# What motivates people to vote other people's rights away **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 4, 2009, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261 "2009-11-04T05:59:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2009, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/461 "2009-11-07T03:52:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Left handed people use their left hand for things that mesh perfectly with what left hands were designed for. Homosexuals use parts of their bodies for things other than that which they were designed for. If you’re going to drag pseudoscience like “intelligent design” into this discussion, you are really not going to persuade anyone on this board. 😃 Beyond that, your argument still fails. Homosexuals employ various body parts containing erogenous nerves to gain sexual satisfaction, just as heterosexuals do. They simply have more effective methods of birth contriol. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2009, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/462 "2009-11-07T04:06:30Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Beyond that, your argument still fails. Homosexuals employ various body parts containing erogenous nerves to gain sexual satisfaction, just as heterosexuals do. They simply have more effective methods of birth contriol. So do people who choose the company of animals. That argument does not negate the normal behavior of a heterosexual species. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2009, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/463 "2009-11-07T04:12:28Z")
> [@magellan](#): > > Left handed people use their left hand for things that mesh perfectly with what left hands were designed for. Homosexuals use parts of their bodies for things other than that which they were designed for. How do you determine what parts of the body were “designed” for, exactly? I know you well enough to know that you’re not talking about God as the designer, so I’m guessing you mean “designed by nature?” Well, let’s talk about that for a little bit. Let’s take the dick for an example. The dick serves several clear purposes. The elimination of waste is one. Sex is another\*. But, unlike many other animal species, humans aren’t “designed” to use sex solely as a means of reproduction. If we were, sex probably wouldn’t feel as good, and women would show clear external signs of ovulation, so we’d know when we were supposed to fuck. Instead, for humans, sex is primarily a socialization tool. (I say “primarily” because the vast majority of sex, even absent contraception, does not result in pregnancy.) For whatever reason, the human species evolved so that a certain portion of it is interested in sexual pair-bonding with the same gender. Now, I know that you feel that this particular kind of pair bonding is, for whatever reason, “less special” than opposite sex pair bonding, but to say that gays are using their bodies for something they “weren’t designed for” is clearly incorrect, unless you’re arguing from a purely theological standpoint. [sub]\*Also, I use mine to crack walnuts. But I may be unusual in that regard.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2009, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/464 "2009-11-07T04:14:28Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > So do people who choose the company of animals. That argument does not negate the normal behavior of a heterosexual species. We are not a heterosexual species. We are a species that displays a range of sexual behaviors, among which heterosexuality is simply the most common. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2009, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/465 "2009-11-07T04:21:16Z")
Now that this thread has turned tons of people against each other, lets dump some Kerosene on this fire. I’ve heard that if you take a gay person and shake him upside down, a thick black liquid comes out of the top of his head. And I’ve heard christians need to eat this liquid to live. Discuss. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2009, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/466 "2009-11-07T04:38:29Z")
Joining thread late; my apologies, somewhat halfhearted I guess, for returning to the general case now that you all are knee-deep in specifics and hypotheticals. But. I’ve read somewhere (I wish I could remember where; the blogosphere is full of this stuff) that the _petit bourgeois_ middle class, and the white workingclass who aspire to be part of it, live in much greater fear of _perceived threats to their way of life -_ very generally defined - than realistic or incipient threats to their civil liberties or constitutional freedoms. To a large degree, goes the thesis, what threatens their way of life is simply _a certain degree of difference._ The idea that people somehow unlike them might be entitled to the way of life - _or_ the freedoms and liberties - they enjoy is threatening _in itself._ To fiscally-responsible lower-middle-class folk, it really does come down to numbers, money, and sweat. Life itself is a zero-sum game: anything given to Others must be taken away from Real Americans. What makes you freer makes me less free; what opens doors for you closes them for me. The argument about “voting others’ rights away” doesn’t get far with this kind of thinking: the idea that these people ever even _deserved_ these rights is, to them, misguided humanist twaddle. When people are a threat, they must be contained. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2009, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/467 "2009-11-07T04:52:23Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Now that this thread has turned tons of people against each other, lets dump some Kerosene on this fire. > I’ve heard that if you take a gay person and shake him upside down, a thick black liquid comes out of the top of his head. And I’ve heard christians need to eat this liquid to live. > > Discuss. No no, that’s how you tell when we’re ripe. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2009, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/468 "2009-11-07T12:59:00Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > No fundamentalist Christian is going to accept any historical evidence that contradicts the Bible. Are there really that many fundamentalist young-Earth Christians? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2009, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/469 "2009-11-07T13:35:15Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > It is indeed hypocritical, in my opinion, to DEMAND that gays should be able to marry while keeping other restrictions in place. So the definition changes from one man + one woman to two people. But, really, you know there will be a push for polygamy. I don’t believe there is any state interest in denying polygamists the right to marry once you start tinkering with the definition of marriage. As I stated earlier, you can’t demand that one-half of the definition change and not expect there to be a push to change the second half. Eventually, marriage will be defined out of existence (this last point is slippery slope, admittedly, but not that far down the slope). The idea that some perceived, possibly, somewhere down the road things might be bad, BS is a valid reason to deny citizens equal rights in the here and now is utter nonsense and a shining example of the irrational and unfounded fears that make up the entirety of arguments opposing SSM. There’s no escaping the obvious fact that this is the same kind of BS argument that stalled other equal rights movements. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2009, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/470 "2009-11-07T13:44:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Left handed people use their left hand for things that mesh perfectly with what left hands were designed for. Homosexuals use parts of their bodies for things other than that which they were designed for. Is this a joke? Let me rephrase, This **is** a joke! I’ve only had hetero relationships including marriage and I often used body parts, hers and mine, for things they weren’t designed for. {or were they?} If you need a cite I think I still have some pictures around here somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2009, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/471 "2009-11-07T19:45:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Left handed people use their left hand for things that mesh perfectly with what left hands were designed for. Homosexuals use parts of their bodies for things other than that which they were designed for. So we’re back to the “gay sex is ooky and I don’t want to sanction ooky things” argument. Which is problematic because, if you get down to brass tacks: [ul] [li]Sex acts engaged in by same-sex couples are practiced by hetero couples all the time, the only difference is genital symmetry. But anal sex is anal sex, whether the penetrated partner has a penis or a vagina.(Or whether the penetrating partner has a penis or a vagina, for that matter.)[/li][li]More importantly, existing marriage laws do not focus on the _nature of sex_ that will or will not be had by the couple. A quadriplegic on a ventilator who is paralyzed from the shoulders down and cannot perform sexually in any fashion may still marry legally. Someone imprisoned on a life sentence in a state with no provision for conjugal visits may still marry legally. Someone lacking in genitalia (or functioning genitalia) entirely may still marry. There is no presumption under law that a couple who marries will engage in procreative penis-in-vagina intercourse in the midst of the marriage, and unlike days of yore, while lack of sexual consummation _can_ still be used as a basis for legal dissolution of a marriage, a marriage is still fully legitimate _so long as both parties agree that it is_ even if sex never occurs.[/li][/ul] Simply put, the “gay sex is unnatural” argument dog don’t hunt. No matter what you think about what us freaky unnatural queers do in bed, that has nothing to do with the _legal_ right to marry for heteros, so it cannot be applied to those seeking to marry someone of the same sex without creating an unacceptable double standard. > [@Beware\_of\_Doug](#): > > I’ve read somewhere (I wish I could remember where; the blogosphere is full of this stuff) that the _petit bourgeois_ middle class, and the white workingclass who aspire to be part of it, live in much greater fear of _perceived threats to their way of life -_ very generally defined - than realistic or incipient threats to their civil liberties or constitutional freedoms. I don’t know if it’s ever been quantified, but it’s definitely seemed to be true, especially in this debate. Remember the “there’s a storm gathering” commercial by the “National Organization for Marriage (Inequality)” folks? The black clouds rolling in over the heads of frightened looking middle class people just like you and me (or just like you and I want to be)? The ominous music, the fearmongering? The exploitation of the fear of loss is the anti-equality “activists” stock in trade. “Your marriage will be cheapened” and “marriage will be diluted” are the tip of that iceberg. > [@](#): > > The argument about “voting others’ rights away” doesn’t get far with this kind of thinking: the idea that these people ever even _deserved_ these rights is, to them, misguided humanist twaddle. When people are a threat, they must be contained. Exactly, and if there is no real threat, gin one up. “Our kids will be taught… facts! OH NO!” I need to see if any polling has ever been done on how many people voted on Prop 8 or Maine 1 because of the worry about that hoary lie about what kids would be taught in school. Oh, and I note for the record that **Yorick73** and his ilk have refused to answer my question, so I’ll restate it. When I am free to be legally joined to the _partner of my choice_ without regard to my race, my religion, my economic status, my incarceration status, my criminal history, my employment, my immigration or citizenship status or any other basis other than my sex, how is that anything but an act of gender discrimination antithetical to the freedoms guaranteed me by the constitution as well as the spirit of liberty upon which this nation is meant to be predicated? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/472 "2009-11-09T05:05:23Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > First of all, thank you for responding politely, and I hope you will continue to do so if I do likewise. Absolutely…as long as you refrain from calling me a racist homophobic bigot. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So, I’m still a bit confused about what you are saying. You seem to be making two different points here: > (1) SSM supporters do not also support incestuous/poly marriage. This is a contradictory position and reveals them as hypocrites, and their hypocrisy weakens any arguments they might be making > (2) if SSM becomes legal, poly/incestuous marriage will surely also become legal, and they are so horrible that they would (do something vague but bad), and that eventuality must be avoided, therefore SSM should remain illegal > > Do you in fact make both of those claims? If not, how would you modify those statements so that they in fact reflect your beliefs? 1. Yes for the most part. My argument is that you cannot change one half of the definition of marriage without, at least, a push to change the other half. 2. I don’t think poly/incestuous marriage would be horrible. In my opinion they are identical to SSM in that it is a fundamental change in how we as a society define marriage. I also believe, as I stated earlier, that altering the definition in such a way will lead to marriage being defined out of existence. Others have pointed out that this has not happened in countries that allow SSM but I don’t claim this will happen quickly. These things take time…maybe generations. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/473 "2009-11-09T05:18:06Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > 1. Yes for the most part. My argument is that you cannot change one half of the definition of marriage without, at least, a push to change the other half. Well, you are wrong. Both because SSM isn’t changing the definition, and because we most certainly can choose to leave everything else alone. > [@yorick73](#): > > 1. I don’t think poly/incestuous marriage would be horrible. In my opinion they are identical to SSM in that it is a fundamental change in how we as a society define marriage. I also believe, as I stated earlier, that altering the definition in such a way will lead to marriage being defined out of existence. Others have pointed out that this has not happened in countries that allow SSM but I don’t claim this will happen quickly. These things take time…maybe generations. How many generations? Polygamy being allowed was the norm for most of human history, and marriage has yet to vanish. And again; SSM in no way changes the definition of marriage; nor does polygamy. Otherwise, phrases like “his third wife” and “Bob and Dave got married” would be unintelligible. Changing what is allowed isn’t the same as changing the definition. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/474 "2009-11-09T05:27:43Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > It is indeed hypocritical, in my opinion, to DEMAND that gays should be able to marry while keeping other restrictions in place. So the definition changes from one man + one woman to two people. But, really, you know there will be a push for polygamy. I don’t believe there is any state interest in denying polygamists the right to marry once you start tinkering with the definition of marriage. As I stated earlier, you can’t demand that one-half of the definition change and not expect there to be a push to change the second half. Eventually, marriage will be defined out of existence (this last point is slippery slope, admittedly, but not that far down the slope). The government has a compelling interest in prohibiting incestuous or polyamorous marriages. The government has no such interest in prohibiting homosexual marriages. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/475 "2009-11-09T05:49:39Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > Are there really that many fundamentalist young-Earth Christians? There are. [In this 2007](http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-07-evolution-poll-results_n.htm) poll, 39% of Americans said is it “definitely true” that God created humans within the last 10k years, and 26% said that was “probably true.” ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/476 "2009-11-09T13:40:53Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > 1. Yes for the most part. My argument is that you cannot change one half of the definition of marriage without, at least, a push to change the other half. > 2. I don’t think poly/incestuous marriage would be horrible. In my opinion they are identical to SSM in that it is a fundamental change in how we as a society define marriage. I also believe, as I stated earlier, that altering the definition in such a way will lead to marriage being defined out of existence. Others have pointed out that this has not happened in countries that allow SSM but I don’t claim this will happen quickly. These things take time…maybe generations. Uh huh. And once more, this vague irrational fear of something maybe some day down the road possibly, I’m not sure but it might, lead to something bad is an incredibly piss poor reason to justify denying people equal rights. We \*might \*suffer some harm somewhere down the road, so it’s best that you continue to suffer now just in case. Is that about it? We don’t have countries that have had legal SSM for generations but we do have a history of the struggle for equal rights for other minorities and similar arguments about how changing the status quo may lead to bad things down the road. What does history tell you about those vague irrational fears? They all turned out to be nonsesne didn’t they? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/477 "2009-11-09T16:02:35Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The government has a compelling interest in prohibiting incestuous or polyamorous marriages. The government has no such interest in prohibiting homosexual marriages. **Yorick** thinks that if he ignores this point it will go away. Much as he thinks that people calling him on his BS are just being mean. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/478 "2009-11-09T16:15:39Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > There are. [In this 2007](http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-07-evolution-poll-results_n.htm) poll, 39% of Americans said is it “definitely true” that God created humans within the last 10k years, and 26% said that was “probably true.” OK, I am officially scared. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/479 "2009-11-09T16:43:33Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > The idea that some perceived, possibly, somewhere down the road things might be bad, BS is a valid reason to deny citizens equal rights in the here and now is utter nonsense and a shining example of the irrational and unfounded fears that make up the entirety of arguments opposing SSM. > > There’s no escaping the obvious fact that this is the same kind of BS argument that stalled other equal rights movements. Marriage is not a right. And, even if it was there would still be no denial of equal rights. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/480 "2009-11-09T16:51:34Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Well, you are wrong. Both because SSM isn’t changing the definition, and because we most certainly can choose to leave everything else alone. Yes, and we can choose to tinker more with the definition whenever we want. We can do whatever we want, right? The people have spoken clearly on this issue and they “choose” to leave the definition alone. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > How many generations? Polygamy being allowed was the norm for most of human history, and marriage has yet to vanish. > > And again; SSM in no way changes the definition of marriage; nor does polygamy. Otherwise, phrases like “his third wife” and “Bob and Dave got married” would be unintelligible. Changing what is allowed isn’t the same as changing the definition. Of course it changes the definition. Saying someone is married to their job is easily understandable yet everyone knows this is not literally possible. Just like when we here “Bob and Dave got married” we know they are not really married but are in a committed relationship. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261.md?page=25)