What motivates people to vote other people's rights away

[raindog]

@whorfin

I have not, and do not intend to demonize anyone, and understand your post to express your desire not to take sides on the merits of same-sex marriage, but to oppose those “demonizing” one side.

However, if you feel that the “demonization” of same-sex marriage opponents is wrong, I have to tell you that your arguments here aren’t helping that position.

Most of the times I have heard an argument that opposition to same-sex marriage comes out of bigotry, or ill-will, it is based in an argument that more or less follows Sherlock Holmes’ famous maxim:

I think you understand my position clearly.

And so all this begging and browbeating and accusations are falling on deaf ears. I have no dog in the SSM fight, and care little (actually, not at all) whether people think I’m dodging them. In fact, it makes me think they’re missing the point entirely. We could have the whole discussion as to whether there is a compelling reason to demonize your philosophical opponent from a neutral position. It doesn’t really matter whether you or I are pro or anti SSM, because that is not what I offered.

In other words, the initial assumption isn’t that opponents of same-sex marriage are bad guys. It’s just that when opponents claim to have a reasoned, reasonable, and internally consistent argument against same-sex marriage, and are given many, many opportunities to present that argument, and continually refuse to do so, it is hard to avoid thinking that that eliminates the possibility that they have such an argument.

Then, whatever remains (i.e. an argument that is not reasonable, reasoned, or consistent), must be the true reason they oppose same sex marriage.

I am not now making that argument. Some on this board do. What I aim to do is to point out how easy this assumption is to rebut. All an opponent has to do is to offer a reasoned justification for his or her arguments. Then, there is no need to guess or assume what their reason for opposing same-sex marriage is–we know it.

But you see, here’s where you seem reject it. It is not the job of the anti-SSM person to disabuse people of their irrational prejudice any more than it is for the gay man to prove he isn’t trying to indoctrinate your kid. Your bias is your own, and, it is your problem.

To start each discussion with the implied (if not stated) “fact” that opposition to SSM must be a product of fear or hate that an anti-SSM must “overcome” is either ignorant or disingenuous.

If you think opponents are being wrongly demonized–i.e. they have good reasons to oppose same-sex marriage–you should join in the chorus asking them to state those reasons. This is because because the easiest way for opponents of same-sex marriage to rebut the assumption some hold that they do so for hateful reasons is to reveal the actual reason that they oppose same-sex marriage.

If only they’d stop putting those 22" rims on perfectly good automobiles and listening to ear splitting rap! We wouldn’t have to call them names and we could drop our opposition to them moving into our neighborhoods.

When will they ever learn?

On the other hand, if you keep saying you know there are such reasonable arguments, but refuse to point us to them, or to tell us what they are, you simply add to the weight of evidence that suggests they don’t exist. This is why I would say you aren’t helping your stated goal of pushing back against wrongful demonization of same-sex marriage opponents–you’re unintentionally giving more ammunition to the argument that “nobody is willing to tell me what the argument is, so I have to assume it doesn’t exist”

Now, I for one believe you when you say such arguments exist. That is exactly why I am asking you to tell us what those arguments are.

There are at least 2 “causes” here, right?

And…neither is willing to entertain the other. I posted to Miller, because he offered up a tired, banal SDMB mantra: that all SSM opponents are driven by fear and hatred. That’s a worthy discussion perhaps----whether there is a compelling reason to engage in rank prejudice and what amounts to name calling in the issue of SSM. And the fact is, that’s a position neutral argument. Had a thread started that implied that all gay men looked like RuPaul and were trying to indoctrinate kids I would have posted to the same effect.

The other cause is directly one of SSM. That is not my cause, and engaging in the discussion only clouds my point. Listen, Bricker just put up an excellent post that spoke of his “conversion” and how his views have changed. In any event, he seems quite clear in beinf able to see the relative merits of both sides of the issue. In his view, the case against SSM is much less compelling than the case for it. I’ll let Bricker speak for himself, but I would assume that his prior opposition to SSM wasn’t due to fear and hatred of homosexuals.

So, to beat this dead horse, I haven’t posted any opposition to SSM, but rather the caricaturing that goes on. If you truly believe that opposition to SSM is universally due to fear and hatred I’d have to say you’re severely misguided.