Support NeoGAF

[MIMIC]

Honestly people who consider marriage a religious institution should go read a history book.

The religious affiliation has to come from somewhere, right?

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Did you mean...

He meant what he said!

Oops. Sorry. What you said.

God damn it ChiTown....

Stick to your guns man. This is a proud day for America, be super American. Refute all corrections.

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

Did you mean...

Oops. Sorry. What you said.

 

[Various Artists]

I agree with Adam Carollas thoughts on this. Basically in 20 years everyone is going to look back and think "Wow it was really like that back then?" give same sex couples the same rights as everyone. It's going to be this generations segregation.

 

[Manmademan]

Honestly people who consider marriage a religious institution should go read a history book.

historical origins aside, marriage has been hopelessly and repeatedly associated with religion SO OFTEN over many, many centuries that for all intents and purposes its impossible to separate the two.

The whole argument is that religious zealots don't want gays to be umbrella'd under the same term because they're bigots. Do you understand now?

that's because that term has become religiously loaded, and the state should remove itself from the debate.

 

[Arment]

i wouldn't say never.

There are plenty of people (like myself) who consider "marriage" a religious issue the state has no business in.

Everyone, gay or straight should be extended civil unions under the law (instead of a "marriage license") and if you'd like a religious ceremony on top of that to say you've been "married" under the diety of your choice, then that's between you and the church.

As it is, the debate about what should be a simple legal and human rights issued is hopelessly muddied with what "God" does or does not want, or what is "moral" when it's entirely irrelevant.

Marriage doesn't belong to religion. What makes you think it does?

 

[Sol..]

Honestly people who consider marriage a religious institution should go read a history book.

I would love any recommendations ya got

 

[BocoDragon]

Honestly people who consider marriage a religious institution should go read a history book.

Yes. Or hell.. Just look around the world right now. You'll find marriage ceremonies in all cultures, even in ones which have been un-influenced by Abrahamic religion (isolated tribes, traditional Asian societies, etc)

 

[commedieu]

I agree with Adam Carollas thoughts on this. Basically in 20 years everyone is going to look back and think "Wow it was really like that back then?" give same sex couples the same rights as everyone. It's going to be this generations segregation.

Simple as that. The sooner everyone understands this, the better we will be as human beings.

 

[SeanR1221]

Well that didn't take long. Had my first run ins (of probably many) "call me old fashion but I don't think they should get married blah blah blah."

 

[GhaleonEB]

Barney Frank with a pragmatic reponse:

Earlier this year, President Obama took a major step towards vindicating the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to marry when he announced his refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act’s blatant discrimination against us.

Today he has taken the next logical step to complete the process by expressing his support for our right to marry people of the same sex. I understand why a President facing a national election took some time in making this decision, and I believe that the fact that he first announced his repudiation of DOMA gave him a chance to assess the reaction to that. I know there are those who wish that elected officials would completely ignore public opinion – of course only in those cases where they do not agree with public opinion – but that is not a realistic course in a democracy for those seeking to get the authority from the public to govern.

This does not meant that the President’s decision today was entirely without some political risk, but I believe it will be clear in the days ahead that this will cost him no votes, since those opposed to legal equality for LGBT people were already inclined to oppose him, and that it will make it easier for us to mobilize the people in this country who oppose discrimination to help reelect him.​

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/barney-frank-obamas-gay-marriage-stance-will-cost

I think he has the politics in his last statement correct.

 

[-COOLIO-]

gaborn, civil unions arnt good enough but you cant call someone a bigot for trying to further gay rights at a feasible pace rather than going at a breakneck speed and accomplishing nothing due to public resistance.

 

[Devolution]

lol what

The religious affiliation has to come from somewhere, right?

Marriage isn't inherently a religious or Abrahamic institution, it's been co-opted so that people think of Church but historically no. In some places marriage was as simple as cohabitation. In other places a simple exchange of property. The romanticized love in the eyes of God crap is actually more of a recent thing.

 

[v1oz]

There's no reason for the separation other than to single out gay people. I couldn't give a fuck less if the legalities are 100% the same.

I don't see it as being singled out. I think Gay people should be proud of who they are. The whole world should know. So if you say you are in a Civil Partnership it immediately identifies you, allowing you to be free and open with others. It's not something to be ashamed of and something you should actually be proud of. It carries no negatives connotations at all, it is not a slur, it is just a different name. For all practical purposes I consider them the same thing (in the legal sense), with the difference in name only differentiating between a straight couple and homosexual couple.

 

[kinggroin]

Marriage as a partnership came long before Abrahamic bullshit.

Thanks for an answer (though you sound offended by my question in the first place; if so, sorry).

Any links to some good research done on its history and evolution (or lack thereof)?

 

[Boogie]

gaborn, civil unions arnt good enough but you cant call someone a bigot for trying to further gay rights at a feasible pace rather than going at a breakneck speed and accomplishing nothing due to public resistance.

Sure he can, he's been doing just that for years.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

Gary Johnson doesn't approve.

“For a few brief minutes over the weekend, supporters of marriage equality were given a glimmer of hope when the Vice-President expressed ‘comfort’ with gay marriage. I’m sure the White House was delighted to offer that glimmer. But within hours, they were walking it back. And Monday, President Obama sends his spokesperson out to say there is no ‘update’ of the President’s position that marriage is between a man and a woman, but repeats that Obama opposes ‘efforts to repeal rights for same-sex couples’.

“I’m sorry, I don’t know what that means and I suspect no one else does either,” Johnson said. “We have a President saying he won’t support marriage equality, but if it somehow becomes legal, he won’t support repealing it? And a Vice-President saying he’s ‘comfortable’ with it? That is not leadership. That is politics, and on such a deeply personal issue for many Americans, it is cruel politics.

Denying same-sex couples the right to marry under the law is government-sanctioned discrimination. Unlike President Obama, I am not afraid to state, without a wink or a nod, that the government has no right to tell us who we can marry or not marry.

 

[Manmademan]

Marriage doesn't belong to religion. What makes you think it does?

isn't not about "belonging", it's about association. And Cultural origins are irrelevant- the state has no business there, regardless. Want to celebrate the beginning of your journey together as a couple? have fun. Just don't use tax money or public facilities to do it.

The only business the state or federal government should have is extending rights equally to all partners in a legal sense. This isn't marriage, and shouldn't be defined as such.

If you want to GET married, then find a religious or secular institution that's willing to endorse you and call it a day.

 

[J10]

that's because that term has become religiously loaded, and the state should remove itself from the debate.

That's backwards. It's religion that needs to remove itself from the debate. Why? Because churches don't grant any actual rights. Being married in the eyes of god doesn't actually matter. Neither god or the church grant visitation rights, tax benefits, etc.

 

[KibblesBits]

Can someone explain to me exactly why is this thread slowly becoming about Gaborn's political views? Isn't there more important discussion to be had on the issue at hand? I'd rather hear more reasons for why this could be spun positively or negatively in argument while conversing with others. Must the Gaf collective focus so much on Gabon's statements?

 

[Evlar]

Marriage isn't inherently a religious or Abrahamic institution, it's been co-opted so that people think of Church but historically no. In some places marriage was as simple as cohabitation. In other places a simple exchange of property. The romanticized love in the eyes of God crap is actually more of a recent thing.

Marriage has been both religious and non-religious in various cultures around the world for thousands of years. Any statement that marriage was originally one or the other and then became "co-opted" by the opposing side is naive from an anthropologic point of view. There are cultures existing right now where marriage is viewed in purely religious terms, and others where it is simply a matter of exchange of property.

The originalist argument is really fucking stupid no matter who is using it.

 

[Angry Fork]

I agree with Adam Carollas thoughts on this. Basically in 20 years everyone is going to look back and think "Wow it was really like that back then?" give same sex couples the same rights as everyone. It's going to be this generations segregation.

Funny that comes from the guy who shitted on Occupy and everyone in it to the fullest degree. Hopefully in 20 years time we'll be looking back at how terrible corporate capitalism was and marvel at how many horrible loathsome defenders it had.

 

[Devolution]

Marriage has been both religious and non-religious in various cultures around the world for thousands of years. Any statement that marriage was originally one or the other and then became "co-opted" by the opposing side is naive from an anthropologic point of view. There are cultures existing right now where marriage is viewed in purely religious terms, and others where it is simply a matter of exchange of property.

The originalist argument is really fucking stupid no matter who is using it.

Sure but the Abrahamic religions so vehemently opposed to the idea of gay marriage are less old than the institution itself.

 

[commedieu]

I don't see it as being singled out. I think Gay people should be proud of who they are. The whole world should know. So if you say you are in a Civil Partnership it immediately identifies you, allowing you to be free and open with others. It's not something to be ashamed of and something you should actually be proud of. It carries no negatives connotations at all, it is not a slur, it is just a different name. For all practical purposes I consider them the same thing, with the difference in name only differentiating between a straight couple and homosexual couple.

Having a different term, is being singled out.

Literally.

 

[reilo]

Can someone explain to me exactly why is this thread slowly becoming about Gaborn's political views? Isn't there more important discussion to be had on the issue at hand? I'd rather hear more reasons for why this could be spun positively or negatively in argument while conversing with others. Must the Gaf collective focus so much on Gabon's statements?

Because he's been on a crazy-train well before Obama was even elected president on this issue and he deserves to be called out. He even brought this on himself with the first couple of posts in this thread.

 

[GillianSeed79]

Marriage isn't inherently a religious or Abrahamic institution, it's been co-opted so that people think of Church but historically no. In some places marriage was as simple as cohabitation. In other places a simple exchange of property. The romanticized love in the eyes of God crap is actually more of a recent thing.

Not to mention the secularization of marriage law, particularly in the U.S. and the west, have only added more rights to married spouses. That's why I always chuckle when people talk about the "sanctity" of marriage, when less than 200 years ago a married woman in U.S. wasn't allowed by law to own property and essentially was her husband's property in the eyes of the law.

 

[soul creator]

I would love any recommendations ya got

Any links to some good research done on its history and evolution (or lack thereof)?

Sex at Dawn!

not specifically about marriage only, but relates to the topic. It definitely pokes holes in the idea that marriage (and sex) has always been this "one person for your entire life in a monogamous relationship" type of thing (which is what modern religions tend to propose).

 

[BocoDragon]

historical origins aside, marriage has been hopelessly and repeatedly associated with religion SO OFTEN over many, many centuries that for all intents and purposes its impossible to separate the two.

When cultures are religious, every aspect of human life is made out to be religious. Laws, morality, ceremonies, holidays are all made out to be religious things... But these are actually universal human habits which have nothing to do with any particular religion. Secular people and people of other religions will share the same desires. It would be unfortunate to need to discuss them as if they were specifically religious rites.

 

[Evlar]

Sure but the Abrahamic religions so vehemently opposed to the idea of gay marriage are less old than the institution itself.

Oh I agree entirely with that; on the other hand the Abrahamic religions are thousands of years older than the Enlightenment ideals that are at the core of the modern pressure for the state to recognize gay marriage.

Which is older doesn't matter a whit.

 

[Devolution]

Oh I agree entirely with that; on the other hand the Abrahamic religions are thousands of years older than the Enlightenment ideals that are at the core of the modern pressure for the state to recognize gay marriage.

Which is older doesn't matter a whit.

Right but if people are going to espouse the idea of marriage being inseparable from religion then it's nice to bring up the fact that it's a historically false premise.

 

[kame-sennin]

Guess I should be happy that the lives of gay people are just a political game of chess. It's funny how many people are just giving Obama a pass because obviously he's always felt this way and had to hide his feelings on the issue because that's the way the game is played. Because all we have is fucking time to play the waiting game while politicians decide when is the perfect time to give us our dignity. Meanwhile I guess we just suffer the depression that the nation we live in thinks we are less than human.

Needs to be quoted. No one should be commended for playing politics with people's basic dignity.

 

[v1oz]

There's no reason for the separation other than to single out gay people. I couldn't give a fuck less if the legalities are 100% the same.

The legalities are what matter because they give you your human rights. Not the name which is insignificant. You could it anything even marriage but still have less rights.

 

[thatbox]

I don't see it as being singled out. I think Gay people should be proud of who they are. The whole world should know. So if you say you are in a Civil Partnership it immediately identifies you, allowing you to be free and open with others. It's not something to be ashamed of and something you should actually be proud of. It carries no negatives connotations at all, it is not a slur, it is just a different name. For all practical purposes I consider them the same thing (in the legal sense), with the difference in name only differentiating between a straight couple and homosexual couple.

Maybe we can give Jews stars to wear. They should be proud of who they are. The whole world should know. They can have all the rights that other people do, the star will just differentiate between a Jew and a non-Jew.

 

[timetokill]

Can someone explain to me exactly why is this thread slowly becoming about Gaborn's political views? Isn't there more important discussion to be had on the issue at hand? I'd rather hear more reasons for why this could be spun positively or negatively in argument while conversing with others. Must the Gaf collective focus so much on Gabon's statements?

The idea of a gay person not identifying as a Democrat is infuriating for them

 

[Devolution]

The legalities are what matter because they give you your human rights. Not the name which is insignificant.

The name is never insignificant and this is willfully ignorant bullshit. People respond to labels whether you want to admit it or not. And they discriminate based on said labels.

 

[NullPointer]

Needs to be quoted. No one should be commended for playing politics with people's basic dignity.

This is how things get done. Its politics. Its not pretty, but its what we have.

I'm fine with people not showering Obama with accolades but where we are today is better than where we were yesterday.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I blame Glee and the JC Penney ad!

I blame Six Feet Under.

Needs to be quoted. No one should be commended for playing politics with people's basic dignity.

are you happy or aren't you?

If you think Mitt or any other potential presidential candidate would come out in support of gay marriage, I'd like to be introduced to them. Not for Obama, gays could be looking at another decade of waiting.

Shit is not easy, as all should be well aware.

 

[Evlar]

Needs to be quoted. No one should be commended for playing politics with people's basic dignity.

Again, this almost certainly will hurt him in the general election. It will undoubtedly hurt down-ticket Democrats in right-leaning states.

Do we commend people for politically damaging themselves?

 

[v1oz]

Maybe we can give Jews stars to wear. They should be proud of who they are. The whole world should know. They can have all the rights that other people do, the star will just differentiate between a Jew and a non-Jew.

Nothing wrong with that. A lot of Jewish people do wear traditional clothes. Even African people and they stand proud of who they are.

 

[Angry Fork]

Needs to be quoted. No one should be commended for playing politics with people's basic dignity.

The reason it isn't as big a deal is because it's just marriage. Everyone knows it's going to come. It's nowhere near the same as the civil rights movement where black people were absolutely disenfranchised in every aspect of society. As far as I know gay people can do everything straight people can except get married. Basically there's no reason to be in such a rush about it it's not like people's lives are at stake over marriage.

 

[Coen]

I agree with Adam Carollas thoughts on this. Basically in 20 years everyone is going to look back and think "Wow it was really like that back then?" give same sex couples the same rights as everyone. It's going to be this generations segregation.

I'm not sure, but I feel lots of western Europeans already feel that way. I can't for the live of me phantom what the deal is with same sex marriage.I just don't know what anyone has to lose by two people of the same sex getting married.

 

[v1oz]

Having a different term, is being singled out.

Literally.

Legally they are the same. Which is what matters.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Needs to be quoted. No one should be commended for playing politics with people's basic dignity.

Except he is a politician and he has done what no other serious Presidential candidate/Sitting President has EVER done. So yes, for that he should be congratulated.

 

[thatbox]

The reason it isn't as big a deal is because it's just marriage. Everyone knows it's going to come. It's nowhere near the same as the civil rights movement where black people were absolutely disenfranchised in every aspect of society. As far as I know gay people can do everything straight people can except get married. Basically there's no reason to be in such a rush about it it's not like people's lives are at stake over marriage.

For the married people I know, marriage is a pretty big part of their lives. In fact, I know more married people than I know people who vote!

 

[Clevinger]

Romney has commented on this now:

"The former Massachusetts governor told a Fox News affiliate: "I do not favour marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favour civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name.

"My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not."

So he doesn't even support 'separate, but equal'. He also doesn't clarify which other rights are not appropriate.

 

[BocoDragon]

I'm not sure, but I feel lots of western Europeans already feel that way. I can't for the live of me phantom what the deal is with same sex marriage.I just don't know what anyone has to lose by two people of the same sex getting married.

Must be the societal version of "Stop liking what I don't like!"

 

[Devolution]

Nothing wrong with that. A lot of Jewish people do wear traditional clothes. Even African people and they stand proud of who they are.

This doesn't make any sense. We're talking about systematically dividing homosexuals from heterosexuals with a marriage label when it's completely unnecessary. There is no need to divide marriage up into groups. The very act itself is discrimination.

 

[Gaborn]

Citation? How does Ron Paul plan on giving equal rights to LGBT individuals? Not just marriage--all rights.

"all rights" is a nebulous term that could mean anything. Here though he's pretty explicit. His personal definition of marriage is man/woman but he thinks that the decision should be left to the states. I don't have any problem with that view even though I think it's impossible to completely eliminate the federal government from marriage at the moment.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

"all rights" is a nebulous term that could mean anything. Here though he's pretty explicit. His personal definition of marriage is man/woman but he thinks that the decision should be left to the states. I don't have any problem with that view even though I think it's impossible to completely eliminate the federal government from marriage at the moment.

And you don't have a problem with civil rights including laws like Jim Crow being left to the states either or am I mistaken?

 

[ivysaur12]

"all rights" is a nebulous term that could mean anything. Here though he's pretty explicit. His personal definition of marriage is man/woman but he thinks that the decision should be left to the states. I don't have any problem with that view even though I think it's impossible to completely eliminate the federal government from marriage at the moment.

Gaborn.