Jump to content

Talk:Same-sex marriage in Argentina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ron 1987 (talk | contribs) at 21:35, 24 July 2010 (→Starting date). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

Argentine government seeks to legalize same-sex marriage

Civil unions in Santa Fe... coming soon?

Uruguay permits gay civil unions

Córdoba: aprueban la unión civil entre homosexuales en Villa Carlos Paz

Aprobaron la unión civil en Villa Carlos Paz pero advierten : "No será un Las Vegas"

Argentine gay leaders say they will fight to have their Spanish marriage recognised at home

Argentine gay leaders say they will fight to have their Spanish marriage recognised at home

ARGENTINA: DEMAND IMMEDIATE RATIFICATION OF CIVIL UNION LAW IN RIO NEGRO PROVINCE

Local Successes: Small but Significant

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.171.218 (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First in Latin America?

It has been reported that the gay marriage granted on November 13, 2009 was the first of its kind in Latin America (e.g.[1]). Can someone confirm that this is true, and if so, should it be added to the article? Robofish (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely it should be added. Be WP:Bold. (todays would be the first legal marriage in Latam(Lihaas (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not NPOV

"A bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Argentina was unfortunately approved in July 2010 by the Argentine National Congress, and marriage will become legal when the law is published in the official bulletin." I think this statement violates WP:NPOV. The bold is just my emphasis here. Raynethackery (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Removed and user warned. TbhotchTalk C. 22:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edits explained

This WP:AGF was reverted in the process of reverting vandals. just to explain my addition the "update" tag is added because as per the edit summar the last para. that talks about the ongoing SC cases is not completed. It simply abruptly ends that tere were X cases in the court. "Controversy" section is as per the edit summary of an editor who (rightfully) removed my update tag at the time. The rest are just copy edits and the # of marriages was changed without the source doing so.Lihaas (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed statements not found in the source, so please don't introduce original research. Nowhere in the source is spoken of a required signature. Controversy sections are deprecated. And empty ones are even less useful. I put the update tag to where your complaint lies, not on top of the whole article. The source doesn't talk about how many Catholics live in Argentina. The exact day time of the vote is not needed. Hekerui (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point of discussion is to have a discussion not to say why somethign doesnt belong. Controversy is certainly encyclopaedic because it was a major issue. The part on the catholics was added by someone else and inexplicable removes, at any rate sources on Argentine's catholic status and relevance to this do exist and are relevant. a simple fact tag can call for cites. The time of the day is not need is your opinion, someone was WP:Bold enough to add it and unless you explain "why its not needed" there is no grounds for rmeoval.Lihaas (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The exact day time is dispensable.Ron 1987 23:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Woops, ilost your edit in a conflict but i partially reverted my edit to simply add the the fact that it was a "marathon" session. Is that a compromise? Feel free to reword that.Lihaas (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's good option. Ron 1987 23:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Great edits but you though, kudos.Lihaas (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right to adopt children: it should be included in the introduction

I think that the fact that the bill grants for gay couples the right to adopt children is important enough to be included in the introduction. I think that it wasn't right to remove this info from the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebasbronzini (talk • contribs) 14:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information is included in section same-sex marriage. [2] It is enough. The information about churches opposition is also included in this section. The introduction it is general information. Details should be included in appropriate section. Ron 1987 15:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

catholic country

the lead was changed to say Arg is the 4th catholic country. There was no explanation for that either and it wasn an IP. I though Spain was first and Portugal second, what would be the other catholic country? Belgium...?

Also, does it need the "2nd in the Americas" tag? Doesnt make it much of a landmark there, although the others would be notable because of its stance and/or perceived worldview. (Lihaas (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "2nd in the Americas" tag is unnecessary. Ron 1987 10:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree with removing "2nd in the americas". It was left as a compromise with the intervening editor. The rest of the mentions were already there for the last +24hs. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 16:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really dont get your pooint of view..In the article "same-sex marriage in canada" says "the first in the Americas"..ergo in the article for Argentina it should say "the second in the americas". I think is a really significant fact..And "the first in Latin America" is important, ok, but it doesn't show the dimension of being the second in a whole continent..I mean, the States are located in the Americas too fyi..(Oupals (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.34.29 (talk) [reply]
Technically 2 continents though. Again, the big story is a (atleast perceived) conservative bastion that legalized it. Likewise South Africa for Africa. Most European countries (iceland, for example) is not really that controversial, likewise canada. (where de fact relations have been on for years)Lihaas (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is obsolete because none of this was in the reliable source used in the lead. It could be included provided a reliable source is found that discusses this and the numeration. Hekerui (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources can be found in the requisite pages. At any rate, i reverted the wholescale change because it was without discussion on here. 3 editors over here seem to be okay with the addition.
The bill will be law (its not yet, its only passed). Still kept your source as to when it happens. (this is not to slap your edit, it was a good edit and it was WP:Bold. Just seem to early like the debate on the template page.) Lihaas (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

The law cannot take effect before being published in the official gazette. It was published today. Near the title BOLETIN OFICIAL DE LA REPUBLICA ARGENTINA, on the right side, is date Buenos Aires,jueves 22 de julio de 2010 [3] Ron 1987 10:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Every marriage can be perfomed 28 days after submission of aplication in the Registy Office. See [4] Date of first marriage was announced on July 16. [5] Ron 1987 10:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Then its legal. Add these sources on and we're done with this. Now where next? Europe somewhere...? Lihaas (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting date

The Agence France-Presse is an established news agency, On Top Magazine isn't. Unless the AFP is contradicted by a reliable source, it should have precedence over some gay travel website. Hekerui (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there are hundreds of Municipalities in Argentina where the wedding could take place before August 13, it is plausible than AFP, nor any media as of now, is updated enough so as to when is gonna be the first marriage. Probably during the next week we'll have information for sure. As I said in Template talk:Same-sex unions#Argentine law, the 28 days protocol only counts for Buenos Aires city, not for other districts. AFP is reporting a widely-publicited BA city wedding, but I wouldn't be that sure about it being the first. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFP's news is from July 21. Date concerning marriage in Mendoza was announced on July 23. You should read date of publication the news. [6] Ron 1987 20:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
That was not the news you had cited, so I couldn't read it. Hekerui (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Apparently, the marriage in Mendoza will be performed before that the law will take effect. According to some sources the law will take effect on August 2. [7] [8] [9] [10] Ron 1987 21:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC) It's seems that, Mendoza's couple was allowed to get married by a special decision of registry office. As of today, legislation isn't law yet. Will become law on Ausust 2. Ron 1987 21:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_Argentina&oldid=375268338"