Wow, we’re surrounded now. When will the US follow suit and join Mexico City in the 21st century?
That article has other interesting information: Uruguay has legalized civil unions throughout the country, and several cities scattered throughout South America have done likewise. Good for Latin America, a region working on being more progressive than our little backwater.
NO!! MORAL ABYSS THAT WON’T HURT ANY OTHER MARRIAGES THOUGH RICK WARREN SAYS THEY WILL, HAS NOW REACHED SOUTH OF THE BORDER!!
Biology Blogger
Campaign manager,”Markuze for Mayor of Montreal”.
Dennis appologies for the mistake. It would be “south, south of the border” considering our candidate lives in Canada.
If the wording “the free uniting of two people” were adopted as the definition of marriage, I can see that that might, in fact, hurt some “traditional” marriages in the U.S. Better take out the word “free”, just to be safe.
This is interesting. I thought Latin America was primarily Catholic, and is often touted as a regional heartland of Catholicism and associated ‘family values’. Yet some regions and cities within it are far more progressive than the supposedly more liberal USA.
That will teach me to go around harbouring blanket assumptions. It does kind of make the US look a little silly when poorer and (according to some) comensurately more ‘backward’ socities have gotten with the program on these kinds of social issues before most of the USA.
I do not mean to sound patronising when I say; good show Latin America.
Yay! Let’s just get over making marriage something the state recognizes at all!
Gotta love the juxtaposition of that guy’s facial expression and the sign behind him.
I’m glad that there is less homophobia in Latin America. But the misogyny is thick down there.
@5 LIBERTARIAN!
Can you imagine what the racists will now call gay mexicans? [shudder]
@NewEnglandBob: I don’t know what slurs are used now, thankfully, nor why it would change.
Good for you, Mexico City.
@Naked Bunny,
It will change because it is legal so the racists will incorporate added slurs to refer to all Mexicans.
@NewEnglandBob
Ask the writers!
http://www.godhatesfags.com/contact.html
Excellent. Great news. It’s getting to be more than a bit depressing that so many Americans are remaining so damn backwards when even traditionally devout countries are seeing the light and doing the right thing.
What do you mean “the racists”? How dare you generalize Racist-Americans?
Actually, didn’t our nations capital just approve it a few weeks ago? So, I guess we are ahead of Mexico… too bad it’s not true for most of the rest of the US (or for that matter, the rest of Mexico, as well).
That’s not surprising when you consider that that’s where all the Nazis went to escape after the war. Of course that country would implement communist, socialist, death panel policies!
#5, if the state gets out of the marriage business who takes over? Not religion they’re … fussy. Not private enterprise, they’d add expiration dates and renewal fees to marriage licenses (and add your names to any junk mailer with the money). So what institution is left?
Sorry to make an unrelated (re)post, but here I go. It’s been going better since I posted in the other thread.
http://www.wltx.com/
My home SC poll in desperate need of crashing.
Sorry mxh, Senate has to approve the DC legislation, so back to being behind.
Biology Blogger, not sure your “candidate” Mabus actually lives, just has a pathetic irrational existence somewhere in the area of Montréal
Knock me over with a feather. America really is in the thrall of fundamentalist Christians. How long can they frustrate progress on the home front?
RMM Barrie,
so the US senate needs to approve DC legislation? No wonder it’s such a mess.
Oh and I do wish they would do away with tax breaks for marriage and babies. I’m a confirmed bachelor in both the old-fashioned (gay) and modern (don’t like to date or plan on marriage) senses, and I don’t think it’s fair to give free money to those who feel differently. I’m more productive than them, because I don’t have familial obligations. I have/spend more disposable income than them for the same reason. The government is taking plenty from me, and I don’t appreciate it handing some of that money to them. Not that I want it back, mind you, I just want the government to do something useful with it.
Good for them! Hopefully all of Mexico will eventually legalize gay marriage! The homophobes really don’t have a leg to stand on, Canada has legalized gay marriage and our society hasn’t broken down at all because of it.
We’re not alone though. Korean conservative Christians shot down an anti-discrimination bill that would forbid work place discrimination against gays. Isn’t it great that these fundies are trying to drag us back to the dark ages.
Poor Americans — now surrounded by cesspools of legally-endorsed sodomy. May as well give up now and join the rest of the civilized world in Hell.
And destlund @23: Does your individualist ethic not consider production of the next generation, so that you and I alike will have someone to look after us in old age, work entry-level jobs, and just generally keep society going, to be, well, “productive”? No one is obliged to join in directly — but raising kids ain’t just some eccentric private hobby.
Eep! Wrong. Obviously wrong. Canada is and has been for a while a godless commie Nazi death-panel zombie state since they decided citizens deserved healthcare.
Eamon Knight @26,
I never said it was an eccentric private hobby, but it doesn’t need subsidies. People want to have babies. People who want to have babies aren’t better than me. And the idea that the government needs to encourage people to want to have more babies is absurd, if not abhorrent.
And I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free.
What?
Don’t worry USA-fundies, here in Costa Rica we’re working hard to be more con-friendly than USA:
*abortion ban, check.
*heterosexual-only marriage, check.
*emergency contraception ban, check.
*confesional state, check.
*Intromission of the catholic curch in the presidential elections, check.
Eamon Knight @ #26:
Hell is just a small Michigan town, it’s really not big enough to house the population of the entire civilized world. We can try, though. ^_^
Well, to be fair, our capital city is also in the process of legalizing gay marriage. The law that was just passed is pending Congressional oversight, but they aren’t expecting any problems there.
Unfortunately, even my very liberal home state of New York is not there yet, despite gay marriage being favored by a majority of New Yorkers. Our state Senate had a Republican majority until recently, so our districts are gerrymandered in their favor. During the recent vote on the issue, all the Repugnant senators voted against it along with some religious Democrats. Hopefully with the 2010 redistricting we can kick out enough conservatives to have a Senate that will actually reflect the opinions of New Yorkers.
I have to agree with whoever at #5. Marriage is something the state should get out of altogether.
What do you mean? Last week it was -40°C in Fort McMurray, Alberta. Clearly that happened because of gay marriage (never mind the fact it’s -15°C now)! And to make matters worse, there’s a chance of snow tonight in Toronto!
Clearly the only way to save our country from this destructive weather is to ban gay marriage today@!$
You’ve got it all wrong. Canada’s example only proves that legalizing gay marriage will solve global warming.
I was shaking my lil Canadian booty at a gay cowboy bar in Tijuana two nights ago… fast forward 2 days to the San Diego airport and I’m sitting next to a mormon puppy-mill owner from hell telling me that Sarah Palin is so incredibly intelligent that she just SEEMS dumb! Damn, I gotta start flying straight into MX and bypass the crazies in the middle.
Vive la Mexico!!!
Guys! Spain legalized same sex marriage in 2005.
Sometimes it’s not all about us.
No, it isn’t. Society has an interest in encouraging individuals to form economic alliances as a defense against poverty. Marriage is such an alliance.
As a separate matter, it would be nice if just once we could appreciate that gay people have gained a basic civil right, without someone immediately pissing on the pride parade by trying to take marriage away from everyone.
If only you knew what a dystopian nightmare Canada has become since legalizing gay marriage you would be appalled. Except that it hasn’t so you wouldn’t be.
Everyone is talking about Canada, but no one ever mentions Sweden. :(
While it was inminent, since the left has mayority in México city, the main surprise it was they were able to remove a legal block to children adoption by same sex couples, so this also has been aproved too.
PAN, the right wing party had put a legal block on the them of adoption, to prevent it were included in the law and now the have anounce the will try to go to the supreme court, against the new law.
Unfortunately, the progress only ocurss in some states, in most of Mexico, the conservative goverment has been able to block some progresive legislations regarding abortion and woman rights. There is a lot o way to go.
One interesting point, since abortion was legalized in México city, the catholic church invoqued excomunion on our local congressmen and congreesswomen, so they cannot invoque it again.
That does not prevent Cardenal Rivera of voicing his opinion, but few have forget how he has protected pederast priest, so he has no moral ground where to stand.
http://www.milenio.com/node/345894
destlund:
Why doesn’t it need subsidies? If it is needed for society AND it costs a lot of money (which it obviously does, as I am sure you will agree), it is only fair of society to encourage it financially. The point is not that people wouldn’t be having babies otherwise (though some surely wouldn’t: many value financial security as a precondition to parenthood), but that it wouldn’t be fair of general society to act as if it was an “eccentric little hobby”.
Also, the government support improves the actual conditions children are growing up in.
It’s not so much about encouraging to have more as it is about removing an obstacle to having as many as they want.
Argentina is apparently close to be the first latin american country to legalize it nationwide, via either the congress or the supreme court. As the BBC points out, the first gay marriage was about to take place when, the day before, a judge overruled another one that had said it should happen, after a delirious bunch of ultracatholic and military-friendly lawyers demanded stopping it.
It’s extremely easy to do as only a couple of words from the civil law need to be changed, but the political delays and machiavellian calculations behind the scenes are infinite, even when two thirds of the country support it according to recent polls.
Oh, and Coahuila legalized same-sex civil unions in 2007, more or less with the blessing of the local bishops (actually, the US bishops are pretty pro-gay as well, but Ratzi has made a point of shutting them up and hounding them since 1986–guess Mexico was under his radar). According to Wikipedia, these civil unions are protected throughout the country.
In 2008, 53% of Hispanic voters voted yes on Prop 8 vs. 52% of the state generally. The vote in Maine in 2009 was 53% for.
Not all Hispanics are Catholics, majority-Catholic countries tend to have an anti-clerical, even Marxist strain* (though Marxists per se–and of course many will dispute it now–were never great friends of homosexuals), and Catholicism has been a “big tent” religion incorporating both very liberal and very conservative elements, unlike, say, Bible Belt denoms, which are on a rolling purge of their more liberal, edjumacated elements**.
*-One can include the Commonwealth of Massachusetts among these, since the child rape scandal in the Archdiocese of Boston.
**-Ratzi, however, seems to want to emulate them. May the heat of his fervor shrink the size of his flock, like an iceberg in the glare of the sun. Hehe.
It is needed by society and it costs a lot of money, but the need will be met, I guarantee. And the money should be the first consideration when thinking about children. I know it’s not a money-making proposition even with the tax-break-subsidies, but I’d like to see proof that lack of such subsidies would change people’s minds. Actually, if it would, I would be more adamant that we cease such behavior immediately. It’s not as though people will stop having children altogether, nor is it necessary to keep population at current levels.
This I agree with, except that money could be better spent on improved education.
I would argue there should be just such an obstacle. Not an obstacle to having any children whatsoever, but having 4? 8? 12? That’s a bad idea, and nobody should be encouraging it.
@29 re Costa Rica is con-friendly
Thriving sex tourism trade? Check.
*ducks shoes*
@40
Cools. Sounds just like the situation in Boston.
Karma’s a bitch.
It’s just a little nosejob–what are they afraid of?
*ducks another pair of shoes*
Hmmm. What, short of an experiment, would constitute such proof? I confess that I know of no country that withdrew governmental child support while keeping all other factors unchanged.
I have heard many people cite financial instability and a lack of support from their government (they were not from USA) as factors hindering them from having children.
IANAE, but AFAIK, most modern econonies do depend on keeping population at current levels. That is why countries with below-sustenance birth rates try to combat the situation. Essentially, you are disagreeing with your country on what the goals are, not on whether they are being reached the correct way.
I would argue that it is a bad situation when poverty is the thing restricting the number of children. Especially since countries where most people could afford many children but choose not to are not some pie-in-the-sky daydream but a common reality.
And nobody really is. The tax benefits taper off after the third kid. In some states, welfare cuts you right off after #2. The exception would be CHIP and Medicaid, which cover the child’s medical expenses, and things like Head Start and special education, which are part of the educational system.
Er, and I think school lunch program also factors in number of kids, up to 6 (or maybe more?), but again, the parent is only an indirect (faintly) beneficiary. School Lunch Program is funded by DOD so the people who are the kind of people who actually sign up for military duty (ie, the poor) aren’t sickly survivors of scurvy and rickets.
IANAE either, but AFAIK the United States is not facing any sort of workforce shortage. I don’t think many Americans would argue otherwise.
What we have is the opposite. Poverty is the thing encouraging a greater number of children. And it’s bad for the children, and bad for us.
shatfat,
If that’s true, then it’s a plus. And I have no reason to doubt you. It weakens, but does not defeat my case. I’m not complaining about property taxes, which in Texas pay for public education amongst other things. I just don’t think getting married should entitle anyone to anything. Having kids, in cases of need, of course should require intervention, but not for everyone.
I should clarify that from my perspective, having children is a deliberate, preventable decision, not a miracle that must be accepted and condoned no matter what the situation. I think the alternate perspective has created the problems I’m talking about, both in US tax policy, and in US society at large.
PZ:
We have to get to the 20th first.
I disagree with the implication of cause and effect and say that poverty and great numbers of children often go hand and hand.
However, I fail to see how this goes against the claim that government support of reproduction is in order.
That seems to be the positive claim. Go ahead and support it with evidence, and I will withdraw.
Society has an interest in preventing people from becoming poor. Being married helps.
Here is the exact list of positive claims, as far as I can tell:
1. Society is interested in producing a next generation and maintaining its size.
2. For society to sustain itself demographically, people must have children.
3. Financial support from the government enables people to have more children.
4. Financial support from the government improves the conditions in which children are growing up.
5. Poverty and lack of government support in and of themselves are insufficient to discourage people from having many of children.
6. Affluence and ample government support don’t in and of themselves cause people to have many children.
Tell me which of these points you disagree with, and I’ll try and come up with the evidence.
sgbm @ 56,
Getting unmarried most certainly does not.
;)
Society has an interest in preventing people from becoming poor.
Since when, and where?
I have a question for those who think the Government should get out of the marriage business.
How would you ensure that partners have the same rights as spouses do know with regards inheritance when the other partner dies intestate ? Who would get widow’s/widower’s pension entitlement ? How would ensure that the partner gets to made medical decisions if the other partner is unable to do so ?
I know all these can be overcome by completing paperwork, but the simple truth is that people just do not always get around to doing it. It would also lead it a huge increase in bureaucracy, with the Government needing to hire more staff just to process all the paperwork.
1)yay Mexico City!
2)why are child benefits discussed as if they’re magically part od marriage benefits? it’s perfectly possible to have the latter, but reverse the former and even institute child penalties.
3)Gotta agree that societies shouldn’t encourage having children. It’s absurd to talk about the dangers of overpopulation on the one hand, and insist that countries need to maintain a birth-rate above replacement level on the other. I know that modern economies need more people, but the earth doesn’t; and since modern economies will have to undergo severe changes in the next 50-100 years anyway (or else face collapse), there is no point in damaging our long-term future for short term benefits. And in the meantime, if a country feels the need to increase its young population, it can simply loosen its immigration restriction and offer young immigrants a free college education. that way, population growth is slowed, people from poor countries are given a chance at a better life in a rich country, and the economy can have its needs satisfied. Everybody wins. Except the kneejerk anti-immigration racists, but pissing them off is a plus
I’m not sure if I agree with you here jadehawk. While I do agree that population growth should be brought down, penalizing people for something that comes naturally isn’t going bode well with the general population. Rather, I think they should be educated about parenthood.
I’m not even sure the economic benefits the government gives to anyone with a child are enough to cover the costs of taking care of one. So should that count as “encouraing” it? I doubt it.
Sorry, encouraging, obviously.
Not sure marriage (or civil partnership) in the UK brings any direct income tax benefits.
What it does do is allow the sharing of property , visiting rights etc. It is a benefit for inheritance tax but relatively few people pay that anyway.
But it definitely doesnt directly reduce your tax bill.
Is this different in the US, if I was single I would be very pissed of with that regardless of sexuality
For once, Jadehawk, I agree with you completely.
you misread my point, which was merely that marriage benefits and child benefits are non-dependent entities. you can have one without the other, so disagreeing with one is no argument against the other
I agree with Jadehawk.
It even seems to me the ideal thing is to do away with the whole immigration “laws” and so-called borders.
Isn’t it one of the most unjust things, as a sentient animal (or even as just an animal), to be born somewhere arbitrarily, and not be able to roam free and settle wherever one just wants? I know there’s a reason for societies and laws, but keeping certain people out of them (again, arbitrarily) should not be one of them.
Groups of some random animal species “owning” large patches of the only livable planet known? Who the fuck do they think they are? I like it better over there, I even like their people and their laws. Is there a logical reason why I should not just move there?
Maybe I just had too much coffee.
This is an ambiguous question with two possible meanings. Neither one is useful, but one is not contemptible.
If you’re remarking that we sure don’t act like it, I’ll grant that we’ve allowed a substantial plundering of our social democracies by the wealthiest classes. Still, all general welfare provisions that are not means-tested have a proactive effect against poverty. The UK NHS has this effect; available to everyone, it prevents the healthcare-related bankruptcies the US is notorious for. In the US, there is the Social Security program which most workers participate in; its explicit and sole purpose is to prevent poverty.
If you’re suggesting that we ought not to have an interest in preventing poverty, then I don’t have patience for such vile nonsense this morning.
The problem with “getting the government out of marriage” is that the religionists won’t stand for it because they benefit from the entanglement of church and state; it allows their religious (opposite sex only) definition of marriage to receive state endorsement and protection. If the state were to issue only civil unions for everyone and leave the word “marriage” for the religious ceremony, the fundies would have no way to stop liberal churches from calling same-sex unions marriages.
Oh, and re MrJonno@65: IIRC the UK abolished tax benefits for married couples a while ago, before civil partnerships were introduced. The Conservatives want to reintroduce something like them when they get elected next year, but any such benefit would apply to civil partnerships as well as marriages.
then the state would truly be redefining marriage, which has always been a civil institution but is not always religious.
“Marriage” is the social norm. There is no reason for atheists and gay people to relinquish our right to participate in the community on equal standing with theists and straight people.
Fuck that accommodationist noise.
Bet the RCC are happy bouncy bunnies at the moment …what a comprehensive slap in the papal gob this is!
Serves the catoliks right for being extremely silly over abortion issues south of the border!
Go ‘Meheco’ show the ‘crows’ what true self will really is!
Marriage is a legal contract sharing property and responsibilities like but not exclusively children using standard terms that don’t require a lawyer to get into (but generally require one to get out of).
That is all marriage is legally, don’t involve love , god, the ‘joining’ of families.
Not to say people don’t want to bring the above into it but it shouldnt have any legal standing and actually doesnt
While I agree with the main point being made by you, I’d like to add that the existence of different states has a justification. Some stuff is better dealt with on a local level. Economic decisions that make sense for Germany don’t necessarily make sense for Brazil, Uganda or New Jersey.
As for the logical reason why you should not just move somewhere… that is a hot issue. Ideally, you work for your state by paying taxes, and you benefit from said taxes by the stuff your state does for you. Schools, streets, medicare, police, social welfare and such. If a country is successful in that regard, it becomes highly attractive to immigrants. Now if there is no selection whatsoever on who can enter the country, you also get a lot of unskilled workers or unemployed people that are unlikely to find employment, yet will still receive the state benefits. In the long run, though, the state just cannot afford that.
I agree that it is really arbitrary and just a question of luck being born in the ‘right’ state. That’s why people shouldn’t be proud of being Americans, but thankful. And that’s why those considering themselves fortunate should feel obliged to improve living conditions in other countries.
Middle-aged and older immigrants would lose, if such a plan only favored college-aged immigrants.
Natural born college-aged citizens would lose if their tax dollars go to fund immigrant education, while they (the domestic students) have to work two jobs and incur mountains of education debt.
Home-grown citizens, with a driving biological/psychological need to produce offspring, might lose in a society that promotes importing youth rather than producing them the old fashioned way.
Industries and businesses that rely on the K-12 demographic for revenue and workforce might lose.
We think the plan has merit, to be sure, but there would definitely be losers. There always are.
how so? the youth immigration was i addition to existing rules. it has no effect on middle-aged immigrants
Strange Gods@71 – I really couldn’t agree more, and I wasn’t defending this PoV. My point was more that the people who advocate “get the govt. out of marriage entirely” usually see it as a practical or pragmatic solution; to counter this, I gave a practical reason why it wouldn’t be acceptable to the people who such accommodationists are trying to appease.
crap, blockquote fail. let’s try again, with some edits while at it:
how so? the youth immigration was in addition to existing rules. it has no effect on other immigrants
in civilized countries, college education is free or nearly free to citizens; the point was to extend this to foreigners.
no one stops them from reproducing. I’m advocating against the state encouraging people into breeding more, not for one-child-only policies.
for the most part, businesses that target children can go fuck themselves, IMHO. I’m actually very much for bans on advertising targeted at children, but that’s a different issue
That’s not true. In the UK, university tuition is capped at an artificially low level for students who are British or EU citizens (GPB £3,000 per annum), but it is not free. British undergraduate students are eligible for interest-free government loans, but the loans do have to be paid back after graduation. And even this arrangement is rapidly becoming financially unsustainable, since we simply have far too many people going to university and not enough people in the workforce, so it’s likely that tuition fees will rise substantially in the future.
Higher education should not be free, either to citizens or to foreigners. It should be subsidised for those on low incomes, certainly. But, fundamentally, education beyond the secondary level is a privilege, not a right, and it should be funded primarily by the individual who benefits from it. The UK, and many other European countries which have traditionally had generous subsidy arrangements for students, are now finding that their higher education systems are financially unsustainable; there are far more people going to university today than in past decades (the rate in Britain today is over 40%), there is a glut of graduates in the workforce, and there simply isn’t enough money to provide everyone with higher education at a low cost.
Of course, it is essential to ensure that people aren’t excluded from higher education because of their socio-economic background – hence why we have student grants for those from low-income families, and student loans so that the cost can be deferred. But, fundamentally, higher education is not (and in a world of limited resources, cannot be) a “right” guaranteed to all citizens. It’s a privilege, and it has to be paid for.
Argh, not enough coffee. I didn’t read your post properly. I thought you were advocating open immigration (which I agree with), but I missed the bit about “free college education”.
I’m in favour of free movement of goods, capital and labour across boundaries. I don’t think a person’s rights should be determined by the accident of birth; discrimination on the basis of nationality is IMO arbitrary and wrong. Hence, I think immigration restrictions should be loosened, and I’m completely against the imposition of arbitrary “caps” or “quotas” on migration (just as I’m against quotas in international trade).
But that doesn’t mean I think the state should give young immigrants (or, indeed, young citizens) free college educations. I oppose this idea, for the reasons I have set out extensively above.
Not even close, any more than the money you might get at a baby shower is going to be enough to cover the cost of the delivery.
It can take the edge off come tax time, but I doubt most people are really thinking about tax exemptions when deciding to have children. So yeah.
The definition of marriage doesn’t belong to Christians any more than wintertime celebrations do. All Christians “own” is their definition/history of God. That’s it.
Re #42, a gay couple was about to get married three weeks ago in Buenos Aires, after a judge deemed there was discrimination implicit in the Civil Code’s wording of the conditions for marriage. That, however, wouldn’t have legalized gay marriage, or allow it in all of Argentina. There’s a law waiting to be treated by Congress, with a fair chance of passing, that would do that nationwide.
So it’s all the rage down here. Latin America is not all about devout Catholicism. Five centuries of fanatic Catholicism have bred a nice anticlerical resistance.
Jadehawk @ #76
But if a country’s goal is to increase the number of its college-aged youth, it would have to create a preference, at least temporarily, for that age group. If the goal was to import, say, 1000 college-aged immigrants, it would make more sense to temporarily favor that group rather than import an equal number of 50 year olds.
OK. We agree. Our natural inclination was to look at this from a U.S. perspective, but you’ve clarified your point with the inclusion of the word ‘civilized’. In this regard, the U.S. is decidedly uncivilized, where a degree in even the most inconsequential of fields costs an arm, and a leg. Advanced degrees require the remittance of a first born child.
Understood. But in order to meet its youth population goals through immigration, the state would have to discourage the citizenry from having too many children. This doesn’t necessitate a China-like policy, but it would require attaching a stigma to having, say, more than 2.5 kids (the Quiverfull movement would be devastated). Otherwise the population problem still exists and the immigration solution becomes moot.
Agreed, where predatory marketing for useless consumer crap is concerned, but what about the youth workforce that supports business?
you’re looking at this backwards. people earlier have been arguing that countries have a legitimate concern in getting birth rates up to at least the replacement rate, so child bonuses etc. made sense. I said that this is counterproductive to a goal of stopping and reversing overpopulation, and that if a country needs more young people, the problem could be solved better with immigration rather than breeding incentives.
i’m not quite sure what you’re referring to… but i suspect you mean teens working for pennies? well, in many countries teens don’t work, and the societies don’t collapse. we have a massive labor glut; fewer unskilled workers competing for jobs is not a bad thing.
People are surprised because they know very little about South America (I sound like a broken record, but let me try again).
Yes, we have right-wing conservatives. Yes, most people are, at least nominally, Catholic. Perhaps I should talk only about the countries I studied in more detail in history class: Uruguay, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay and my own country, Brazil. It’s a continent after all, and we’re not all the same.
So in these countries, I can guarantee there has always been a strong revolutionary leftist tradition. In Brazil, we had a strong communist party that dated back to late 19th century and was involved in several revolts throughout the country. It was a delicate balance in the 20th Century that resulted in catastrophe during the 60s and 70s, when the right-wing took over with the help of the military (and also from our friends up north. Ahem.). That happened because the left wing was gaining ground. If those coups hadn’t happened, there was a chance we might have aligned with the communist block at the time. And then we *probably* would have had 20 years of dictatorship and repression of dissent. Which is what we had anyway, so I don’t see where we would have been worse off. But I digress.
So in recent times (in Brazil, since the late 90s, I’m not sure about the others) we have been turning left again, sort of picking up where we left off before those years of dictatorship.
And as an aside, there is also a history of Catholic priests joining forces with leftists in the name of social justice. So even the Catholic presence here has always been a balance between conservatives and liberals. And even in those dark times, the RCC always turned a blind eye to syncretism with African religions, because it was widespread and impossible to repress. So as a whole, we are and have always been moderates.
Granted, our left-wing was never very worried about gay rights. But – and this shouldn’t come as a shock – those were the 60s and this is 40 years later. We’ve learned a few things since then.
As for misogyny, yes, we are a bit behind on that. The Latin macho culture (and by Latin I also mean European countries of Roman origins) seems harder to reconcile with women’s rights than with gay rights. I’d have to think about that one, because I don’t yet understand it.
Sorry, but whenever I hear/read about the grossly simplistic image that a lot of North Americans have about Latin America, I feel the need to explain.
Anyway, there has been pressure here to legalize gay marriage, and, as we’re supposed to be the leaders around these parts, I’m hoping our government will be embarrassed into speeding up the process. There are others going faster than us, and we can’t have that, can we? ;)
In my experience, there’s a lot of social peer pressure (in the UK at least) for teens to work and earn money as soon as they’re able to. Teenagers, especially teenage girls, are typically expected (by their friends) to spend tons of money on designer clothes, phones, iPods and the like, and (when they reach the minimum legal age) to get a car and start driving as early as possible. When they get a bit older, the binge-drinking and clubbing culture also kicks in, creating even more pressure to spend money. Hence why, as I was growing up, many of my contemporaries spent much of their free time working at (usually crappy) jobs so that they can have cash to burn.
This, of course, is perhaps a quintessential example of the “consumerist culture” you were complaining about the other day. And in the context of teenage life, you may well have a point.
I’d say the USA and Mexico are about in the same place on this issue right now. That is to a piecemeal approach, but headed slowly in the right direction.
Abotu Mexico being Catholic country — It’s true in the same sense that the USA is a “Christian nation”, that is going by the nominal affiliations of the majority.
However, Mexico also has a history of revolutionary anti-clericalism, much more so than the USA.
Jadehawk, We must have got off-track somewhere, as we agree on the merits of your plan. Our initial response was to the degree of winners and losers that might arise should such a plan be implemented.
Our belief is that despite the positive impact of reduced population growth and smarter immigration policies, there would still be losers, at least initially.
They would include older immigrants who might be denied entrance to the target country because they fall outside of the targeted population: college-aged youth.
Home grown college-aged youth who would still have to pay for their education (at least in the U.S.), while their immigrant classmates get a free ride.
Industries that rely on the youth market… OK, we agree with your objection here. Who really gives a shit if the music, movie, designer clothing, social networking, and fast food industries take a hit, because of declining customers? Good riddance, we say.
I know. I was merely having an interesting conversation, that’s all.
Society has an interest in preventing people from becoming poor.
Have to disagree with you there, strange gods. An underclass is desired so that they can take the menial and disagreeable jobs.
Yeah, same here.
Now we’ve gotta go shovel more snow. Take our advice, if the prospect of hand shoveling 15″ of compacted snow from a 300 ft. driveway ever seems like a good idea, it isn’t. :-)
Legion – the only way I can do it is to shovel every couple of hours during the snowfall. This is a pain in the ass when the snowfall is overnight, but sometimes a midnight and a 5am will do the trick.
#12
Blocked at work;
Reason: The Websense category “Racism and Hate” is filtered.
URL: http://www.godhatesfags.com/contact.html
Ah, but once we have our robot army we will no longer need an underclass of humans for those menial jobs. The robots shall be three laws safe, of course.
I disagree with this. The legal status of marriage is important because it conveys multiple important rights: Inheritance, benefits, hospital visitation rights, parental obligations to children of the union, etc., etc. The point is we must remove all discriminatory laws that immorally block the rights of minorities such as gay folk.
We have a long way to go. I have a gay cousin in the UK, and I just wrote to him:
I find it absurd that we as fellow humans (as a group) cannot seem to fully accept the ten percent or so of us who happen be attracted to the same sex. It is very clear to me for several reasons that we must, from a moral standpoint cease restricting the natural rights of all people regardless of how they are made. The only allowable reason for restricting another’s rights is for conviction of crime. Crime is defined by harm to others. Sexual behavior between consenting adults will never be a crime.
1. It’s a human rights issue. The sexual lives of consenting adults in no one else’s business. Full stop. Laws restricting the relationship rights of gays (inheritance, spousal benefits, visitation rights, etc.) are immoral and should be illegal. I hold out hope that we may get there in the USA within my life. The UK is well ahead of us there. The “states’ rights” issue muddies things badly here. The recent plebiscites in several states to restrict marriage (and thereby many other) rights of gays disgust me. The point of these is to legalize bigoted oppression (hatred) of a minority. Human rights should never be decided by a vote. They exist outside of our legal systems and the legal systems are obliged to conform to them, not the other way round.
2. Gay men and lesbians do not “choose” to be attracted to the same sex. Sexual orientation is clearly in-born, even if we will likely never be able to point to a “gay gene” (thankfully! I hate to think what such and identification might result in!) Development is just as important as genes in the formation of the body; and the basic form is complete in humans within weeks in utero. There now seems to be a very strong correlation between being born gay and birth order of males in their mother (development effect.)
3. My favorite riposte to the anti-gay crowd is to ask, “did you personally, when you were a youth, look at men and women and make a conscious choice that you would be attracted to one and not the other?” Of course no one does this. People are attracted to who they are attracted to. The question should make it blindingly obvious to people; but it often doesn’t seem to.
My little snow-thrower was the best $300 I ever spent. It paid for itself in avoided doctor and physical therapy visits the first year of ownership. (When the snow is less than 4 inches, we use shovels.) Looks like we in the USA midwest will be getting more practice moving snow by tomorrow …
Most appreciated Dr. Myers,
You asked, when will the US follow suit and join Mexico City in the 21st century?
Well, I live in Mexico City and I can answer this: when Mexico gets to the 21st century. Even though this is an outstanding achievement for the numerous humanistic organizations in Mexico, is also merely an exception. In many other ways Mexico remains being an uneducated, religious, conservative minded country. For example, only in Mexico City abortion is legal, in 18 of 32 states is penalized with jail due to modifications to the local constitutions under the religious assumption that life must be protected from the conceiving moment to natural death … priceless, don’t you think.
My best regards from Mexico.
Certainly it is a victory, however, there is still a lot to do to educate people. In the comments section of the main online newspapers, there are a lot of homophobic comments, some with extra mean and disgusting content. There was an attempt to make a poll to see what people believed about it, and fortunately it was denied, otherwise, the motion would have failed. Now, there is still more to be done with respect of social security, right now this law does not guarantee social security for the partner in the case he or she don’t work, and their husban or wife, does. I don’t know if they will make a motion to modify social security laws, but I hope they do. Gay people can now marry in Mexico city, something I thought we would never see, considering the catholic church trying to get in the way of everything. In your face fuckers.
Saludos amigos and thank PZ for posting this.
What’s so special about the 21st century anyway?
Is 21 the magic number of centuries before a religion completely wears out?
Sweet! Good for them!
Interesting that this is a matter for city legislation — apparently true in a “handful of cities in Argentina, Ecuador and Colombia” as well. Can’t get away with that here.
Mexico City is a special Distrito Federal which is not part of any of the states of Mexico, very similar to the status of the District of Columbia within the United States. So its city legislature (the Asamblea Legislativa) exercises the legislative powers that would ordinarily be exercised by a state government, including the power to alter the law of marriage.
Good news. Well done, Mexico City.
Meanwhile, in Honduras…
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2009/12/21/Anti-gay-hate-crimes-surge-in-Honduras/UPI-35511261413513/
Some of this blood is on your hands now, Obama and Clinton. When you caved to the right and abandoned your principles, you abandoned real people to these murderous goons. You had no reason to expect anything else when you gave your seal of approval to a military coup. Terrible.
Very good news. Off the top of my head, what is special about the 21st century is that we have the image of a better world etched in our minds that is not an unobtainable utopia but a real possibility, and it won’t need a bloody revolution to attain it.
As far as human rights are concerned, the USA will continue to be a backwater place until DOMA and DADT are stricken down or repealed for the inhumane, unethical, terrorizing laws that they are.
My, but the party never stops around here. @Forbidden Snowflake:
Society doesn’t need to subsidies something that’s going to naturally occur.
These are connected, and obvious. What’s really happening, though, is people who do not marry or have children (the minority) are being penalized by those who do.
These are all connected too. I agree that children should be given every opportunity to become fully realized adults, through public education, school lunch programs, and in cases of extreme poverty, social welfare assistance. I do not, however, believe there should be blanket tax breaks for getting married or having children. Most people want to get married and have children. Most people will do so. Why should we, the minority who have no wish to do so, reward them, when the reward is nothing but a welcome bonus that’s not at all based on need?
I’m asking you to provide evidence that failing to provide this bonus (which from my perspective is gouging the unmarried and childless) would significantly impact marriage and birth rates. From other remarks on this thread, the UK has apparently done away with such tax breaks, and seems to be chugging along just fine.
octopod @ 102
Mexico city is a very special case. While the city has a population of about 8 million people, metropolitan zone fo the city is inhabitated by 19 million.
So it is bigger than any other mexican state, not only in population but in economy. That is why it has it own congress, and it is struggling to be considered a “state” with it´s own contitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City
So, while it is only a city legilation, it´s impact on the population of Mexico is enormous.
Again, economic alliances between individuals, marriage being one of them, are a first defense against poverty. Thus we have an interest in encouraging these alliances, and a monetary incentive is an easy one for the government to handle.
A significant rate of unemployment is also desired, so that labor as a commodity is not raised by competition to a more reasonable price.
But these are the desires of our rulers, not of society in general. There is no reason why we could not run things differently.
So that someone will do it, menial and disagreeable work could be highly rewarded, instead of used as a punishment to teach the poor their place.
Thus it incentivizes itself. I understand that poverty is much more expensive for the government to support than is a little bonus for marriage, but it still hasn’t been shown that that bonus has any influence whatsoever on people’s nuptial decisions. Should we start fining people for divorce? We have an interest in discouraging that, but I think divorce is penalizing enough as it is.
There are a number of well-worn disadvantages to marriage as well, and it is by no means clear that as many people would be willing to suffer the little indignities without the government’s incentive.
A penny saved by pooling resources is an incentive. A dollar gained by tax rebate is a larger incentive. You misunderstand when you suggest it’s as simple as “an incentive is an incentive.”
If you think it’s plausible to provide a financial incentive in the thousands of dollars which will motivate no one, then that’s a laughable and extraordinary claim which you will not be able to substantiate.
Have you never heard people talk about getting married for tax purposes? There are some couples for whom this is the only reason; more often it is one of several reasons which add up to make the arrangement seem like a net positive.
No, we don’t. We have an interest in encouraging marriage among people who can stand each other’s company. When they no longer can, the stress of the relationship becomes a burden upon everyone around them, even without violence or irresponsible decisions for desperate escapism
Actually, my roommate and I are quite close, and since neither of us is thinking of marriage anytime soon, we have considered marrying for tax purposes. I’m gay and she’s straight; sort of the ultimate “open marriage,” I suppose. I don’t see how it supports your argument. It’s absurd on the face of it that we should be in this position. What benefit to society would our marriage be, since we would just be doing it for government cash. Oh, and presents.
Also, pooling resources can easily come close to doubling one’s disposable income. Sharing rent, cooking for two instead of one, etc. It adds up to a -lot- more than any tax encentives involved. You’ve got the relative sizes of the incentives backwards.
Is it me, or has SB changed the way they treat line breaks? I guess I need to add actual BR tags.
No, I don’t. I clearly said at #37 and #108 that the economic alliance of marriage itself is the greater protection against poverty, and the reason why it is desirable to society. We aren’t paying married people to keep them out of poverty directly. We are adding a further incentive to encourage them to take on the arrangement. This is a predictable incentive made in the legal code which everyone knows is available; it is an obvious dangling carrot in a way that budget pooling is not.
You would be entering a civil contract that encourages you to take care of each other in times of hardship for the foreseeable future.
This alone is a benefit to society.
I guess fixing DOMA’s punishment for being gay would go a long way toward convincing me that I should reconsider my whole attitude toward marriage. I grew up gay in a world that hadn’t begun to consider same-sex marriage, and in a family which didn’t shine a very attractive light on marriage itself, so I’ve just happily accepted the fact that marriage was absolutely not for me.
Fair enough. It still makes me pissy that staying single is such an expensive proposition, when to me, it’s the norm. I guess I should find someone I can tolerate and marry him as soon as the federal government tells me I can. Or marry my roommate, except that I don’t plan on living in Austin much longer, and wild horses couldn’t drag her to the coasts.
It doesn’t seem that long ago, but when I was a kid there was simply no discussion of gay marriage where I lived. It still doesn’t sound like it’s my bag, but I’m not discounting the possibility absolutely.
My pet hypothesis is that the people who are most wedded (heh) to this argument are bisexual. They really did make a choice, and think everyone else is just like them. Of course, they didn’t eliminate being attracted to the other group, just repressed it an awful lot.
I know, I live here. But it would have set a legal precedent, so it would have been a step forward I think. It anyway helped to put the issue in the public agenda, even if it was stopped. Yesterday a nationwide campaign started to see if similar legal resolutions could be obtained for other same sex couples that had been denied the right to marry across the country, so that hopefully will put more pressure on the politicians to pass a law solving this definitely. Anyway, congress doesn’t work again until march/april next year and this is hardly the most talked about law that someone wants to pass there, so I think we’ll have to wait a bit. The Supreme Court could get there first, although it would be cool to show we can be a bit more civilized than we are at the moment by passing the law before being forced to by them.
More evidence of it not being a civilized country anymore then.
We’re not exactly “surrounded” as it’s Mexico City, not Mexico. And as many have pointed out DC was ahead of Mexico City.
Also *IOWA*! Forefront on women’s rights, forefront on civil rights, and now forefront on gay rights! (no seriously, every time, look it up).
Hopefully the rest of the country catches up to us soon. :-)
No, but since society needs this something to occur, it might consider it fair to ease the burden of those who get it done.
FTFY.
You’re going to need that younger generation when you’re old. Right now somebody is changing the next generation’s diapers, giving birth to it painfully, or attending its boring school plays. You are contributing, too – through your taxes.
So you think that if they do it gladly, that means they shouldn’t be rewarded for it, even though what they are doing is needed by everybody and is taking a heavy toll on them?
I will do no such thing, since that is the opposite of my claim #5 :-)
I will contribute when they render their services to me. It’s not like the parents are having children for altruistic reasons, nor is it as though they’re ever going to stop.
That is correct. Isn’t being a parent a
present from Jesusreward in itself? Again, negative population growth could be a very good thing, and if being a parent is nothing but a burden that must be eased by society at large, I suggest more of us stop doing so.Good. It sounds like we are in agreement. I’m not saying I want my money back; just that it should go to improving the opportunities of those in need, instead of giving bonuses to spouses/parents for the simple (and self-interested) act of becoming said spouses and parents, regardless of their need.
@89
I seem to remember a movie coming out of Mexico recently about a young parish priest who was sleeping with parishioners which was considered really offensive in the US. Though the US is (finally) catching up to European and Latin American anti-clericalism. (Don’t tell Bill Donohue.)
The Mexican state as we know it today is the result of a leftist, popular revolution. Not sure why we gringos always forget that.
@Raul
I betcha the Indios up in the hills are using dangerous herbal arbortifacients. Life is tough.
In the US during the Great Depression there were cases of women who threw themselves down stairs or had someone beat on them in order to induce a late-term abortion.
@122
What I’m wondering is, where is Wisconsin? Weren’t they the first state to give women universal suffrage after New Jersey overturned it in the early 19th century?
They talk a big game on their frescos in the state house in Madison, but guess what? Massachusetts stepped up first. Eat crow, oh land of the liberaller than thou.
PZ that is very misleading spin you put on that bit of good news. Mexico is the first place anywhere in Latin America permitting gay marriage, well behind the leading US states. In cultural issues, the US is generally much more progressive than Latin America where the people are more uniformly mindlessly religious.
frendn,
Based on the comments here, it sounds like you’re incorrect.
The worlds generally heading in the right direction , sooner or later every modern country will have gay marriages. The fundie’s can slow its adoption but they can’t stop it.
Well, it depends what you look at, I guess. All Latin American countries abolished the death penalty long ago (mostly over a century ago) and racial integration happened rather painlessly in the 19th century, whereas in the US it happened very recently and far from painlessly.
It also depends on how you look at it. Isn’t it safe to say that all Latin American countries abolished the death penalty because the Vatican is pro-life all the way? Don’t they also have a mixed (mostly negative) bag on abortion rights? And racial integration is a complicated subject. The USA and Latin America both have lingering racism, and they have rather different histories regarding race relations, though the Dutch, British, and Spanish empires all had blood on their hands.
Just for the record, South and Middle America predominantly have enormous race issues with their Amerindian populations. In some cases, there are such disgruntled sections of the populace, they’re wating guerilla warfare on the central government for their country.
To Harpy of Dooooom @133,
destlund @132
To be more precise:
In 1827, with the independence, Mexico abolished slavery and the racial laws ( the caste system) on which was based the colonial economy.
That did not end automatically racism, but since then, race is not mentiononed in any oficial paper.
Now, the race problems in latinamerica are diferent, for example in Mexico, if someone speaks a native language, it is considered “indigena”, if speaks spanish, the same people is “mestizo”, and he wears a suit, nobody cares what he is. Mexico already had some presidents that were “pure indian” and some that were mulato.
In Mexico 80% of the population is considered mestizo, becuase since the colony, there were no problem in mixing races. The black slaves imported from africa, have mixed so well into the population, that when someones found a black people, most asume they are not mexican. (there are a few black town, but they are very isolated)
Usualy the problem is not the race, but the social status. But.. social status in México has a skin color. A pesasan has a darker color than a bureocrat… and some of the richest families are still mostly white.
That does not prevent people to be racist againt “native”… but that is mainly because they are poor.
So, racism in mexico, has a diferent flavor. but we can not deny it exists..
The death penaly, at least in Mexico, was abolished thanks to the laicism, not because the church.
Mexico alread had two religious wars, the “reforma” war in the XIX, to separate the church from the state, and the “Guerra Cristera” in 1926. Where a Laicist goverment tried to put hold on the emergent power of the catholic church due to the dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz. To that efect put extrict measures, like forbid religious orders, prevent the church for owning properties, or giving religious education, or using religious clothing in public places. After the war, some of the most extreme measures were witheld, but most were active up to 1990. Since them two consecutive conservative goverments have tried to restore the status of the catholic church.
Today the left in Mexico is trying to prevent the catholic church to regain it´s powere, while the right is doing the oposite. While the old ruling party, suport laicism, but also seeks the power.
Today the Mexican Goverment is trying to isolate the resolutions in Mexico City regarding abortion, and homosexual marriage. There are 18 conservative states that are promotiong laws to declare it uncontitutional, and local level and want to uphold thos laws at national level.
So, This is another eipsode in the fight between laicism and religion.
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/12/28/index.php?section=sociedad&article=027n1soc
First gay marriage in Latin America just happened minutes ago in Argentina, out of the blue.
A City of Buenos Aires couple had been initialy authorized to get married there after a judge ruled it was unconstitutional to forbid them to, and the government had said it wouldn’t appeal what the judge said, but the day the wedding was supposed to take place, another judge overturned this and the local government decided to back that decision up, so it got all suspended.
Today they travelled to the world’s most austral city, Ushuaia, in complete secret, so as to avoid more catholic lawyers demanding to stop them, and backed by the local governor and the national anti discrimination agency they managed to do it.
The only source in english I can find for the news for anyone interested in it is this one:
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/21127
Still, even if this is good, we still need a nationwide law legalizing it.