# 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:** 35
**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, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/681 "2009-11-11T20:33:26Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > In the same sense that I know that the angles of a triangle add to 180 degrees (in Euclidean space)? No. > > However, if that’s the standard, then he could’ve posted “I hate those fags” and I wouldn’t know if he did that out of fear and hatred either. (After all, he could’ve been deliberately trolling. Or have left the keyboard unattended a la Hal “I love ewe” Briston.) Well, I would agree with that. I’m of the philosophical persuasion that words have no inherent meaning. None. And you’ve given us a good example of that. To be sure, people may troll. But in my estimation the more creative license you use in determining (speculating is actually the word…) someone else’s intent, or feelings (_their_ meaning) the more likely you are to be engaging in rank prejudice. ---
**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, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/682 "2009-11-11T20:39:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, he is going to vote whichever way the majority votes. He is completely agnostic on the issue, and only resists attempts by the minority to impose its will on the majority. The moment the majority favors it, he will, too. Well, if I ever meet someone who actually does this, I’ll amend my earlier statement to “homophobes and complete morons.” Seriously, how does this guy’s position even make sense? The whole point of an election is to see what the majority of the population wants the country to do. He’s basically sabotaging the very mechanism by which he seeks to determine what should be done. By voting with the perceived majority, he’s making it impossible to determine what the actual majority really wants. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/683 "2009-11-11T20:41:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, but now you’re moving to an argument about how well this rule accomplishes this goal. Without checking, I’m willing to wager that the percentage of opposite-sex unions that produce children outweighs the percentage of same-sex unions that do. So the government can say, in effect, this is our goal, and we’ve chosen an imperfect but very inexpensive way of furthering it. Sure, we could check for fertility, and deny marriage to those opposite sex couples that for reasons of age or physical malady can’t have children, but that would require expense and an infrastructure. By simply declaring only opposite-sex couples can marry, we reach the general vicinity of the goal, and that’s good enough for us. Well, I appreciate your belief that I am being dispassionate–to my mind, so being is an admirable goal in debate–while I have an opinion, I think it can be supported by a dispassionate examination of the facts-and so strive to do so. I see two issues with your response-first of all, to the expense argument, there are plenty of ways of checking for fertility inexpensively-the simplest of which is to simply require the couple to affirm that they know of nothing that would make them incapable of having children. Similarly, one could very easily put an age limit (say, sixty) on women wishing to marry. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, one issue of importance in this debate (that would not be an issue on rational-basis review, but is to me key to the policy-based argument we are having here)–is that the lack of tailoring includes a challenge to the argument that marriage is in fact designed to be limited to those able to procreate. My argument, in other words, is not just that those making the argument that marriage has a purpose of fostering natural procreation should be arguing in favor of redefining marriage in order to actually serve that goal in any real way. Instead, it also challenges the contention that the purpose of marriage is to foster natural procreation. The institution of marriage is something that now exists. There is, I hope you will agree, debate over its purpose–even if just limited to whether it has a purpose of encouraging natural procreation, or just plain ordinary procreation in its modern, broad sense. The fact that marriage is not structured in a way that encourages that only those capable of natural procreation to get married, is to me evidence that marriage does not have a purpose of furthering natural procreation. (and, as I have pointed out, if the purpose of marriage is instead to support and encourage committed couples, families, or procreation as it’s understood today, then restricting it to opposite-sex couples frustrates, rather than furthers that purpose) ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/684 "2009-11-11T21:22:00Z")
> [@Milossarian](#): > > I see it differently. Right now the hang-up on all sides is people’s religous and traditional views versus people’s rights. The rights aspect comes in because of government’s involvement in marriage. Marriage, as I said earlier, is a quasi-religious, or out-and-out religious, ceremony for a majority of people. That’s the part that’s problematic. What’s government doing involved in religious ceremonies? You seem to be under the impression the majority of religious opposition exists because of they don’t want the word ‘marriage’ to be used. This is false. Every attempt to grant gays any type of right has been opposed vigorously. Your proposing compromising with people that have no interest in doing so. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/685 "2009-11-11T21:54:32Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > You see, I knew you’d get that wrong. > > I am asserting that there are many reasons for opposition to SSM, with homophobia being just one of them; and that painting everyone who disagrees with SSM with the same homophobic brush isn’t just incorrect, but counterproductive to the cause. I didn’t get it wrong. You know that this is _Great Debates_, right? This forum isn’t _Great Say Whatever You Want and Ignore Criticisms and Pretend That You Aren’t Repeatedly and With Great Force Shown to Be Arguing a Fool’s Stance._ You seem to be unwilling or unable to debate this in an intelligent and honest fashion. I suggest you find some other forum where unsubstantiated claims are met with happy giggles and weird-uncle hugs. ---
**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, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/686 "2009-11-11T22:21:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You have “debunked” the procreation purpose? How, exactly did you do that? > > Answer: by pointing out more compelling reasons on the other side of the argument. > > So to be utterly clear: the government wants to encourage, reward, and legitimaize by official sanction those pairings which can result in natural procreation, and not reward pairings that do not have that result. > > THAT is that rational reason. > > Debunk that, please, without bringing up any other concerns at all. Because the moment you do, you are weighing concerns against each other and choosing which is the more compelling. > > Of course, that’s natural and entirely appropriate, since that’s how we make every single decision in life. But since you bizarrely insist that this decision does NOT involve this process, that it simply involves the negation of one argument without recourse to any other argument, I will be fascinated to see how this is accomplished. Here’s the debunking: it’s based on fantasy. The government does not want to encourage, reward, and legitimaize by official sanction those pairings which can result in natural procreation, and not reward pairings that do not have that result. In reality-land, reproduction has not been a real problem for the governement; we’re not _short_ of people. Sure, there are some concerns expressed by some about the fact that popultion growth diminishes with third-worldyness, but these fears are not widely held and have never coalesced into government policy. In fact the only government policy I’ve heard about regulating childbearing is the Chinese policy of restricting it. So, one might ask, where did you get the crazy idea that the government cares about whether you have kids? The answer is of course post-hoc reverse rationalization backwards from the fact that hetero marriages can have kids, and that SSM marriages (normally) can’t. In other words, the reason emerges as a result of fact-free rationalization based in the specific goal of isolating and arguing against SSM marriage. In other words, the argument is based in homophobia. > [@Bricker](#): > > Wait a second. You yourself advanced a reason earlier. I’ll modify it slightly and offer it: > > Hypothetical anti-SSMer says: Our country is one where the majority rules. I disfavor SSM because the polls show that the majority disfavors SSM, and while I personally have no problem with it, it’s wrong to impose upon the majority that which they do not want, so I don’t favor legal same-sex marriage. The slightly modified argument is ridiculous; it’s not a reason to oppose SSM marriage at all. What it is, is a reason to prefer (require?) that the issue be decided by referendum, and to get your butt to the polls and vote on it, _one way or the other_. To think this is an argument for voting any particular _way_ is to completely misunderstand what voting is _for_. To do better, look at the unmodified argument. That argument is, succinctly, “I’m not a homophobe, but _everyone else is_. If we legalise SSM marriage people will go apeshit and retaliate in predictably unpredictable and consistently horrific ways, and because we are a lawless country which is incapable of controlling its masses of monstrous, chaotic, and evil people, we must ban SSM to placate the slavering masses.” The response to this argument is, “In a country where this applied, people would be too afraid to _ask_ for SSM, because the would expect to be killed, by _everyone and anyone_ upon raising the notion.” At _best_ this is an argument for the law to be enacted at the state level, so that backward dens of homophobic man-beasts would not have a laws forced onto them by the right-thinking liberals of another region. But for sufficiently small regions, this argument cannot apply. > [@raindog](#): > > You see, I knew you’d get that wrong. > > I am asserting that there are many reasons for opposition to SSM, with homophobia being just one of them; and that painting everyone who disagrees with SSM with the same homophobic brush isn’t just incorrect, but counterproductive to the cause. Not all reasons to opposed SSM are “Because I’m a homophobe”. But all reasons only exist _because_ the person making the argument is a homophobe. The reasons are all _based_ in homophobia. Except the one which is based on fear of muderous homophobic monsters that you might believe permeate and control society. But in America, you have to be a homophobe to believe (via projection) that the majority of people will react that violently to gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/687 "2009-11-11T22:54:34Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > Well, I appreciate your belief that I am being dispassionate–to my mind, so being is an admirable goal in debate–while I have an opinion, I think it can be supported by a dispassionate examination of the facts-and so strive to do so. Sure. Me, too. The problem is that we’re calmly and dispassionately discussing an issue that plays real havoc with real lives, and there’s an argument to be made that this discussion is itself disrespectful because of that. Someone, not sure who, hinted at this view above when he said that the mere fact that your arguments even tangentially align you with bigots should give you pause. > [@](#): > > I see two issues with your response-first of all, to the expense argument, there are plenty of ways of checking for fertility inexpensively-the simplest of which is to simply require the couple to affirm that they know of nothing that would make them incapable of having children. Similarly, one could very easily put an age limit (say, sixty) on women wishing to marry. There’s long been a presumption in law that every woman is fertile. There’s even a classic hypo in Wills and Estates to illustrate the Rule Against Perpetuities known as the Fertile Octagenarian. To draw that analogy, we could have easily crafted inheritance law so that it presumed a woman over sixty could not give birth; we never did. We could do it now, but it’s clearly not “easier” than not doing it. > [@](#): > > Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, one issue of importance in this debate (that would not be an issue on rational-basis review, but is to me key to the policy-based argument we are having here)–is that the lack of tailoring includes a challenge to the argument that marriage is in fact designed to be limited to those able to procreate. > > My argument, in other words, is not just that those making the argument that marriage has a purpose of fostering natural procreation should be arguing in favor of redefining marriage in order to actually serve that goal in any real way. > > Instead, it also challenges the contention that the purpose of marriage is to foster natural procreation. The institution of marriage is something that now exists. There is, I hope you will agree, debate over its purpose–even if just limited to whether it has a purpose of encouraging natural procreation, or just plain ordinary procreation in its modern, broad sense. > > The fact that marriage is not structured in a way that encourages that only those capable of natural procreation to get married, is to me evidence that marriage does not have a purpose of furthering natural procreation. (and, as I have pointed out, if the purpose of marriage is instead to support and encourage committed couples, families, or procreation as it’s understood today, then restricting it to opposite-sex couples frustrates, rather than furthers that purpose) Even if that’s true with respect to understanding the motives behind the many legislative bodies that have crafted these rules, it remains a possible valid viewpoint for a single person to have. Remember the challenge here is: there is no single rational reason to oppose same-sex marriage. And remember this challenge excludes even an argument which is rational on its own but is overmatched by other reasons. That’s an absurd standard, of course. Of course there’s a reason. I’ve got two in play right now. Neither one survives even the most off-hand scrutiny when weighed against other concerns. But each is, undeniably, a reason to oppose SSM, not rooted in animus against gays. Which kind of brings me back to the first point in this post. A dispassionate rhetor can easily concede that this is so. It doesn’t hurt his cause in the least. But for someone strongly emotionally vested in the issue, it becomes important to deny even the tiniest crumb to your opponent, even those crumbs which the dictates of strict logic must inevitably award to his side. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/688 "2009-11-11T22:58:59Z")
From what I’ve seen, a certain amount of opposition to SSM here in Canada came from simple _social conservatism_ - the notion that marriage as an institution was “always” a certain way, and should not be tinkered with. This motivation mostly melted away once SSM was introduced, to the point that the present (Conservative) government has given up on trying to change it back - there simply lacks enough of a constituency who cares sufficiently, once the change has been made. Why do I say this wasn’t the result of homophobia? Because if it was, one would suspect, the opposition would remain, since homophobes would have exactly the same motive to oppose SSM now that it is in place, as they did before it was in place. I know it will not be a popular argument here, but a certain amount of social conservatism isn’t always a bad thing. Sometimes the breaks should be put on social change, so that mistakes are not made. It isn’t _irrational_ to argue that social change should be made slowly (it may however be _wrong_). Nor is it necessarily evidence that the person seeking slower social change is a bigot (though of course they may be). In my opinion, it was wrong, but not irrationally so, to oppose SSM on the grounds of social conservatism. It was wrong because there was no substance in any of the alleged and vague “harms” to be expected from social change allowing SSM. This has now been proven by the fact that SSM was introduced and no harms (but rather many benefits) resulted. Plus, the argument from equal rights was compelling, and should trump any vague and undefined concerns. ---
**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, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/689 "2009-11-11T22:59:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So to be utterly clear: the government wants to encourage, reward, and legitimaize by official sanction those pairings which can result in natural procreation, and not reward pairings that do not have that result. Bullshit. If this were so, childless marriages would legally distinct from those with children. As it is, the government doesn’t even _ask_ people who apply for marriage licences when, if ever, they plan to have children. It’s utterly and legally irrelevant to the process of obtaining a marriage license. A couple that simply cannot for some biological reason engage in “natural procreation”, suffers no barrier to getting a marriage license unless (as is the law currently in most of the U.S.) that reason happens to be that they are of the same gender. > [@](#): > > THAT is that rational reason. If that’s the best the anti-SSM side has, then they have nothing. It’s an irrational, wishful-thinking argument that assumes a purpose in the law that isn’t there, which frankly kind of surprises me coming from **you** , since I was under the impression you went to great pains to lecture us on what exactly the various laws actually say and that we should not imagine stuff that isn’t there just to suit our existing beliefs. I consider the issue sufficiently debunked. Got anything else? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/690 "2009-11-11T23:08:33Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > If that’s the best the anti-SSM side has, then they have nothing. It’s an irrational, wishful-thinking argument that assumes a purpose in the law that isn’t there, which frankly kind of surprises me coming from **you** , since I was under the impression you went to great pains to lecture us on what exactly the various laws actually say and that we should not imagine stuff that isn’t there just to suit our existing beliefs. Another reason these discussions are unwise. Inevitably, someone comes along who has missed the beginning and doesn’t understand the strict limits upon which the discussion is now based. Here is a good example. Sure, I say that we should read the text of the law… when the issue is deciding what effect a law should have on a given set of facts. But this exercise is utterly different: it’s a challenge to imagine a single rationale for opposing SSM, not rooted in animus against gays. If we’re doing that, then of course we are free to imagine any motive we please that even remotely conceivable for our opposition to SSM. Indeed, we can imagine someone who says, “Yeah, I wish they WOULD ask people if they’re going to have children before issuing a marriage license.” That person would obviously be in the clear for even that objection. But this post illustrates why I wanted to drop out. Here’s someone who didn’t understand the context of this discussion, and will possibly walk away from it shaking his head at **Bricker** ’s rank hypocrisy in promoting textualism at all times except this one instance. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/691 "2009-11-11T23:14:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem is that we’re calmly and dispassionately discussing an issue Don’t dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back, now. > [@](#): > > There’s long been a presumption in law that every woman is fertile. Not as applied to marriage, there hasn’t. Come on, now. > [@](#): > > it remains a possible valid viewpoint for a single person to have. Fine. Name such a person. > [@](#): > > Remember the challenge here is: there is no single rational reason to oppose same-sex marriage. And remember this challenge excludes even an argument which is rational on its own but is overmatched by other reasons. No one has said that second part. There has been no need, because even the first part of the challenge remains unanswered. > [@](#): > > That’s an absurd standard, of course. Not to mention made of straw. > [@](#): > > Of course there’s a reason. I’ve got two in play right now. Neither one survives even the most off-hand scrutiny when weighed against other concerns. But each is, undeniably, a reason to oppose SSM, not rooted in animus against gays. “Undeniably”? There are plenty of people, including almost everyone in this thread, who deny it vigorously. We have closely examined any such suggestion, easily established that it’s a tawdry rationalization at best and an outright lie at worst, considered the other possible reasons for maintaining it anyway, and found none. There is no other conclusion a “rational” person can reach. But you, on the other hand, refuse. Do you even know what a rationalization is? > [@](#): > > But for someone strongly emotionally vested in the issue, it becomes important to deny even the tiniest crumb to your opponent, even those crumbs which the dictates of strict logic must inevitably award to his side. _There is not even a crumb being presented._ You pretend to be objective, and to dismiss anyone who demonstrates otherwise as “strongly emotionally invested”, but you haven’t offered any “objective” argument at all - not even a crumb. Time to drop the self-congratulation and apply some actual debate, m’kay? Sheesh. ---
**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, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/692 "2009-11-11T23:20:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Another reason these discussions are unwise. Inevitably, someone comes along who has missed the beginning and doesn’t understand the strict limits upon which the discussion is now based. Here is a good example. > > Sure, I say that we should read the text of the law… when the issue is deciding what effect a law should have on a given set of facts. > > But this exercise is utterly different: it’s a challenge to imagine a single rationale for opposing SSM, not rooted in animus against gays. > > If we’re doing that, then of course we are free to imagine any motive we please that even remotely conceivable for our opposition to SSM. Indeed, we can imagine someone who says, “Yeah, I wish they WOULD ask people if they’re going to have children before issuing a marriage license.” That person would obviously be in the clear for even that objection. > > But this post illustrates why I wanted to drop out. Here’s someone who didn’t understand the context of this discussion, and will possibly walk away from it shaking his head at Bricker’s rank hypocrisy in promoting textualism at all times except this one instance. I’m afraid I’ll have to double-down on my call of “bullshit.” What you just offered in no way supports the position you described. The rejection of the “procreation” argument isn’t because I have some reflexive need to identify and label homophobes, but because it doesn’t actually appear anywhere (that I’m aware of) in the necessary paperwork to obtain a marriage license, nor is there any legal provision (that I’m aware of) that a marriage licence can be revoked (or even threatened with revocation) if procreation does not occur. If you know of a case where it _does_ appear in the laws of any of the fifty states, I’d like to read it for my own edification. If it does not, then inability to procreate is not a legal basis to deny a marriage licence. Similarly, claiming that it’s lack of procreative ability that prompts someone to oppose gay marriage fails when they have no objection hetyero pairings that also lack this ability. I realize that the law is under no obligation to be self-consistent, but please do us the courtesy of not lecturing us on the exact wording of _Loving_ and then turning around and creating a spurious (and textually absent) governmental goal of encouraging marraige for the purpose of creating children. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/693 "2009-11-11T23:25:49Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I realize that the law is under no obligation to be self-consistent, but please do us the courtesy of not lecturing us on the exact wording of _Loving_ and then turning around and creating a spurious (and textually absent) governmental goal of encouraging marraige for the purpose of creating children. Here’s someone who didn’t understand the context of this discussion, and will possibly walk away from it shaking his head at Bricker’s rank hypocrisy in promoting textualism at all times except this one instance. Did you understand at all why I’m in this and what I’m responding to? My disucssion of Loving was a legitimate discussion of law. This is not. Can you please do me one favor? Explain to me what you believe my purpose here is right now. What am I trying to prove? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/694 "2009-11-11T23:31:07Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Others have answered this already and answered it well I think. > > You ( **Bricker** ) said you are bowing out of the argument but since you threw down the gauntlet here I am curious about your response to those who responded to you. Tell you what: you get **Brian Eckers** to understand what’s going on here, and I’ll continue. This is exactly what I was afraid of: he has conflated my position with the position this hypo has forced me to argue, and he lacks the ability to tell the difference between my positions in “real life” and my offering an argument in this hypothetical instance. Defending this hypo isn’t important enough to me to get tarnished like this. I’m out. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/695 "2009-11-11T23:41:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can you please do me one favor? Explain to me what you believe my purpose here is right now. What am I trying to prove? How about you tell us? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/696 "2009-11-11T23:41:44Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Well, I would agree with that. I’m of the philosophical persuasion that words have no inherent meaning. None. Sheep green fish bicycle rampant Preston; asinine choral baby matter tasty quaint persecution? Ribbit haha tadpole boring quell testicle, national zeerust candelabra basic twelve mitzvah amabat senor. > [@raindog](#): > > I am asserting that there are many reasons for opposition to SSM, with homophobia being just one of them; I don’t believe you. And I dare you to prove me wrong. ---
**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, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/697 "2009-11-11T23:45:53Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Well, fuck, I could just go and get someone to say I’m married _now_. It’s not a particularly special feeling, though. Marriage is a communal recognition of a relationship. As someone who’s non-religious, the state is the only agency that can recognize my relationship on a level beyond my immediate friends and family. If the state’s out of the marriage business, there is no secondary organization I can go to to get married that has any communal importance. Effectively, marriage would be removed from the table entirely as an option for me. You’d be getting the same rights as everybody else has to register your legal bond with the government. Your marriage, and the ceremony you choose to get married, would be up to you and yours, as would its “specialness” to you. (You get your special feeling through the government? Creepy. 😉 ) How would the state’s recognition of your union “not have any communal importance?” Particularly when it becomes the only thing that the state does for couples gay or straight? > [@](#): > > \*It (the government) is not involved in a religious ceremony, because marriage is not, by definition, a religious union. As a cite, I offer up all the atheists out there who are currently married. If an absolute disbelief in any deity is not a bar to marriage, then one cannot reasonably claim that marriage is a religious institution. - My point was that I can take my government-issued marriage license and validate it by getting married in a church by a preacher. It’s the only aspect of life I can think of where a government function can be carried out by a purely religious ceremony. (Yeah, you can also go to the justice of the peace, which doesn’t invalidate my point.) > [@](#): > > \*It absolutely does, as far as I’m concerned. Your plan takes something which, in it’s current form, I find very valuable, and turns it into either the private province of the churches, or, worse, a meaningless joke that has no significance at all. Either way, it’s completely worthless to me. - What makes you find the current form very valuable now? Society’s reaffirment of the traditions of the marriage ceremony/process? The community looking positively upon the union – announcing it in the local paper, for example? What you propose to allow by its very nature is non-traditional, so the “preserving the traditions” part of the argument doesn’t hold much water. Do you want society to simply look favorably upon your marriage? How does legalizing the process do that, if it’s religious or moral beliefs that cause some to view the practice with disfavor? If you’re granted a government marriage license that a majority in society view as bogus, that’s special? On the other side of that coin, all of a community’s positive support for the marital bond would continue to exist – you’d still get your picture and write-up on the society page in the local paper. Morality evolves – and appears to be evolving on this issue. > [@boytyperanma](#): > > You seem to be under the impression the majority of religious opposition exists because of they don’t want the word ‘marriage’ to be used. This is false. Every attempt to grant gays any type of right has been opposed vigorously. Your proposing compromising with people that have no interest in doing so. Can you back that up? Because [here](http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1375/gay-marriage-civil-unions-opinion) I see that a majority of Americans continue to oppose gay marriage, but a solid majority also supports civil unions. And interestingly, while a solid majority of protestants surveyed disapprove of gay marriage, more support gay civil unions than do not. Even more eye-popping, more Catholics surveyed supported gay marriage than do not, and a large majority of Catholics support civil unions. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/698 "2009-11-11T23:48:36Z")
**Milossarian** , are you aware that the government institution and the religious rite are separate things _already_? And that the debate is over the government institution _only_? ---
**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, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/699 "2009-11-11T23:53:58Z")
Poor **Bricker**. I think you’re figuring out it’s not quite enough to say you’re a good Muslim. No, in this group you’ll have to strap on a suicide vest to prove your mettle. Don’t you know these infidels are _devils_? ---
**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, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/700 "2009-11-11T23:54:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here’s someone who didn’t understand the context of this discussion, and will possibly walk away from it shaking his head at Bricker’s rank hypocrisy in promoting textualism at all times except this one instance. Actually, for all I know this could be the fiftieth time. It’s not like I follow you around with a scorecard. > [@](#): > > Did you understand at all why I’m in this and what I’m responding to? My disucssion of Loving was a legitimate discussion of law. This is not. Your phrasing, as I recall, is that this was something “the government wants to” do. Perhaps there’s some hairsplitting distinction between what a government wants and what it enables itself to do by law. I invite education on the matter, though perhaps this isn’t the best thread for it. > [@](#): > > Can you please do me one favor? Explain to me what you believe my purpose here is right now. What am I trying to prove? It’s not relevant what I believe about your motives, any more than what raindog believes about the motives of the pro-SSM side and what he believes they feel about the anti-SSM side. _My_ motive (beyond the general motive of my own entertainment) is to either get an anti-SSM arguer to give me a good reason, or admit that he cannot. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261.md?page=36)