# 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:** 31
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/601 "2009-11-10T23:10:59Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > If you’ll direct your attention back to the post you just quoted, you might note that I say just that: it should be as easy to disprove the stereotype about anti-SSMers as it is to disprove the stereotype about gays. And yet, here’s yet another post from you failing to do just that. > > I’m not sure it’s fair to accuse us of ignoring evidence that you refuse to share. I mean, how can we ignore it, if you won’t show it to us? And, I will reiterate, it is not the job of the anti-SSM person to correct your biases and fix your prejudice. It’s _especially_ not my job as I an not anti-SSM. In any event you start with the guilty-until-proven-innocent paradigm, and if only _ **raindog** _, or _ **someone else** _ would just relieve _ **you** _ of _ **your** _ prejudice than the anti-SSM person would be somehow absolved of the crimes that they didn’t commit. This mindset is the very definition of prejudice. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/602 "2009-11-10T23:12:25Z")
> [@Milossarian](#): > > Says who? > > The overarching argument I hear for same-sex marriage is why should gay consenting adults be denied the same rights as straight adult couples have to marry? Making the key points that they are “adults” and “consenting.” > > So why should multiple consenting adults who wish to marry be denied the same rights that a couple has? > > “Because a marriage is between a couple. Two people?” Nobody makes this argument. It’s retarded and obviously untrue. Classic strawman. > [@Milossarian](#): > > The solution I think is to make ALL marriages, gay or straight, domestic partnership under the law and in the eyes of government. The law would be that any two consenting adults can enter into or break from such a partnership, but for purposes of avoiding a legal quagmire, you could only be in one such government contracted bond at any time, and only with a total of two adults. > > You’d need to include a provision that married couples can only be in such a domestic partnership with their spouse. In other words, I can’t be married to Jane and in a government-recognized partnership with Sally (or Sal). > > Under this plan, anyone who wants to marry in the eyes of their church and god can do so according to their beliefs, including gay couples if they have some church willing to marry them. But governments will no longer have involvement in **marriages** ; only legal domestic partnerships that can be entered into by any two consenting adults. > > And sexuality wouldn’t enter into it. If two old, heterosexual friends see a legal or financial or other benefit to entering into a domestic partnership, they could. Absolutely correct. And they should call this contract “marriage”, because that is what the word “marriage” means. > [@raindog](#): > > So we’re clear, what is it I believe? > > What assertion is that? That it’s not reasonable to assume that people who oppose SSM lack non-bigoted rational reasons for doing so. ---
**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 10, 2009, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/603 "2009-11-10T23:14:11Z")
> [@Milossarian](#): > > Says who? > > The overarching argument I hear for same-sex marriage is why should gay consenting adults be denied the same rights as straight adult couples have to marry? Making the key points that they are “adults” and “consenting.” That’s a big part of the argument in favor of gay marriage, but it’s hardly the only part of the argument in favor of gay marriage. Another large part of it is that gay relationships tend to map pretty well to straight relationships. There are essentially no aspects to straight relationships that can’t be found in gay relationships, and vice versa. This is obviously not going to be the case in marriages consisting of more than two people. The other aspect to this is that “consenting adults” does not necessarily trump all other concerns. I mean, if it could be shown that gay marriage had a direct, causative link to spontaneous human combustion, I think that would be a powerful argument against SSM, regardless of the consenting adults angle. However, we can look at the hundreds of long-term, stable gay relationships, and see that these have not caused any sort of social collapse or catastrophe. It’s reasonable to assume that adding a legal imprimatur to these relationships is not going to be the tipping point into mass hysteria and rampant mob violence. We do not have nearly as good a sample of polygamous relationships to draw from, and a large portion of those we do have are distinctly negative. Of course, those examples are largely confounded by extremist religious views that aren’t going to be a factor for wide-scale implementation. Certainly, whatever form of polygamy that might be adopted in the US will bare precious little resemblance to how it’s practiced in Saudi Arabia, for example. But that leads us to the biggest difference between the two: gay marriage requires virtually no new law. The existing statues regarding marriage can be ported over wholesale to the newly recognized relationships, with no translation necessary beyond changing “man and wife” to something more gender neutral. But with polygamy… well, what do we even mean by polygamy in this context? If I marry you, and then I marry **Polycarp** , does that mean that you and **Polycarp** are married? What if you don’t want me to marry **Polycarp**? Do you have the right to veto additional spouses? What about division of property? Parental rights? Government benefits? All of these are areas of law that would need to be completely revamped to accomodate polygamous marriage. That’s not to say that it isn’t worth revamping all of that, just that the challenges in front of poly marriage are an order of magnitude more complicated than those in front of gay marriage. > [@](#): > > The solution I think is to make ALL marriages, gay or straight, domestic partnership under the law and in the eyes of government. The law would be that any two consenting adults can enter into or break from such a partnership, but for purposes of avoiding a legal quagmire, you could only be in one such government contracted bond at any time, and only with a total of two adults. Well, I’m a bit confused now, because I don’t see how this solution addresses the issue of polygamy at all. If, as you say, the arguments in favor of gay marriage are as compelling when applied to polygamous marriages, why then do you so cavalierly dismiss the concept of polygamous civil unions? > [@](#): > > You’d need to include a provision that married couples can only be in such a domestic partnership with their spouse. In other words, I can’t be married to Jane and in a government-recognized partnership with Sally (or Sal). Why would we need this provision? Would it even be legal? If my church says I can be married to both Sally and Jane, how is it the government’s business if I do so, particularly if the government doesn’t recognize the concept of marriage in the first place? > [@](#): > > Under this plan, anyone who wants to marry in the eyes of their church and god can do so according to their beliefs, including gay couples if they have some church willing to marry them. Anyone except atheists, of course. > [@](#): > > And sexuality wouldn’t enter into it. If two old, heterosexual friends see a legal or financial or other benefit to entering into a domestic partnership, they could. Why couldn’t they use marriage to do exactly the same thing? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/604 "2009-11-10T23:18:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Second: there are reasoned, rational arguments against SSM. They don’t fail due to lack of existence; they fail because, on balance, they are not compelling. _So what are they_? :dubious: Why are you keeping something so basic a secret? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/605 "2009-11-10T23:19:19Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > And, I will reiterate, it is not the job of the anti-SSM person to correct your biases and fix your prejudice. > > It’s _especially_ not my job as I an not anti-SSM. > > In any event you start with the guilty-until-proven-innocent paradigm, and if only _ **raindog** _, or _ **someone else** _ would just relieve _ **you** _ of _ **your** _ prejudice than the anti-SSM person would be somehow absolved of the crimes that they didn’t commit. This mindset is the very definition of prejudice. Prejudice means Pre Judice. Judging in the advance of information. But there is evidence that it’s **impossible** to be anti-SSM for rational non-bigoted reasons: no such reasons exist. This could be argued against - you could argue that they’re stupid, or thoughtless, or ignorant, or decieved; in those cases they would be not bigoted, but mistaken; that is, beleiving based on such reasons is irrational, but not bigotry. However, the longer this discussion goes on, the less likely that that is the case for any given individual becomes. After a certain point you have heard the arguments, and must be deliberately ignoring them to be able to believe. ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/606 "2009-11-10T23:19:36Z")
> [@Milossarian](#): > > So why should multiple consenting adults who wish to marry be denied the same rights that a couple has? A significant segment of the population is being denied equal rights solely due to their sexual orientation. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation, and therefore irrelevant. If you believe one cannot support SSM while opposing polygamy, start another thread and make your case there. If you believe polygamists are being denied equal rights, or otherwise being marginalized the way homosexuals are, start another thread and make your case there. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/607 "2009-11-10T23:26:52Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > What exactly were you expecting? I got exactly what I was expecting. At this point, you offering up one of the well-reasoned anti-SSM arguments you claim exist would be the surprise. And at this point, you’ve gone from refusing to answer because you cannot, to refusing to answer out of spite. Either way, contributing nothing. Does anyone other than raindog know of a valid anti-SSM argument? ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/608 "2009-11-10T23:27:00Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > I think you understand my position clearly. If only you understood mine as well. > [@](#): > > and care little (actually, not at all) whether people think I’m dodging them. It is quite clear that you don’t care. The more interesting question is why you don’t care. As I’ve pointed out, stating a reasonable reason exists, and then not telling us what it is makes your argument far less credible, and makes people more likely to think such a reason just doesn’t exist. Do you intend to cause those results? > [@](#): > > But you see, here’s where you seem reject it. It is not the job of the anti-SSM person to disabuse people of their irrational prejudice any more than it is for the gay man to prove he isn’t trying to indoctrinate your kid. Your bias is your own, and, it is your problem. Many SSM opponents, and you (who I am careful to list separately), have made a claim–that being that there is a reasoned objection to same-sex marriage. The entirely reasonable response to that claim is to ask “what is that objection?” You may not feel it’s your job to educate others, or to back up an assertion you make–but failing to do so just makes you look bad. I’ll ask this at the end as well–but what, then, do you think I should conclude based on (1) your strong assertion that such a reason exists, and (2) your total refusal to tell us what it is? > [@](#): > > To _start_ each discussion with the implied (if not stated) “fact” that opposition to SSM _must_ be a product of fear or hate that an anti-SSM must “overcome” is either ignorant or disingenuous. Yes, that would be bad. You would have a great point there—except for the little problem that that just isn’t the position I have argued. On the other hand, if those opponents of SSM, who claim to have a justification that isn’t driven by fear and hate, refuse to tell us what it is, many reasonable people might question why they aren’t disclosing their reason. One reason not to do so would be if no reason existed. > [@](#): > > And…neither is willing to entertain the other. I posted to Miller, because he offered up a tired, banal SDMB mantra: that all SSM opponents are driven by fear and hatred. That’s a worthy discussion perhaps----whether there is a compelling reason to engage in rank prejudice and what amounts to name calling in the issue of SSM. IF you find such discussion interesting, I’m glad. You would then obviously understand that such a debate necessarily turns on what drives SSM opponents. For if SSM opponents are in fact driven by fear and hatred, it would be appropriate to call them out on it. The “compelling reason” to make such an assertion would be because it was true. Now I don’t know if it is true or not. The way to find out is to find out why SSM opponents oppose same-sex marriage. So please, help us out on that one. Again, I am not asking you to do so randomly–I am asking you to do so because you, yourself have stated that you know of such a reason. > [@](#): > > So, to beat this dead horse, I haven’t posted any opposition to SSM, but rather the caricaturing that goes on. If you truly believe that opposition to SSM is universally due to fear and hatred I’d have to say you’re severely misguided. All I can say is that if you think people who hold such a belief are misguided, it would be easy to fix. Just tell them a reason for opposing SSM is not due to fear and hatred. According to you, it should be easy–since you’ve said often enough that you’ve seen such reasons, and have argued repeatedly that opposition to SSM is not due to fear and hatred. I have tried very carefully not to say what I believe about the opponents to same-sex marriage in my post, and I have continued to try not to do so in this post. I will, instead, ask you what you think I ought to conclude, based on your arguments. So, I ask the quite obvious question–what do you think I should conclude based on the fact that you have (1) asserted that it would be very easy to present a reasoned argument against SSM, and (2) then have very carefully refused so to do. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/609 "2009-11-10T23:28:29Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Prejudice means Pre Judice. Judging in the advance of information. > > But there is evidence that it’s **impossible** to be anti-SSM for rational non-bigoted reasons: no such reasons exist. > > This could be argued against - you could argue that they’re stupid, or thoughtless, or ignorant, or decieved; in those cases they would be not bigoted, but mistaken; that is, beleiving based on such reasons is irrational, but not bigotry. However, the longer this discussion goes on, the less likely that that is the case for any given individual becomes. After a certain point you have heard the arguments, and must be deliberately ignoring them to be able to believe. I was/am half inclined to ask you to provide the “evidence that it’s **impossible** to be anti-SSM for rational non-bigoted reasons…” but I know that the only thing you could possibly offer was your own take on “reality”; your own fears and biases projected onto a whole class of people. But it occurred that you would be oblivious to the fact that in effort to refute the notion that your paradigm is inherently prejudiced, you’d be offering up your own prejudice. This kind of mindset boggles the mind. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/610 "2009-11-10T23:30:58Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I’m not certain what you mean by “one half” and “the other half” in this context. The only thing that makes any sense is that you’re implying that one half of the definition of marriage is that it’s between opposite genders, and the other half is that it’s between only two people, not multiple. In fact, I think that the most important part of the definition of “marriage” (bearing in mind of course that definitions of words are not hard and fast things cast in stone somewhere) is neither of the above, but in fact has to do with the closeness and importance of the bond that is formed. I’ve discussed this at length with **magellan01** , most recently in post 340 in this thread, but it’s an important issue, so I’ll happily discuss it again. > > Suppose you meet two people, and realize they’re involved with each other, and at some point you ask one of them “hey, are you two married”?. What information is it that you’re trying to glean? Is it what gender they are? (I mean, you might have met them on the SDMB, know only their screen names, and read a post in which someone else mentioned that X and Y are dating, so that you are aware they are in a romantic relationship of some sort without ever learning either’s gender.) Or is what you’d be asking about when asking if they’re married how committed and serious they are? > > On a similar note, it’s frequently brought up in conversations like this that the word “marriage” is frequently used when making an analogy, as in “this company has successfully married its internet technology with its marketing savvy” or what have you. In that case, clearly “married” means something about the closeness and tight-intermingledness of the relationship, and has nothing to do with gender at all. Can you think of situations in which “marriage” is used in a similar not-actually-literally-referring-to-two-people-being-married sense but where the important part of the definition of “marriage” is not the closeness of the bond but rather the fact that it involves both a male and a female? > I claim that all of this shows us that the real essence, the real importance, the real MEANING of the word “marriage”, the thing that causes us to pick that word as opposed to other words, is the closeness of the bond, the commitment, the lifelong nature of the compact that the people have entered into. Sure it’s traditionally been between a man and a woman recently in Western culture, but that’s not the MEANING of the word. If gay marriage passes, and 5 years from now people are used to it, and you introduce someone as your wife (assuming you’re male), the existence of gay marriage won’t cause people to be confused as to what you mean. The message that “this is the woman I love, the woman I’ve made a lifelong commitment to, the woman with whom I’m part of a family unit” will still be clear, and unchanged from what it is today. > > I realize that at this point I’ve only responded to a part of your post, but I feel like there’s already enough meat in what I’ve said that I’ll stop here, since I think this is a really key important issue, and I’m interested in your response. If there are other parts of your post you’d like me to respond to, I will happily do so as well. I don’t quite understand what you are getting at here. There are plenty of people in a lifelong committed relationship that are not married. We don’t just ASSUME they are married due to their relationship. Conversely, there are plenty of married people that are not in committed relationships but, instead, are married for convenience, have open marriages, stay together for the kids, etc. Also, as I’ve stated earlier, if two men or two women tell you they are married then you know that this cannot be the case. You conclude that, for all intents and purposes, they have decided to be in a committed relationship but are not legally married. I don’t find it useful to think of the definition of marriage, as others here have, as being what we can imagine…i.e. it is not a change of definition unless the word no longer makes sense in a particular context. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/611 "2009-11-10T23:32:29Z")
> [@Algorithm](#): > > A significant segment of the population is being denied equal rights solely due to their sexual orientation. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation, and therefore irrelevant. If you believe one cannot support SSM while opposing polygamy, start another thread and make your case there. If you believe polygamists are being denied equal rights, or otherwise being marginalized the way homosexuals are, start another thread and make your case there. I posted an answer to him that I think was promptly missed as the last post of the page and a new page forming almost immediately afterwards. Anyway, if anyone is interested here is the linky (more there than what I quote below): > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > That is not the argument. > > On the face of it I agree that consenting adults should be free to enter into any arrangement they see fit. If a woman/man, over her/his own free will and fully knowing the situation, chooses to become Wife/Husband #4 that should be her/his business. ---
**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 10, 2009, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/612 "2009-11-10T23:36:01Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > I was/am half inclined to ask you to provide the “evidence that it’s **impossible** to be anti-SSM for rational non-bigoted reasons…” but I know that the only thing you could possibly offer was your own take on “reality”; your own fears and biases projected onto a whole class of people. Nonsense; we can, for example, use you as evidence. Your constant insistence that a non-homophobic argument exists while refusing to produce one makes you look both foolish and dishonest. Why would you do that, if such an argument existed? Why do NONE of the opponents of SSM come out with such an argument, unless it doesn’t exist? > [@yorick73](#): > > Also, as I’ve stated earlier, if two men or two women tell you they are married then you know that this cannot be the case. I know no such thing; they could be from a place that legally allows it. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/613 "2009-11-10T23:39:50Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Also, as I’ve stated earlier, if two men or two women tell you they are married then you know that this cannot be the case. You conclude that, for all intents and purposes, they have decided to be in a committed relationship but are not legally married. Unless, of course, they’ve recently spent time in Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain or several other European countries. Especially if you happen to meet them in one of those places. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/614 "2009-11-10T23:40:53Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Also, as I’ve stated earlier, if two men or two women tell you they are married then you know that this cannot be the case. You conclude that, for all intents and purposes, they have decided to be in a committed relationship but are not legally married. I hate to break it to you, but this statement just isn’t true. To argue that you “know that this cannot be the case” is simply inconsistent with reality. To tell two women walking out of city hall in boston, and announcing that they just got married, that “they have decided to be in a committed relationship but are not legally married” is just plain factually wrong. Or do you have some counter-argument? Why, do you think, is that nice couple in boston not married? ETA: Just like others have pointed out. People are quick here. ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/615 "2009-11-10T23:42:20Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I posted an answer to him that I think was promptly missed as the last post of the page and a new page forming almost immediately afterwards. Anyway, if anyone is interested here is the linky (more there than what I quote below): I did notice it - but still, polygamy is nothing more than a distraction brought up by SSM opponents to avoid admitting they have no cogent argument to support continued denial equal marriage rights based on sexual orientation. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/616 "2009-11-10T23:42:34Z")
> [@Milossarian](#): > > Says who? > > The overarching argument I hear for same-sex marriage is why should gay consenting adults be denied the same rights as straight adult couples have to marry? Making the key points that they are “adults” and “consenting.” > > So why should multiple consenting adults who wish to marry be denied the same rights that a couple has? > > “Because a marriage is between a couple. Two people?” > > Opponents of gay marriage can make a similar declarative statement: > > “Because a marriage is between a man and a woman.” > > The problem here is the weird confluence of religion, tradition and government (which is supposed to provide equal rights and protections to all). > > The solution I think is to make ALL marriages, gay or straight, domestic partnership under the law and in the eyes of government. The law would be that any two consenting adults can enter into or break from such a partnership, but for purposes of avoiding a legal quagmire, you could only be in one such government contracted bond at any time, and only with a total of two adults. > > You’d need to include a provision that married couples can only be in such a domestic partnership with their spouse. In other words, I can’t be married to Jane and in a government-recognized partnership with Sally (or Sal). > > Under this plan, anyone who wants to marry in the eyes of their church and god can do so according to their beliefs, including gay couples if they have some church willing to marry them. But governments will no longer have involvement in **marriages** ; only legal domestic partnerships that can be entered into by any two consenting adults. > > And sexuality wouldn’t enter into it. If two old, heterosexual friends see a legal or financial or other benefit to entering into a domestic partnership, they could. There is some logic to this, but only about as much as the idea that gay people cannot now be permitted to marry each other because historically they have not been permitted to marry each other. This is because there has historically existed a simple English language term, known to hte law, for that relationship in which two people commit to permanently and exclusively live together as spouses, and that term begins with a m- and rhymes with horse-and-carriage. I am a Christian in a long-lived heterosexual marriage. I value the spiritual and social value of my marriage, and would not willingly give it up to please your terminological whims. Rather, I believe that justice and mercy alike combine to warrant extending the benefits of that relationship to others unjustly prohibited by law from contracting such marriages. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/617 "2009-11-10T23:44:48Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And that’s a violation of civil rights that should be overridden. Just like segregation was. No it is not a violation of civil rights. As I’ve stated the law discriminates against and act and not certain people. What are laws if not discrimination based on action. Laws agains interracial marriage were a ban on actions permitted to others based on skin color. Here the act is not allowed by anyone. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, we know that they are married and we know what it means if the law allows them to be married. IF we allow them to be married. IF we change the established definition of marriage…this is the only way the term makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/618 "2009-11-10T23:45:22Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > I was/am half inclined to ask you to provide the “evidence that it’s **impossible** to be anti-SSM for rational non-bigoted reasons…” but I know that the only thing you could possibly offer was your own take on “reality”; your own fears and biases projected onto a whole class of people. Don’t project your fears and biases on me - I HAVE evidence that it’s impossible to be anti-SSM for rational non-bigoted reasons - it’s the same reason it’s impossible to ride to work on a unicorn. It’s because the things in question _don’t exist_. How do I know they don’t exist? Because if one existed, somebody would have mentioned what it was by now. Not all of the opposition are coy fools; some are seriously trying to oppose SSM, which requires that they _state_ their arguments, if they have them. All they’ve shown us is crap. Which means that if they have arguments they haven’t shown us, it’s for a reason. And I suggest that reason is because they know their arguments won’t be well recieved, because they know their arguments will be perceived as bigoted or stupid. So lets reiterate: these secret arguments that you’re all coy about? They’re secret because the people who _hold them_ know they’re bigoted or stupid. And who am I to dispute their judgement in this matter? > [@raindog](#): > > But it occurred that you would be oblivious to the fact that in effort to refute the notion that your paradigm is inherently prejudiced, you’d be offering up your own prejudice. > > This kind of mindset boggles the mind. Maybe it boggles you because it’s grammatically scrambled gibbering nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/619 "2009-11-10T23:48:27Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I got exactly what I was expecting. At this point, you offering up one of the well-reasoned anti-SSM arguments you claim exist would be the surprise. > > And at this point, you’ve gone from refusing to answer because you cannot, to refusing to answer out of spite. Either way, contributing nothing. > > Does anyone other than raindog know of a valid anti-SSM argument? Perhaps you need to get out more, you know…in the virtual way. If you’re looking for thoughtful, reasoned arguments in opposition to SSM you won’t find them here. But maybe you and **whorfin** are simply trying to draw people into the SSM debate. I mean, unless you’re from Planet Zero you’ve had to have heard them, right? Are you that ill informed? I think not. Still, I was half tempted to simply take the position most advocated by anti-SSM people—on moral grounds. Because my point------that you and “people like you” 😃 are conveniently ignoring as well-------is position neutral. I can make my point from either side of the position. Because at the end of the day even with a less than compelling argument you can’t connect the dots to _fear_ and _hatred_ without a healthy dose of bias and prejudice. And I just don’t think “you people” (hehe) get it. The anti-SSM might be wrong. But when you take that a step further and state that you know what they’re thinking; and that they’re full of fear and hatred you’re committing the exact same crimes that some anti-SSM people do. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/620 "2009-11-10T23:49:36Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Don’t project your fears and biases on me - I HAVE evidence that it’s impossible to be anti-SSM for rational non-bigoted reasons - it’s the same reason it’s impossible to ride to work on a unicorn. It’s because the things in question _don’t exist_. > > How do I know they don’t exist? Because if one existed, somebody would have mentioned what it was by now. Not all of the opposition are coy fools; some are seriously trying to oppose SSM, which requires that they _state_ their arguments, if they have them. All they’ve shown us is crap. Which means that if they have arguments they haven’t shown us, it’s for a reason. And I suggest that reason is because they know their arguments won’t be well recieved, because they know their arguments will be perceived as bigoted or stupid. > > So lets reiterate: these secret arguments that you’re all coy about? They’re secret because the people who _hold them_ know they’re bigoted or stupid. And who am I to dispute their judgement in this matter? > > Maybe it boggles you because it’s grammatically scrambled gibbering nonsense. Share with me the evidence, k? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261.md?page=32)