# 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:** 37
**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 12, 2009, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/721 "2009-11-12T01:19:35Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > it’s what the law has had to say, to date, that is relevant. I suggest it’s also somewhat relevant to not base arguments on what the law _doesn’t_ say. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/722 "2009-11-12T01:33:27Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, obviously, because when you were asked for a good argument, you declined to provide one. You’re right. That argument wasn’t germane to my point. In fact it would only have cloded the central issue, and the reason I ventured into this thread: the hypocrisy, bigotry and name calling that goes on in these threads. But I figure you don’t get that. ---
**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 12, 2009, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/723 "2009-11-12T01:40:07Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > You’re right. That argument wasn’t germane to my point. In fact it would only have cloded the central issue, and the reason I ventured into this thread: the hypocrisy, bigotry and name calling that goes on in these threads. > > But I figure you don’t get that. The only thing you claimed that interested me was that a rational anti-SSM argument existed. I’ve asked for such in past threads as well and was disappointed each time. I don’t care what motives you assign to people. I figure that’s about an uncloudy a goal as could possibly exist. You say something exists and I ask you for an example. Hardly rocket science. Anyway, Bricker gave it a shot, and when I called bullshit (with a follow-up argument to justify that opinion), he made it all personal, too, saying twice that I was shaking my head in disappointment at him. Geez, pal, get over yourself. I don’t care about _you_, I just want to hear a good anti-SSM argument for once. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/724 "2009-11-12T01:57:45Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I don’t know why that’s so difficult for you to believe. If someone were arguing that blacks should have fewer rights than whites, would you find it extraordinary to suggest that the only people who hold that position are racists? If someone were arguing for legal restrictions on Jews, would you argue that it’s possible to support that without being anti-Semitic? Why, then, is it so hard to believe that treating gays as second-class citizens ultimately stems from some degree of antipathy towards gays? I don’t think you can make anything close to a straight line argument between the civil rights struggle for blacks and the gay rights movement. (and, as you know, offends many blacks) But…to answer your question.. The opposition to civil rights for Jews and blacks was practiced largely through racism; a view that Jews/blacks were inferior, thieves etc etc etc. Opposition to gay rights, however, has a much larger religious/ moral perspective. While I would certainly agree that there are no shortage of idiots who have the same sentiments towards gays as the racists had/have towards blacks, the fact is that there are millions and millions of people who have no fear or hatred of gays, and have as the foundation of their feelings their belief in God. (among other reasons) This adds an element to the gay rights movement that the civil rights movement never had to consider: whether there was/is a compelling secular interest in restricting gay rights, or whether the opposition is largely due to religious beliefs. That means that there are parallel issues, one secular, one religious. But the moment you ignore that distinction and imply that all opponents of SSM are variations-------no matter how watered down _i.e"…you eventually can boil down their reasons for opposition to the idea that gays are just not quite as good, not quite as special, as heterosexuals…"_ of the guys who beat Matthew Shepherd you’re not just calling them out as hate/fear mongers but invalidating their most deeply held religious views. That ain’t a winning formula, and it ain’t true. > [@](#): > > I don’t think that everyone who disagrees with me on this subject hates and fears me. I said that opposition to SSM is ultimately rooted in some degree of homophobia. Homophobia, like all bigotries, comes in degrees. One can be a racist without being Bull Connor. One can be a homophobe without being Fred Phelps. I don’t think that everyone who opposes SSM is secretly dreaming about going out and beating a bunch of fags down with a bat. But in my experience, when you talk to someone who opposes SSM, you eventually can boil down their reasons for opposition to the idea that gays are just not quite as good, not quite as _special_, as heterosexuals. It is, quite often, a very soft bigotry, but it’s still bigotry. And, as I’ve pointed out in numerous threads like this, often these sorts of homophobes are effectively allies of the gay rights movement. Someone who thinks that gays should have all the rights of marriage, but just not the word “marriage” is exhibiting a very minor degree of homophobia, but his position is still significantly less homophobic than a large portion of the population. Someone like **magellan** , who is one of the more outspoken opponents of SSM on this board, would be a solid ally in a place like Alabama or Florida. If not everyone who disagrees with you hates you or fears you maybe you should be more circumspect in accusing them of hating you or fearing you, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/725 "2009-11-12T02:04:37Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The only thing you claimed that interested me was that a rational anti-SSM argument existed. I’ve asked for such in past threads as well and was disappointed each time. I don’t care what motives you assign to people. > > I figure that’s about an uncloudy a goal as could possibly exist. You say something exists and I ask you for an example. Hardly rocket science. > > Anyway, Bricker gave it a shot, and when I called bullshit (with a follow-up argument to justify that opinion), he made it all personal, too, saying twice that I was shaking my head in disappointment at him. Geez, pal, get over yourself. I don’t care about _you_, I just want to hear a good anti-SSM argument for once. I understand you completely. You asked me for an example, and I have no interest in giving you one. Hardly rocket science. I didn’t come looking for you. You came looking for me. I ventured into the thread when **Miller** made the [all too familiar] claim Homophobe!, to a guy who had not demonstrated either fear or hatred towards homosexuals—my understanding of the term homophobia. If you don’t want to address that, I’m good with that. My feelings won’t be hurt, I swear. I also trust yours won’t be hurt when I decline to post to you anymore in this thread. Down with that? You’re not OK. I’m not OK. And that’s OK. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/726 "2009-11-12T02:10:15Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The only thing you claimed that interested me was that a rational anti-SSM argument existed. I’ve asked for such in past threads as well and was disappointed each time. I don’t care what motives you assign to people. > > I figure that’s about an uncloudy a goal as could possibly exist. You say something exists and I ask you for an example. Hardly rocket science. > > Anyway, Bricker gave it a shot, and when I called bullshit (with a follow-up argument to justify that opinion), he made it all personal, too, saying twice that I was shaking my head in disappointment at him. Geez, pal, get over yourself. I don’t care about _you_, I just want to hear a good anti-SSM argument for once. With all due respect, I don’t think you intellectually understand what **Bricker** is saying. ---
**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 12, 2009, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/727 "2009-11-12T02:10:50Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > I understand you completely. You asked me for an example, and I have no interest in giving you one. Hardly rocket science. > > I didn’t come looking for you. You came looking for me. Well, :D, lest you assume this betrayed some kind of attraction I feel for you, I should point out that I asked others for the same thing in the last gay marriage thread in which I was an active participant. Didn’t work then, either. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/728 "2009-11-12T02:15:24Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, :D, lest you assume this betrayed some kind of attraction I feel for you, I should point out that I asked others for the same thing in the last gay marriage thread in which I was an active participant. Didn’t work then, either. I don’t believe you. I see the way you look at me. I feel like a piece of meat whenever you’re around. ---
**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 12, 2009, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/729 "2009-11-12T02:22:07Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > I don’t think you can make anything close to a straight line argument between the civil rights struggle for blacks and the gay rights movement. (and, as you know, offends many blacks) Well, too bad. The parallels are very close, however offensive some people find pointing out those parallels to be. > [@raindog](#): > > Opposition to gay rights, however, has a much larger religious/ moral perspective. While I would certainly agree that there are no shortage of idiots who have the same sentiments towards gays as the racists had/have towards blacks, the fact is that there are millions and millions of people who have no fear or hatred of gays, and have as the foundation of their feelings their belief in God. (among other reasons) And so did many racists; that made their opinions no less racist. > [@raindog](#): > > This adds an element to the gay rights movement that the civil rights movement never had to consider: whether there was/is a compelling secular interest in restricting gay rights, or whether the opposition is largely due to religious beliefs. > That means that there are parallel issues, one secular, one religious. Wrong, and irrelevant. Wrong because God WAS used to justify racism. And irrelevant because this is not supposed to be a theocracy, and because “God says so” is not a valid argument. It’s baseless and irrational. > [@raindog](#): > > But the moment you ignore that distinction and imply that all opponents of SSM are variations-------no matter how watered down _i.e"…you eventually can boil down their reasons for opposition to the idea that gays are just not quite as good, not quite as special, as heterosexuals…"_ of the guys who beat Matthew Shepherd you’re not just calling them out as hate/fear mongers but invalidating their most deeply held religious views. And? They deserve to be characterized as homophobes, because they _ **are** _. And their religious beliefs are homophobic, and _ **should** _ be “invalidated”. Not that they ever were “valid” to begin with. > [@raindog](#): > > That ain’t a winning formula, and it ain’t true. It’s true, and it is the ONLY winning formula. Winning this dispute by definition will override their precious religious dogma. > [@raindog](#): > > If not everyone who disagrees with you hates you or fears you maybe you should be more circumspect in accusing them of hating you or fearing you, don’t you think? Except that they all do. Without exception. Because there is no other reason. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/730 "2009-11-12T02:24:19Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > 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) You’re welcome. Part of the reason I was sincerely curious is that I’ve always been interested in your posts and the way they are presented. I took your claim more seriously than I would others. > [@](#): > > 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. True but I’m not sure of the relevance. > [@](#): > > 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. I think your choice of words here is telling and indicates to me that you may be committing the same offense you are accusing others of. I won’t go back and read all the posts but I’m pretty sure I never indicated hatred as a necessary component of homophobia. I’m also fairly sure several others didn’t as well. In fact did anyone? I also never mentioned loathing. {not that you did}These words are to strong to be accurate. I know both of these things exist in some people but I would refrain from using them as a blanket description for \*\*\*\*all \*\*\*\*who oppose SSM because I know it’s not true, and would indeed be ignorant and a disservice to them. Homophobia can and does exist without either of those. According to Webster it’s > [@](#): > > : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals antipathy = settled aversion or dislike; distaste. Dislike and aversion are much milder than hatred aren’t they? Fear , irrational or otherwise, can have lots of various shades as well, some of which include much milder feelings, but fear , nonetheless. So, **when I say** arguments against SSM boil down to homophobia I am not accusing anyone of hatred, loathing, or blind panic type of fear. Perhaps your assignment of hatred and stronger level of fear is your error rather than ours, or at least an example of you doing what you seem to be accusing others of. > [@](#): > > 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. You’ll have to accept that I know my son fairly well. I never claimed fear \*\*and hatred \*\*since hatred is not a necessary component of homophobia. I’m saying all the arguments the I’ve ever heard or read are irrational and for that reason I do believe that it’s a matter of a more visceral reaction which fits the definition of homophobia and antipathy. Examples; It will change the basic definition of marriage and somehow demean the definition for hetero couples. Irrational. Based on emotion not facts or evidence. It may possibly someday, down the road in some undetermined future , harm society as a whole. Irrational. It’s harmful or potentially harmful to children. Irrational It’s immoral and a sin according to the Bible. A decent argument might be made that sincere religious belief is different than homophobia but I would argue that any literal interpretation of the Bible is irrational and emotionally based. Do you need more? Are there more? You’re claiming that actually providing one example of a rational argument is irrelevant to your point. I say, since you made the claim unless you can back it up whatever point you’re trying to make is lost, on me at least. Look, I don’t even have to agree that it’s perfectly rational and reasonable. I just need to believe that you think one or two arguments are rational and not emotionally based. At that point we can respectfully agree to disagree. Up to now you haven’t even provided that. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/731 "2009-11-12T02:27:56Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > I didn’t come looking for you. You came looking for me. to be fair, you made a claim in GDs and it’s reasonable to ask you to back it up. YUou came looking when you make a claim here. > [@](#): > > I ventured into the thread when **Miller** made the [all too familiar] claim Homophobe!, to a guy who had not demonstrated either fear or hatred towards homosexuals—my understanding of the term homophobia. [/QUOTE] I’m suggesting you reconsider your understanding of the term and consider the milder versions which still qualify. ---
**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 12, 2009, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/732 "2009-11-12T02:29:56Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > With all due respect, I don’t think you intellectually understand what **Bricker** is saying. He (after some prompting) offered up a groundless anti-SSM argument and I called him on it. He chose to assume that I was assuming that he was anti-SSM, but I don’t care since I was solely interested in debunking his argument, which I did. I suppose he could try to claim some subtleties that I as a mere lay person failed to grasp, but it doesn’t matter. It was a bad, flawed argument (whether he believed it himself or was simply proposing it as an intellectual exercise is none of my concern) and even if he chose to heap on the legal verbiage, it wasn’t going to magically transform into a good one. I can think of a few possible avenues where my response would be different, though. There could be cases of hetero marriages being involuntarily dissolved because they were childless, for example, or licenses refused to hetero couples who were known to be incapable of reproducing, and such cases being challenged and upheld by judges whose analyses we could read and debate. Actually, over the 230+ years of U.S. history along with the centuries of preceding English common law, I would be surprised if this had _never_ come up. If such cases exist and established precendents that still stood, they would be far more interesting to analyze than some vague notion of what the government wants but never bothered to codify. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/733 "2009-11-12T02:40:45Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > **cosmosdan** > As an addendum to my earlier posts I’d like to discuss womens rights with you, including parity in pay/performace, domestic violence etc. > > Ready? > > **cosmosdan** \*\*, when did you stop beating your wife? \*\* > > Surely you’d see this as a disingenuous tactic to begin the discussion on my terms, and with you on the defensive. (although I suspect it is used just as often out of ignorance) > > If you were smart (and I know you are) you wouldn’t take the bait. Interestingly enough, [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question) says this in part: Now I’ve been asked several times to substantiate why someone who is anti-SSM is not a homophobe. > > In the end we’re not talking about the relative merits of SSM, but rather whether a anti-SSM person is a homophobe or not. In this context/debate, victory for the pro-SSM person is a vindication for SSM, while victory for the anti-SSM person can only establish that he isn’t a homophobe. (with the question of SSM remaining unanswered) > > That is a sucker’s bet. Interestingly enough, I have never taken a position on SSM here, ever. And I joined this thread not to argue the merits of either side, but to challenge **Miller** et al to stop throwing the label Homophobe! every time someone disagrees with him. Interesting, but sincerely, if you’ve understood my last posts I submit that unless you can present one fairly common argument against SSM that appears to be rational rather than emotionally based I’d say the existing evidence points to homophobia in all its forms mild and strong. I see SSM as an equality and civil rights issue. I think the history of the civil rights struggle and the various minorities involved relate to this issue. With that in mind do you think those trying to keep women or blacks from voting had reasonable arguments? I’m sure they thought so at the time. Can we admit that now, in retrospect, their arguments were irrational and emotionally based. That doesn’t mean they hated women or blacks. It does mean they had an irrational fear of a certain group which translates into prejudice, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/734 "2009-11-12T03:27:05Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > A rational reason is has to have some objective validity–it cannot just be a honest reason, which seems to be the argument you’re making here. An argument is not rational simply because it is internally consistent, or that it states a legitimate policy goal–those are preconditions. It must also have some basis in fact. > . > . > Hence, I hope you will agree that the viewpoint you put forward is valid if and only if marriage has a purpose of encouraging natural procreation. That is a premise of the argument used–and the argument is only reasonable if the premise is correct. I believe you’ve forgotten the second part to this claim. When you bring in the fact that procreation, other than purely natural, is available, you’re asking me to weigh that fact against the fact that procreation within an opposite-sex marriage has a high likelihood of being available naturally. Which I am of course willing to do, and willing to concede in a heartbeat that the given the availability and ease of these solutions, the idea that a rational objection can survive is lost. Here is what I said: > [@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. > > As an analogy: there is a reason to ban automobiles. Thousands of people die in them. Yet the argument as a whole fails because the benefits of the car far outweigh its shortcomings. So it’s not that the arguments to ban the car don’t exist… it’s that they are overmatched, outweighed, by the arguments to NOT ban the car. > > So I’m a bit uncomfortable to hear that there are no rational arguments against > SSM in absolute terms. Better, in my view, to say that the arguments against SSM are not remotely compelling when weighed against the arguments FOR SSM. When you bring in the availability of procreative options other than the purely natural, you’re overmatching, outweighing, the argument. Which is precisely what I said can be easily done. But you’re not ERASING the original argument. You’re gainsaying it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/735 "2009-11-12T03:36:23Z")
And I notice that the other argument I floated (stolen shamelessly from **begbert** ) is ALSO rational: Says the anti-SSMer, “I believe that ‘majority rules,’ is the way this country should run. It’s clear that the majority don’t want same-sex marriage. The goal of government should be to ensure that the majority of its citizens are pleased. That’s why we decide things by popular election of lawmakers. So while I personally don’t care about SSM as an issue, I care passionately about the system of majority rulemaking. As long as the majority disfavors SSM, I will disfavor it.” Rational argument against SSM. Obviously not COMPELLING, but it’s based on a clear, defined, articulated reason. ---
**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 12, 2009, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/736 "2009-11-12T03:51:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Rational argument against SSM. > > Obviously not COMPELLING, but it’s based on a clear, defined, articulated reason. Well, I can see how the proponent would believe so, but as I understand it, it stems from an inaccurate view of how the U.S. operates, and is not specifically an argument against gay marriage (as the hypothetical arguer points out) but _any_ concept that lacks majority support. I daresay adequate precedent exists for well-reasoned judicial decisions that were indifferent to (and perhaps even in defiance of) majority support. Were someone to make that argument, I’d challenge it as arguing from ignorance and sweeping generalization. Additionally, I’d offer up examples of other practices that could be abolished if true majority rule existed in the U.S. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/737 "2009-11-12T04:09:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I believe you’ve forgotten the second part to this claim. When you bring in the fact that procreation, other than purely natural, is available, you’re asking me to weigh that fact against the fact that procreation within an opposite-sex marriage has a high likelihood of being available naturally. > > Which I am of course willing to do, and willing to concede in a heartbeat that the given the availability and ease of these solutions, the idea that a rational objection can survive is lost. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “the second part”–I will make an argument that I think applies, but let me know if I miss your point. Or, if you prefer, you could try to explain it to me–I don’t see where you see me losing the possibility of a rational objection. Note that this is not asking you to weigh the fact that one kind of procreation is possible in same-sex relationships against natural procreation, while accepting that the goal of marriage is to encourage natural procreation. I’m suggesting that the proposed argument is unreasonable precisely because it relies on defining procreation in a way that does not include such solutions–that the distinction is artificial, and has no basis in how procreation is understood today–i.e. even if I concede that it is reasonable to contend that the purpose of marriage is procreation (which I will do, arguendo), there is no justification to use an artificially limited definition of procreation. The issue isn’t whether the existence of other means outweighs the argument–the issue is whether it is reasonable to define the purpose of marriage in terms of natural procreation alone. Yes, we could have a reasonable (if easily defeated) objection to same-sex marriage if parents didn’t have the ability to adopt, or any way to make a baby other than the old fashioned way. The argument would be protecting natural procreation, and you seem happy to concede the reasons it fails. But the argument is unreasonable precisely because today procreation does not mean solely “natural, old-fashioned” procreation. In other words, the argument is only reasonable when viewed by someone who accepts the premise that marriage has the purpose of promoting exclusively natural procreation. I’ve offered a few arguments that you don’t reply to arguing why that isn’t tenable. The point is that yes, if you assume the premise that marriage has a purpose of promoting exclusively natural procreation, then the argument is reasonable. But to say that is the end of the analysis of reasonableness is to stop too soon. To give an analogy: I can come up with plenty of reasonable arguments to ban cars. One of those is the frequency of accidents in which car steering wheels cause death, by striking the chest. That is quite a reasonable argument. My argument (to make a number up) is that such injuries happen once per car-year of driving, and that is too often. I could gainsay it by showing that cars are valuable–that it’s worth the risk. I’m asking you to balance some benefit against the risk. But that’s not what I do. I suggest that the argument is unreasonable on its own terms-that such injuries only happen once per car-year if you use statistics from 1957, when there was no such thing as airbags (which, i will assume, perfectly prevent such injuries). The argument is unreasonable if its premises actually take account of the situation at issue–where airbags have been standard on steering wheels for decades, such that any car we’re likely to ban will have an airbag. I am then unreasonable to make the argument–because, when parsed, my argument of “we should ban cars because they create one death per car-year, from steering wheel-chest injuries,” includes the implicit term that cars create one death per car-year from steering-wheel chest injuries. > [@](#): > > When you bring in the availability of procreative options other than the purely natural, you’re overmatching, outweighing, the argument. Which is precisely what I said can be easily done. But you’re not ERASING the original argument. You’re gainsaying it. I would contend you’re just plain wrong on this one. I don’t need to erase the original argument to show it is irrational. I can do so by showing that the premise for the original argument is untrue, or has no basis in fact–such that no reasonable person could use that premise to support an argument. That, i contend, I have done. My argument is not that I am bringing in other procreative options–but that this argument is just plain unreasonable to leave them out. That the distinction between “natural” and “artificial” procreation is not made for any reason other than to create a distinction that separates same- and opposite-sex couples–a distinction that I think is indisputably absent in any meaningful extent in modern society. That is why the argument is unreasonable–because it uses a contrived definition of “procreation” that is not how straight couples think about it, not how society thinks about it, and not how modern law thinks about it (where, as I understand it, there is no distinction between, for example, natural born and lawfully adopted children). It is inconsistent precisely because it assumes a premise (we make a distinction between “old-fashioned”, “IVF”, and adopted children) that isn’t applied to opposite-sex marriages, or in any other context. The distinction, in other words, does not appear to be made for any reason other than to exclude same-sex marriages. I’m not gainsaying it any more than the argument that “same-sex marriage leads to spousal abuse” is gainsaid by pointing out that, in reality, same sex marriage does not lead to spousal abuse. The statement “same-sex marriage leads to spousal abuse” has no truth value in the abstract–it is true, and reasonable, if same-sex marriage leads to spousal abuse, and it is false, and unreasonable, if same-sex marriage does not lead to spousal abuse. You just can’t evaluate it through logical reason alone. The point is that I don’t need to erase the original argument to show it is irrational. I can do so by showing that the premise for the original argument is untrue, or has no basis in fact. Or, just to ask the question: I can’t seem to explain how your reasoning would not consider the argument “same-sex marriage leads to raptor attacks, and raptor attacks kill people, and death is a moral evil” not to be a reasonable argument? Its conclusions flow from its premises. It identifies a definite societal wrong caused by same-sex marriage. But it is clearly unreasonable. The rebuttal to it will be the same thing I am doing here–challenging the premise. ---
**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 12, 2009, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/738 "2009-11-12T04:15:28Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > You’d start with this sophomoric dribble and then finish with this?: You’re the one who said words have no inherent meaning, therefore quarter Thurston angry coffee disk book lethargy pudding. > [@raindog](#): > > I’ve never even seen your user name until right now. Will you at least stomp your virtual feet or threaten to hold your breath for me? Look, in case you haven’t noticed, we’re in Great Debates, where assertions must be backed up by fact or logic. You have blindly asserted something. I dispute it. That means you must either: a) Give evidence for it b) concede the point, or c) leave the argument (and implicitly concede the point. That’s how debates **work**. P.S. What does my notoriety have to do with anything? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/739 "2009-11-12T04:16:03Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, I can see how the proponent would believe so, but as I understand it, it stems from an inaccurate view of how the U.S. operates, and is not specifically an argument against gay marriage (as the hypothetical arguer points out) but _any_ concept that lacks majority support. So what? The mere fact that this position also works against other positions doesn’t remove the fact that it works against SSM. It’s true it’s not an argument specifically and solely against SSM, but how is that relevant to what’s been asked for here? > [@](#): > > I daresay adequate precedent exists for well-reasoned judicial decisions that were indifferent to (and perhaps even in defiance of) majority support. Again: so what? This person isn’t saying his view is consistent with all judicial decisions (although he might somewhat smugly point out that the vast majority of judicial decisions in the SSM arena seem to agree with his results) – he’s simply saying that his reason to oppose SSM is his feeling that majority rule works best. > [@](#): > > Were someone to make that argument, I’d challenge it as arguing from ignorance and sweeping generalization. Additionally, I’d offer up examples of other practices that could be abolished if true majority rule existed in the U.S. Again – so what? Perhaps he feels that each of those other practices should in fact be abolished. What does any of that have to do with the question of whether this is a rational reason to oppose SSM? (And it’s not an argument from ignorance. That term refers to “a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.” ([Cite.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) Nothing here meets that definition. He’s saying he opposes SSM because the majority opposes SSM. Nor is it [a sweeping generalization,](http://www.fallacydetective.com/news/read/sweeping-generalization/) which refers to “… a rule that is generally accepted to be correct is used incorrectly in a particular instance.” Here, he’s not saying that “majority rules” requires everybody to oppose SSM. Indeed, should the majority switch to favoring SSM, he will, too. ) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261/740 "2009-11-12T04:20:32Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > The point is that I don’t need to erase the original argument to show it is irrational. I can do so by showing that the premise for the original argument is untrue, or has no basis in fact. OK, good point. I think there’s a sliding scale, where the more evidence you’re adducing to attack the premise will amount to a new factor, but I’ll agree that in this case, you’re simply attacking the premise. So unless I think of something new on the procreation front, I’ll abandon it as having fallen. I still offer the “majority rules” view as being a rational argument, however. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-motivates-people-to-vote-other-peoples-rights-away/516261.md?page=38)