Religious rights include the ability to impose the religious values of the majority on everyone else. It's what the founding fathers would have wanted.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Obama announces support for same-sex marriage
- Thread starter Cheebo
- Start date
- Status
Religious rights include the ability to impose the religious values of the majority on everyone else. It's what the founding fathers would have wanted.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
The president of the united states advocating for marriage equality is a pretty big deal. I completely disagree with you here.
What "religous rights" ?
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
The sad truth, all joking aside, is that this is what's at the base of protests that "my religious freedom is being oppressed" when it comes to social progress and equality.
Certain flavors of religiosity insist that practicing one's religion requires shaping the world around one's self. In other words, crusading, preaching, and conversion. Controlling the social environment; not just for one's self, but other people.
Thus, for a religions person of that mindset, there is no conflict between "supporting freedom" and "telling other people what they can't do because it offends my religion". The freedom loving religious patriots who line up and wave a flag in each hand, simultaneously advocate creating religious laws to force everyone to live as they claim their religion dictates. And that advocacy of oppression of others is in their world an expression of freedom. The freedom for them to tell other people what to do.
And so the evangelicals who fear the gay gather round and cry about their religion being oppressed when they're told that they can't discriminate against others.
The genuinely sad part is that for all that some people will use false equivalency and claim "the liberals are just telling everyone to live their way too", the truth is this: in the open, progressive world, there is room for the religious person. But the closed, hyper conservative religious person has no room in their world for anyone else.
Pollux
Member
I'm serious...how do you define marriage? What is marriage's basic purpose?
Attackthebase
Member
It befuddles me that people use religion as an oppression of gay marriage. It's not like monogamous same-sex couple was a relevant topic back two thousand years ago. Like for Christianity, when Paul criticized homosexuality, the word meant something different than its meaning today.
A civil union between a couple.
A civil union between a couple.
cartoon_soldier
Member
It is a legal recognition that grants plenty of benefits to the people involved. It is also something people get to when they are ready to settle down for life with someone (at least they hope) and start a family (talking world wide here, not just US)
Neuromancer
Member
Haha amazing
A man and a woman. Although, I don't have anything against same sex marriage.
Pollux
Member
What did homosexuality mean in the context that Paul uses it?
Burn...
So the final goal of marriage is to promote a family and to get to the business of raising children?
Not necessarily, but it's a desirable outcome, sure.
It's a goal, but it's not everybody's goal, nor is it inherent to people who want to get married.
Pollux
Member
Could you elaborate?
"Family" doesn't necessarily mean children. For some people family means just the two people.
The goal of marriage is not children. The gowl of marriage is to stay with the person you love, while obtaining all the legal rights that come along with marriage.
I can get married and have no kids and that's totally fine and valid. Same for anybody else. Marriage in and of itself is its goal; it's not just something on the road to kids and/or family.
Pollux
Member
I'm guessing the two people would have to be romantically in love?
Again, is the requirement romantic love? Does the relationship have to be sexual?
Attackthebase
Member
During those time, homosexuality simply meant a person who would have sex with a man or a woman or anything that really moved (sometime these individuals would commit rape). An embodiment of sin.
Pollux
Member
Do you have a source for that? I've honestly never heard that interpretation.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the argument against gay marriage used by someone who claims they're not a religious nut, nor are the a bigot. I've been trying to figure it out by pestering my roommate, and she went to bed. So I came to this thread, so far my thought experiment is proving exceedingly difficult.
Maybe there is no legitimate objection without being an actual bigot. But since some claim that they oppose it for legitimate reasons, I'm trying to figure out what the heck those reasons are. I'm trying to understand their arguments, which they usually aren't very good at explaining, which may in fact be because they don't have valid arguments to begin with.
I'm probably just going crazy, but I can't believe that EVERY SINGLE PERSON who is against same sex marriages are hate filled bigots, no matter how deeply buried the bigotry is. Maybe my view of humanity is too positive.
Yep romantically involved. Relationship has to be consummated(as by normal standard)
For me, marriage is basically a strong kinship between people. It's done for the many legal benefits, but also for many other reasons. It's a sign of commitment between those people, that perhaps your life is on the same trajectory and you'd like it to continue. It's a commitment that no matter what happens you'll try your absolute best to help whoever else is in that commitment. It is the creation of "family," though not necessarily needing the child element. To me it's more symbolic of the combining into one family. You're not related to the other person or people, but through this contract I believe you suddenly are. It's kind of your chosen family, or your wished for family. And at the same time as that it's also sort of a societal affirmation of this commitment. Humans and human society is built on our bonds between each other, and I think the societal affirmation that whatever bond you have chosen is ok with everyone, and we'll help you with that however we can is one of the greatest things. That help comes in the many rights gained through laws, but it's also a metaphorical help in that it elevates the relationship with all.
I dunno, that's kind of my belief, but I think other people can have other uses and/or definitions of marriage, and that's fine. As I said, humans are built on our bonds, and we're an incredibly nuanced species when it comes to what bonds we can create, and so I personally celebrate all bonds, and if you want to elevate your bond, then fine. I'll do what I can do keep it in high regard, too.
Nope, not necessarily, at least in my opinion. I think personally don't think I'd marry someone I'm not romantically in love with, but I don't necessarily see that as a requirement at all.
I dunno, that's kind of my belief, but I think other people can have other uses and/or definitions of marriage, and that's fine. As I said, humans are built on our bonds, and we're an incredibly nuanced species when it comes to what bonds we can create, and so I personally celebrate all bonds, and if you want to elevate your bond, then fine. I'll do what I can do keep it in high regard, too.
Nope, not necessarily, at least in my opinion. I think personally don't think I'd marry someone I'm not romantically in love with, but I don't necessarily see that as a requirement at all.
Pollux
Member
Aren't normal standard vaginal intercourse? I may be wrong but I didn't think any other form of sexual activity counted as consummation.
So by that definition couldn't two brothers living together be "married". Even if there is no romantic or sexual attraction/activity?
They're already family, so the bond is already both legally and socially recognised. (Admittedly in this case it's kind of the reverse, since you can't pick your family and from the fact that you are family the assumption becomes that you will have that kind of relationship with your sibling, etc)
Ah. I'd suggest not bothering. The reasons they use are rationalizations.
I think the problem is that you're envisioning a dichotomy of calm, rational people who have good reasons for their stances, and crazed, foaming bigots who shout about how all gay people should be burned at the stake.
The reality is that these people likely grew up thinking that there was something wrong with being gay--maybe it wasn't overt, maybe it was subtle, but it's there. It came from their parents, or their social environment, or the tv. They aren't self-aware enough to stop and actually think about whether they might have that kind of belief, and whether it's justified. Hell, they probably hear people talking about bigots, and imagine foaming hate-filled crazies, and think "thank goodness I'm not like that." And then, to preserve their mental image as a good person (i.e. definitely not a bigot), they mentally rehearse the spurious reasons they've come up with to rationalize their belief.
GoutPatrol
Forgotten in his cell
Are you really arguing this? In this way? In this thread?
As someone else said, they are technically already family and their bond is already elevated by society. If two brothers really did feel the need to elevate it further (not sure if it would really be further... perhaps maybe just change the way it's elevated? I dunno... highlighted, perhaps?), then, quite honestly, I don't really have that much of a problem with it. I'm not sure I'd personally understand it as much (since I said I'd rather be romantically involved), but if they feel that's what they need to do or be, then sure. Have at it.
Attackthebase
Member
I would love to grab a source, but I learnt this piece of information from a professor I hold in high respect. There might be a source, but I'm not going to start a hunt for it when I'm nearing my time to sleep.
But I'll add this, there does not seem to be any information (at least none I have discovered) that would suggest homosexuality, during Jesus' time, would mean a monogamous same-sex couple. Like I said prior, such a social concept probably didn't even exist during that time.
Pollux
Member
Two straight male roommates who are best friends? Two gay male roommates who are best friends? A male and female living together who are best friends?
If these people want the same legal rights as a married couple because the other person is their best friend whom they trust implicitly, should any of these pairs be denied those rights?
If they feel that way strongly enough to take up a civil union or marriage or whatever the term used to express that is, I don't see why not. Because it's none of my business who chooses to take this up between themselves or not. Standard exception for coerced relationships, etc.
Pollux
Member
Good point.
That's what I'm afraid of lol
But is it impossible for someone to have a rational basis for their stance? And yea I know you're probably right, but that really lowers my faith in humanity.
I'm trying to determine if everyone who is against gay marriage is a bigot, or if there is any legitimate objection, or something. As I said, I can't accept that EVERYONE who is against it is a bigot.
Gotcha.
I agree with you that it is a personal thing, and it is nobody else's business. I guess I'm just grasping at straws, and I should give up and accept that those who oppose it are bigots and there's no getting around that?
Some guy on Reddit summarizes it well:
-----
www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/tf3wy/president_obama_endorses_gay_marriage_on_abc/c4m30q0
I'm sure that smarter people than me will discuss this with better data, but this may turn out to be a pretty savvy move politically.
So let's make sure he wins, OK?
EDIT: For example: http://www.dccc.org/marriage-equality
-----
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/tf3wy/president_obama_endorses_gay_marriage_on_abc/c4m335u
"Hey North Carolina--take your 15 electoral votes, and go fuck yourself." - Barack Obama
-----
www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/tf3wy/president_obama_endorses_gay_marriage_on_abc/c4m30q0
I'm sure that smarter people than me will discuss this with better data, but this may turn out to be a pretty savvy move politically.
- The number of winnable voters, who might have voted for Obama but for this pronouncement, must be de minimis. It seems likely that the large majority of people powerfully motivated by opposition to gay marriage are completely lost to Obama.
- Liberal Democratic voters just got something to get excited about, and to donate, campaign, and block-walk for.
- Gay voters (and donors, and their families) are seeing the beginning of the end for the biggest obstacle to full legal equality. Tremendously motivating.
- Obama took a huge step to permanently binding the younger generation of voters to identify with the Democratic party. Support for gay marriage is overwhelming among younger voters.
- Can you imagine how charming the coming shitstorm from the right is gonna be? Do you think it's going to win a lot of moderates into the GOP fold?
- Gay marriage is unpopular with black voters, but Obama is uniquely positioned to get 90%+ of black votes regardless. What are they going to do, vote Romney? And isn't it likely that the President's stance could lead to a softening of opposition in the black community?
- Similarly, Latino voters tend to oppose gay marriage, but they have been kicked in the teeth by Republicans so hard in recent years. Maybe gay marriage is less of an obstacle than zealous anti-immigration laws, "show your papers" laws, and the general contempt for Latinos prevalent in much of the activist right. I hope so.
So let's make sure he wins, OK?
EDIT: For example: http://www.dccc.org/marriage-equality
-----
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/tf3wy/president_obama_endorses_gay_marriage_on_abc/c4m335u
"Hey North Carolina--take your 15 electoral votes, and go fuck yourself." - Barack Obama
speculawyer
Member
Really? An anti-gay marriage amendment just passed in a swing state with 60+% of the vote . . . . and you don't see any risk to this move? REALLY?
I don't know the full effects but I would not have made the move.
Honestly, I can't say definitively that the answer is no. It could be that there's some reason I haven't thought of, that actually makes sense as a reason to oppose gay marriage, and that isn't rooted in some form of bigotry.
If there is, I have never heard it.
Dunno what to tell you on this. I suppose some people, especially old folks, might not dislike gay people per se but might just reflexively oppose any large societal change? Best I can do.
I think that's the conclusion I've come to. Certainly I haven't yet come to any convincing non-religious reasoning why it should be illegal (not that I've come across convincing religious reasons, of course)
Pollux
Member
Yea. Oh well. This was a failure lol. Sorry everybody.
This is true. What if someone believes the purpose of "marriage" is to promote the birth and development of children? If we accept that idea, then would an opposition to same sex marriages on the basis that they can't produce children be a non-bigoted rationalization? (Roommates suggestion from earlier)
les papillons sexuels
Banned
gay rights? It's not gay rights, it's equality. Shit like this is another major problem, there should be no distinction between gay marriage and equality, it's the same issue.
Only if they also opposed marriages that produced no children, else it's just hypocritical. Divorces too, since evidence shows they seriously damage family units, etc.
It doesn't pass the consistency test. Generally people who give this reason don't oppose marriage for infertile couples, or for old people, or for people who just don't want children.
This is a pretty good indicator that it's not the real reason they oppose same-sex marriage.
SmackDaddy
Member
I think I like politicians more when they stand up for what they believe in despite opposition. Even though this seems like a genius move based on a few posts above
Pollux
Member
So no marriages for a couple that is infertile? But how would you determine whether they were infertile prior to marriage?
I do think, outside of this thought experiment and really zmoney's opinion, that no-fault divorce is a bad thing, because they do cause potential serious harm to children affected, etc.
But how do you determine if a couple is infertile prior to marriage and their attempts to have children? Could the people who don't want to have children not change their mind? I have nothing for the old people though lol.
Sutton Dagger
Member
Does she also believe that sterile couples or those who don't want children can't get married?
Pollux
Member
How do you determine if an individual is sterile prior to getting married and attempting to have children?
Of course it would be completely impractical. That's not the point. The point is that generally the folks claiming the purpose of marriage is children never even think about these other examples. Their reasoning is entirely constructed to support their dislike of gay marriage; thus, a rationalization.
- Status