# 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:** 32
**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, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/621 "2009-11-10T23:50:21Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > And, I will reiterate, it is not the job of the anti-SSM person to correct your biases and fix your prejudice. I disagree. If you’re going to tell someone that they’re exhibiting bias and prejudice, I think you have a responsibility to back up that accusation with some sort of evidence. Otherwise, you’re simply talking shit, which is the sort of behavior that does not have a place in GD. If you want to just call me names, we have the Pit for that. If you want to argue that the behavior I’m exhibiting is prejudiced, you need to present an actual argument. Which, to date, you have not done in this thread. > [@](#): > > 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. In my experience with this issue, which is not insubstantial, I have never come across an argument against SSM that could not, in the final analysis, be boiled down to some sort of antipathy against homosexuals. Now, I admit, it’s entirely possible that I only came to that conclusion because I’m blinded by my own biases and am unable to judge opposing views fairly and accurately because of it. It’s also possible that non-bigoted arguments against SSM exist, but I’ve simply not come across them. Lastly, there’s the possibility that I’m entirely correct, and that there are no non-bigoted arguments against SSM. Now, the part that’s wonderfully ironic is that you’ve assumed that the first option must be true, and you’re condemning me entirely on that basis, without making even the simplest effort to test my views by, for example, offering up an example that you feel is a non-bigoted reason for opposing SSM, and seeing how I react to it. That is to say, you have _pre-judged_ me and my position on SSM opposition without making any attempt to explore it, or allow me to defend myself. Making you guilty of precisely the crime of which you accuse me. ---
**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, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/622 "2009-11-10T23:52:16Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > 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. Yeah, until the populace in those states vote to ban gay marriage. Then they are once again not married. Regardless, DOMA specifically bars recognition of these marriages. ---
**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, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/623 "2009-11-10T23:55:45Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > 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. I give you two specific people: Steve, and Eve. Both want to marry Adam. Upon what basis is one or the other of them denied the right to do so? > [@yorick73](#): > > IF we allow them to be married. IF we change the established definition of marriage…this is the only way the term makes sense. This is untrue and you know it. If it was not untrue, you would be **literally unable** to discuss same sex marriage one way or the other, beause you would go all cross-eyed with confusion each time you heard the phrase. Of course, untrue things are the foundation of your arguments, so your use of them here is no surprise. But be aware that you will never, ever convince anyone of anything with this foolishness, except perhaps very small indoctrinatable children. ---
**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, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/624 "2009-11-10T23:55:55Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Yeah, until the populace in those states vote to ban gay marriage. Then they are once again not married. Regardless, DOMA specifically bars recognition of these marriages. That argument is exactly analogous to arguing that murder is only illegal until someone changes the law that bans it. Or for that matter, heterosexual marriage. Yes, in theory, the law could be changed. But until then, you’re just plain wrong to say that two women cannot be legally married to each other in boston. ---
**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, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/625 "2009-11-10T23:57:03Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Share with me the evidence, k? Read the very post you responded too, “K”? Beware, you have to have the ability to read to do this. ---
**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, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/626 "2009-11-10T23:59:10Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Yeah, until the populace in those states vote to ban gay marriage. Then they are once again not married. Not necessarily. The passage of Prop. 8 in California prevented the performance of additional gay marriages. It did not reverse any marriages already performed. A gay couple married in California prior to Prop. 8 remains married to this day. > [@](#): > > Regardless, DOMA specifically bars recognition of these marriages. No, it simply \*allows \*one state to not recognize a marriage performed in another state. It does not _prevent_ a state from doing so. If Vermont wants to recognize gay marriages performed in Massachusetts, they are free to do so, DOMA or no DOMA. And, of course, it certainly does not prevent a state from recognizing marriages it has performed itself. ---
**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, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/627 "2009-11-10T23:59:26Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Yeah, until the populace in those states vote to ban gay marriage. Then they are once again not married. Regardless, DOMA specifically bars recognition of these marriages. DOMA bars FEDERAL recognition of these marriages. It also ALLOWS individual states to refuse to recognize these marriages. It does not force all states to not recognize these marriages. It is also thisclose to being repealed. Enjoy it while you can. You have no idea what you’re talking about, which comes as no real surprise. ---
**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 11, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/628 "2009-11-11T00:28:47Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > 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. Nonsense. In both cases, people are forbidden to marry the person they want solely because…well, you know the reason even if I can’t use the word. They are exactly the same. > [@yorick73](#): > > IF we allow them to be married. IF we change the established definition of marriage…this is the only way the term makes sense. Nonsense again, as pointed out. Everyone already knows what it means for two people of the same sex to be married. No definition changing is needed. > [@raindog](#): > > 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? No, he/she hasn’t because they don’t exist. We all know it, including you. Otherwise you’d produce one. > [@raindog](#): > > 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. No, you can’t. The pro-SSM side can and has come out with multiple rational, reasoned arguments for their position; the anti- side has not. The symmetry in the two positions that you speak of does not exist. > [@raindog](#): > > 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. No, we aren’t. We have plenty of evidence as to their motivations, and a complete failure on their part to show we are wrong. It’s not prejudice to point out the obvious truth. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Lurker\_Above](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Lurker\_Above](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Lurker_Above)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/629 "2009-11-11T00:30:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > [QUOTE=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. [/QUOTE] Or belong to a religion that performs SS marriages, even if the government does not recognize it as valid. If SSM opponents want to use religion in their arguments I don’t see why I can’t point out that not all religions agree on this point. ---
**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 11, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/630 "2009-11-11T00:39:29Z")
> [@The\_Lurker\_Above](#): > > Or belong to a religion that performs SS marriages, even if the government does not recognize it as valid. If SSM opponents want to use religion in their arguments I don’t see why I can’t point out that not all religions agree on this point. True - and similarly, there have been polygamous marriages in the united states, thanks to mormons and others. The fact that the state reacts quite poorly to them does not change the fact that they did and do exist, and because they are not instituted by the state it cannot dissolve them upon discovering them the way that it can marriages performed in its own name. Really the definitional arguments against SSM marriage are about as stupid as they come. I find it impossible that anyone could ever find them convincing - the only way they could be believed is if the person was already completely convinced of the conclusion and was merely looking for arguments to superficially prop it up, without caring much whether the arguments could stand on their own. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/631 "2009-11-11T02:30:07Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > 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. You make a good argument about the complications caused by polygamy-based marriage. > [@](#): > > _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?_ I only addressed polygamy because somebody said it was “completely irrelevant” in any discussion of same sex marriage. Which is nonsense. A certain group wants to change centuries’ worth of tradition on what marriage means, fundamentally on the basis that consenting adults who happen to be gay should have the same rights to marry as a consenting man and a woman. Why would polygamists – who are also consenting adults – wanting to do the same thing be completely irrelevant? You’ve addressed some of the differences between the two scenarios and I acknowledge your points. My “make all marriages civil unions in the eyes of government” proposal is to address the gay marriage question; I freely admit the polygamy question is a mess. There seems to be a certain hang-up on the gay marriage advocate side on the term “marriage.” Many want no part of having all of the same partnership rights if it doesn’t come with this word. They equate it with separate-but-equal laws and rules pertaining to blacks in much of U.S. history. Well, the problems with the “it must be called marriage too” issue aren’t likely to go away. Society doesn’t typically think about marriage as primarily a government contract. Enough of society has religion- and tradition-based opposition to the idea of gays marrying that it will always be problematic where society gets to make the rules. Thus you get 30-plus state referenda in a row where gay marriage has been voted down, even in seemingly progressive states like California and Maine. The problem here as I see it is government’s involvement in a quasi-religious (or out-and-out religious) ceremony and bond. But government has a role in protecting the partnership rights of those who enter into these types of contracts with one another. Hence the idea of taking government out of the marriage business and having it only involved in legal partnerships of any adult pairs. > [@](#): > > _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?_ The government and the law make determinations on who has rights and who doesn’t all the time. Corporate law says only shareholders can vote for directors and amend articles of incorporation. If you’re not a shareholder and sue for your “equal rights,” you’ll lose. I have a rental agreement at my condo. You don’t. Therefore I get to live there, and if you start trying to, I can have you legally removed. I have a right that you don’t through my contract with the condo owner. The question is whether marriage is a civil, natural right. My proposal takes care of it on both the government end and the “marriage as something more than just a contractual bond” end. Because the government would no longer be in the marriage business, you and your church are free to consider your gay or polygamist marriage as real and sacred as you’d like. The government, for its purposes, would be free to only recognize your first partner that you hadn’t divorced . Or maybe it would grant subsquent partners equal or subservient rights under contract law. Taking the religous mysticism out of a government function may even take the moral sting out of multiple-partner partnerships. (Though my guess would be it would take a generation or two under a new system to flush away the residual moral viewpoints related to government and marriages.) > [@](#): > > _Anyone except athiests, of course._ Athiests would of course be free to skip the religious or any other kind of ceremony altogether, and simply file their paperwork with the goverment to enter into their partnership. (Re: Two old heterosexual friends entering into a partnership for financial or other concerns.) > [@](#): > > _Why couldn’t they use marriage to do exactly the same thing?_ I suppose a man and woman could, and probably do all of the time. The “government not doing marriage,” however, removes all pretense of having to pretend there has to be a traditional heterosexual couple dynamic to these types of partnerships. ---
**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 11, 2009, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/632 "2009-11-11T02:57:55Z")
> [@Milossarian](#): > > Well, the problems with the “it must be called marriage too” issue aren’t likely to go away. Society doesn’t typically think about marriage as primarily a government contract. Enough of society has religion- and tradition-based opposition to the idea of gays marrying that it will always be problematic where society gets to make the rules. Thus you get 30-plus state referenda in a row where gay marriage has been voted down, even in seemingly progressive states like California and Maine. Yeah, American society as a whole isn’t there yet. But while we may have a big ol’ string of defeats at the ballot box, the margin keeps tightening up. California’s amendment passed by a hairsbreadth. Maine wasn’t much wider. The numbers for gay marriage aren’t there yet, but they’re getting there. It’s going to happen eventually, so why compromise? > [@](#): > > Athiests would of course be free to skip the religious or any other kind of ceremony altogether, and simply file their paperwork with the goverment to enter into their partnership. But they couldn’t - and this is the important part - get married. > [@](#): > > The “government not doing marriage,” however, removes all pretense of having to pretend there has to be a traditional heterosexual couple dynamic to these types of partnerships. Which is pretty much why I oppose your idea. I do think marriage is special, and I don’t want it to be considered just another kind of private contract. And my only shot at ever having access to that is through the state. Your proposal is the worst sort of compromise: the kind that says, “If I can’t have it, then I’m going to ruin it for everyone.” And, lastly, as a practical strategy, I can’t think of anything more disastrous then this for the advancement of gay rights. The mainstay of the anti-SSM movement is the idea that gay marriage will destroy or devalue straight marriage. Your plan would make that accusation literally true. It would be the club the far right uses to beat gay rights to death. ---
**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 11, 2009, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/633 "2009-11-11T03:42:19Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > If you’re looking for thoughtful, reasoned arguments in opposition to SSM you won’t find them here. Clearly, but it amuses me to ask, knowing that all I’ll get in return is diversion and sputtering and evasion. And since my own country already has SSM, my interest in it eventually becoming established across the U.S. is academic. > [@](#): > > 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. You never “made your point” from the anti-SSM side. Of course if the only point you _can_ make is that “SSM is immoral”, then it’s not really a solid point at all, is it. > [@](#): > > 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. To be blunt, I don’t give a fuck how much blind hatred or irrationality or “you do it too!” you want to attribute to the pro-SSM side, or what you think the pro-SSM side thinks of the anti-SSM side. I asked, and others asked, if you had a single rational argument in support of the anti-SSM side, which should (if such an argument exists, as you have claimed) be presentable despite the motivation of the pro-SSM side. As it is, you played coy for too long and I no longer care what arguments you can present, as you have lost all credibility. If you do manage to cobble something together and one or more pro-SSM posters respond with “that’s worth considering”, maybe I’ll take a look. In the meantime, I repeat: **Does anyone other than raindog have a valid anti-SSM argument to make?** ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/634 "2009-11-11T04:35:49Z")
I’m not sure if anyone has actually answered to the OP’s satisfaction yet. But my answer is that gays aren’t actually people to most voters, just an amorphous concept. They’re dehumanized. It’s incredibly difficult to be anti-gay if you actually know gay people in real life, on a day to day basis. Just like it’s difficult to, I dunno, hate Indians if you started shacking up with this awesome Indian girl. Probably part of the monkeysphere thingy. ---
**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 11, 2009, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/635 "2009-11-11T05:06:24Z")
**raindog** , step [this way](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11764877#post11764877), please. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/636 "2009-11-11T06:02:39Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Why don’t we start all of our discussions by assuming you’re guilty until proven innocent because some fraction of the people who believe as you believe do so out of less than defensible positions? > > See, that will allow me to characterize all homos as drag queen, SF gay parade prancing, Bette Midler listening, Judy Garland worshiping flaming queers. > > And it’s not simply that they’re TIVO-ing Golden Girls, they’re using things like Tele-Tubbies and Barney to _indoctrinate our children_. > > So, please, (and to make sure you aren’t missing the finer points) answer the charges of your heterophobia before we can proceed. I’m not sure where you’re coming from with this, or what you read into my post. It was simple, completely sincere, and lacking any innuendo. I don’t assume anyone’s guilt and I’m not assuming your position. I have very solid reasons backed by experience in a lot of similar discussions and sincere listening to opponents arguments and reasoning to finally draw the regrettable conclusion that it’s all based on vague irrational unfounded fears and emotion. In short, homophobia. I’m asking you sincerely, if you think there are reasonable rational arguments opposing SSM please give me/us one example {since it was and is your claim} of a reasonable rational argument against SSM. Even if it’s just an opinion you don’t want to defend in this thread at least please spell out one or two you examples. I’m sincerely curious because in all seriousness, I’ve been in lots of these discussions and have never seen one. Not one. you say in a later post. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by \*\*raindog \*\* > I do know, however, that there are reasonable, thoughtful, intelligent people on both sides of this- and I agree. There are friends and family members including my son whom I love and respect in many other areas of their lives and certainly believe they are by far much more of a positive influence on society than a negative, who seem to have a blind spot on this issue which I can only attribute to homophobia given the lack of any rational reasoned arguments. and still later > [@](#): > > But to say that they they must have an “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals” is simply ignorant. Unless…you know better. After months or even years of effort and discussion, without hearing any fact based reasonable rational argument opposing SSM, saying they have that an unreasoning fear or antipathy toward homosexuals is a completely reasonable and well thought out conclusion. Ignorance would be assuming that without giving people a chance to present their rational arguments. We’ve offered that chance dozens of times, and are in fact now offering it to you. So far, not one reasoned rational argument has appeared. To clarify, I dearly love and respect my son as a human being. I know what a great person he is in almost every facet of his life. Nothing, including our disagreement on SSM, will change that. That said, it would be less than honest of me to claim he isn’t homophobic when it comes to this issue. It would be intellectually dishonest to let my love for him blind me to the inevitable conclusion after considering the long sought and complete lack of rational arguments you claim exist. I feel the same way about many otherwise intelligent and decent people who oppose SSM. If they, after much effort, can’t come up with one rational argument against SSM then my only conclusion can be that something more visceral is taking place. It is not demonizing anyone to recognize that. You made a claim you either cannot or will not defend. The logical conclusion for me is the former. I’m sorry it disturbs people to have the truth about their irrational fears pointed out, but not sorry enough to stop doing it. I’ll extend an open invitation to you or anyone who wants to present a rational and reasonable argument opposing SSM. I’d actually prefer to believe that good people have sound reasons for differing opinions and perspectives. Concerning this issue, experience tells me that’s not the case. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/637 "2009-11-11T10:37:27Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > **raindog** , step [this way](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11764877#post11764877), please. Uh, no thanks. Thanks for thinking about me though. I have a long held the position that name calling is the last refuge of the tired mind, and that “The Pit” is the greatest example that the “Fighting Ignorance” mantra is a lie. I have a limited amount of time, and that thread simply splinters this one and offers us (you, actually…) nothing more than the freedom of name calling. It is my first pitting, though, and so I do appreciate the honor, dubious as it may be. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/638 "2009-11-11T11:06:49Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’m not sure where you’re coming from with this, or what you read into my post. It was simple, completely sincere, and lacking any innuendo. > > I don’t assume anyone’s guilt and I’m not assuming your position. I have very solid reasons backed by experience in a lot of similar discussions and sincere listening to opponents arguments and reasoning to finally draw the regrettable conclusion that it’s all based on vague irrational unfounded fears and emotion. In short, homophobia. > > I’m asking you sincerely, if you think there are reasonable rational arguments opposing SSM please give me/us one example {since it was and is your claim} of a reasonable rational argument against SSM. Even if it’s just an opinion you don’t want to defend in this thread at least please spell out one or two you examples. I’m sincerely curious because in all seriousness, I’ve been in lots of these discussions and have never seen one. Not one. > > you say in a later post. > and I agree. There are friends and family members including my son whom I love and respect in many other areas of their lives and certainly believe they are by far much more of a positive influence on society than a negative, who seem to have a blind spot on this issue which I can only attribute to homophobia given the lack of any rational reasoned arguments. > > and still later > > After months or even years of effort and discussion, without hearing any fact based reasonable rational argument opposing SSM, saying they have that an unreasoning fear or antipathy toward homosexuals is a completely reasonable and well thought out conclusion. Ignorance would be assuming that without giving people a chance to present their rational arguments. We’ve offered that chance dozens of times, and are in fact now offering it to you. So far, not one reasoned rational argument has appeared. > > To clarify, I dearly love and respect my son as a human being. I know what a great person he is in almost every facet of his life. Nothing, including our disagreement on SSM, will change that. That said, it would be less than honest of me to claim he isn’t homophobic when it comes to this issue. It would be intellectually dishonest to let my love for him blind me to the inevitable conclusion after considering the long sought and complete lack of rational arguments you claim exist. > I feel the same way about many otherwise intelligent and decent people who oppose SSM. If they, after much effort, can’t come up with one rational argument against SSM then my only conclusion can be that something more visceral is taking place. It is not demonizing anyone to recognize that. > > You made a claim you either cannot or will not defend. The logical conclusion for me is the former. I’m sorry it disturbs people to have the truth about their irrational fears pointed out, but not sorry enough to stop doing it. > > I’ll extend an open invitation to you or anyone who wants to present a rational and reasonable argument opposing SSM. I’d actually prefer to believe that good people have sound reasons for differing opinions and perspectives. Concerning this issue, experience tells me that’s not the case. Thanks for a reasoned post, and I apologize if I was misunderstood. (and as far as that is concerned this post is directed to **Polycarp** as well) It has long been my observation that intolerance, bigotry and abusive behavior is as prevalent here as in any MB, workplace, or corner bar. The vast majority of it goes unprotested and largely unnoticed because they are displaying the _preferred_ form of intolerance and bigotry. Those opposed to SSM may be wrong. They may be misguided. And to be sure, there is homophobia in society; people whose opposition to SSM/homosexuality is borne of fear and hatred. We’ve all seen examples of this type of ignorance. But to take the position that _ **any** _ opposition to SSM _ **must** _ be due to fear and hatred ---------when none is demonstrated----------is a disservice and dishonor to those who have come to their position thoughtfully. And unless your son has shared a homophobic basis for his opposition----a fear and hatred of homosexuals-----than I think you’re doing him a dishonor as well. He may have a different set of values than you on this subject. Fear and hatred may be just two reasons why someone is opposed to SSM. If you truly believe there can be no others, that I respectfully say it is you that has the blind spot. ---
**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 11, 2009, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/639 "2009-11-11T11:57:03Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Fear and hatred may be just two reasons why someone is opposed to SSM. If you truly believe there can be no others, that I respectfully say it is you that has the blind spot. And I’m saying that those ARE the only reasons. I’m saying that there ARE no good reasons to oppose SSM. And your constant refusal to produce such a reason simply underlines the truth of my position. You, whether you are willing to admit it or not, clearly know that no such reason exists, so you have painted yourself into this ridiculous corner where you repeatedly insist that you know such a reason exists, but then refuse to produce it. Whether you like to admit it or not, some positions are simply baseless and wrong. This is one such. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/640 "2009-11-11T14:16:54Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > … 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. Thank God the heterosexuals are keeping the institution of marriage sacrosanct, huh? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261.md?page=33)