Something like one third of them are nominal Christians.
Some much smaller number are practicing Christians.
Some portion of that much smaller number are of tvdxer's
belief system.  
Logically and factually, if the God of that belief system really acts in accord with Tvd, and sends the rest of humanity to hell--which is another notion some people accept--then that God, being all-powerful, created Tvd and friends to advise most of humanity that we were created just to be roasted.

How's that for disordered thinking about a loving God!

Natural morality is thus defined as God creating billions of people for the sole purpose of having them burn for eternity, while a small minority looks on and says, with disdain and righteous indignation, "I told you so."



____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. —Mark Twain_


----------



## maxiogee

Maybe in that split-instant at the end of time - just before all our sparkles wink out for the last time ever - we non-believers will have a chance to murmur "you were saying… ?" at those who will be whirling around like dust-devils looking for the white guy. with the long white beard, and the long white robes. Somehow I don't think they'll hear us.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

> Miguelillo :What do you think about in Mexico City (not in all the country) the ALDF has just accepted the "unión libre" between men and women?
> For me it's a step ahead in Human right and in civilization, accepting wat it's a reality.
> As a matter of fact I think it's a perfect solution for gay couples so they can provided IMSS (medical service) to their couples, and now right of thes couples are being respected.
> 
> What's oyur opinion?
> 
> Note. I know there are a lot of threads about that, but I'm talking specially of MEXICO, this law in Mexico.



Red added for emphasis.

Migellilo's discussion has been hijacked .... like several others .... by one person's insistence on discussing the morality of sexuality according to his/her religion.  This is becoming tedious.


----------



## maxiogee

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Migellilo's discussion has been hijacked .... like several others .... by one person's insistence on discussing the morality of sexuality according to his/her religion.  This is becoming tedious.



Okay, I'll restart by asking a question which has been bothering me since I saw this thread. Sorry if I appear to be going off at a tangent, but there's a reason.



Miguelillo 87 said:


> What do you think about in Mexico City (not in all the country) the ALDF has just accepted the "unión libre" between men and women?



What is entailed in this 'unión libre' which makes it different from marriage - civil or religious?
I thought that people entered into these free arrangements (living together) precisely to avoid making public commitments and getting officialdom to recognise their 'union'. If two people don't wish to avail of marriage - but could - why should they decide to avail of 'unión libre'?
I can see how it might be availed of by gay couples, but I don't see its appeal for others.
Could it be that this arrangement has been brought in solely to suit gay couples?


----------



## cuchuflete

Post #46 may give some insights to answer your question, Tony.





 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
 _In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination. --_*Mark Twain  
*


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> Post #46 may give some insights to answer your question, Tony.*
> *



Ha-bleedin'-ha!
My knowledge of Portuguese is only rivalled for shallowness by my skills in brain surgery!


----------



## loladamore

maxiogee said:


> What is entailed in this 'unión libre' which makes it different from marriage - civil or religious?
> ...
> Could it be that this arrangement has been brought in solely to suit gay couples?


 
As I understand it, it's not really comparable to gay marriage, but rather a manner in which people who share a home can become a _sociedad_, i.e., enter into a legal partnership. It is not exclusively for romantically involved couples. From what I gather, it's more to do with property rights than anything else.
I did find this, which might help (how's your Spanish, Tony?):


> *No *contempla
> *Matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo
> *Adopción de menores por parte de parejas homosexuales
> *Concubinato
> 
> Contempla
> *El establecimiento de un hogar común entre personas de diferente o del mismo sexo.
> * La disolución de la sociedad cuando una de las partes así lo decida.
> * Derechos sucesorios legítimos hereditarios.
> *Deber recíproco de proporcionarse alimentos y ayuda económica.
> * La ley no sólo beneficia a la comunidad lésbico-gay, sino también a adultos mayores y jóvenes.


 *source*

Thanks to everyone who posted last night/this morning. 





> A Igreja deve ser ignorada


That and several of your reactions stopped me from posting a link to a news article about 4000 paedophile priests in the US. Slightly off-topic. I will happily PM it to anyone who would like to read it, though.

Cheers.
Lola


----------



## Miguelillo 87

rocioteag said:


> En lo personal, me ha dado un gusto enorme el reconocimiento de esta situación, pues no solo ha favorecido a los gays, ha ido mucho mas allá al reconocer a las parejas que sin matrimonio, han formado familias completas, uniones de muchos años que al fallecer un miembro de la pareja, se veian acosados por la "familia" del difunto.
> 
> Estoy, en cierta medida, de acuerdo con que existen grandes lagunas, y que las mismas deben ser reevaluadas para poder aplicar la ley en forma efectiva, pero considero que es un paso en cuanto a la tolerancia, que ciertamente es necesaria.
> 
> Y por lo que respecta a las uniones de miembros del mismo sexo (gays) creo que es un paso adelante en el reconocimiento de sus derechos, y a favor de la no discriminación por cuestiones de orientación sexual.


¡Guau qué buen pensamiento para una madre! 
Ojalá todos pensaran así. Y cómo dices las lagunas tienes que desaparecer, pero por lo menso el primer paso ya se dio, es sólo ahora amntenerse en la lucha por lso que estamos y estarán


----------



## Miguelillo 87

loladamore said:


> As I understand it, it's not really comparable to gay marriage, but rather a manner in which people who share a home can become a _sociedad_, i.e., enter into a legal partnership. It is not exclusively for romantically involved couples. From what I gather, it's more to do with property rights than anything else.
> I did find this, which might help (how's your Spanish, Tony?):
> *source*
> 
> Thanks to everyone who posted last night/this morning. That and several of your reactions stopped me from posting a link to a news article about 4000 paedophile priests in the US. Slightly off-topic. I will happily PM it to anyone who would like to read it, though.
> 
> Cheers.
> Lola


Symply perfect, thank you for explain this topic and give more details which I couldn't give.

Also I can see thanks God This world or at least thhis forum it's full of open-mind person and obviously ther's always a frijolito en el arroz , so for this frijolito only to say, Read about history and oyu'll see homsexulity is as ols as heterosexualuty, second, God bless oyu.
And thank you to all my friends in this forum for help me to show taht the world is cangin', and now we are teying little by little to respect to other right's people and obviusly to ourselves


----------

