What motivates people to vote other people's rights away

Great Debates
561

How do you know this? Seriously, how do you know?

Is it because you’ve actually heard them present good arguments? If so, it’s extremely singy of you not to share them with us. Seriously, we’re begging you!

Or, alternatively, are you arriving at this because you know there are reasonable, thoughtful, intelligent anti-SSM people, and from that you deduce that they have good arguments for it (that they simply are not telling)? The way you structured your sentence suggests that this is what you believe. And on the face of it, it sounds reasonable - until you get out and meet some people, anyway.

People are extremely good at compartmentalizing, and will regularly apply different standards of thought, reason, and evidence to various topics. Many people who do very complicated work requiring high levels of reasoning are also known to believe in sky-gods on faith. Does this mean that they have a rational reason to believe in sky-gods on faith? No, it means that they apply different levels of scrutiny to different subjects.

This is actually extremely common. And, it means that a person can seem, and believe themselves that they’re a sensible, rational person - and still be an irrational bigot about some things. As a person with predjudices, I know this is to true - I’m rational enough to know I’m irrational about some things!

What does this mean? It means that nice people can have a dark side, and that smart people can be very, very stupid about some things. And that you can’t assume that rational arguments against SSM marriage exist just because the people opposing it seem otherwise rational.

Not even if those people include yourself.

Stop demonizing people who require their opposition to present reasonable arguments.

562

“…procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote)…”

Ways either intimate or remote? SCOTUS appears to be suggesting here that the definition of procreation encompasses artificial means of reproduction, such as IVF, or presumably surrogate pregnancies.

Given that a homosexual couple (one half of one, at any rate) can produce offspring via these methods as easily as a heterosexual one, it stands to reason that the imperative of homosexual couples to procreate is just as protected as that of heterosexual couples.

Since SCOTUS, by its own language in Skinner, apparently endorses the idea that procreation is best done within the context of a marriage…

Regardless of the procreation-related context you supplied (which is irrelevant, at least based on the pure text of Loving), SCOTUS has clearly granted marriage the status of a fundamental right falling under the liberty provisions of the fourteenth amendment.

Therefore, strict scrutiny should apply, and at that point, legal challenges to SSM fall down.

I would argue, in any case, that prohibition of SSM fails to meet the rational basis test in any case. While prohibiting same-sex marriages is clearly a reasonable means to… prohibit same-sex marriages, nobody has put forward a legitimate interest for actually doing so.

No, no, no. There are reasonable, rational arguments against the legalization of same-sex marriage as a fundemental or otherwise protected right under the law.

There are no reasonable or rational arguments against same-sex marriage itself.

563

Saying that it is both ignorant and/or disingenuous to demonize someone with you disagree with is not tantamount to saying I wish to debate the issue.

I’ve been around long enough to know the lack of diversity and intellectual incest that prevails, and the fact is, I’m just not interested in being drawn into an inane discussion. Lest you get too carried away with yourselves, I could have easily have made my point from a pro-SSM POV. I simply don’t care.

Now it’s quite possible that the anti-SSM crowd is wrong; that they’ve gotten too close the the Church/State border. (although they may have other reasons)

Maybe.

But to say that they they must have an “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals” is simply ignorant. Unless…you know better. In that instance it just looks like a juvenile debating tactic.

564

No, you’re just evading it.

So what’s a well-reasoned anti-SSM argument?

Give us an anti position that can’t be described as above, then. You say they exist; present one.

I think you can assume that a religious objection will carry no weight, here. What are the non-religious anti-SSM arguments?

Here’s your opportunity to educate and dis-disingenuous us. Name a rational anti-SSM argument. It can’t possibly be difficult if you know of such arguments.

Whether or not you’re personally in favour or opposed to SSM, you’ve repeatedly made the claim that reasonable anti-SSM arguments exists. Please present one so we can discuss it.

565

So to paraphrase, you admit that there are no good arguments against SSM?

I’m going to take what you just posted as meaning, “Raindog admits that there is no good argument against SSM.” Okay?

566

Actually I agree with you.

However, an “unreasonable” argument is not the equivalent of harboring “fear or antipathy”— the exact things that are thrown about. If you disagree with me------with my subjective opinion as the arbiter------ than you must fear me, and hate me.

Get over yourselves.

567

Sure!

The words are mine, the meaning is yours.

568

What “demonize”? What “ignorant and/or disingenuous”?

You said there were rational arguments against SSM.

I asked you to point them out (as have a raft of other posters). An entirely reasonable request in this debate.

You refuse. If you know there are, as you assert, then it should be a simple matter for you to back up your claim. Instead you repeatedly dodge the request.

I could say: “There are pink gremlins living in the bushes near your house. A lot of reasonable people think so.”

You would (probably) understandably respond: “Really? There are? Can you point to any reasonable people who agree with that?”

I say: “I am not going to be drawn into this argument. I know the lack of diversity and intellectual incest that prevails, and the fact is, I’m just not interested in being drawn into an inane discussion. Lest you get too carried away with yourselves, I could have easily have made my point from a anti-Pink-Gremlins-in-the-bushes POV. I simply don’t care.”

See the problem? By your tactic you can assert anything then hand-wave away anyone who would ask you to back up your assertions.

569

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:

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.

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.

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.

570

You’re more generous than me. I’ll believe him only after he presents such an argument.

571

So, you admit that there are no reasonable arguments? If you do, then we can get into the motivations of those who are against SSM despite the lack of reasonable arguments. Some might be coming from a purely religious motivation - I’d love to allow it, but God says no. (Ignoring that others who believe are all for it.) They have to explain the First Amendment implications. But don’t you think that at least some who are against SSM for unreasonable reasons are doing so for emotional reasons? What others are there?

572

Well, since raindog won’t do it…

Think about how horrible the music played at most weddings is. Now picture the music that would be played at the wedding of people who appreciate Billie Holliday and Cyndi Lauper as musicians.

That is why I wouldn’t support gay marriage, if I didn’t, which I do.

573

I am going to ask you this again, raindog, because if you are willing to accuse me of demonizing people, and state that my arguments are disingenuous and/or ignorant, you probably should be willing to back up what you say.

I think we have come to a tipping point on this matter. There is a right side and a wrong side on this. It isn’t subject to nuanced debate any more, just as racism isn’t. As Really Not All That Bright says, you can make a rational and reasoned argument that the (federal) constitution doesn’t require SSM. And, as currently interpreted, that’s quite possibly true. But there aren’t rational, reasonable reasons to oppose SSM itself. And you blindly repeating that there are doesn’t make it so. Either say what those reasons are, link to where people have made them, or stop accusing other people of demonizing their opponents and being ignorant and disingenuous.

574

Nothing wrong about being generous–I’m just taking the assertion that he has seen arguments that he believes to be reasonable at face value–and trying to point out how saying he has such reasons, and then refusing to offer them undercuts the position he is putting forward (that opponents to SSM are wrongly demonized).

And, of course, accepting that he believes such arguments to be reasonable does not concede that the arguments are in fact reasonable, or justify establishing a rule that is applicable to those who do not also accept those justifications (for example–the often-maligned religiously-based justifications to oppose same-sex marriage are, in my view, a perfectly good reason not for a person of that faith to enter into a same-sex marriage, or to not celebrate such marriages in his church–but not a good reason to bar those who don’t share your faith from doing so). That is a different debate–and I think it’s easy to see which side of that debate I favor.

575

I agree with this statement, with the following two caveats: I was on the other side of this coin, and it took reasoned, rational argument for me to change my mind. I guarantee you that the crowd of people in that thread that “contributed” by calling me a bigoted homophobe were a liability, not an asset, towards changing my mind.

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.

576

Sure, you can make that generalization about gays. Of course, it’s trivially easy to point to a gay person who is none of those things, thus disproving the universality of the stereotype.

By that same token, it should also be trivially easy to point to an example of opposition to SSM that is not, ultimately, rooted in some degree of antipathy towards homosexuals. I have to say, after spending several years debating the issue, I haven’t yet seen such an example. I am, as always, open to correction on this point - but you would, of course, actually have to engage in this debate to do so.

577

Still kinda curious what those reasoned and rational arguments are. We have debunked the procreation purpose, noted that “marriage” has meant a lot of different things through the ages, that falling back on “tradition” has its problems since once upon a time it was traditional to pass your 12 year old daughter off to some old guy, that your religion is opposed to it is not an argument in a country with separation of church and state.

There may be rational reasons why SSM is a wrong choice for a given individual (for instance I will never choose to marry another man but that is my personal choice). Not seeing it to deny it to a class of people.

Still, happy to have some laid out if they exist. On balance I agree if they do exist they are easily outweighed by issues on the other side but to assess that we need both sides. So far we only have one side that I see.

578

That isn’t any more convincing coming from you than it is coming from yorick, and still requires an example.

579

But what are they? It feels like everyone is playing charades with an old lady who doesn’t remember movie titles well, or something - we’re all trying to guess at something which may or may not exist, and the only person who knows what that something is can’t mention it.

The inevitable result is that we will all give up, at which point Grandma will say, “D-Day! The movie is D-Day!” and after much discussion we will work out that she meant Saving Private Ryan.

580

Of course it doesn’t help.

I reiterate the request for one of these arguments. Because every argument but one that I’ve seen for opposing the legalization of SSM is not only uncompelling, but internally incoherent - they literally fall down in the process of being explained. They refute themselves, if you view any of them in their entirety with anything like a rational approach.

And that “but one” I mentioned is “If SSM is legalized, then that will make a large number of people unhappy. The laws of our country should be structured to try and make the largest number of people most happy, on average.” Which is to say, the “we’re not ready as a culture” argument. If you consider majority rule as the measure of societal happiness, this argument is internally consistent as a reason to ban SSM.

But, as you note, it is not compelling in the face of the injustice it serves to gay people.