What motivates people to vote other people's rights away

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

e 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.

I’m not sure I agree with this. There are quite a few positives to banning cars that I think most reasonable people would agree with immediately, particularly fewer traffic deaths and less pollution. Then, as you point out, we could go on to debate whether those positives outweigh the negatives.

But for SSM, I honestly can’t think of any benefits to keeping SSM illegal that are anywhere near as clear and unambiguous. It’s not just that the benefits to legalizing SSM are greater, it’s that I honestly don’t know WHAT the benefits to keeping it illegal are.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I don’t get why, if a reasoned argument against SSM exists, we need to take a car-trip to analogy-land. Don’t be coy, just give us the anti-SSM argument.

[raindog]

@Miller

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.

Of course, it would be equally easy to point to an opponent of SSM who demonstrated none of the stereotypes associated with homophobes.

And the zealots in both camps ignore the evidence and insist that the stereotype is the standard.

It’s clear what camp the MB is in…

[villa]

@raindog

Of course, it would be equally easy to point to an opponent of SSM who demonstrated none of the stereotypes associated with homophobes.

I think that is exactly what people are asking you to do. Show me an opponent of SSM whose arguments agaisnt SSM don’t reduce down to homophobia.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@raindog

Of course, it would be equally easy to point to an opponent of SSM who demonstrated none of the stereotypes associated with homophobes.

Or… you could just… you know… PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF THE RATIONAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST RECOGNIZING SAME-SEX MARRIAGES.

[begbert2]

@raindog

Of course, it would be equally easy to point to an opponent of SSM who demonstrated none of the stereotypes associated with homophobes.

And the zealots in both camps ignore the evidence and insist that the stereotype is the standard.

It’s clear what camp the MB is in…

Here is the stereotype associated with homophobes: They oppose SSM while being unable to present a rational and reasoned argument for doing so.

Please show me the evidence that the stereotype isn’t the standard.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Or… you could just… you know… PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF THE RATIONAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST RECOGNIZING SAME-SEX MARRIAGES.

I suggest we start using BIGGER and BIGGER capital letters to ask this question, since the frst 25 times in lower case clearly had no effect.

[Lobohan]

Protip: If you think something is true and someone asks you to substantiate it with an example and no matter how hard you try you can’t find one, consider that it might not be true.

[Miller]

@raindog

Of course, it would be equally easy to point to an opponent of SSM who demonstrated none of the stereotypes associated with homophobes.

If you’ll direct your attention back to the post you just quoted, you might note that I say just that: it should be as easy to disprove the stereotype about anti-SSMers as it is to disprove the stereotype about gays. And yet, here’s yet another post from you failing to do just that.

And the zealots in both camps ignore the evidence and insist that the stereotype is the standard.

It’s clear what camp the MB is in…

I’m not sure it’s fair to accuse us of ignoring evidence that you refuse to share. I mean, how can we ignore it, if you won’t show it to us?

[Milossarian]

@Algorithm

Unnecessary, as I’m not the one making claims without a shred of support. Polygamy is a separate issue entirely, and only being used by SSM opponents in hopes of drawing SSM proponents in to a logical contradiction. It’s a red herring, completely irrelevant to this, or any, discussion about SSM.

Says who?

The overarching argument I hear for same-sex marriage is why should gay consenting adults be denied the same rights as straight adult couples have to marry? Making the key points that they are “adults” and “consenting.”

So why should multiple consenting adults who wish to marry be denied the same rights that a couple has?

“Because a marriage is between a couple. Two people?”

Opponents of gay marriage can make a similar declarative statement:

“Because a marriage is between a man and a woman.”

The problem here is the weird confluence of religion, tradition and government (which is supposed to provide equal rights and protections to all).

The solution I think is to make ALL marriages, gay or straight, domestic partnership under the law and in the eyes of government. The law would be that any two consenting adults can enter into or break from such a partnership, but for purposes of avoiding a legal quagmire, you could only be in one such government contracted bond at any time, and only with a total of two adults.

You’d need to include a provision that married couples can only be in such a domestic partnership with their spouse. In other words, I can’t be married to Jane and in a government-recognized partnership with Sally (or Sal).

Under this plan, anyone who wants to marry in the eyes of their church and god can do so according to their beliefs, including gay couples if they have some church willing to marry them. But governments will no longer have involvement in marriages; only legal domestic partnerships that can be entered into by any two consenting adults.

And sexuality wouldn’t enter into it. If two old, heterosexual friends see a legal or financial or other benefit to entering into a domestic partnership, they could.

[raindog]

@Bryan_Ekers

I suggest we start using BIGGER and BIGGER capital letters to ask this question, since the frst 25 times in lower case clearly had no effect.

And type slower too. That helps.

[Bryan_Ekers]

So you chose to type something flippant instead of answering what should be a very simple question. I’ll try to conceal my shock.

[Der_Trihs]

@raindog

Assuming you’re an adult I have to wonder where you have been. In any event, I have no intention of being drawn into the anti-SSM debate.

You are being inaccurate at best here. You are acting as an apologist for the anti-SSMers by insisting that they have good arguments regardless of the evidence that they do not. And coming across as rather desperate to do so. I’m sure most people reading you think that you oppose SSM; otherwise why would you be humiliating yourself by defending them like you are? You ARE in the argument on the anti-SSM side.

@raindog

IME, it’s only the most visceral, partisan zealots that are so blind to their opponents that they have no approach but to demonize.

When the other side is motivated only by irrational hostility, it’s not zealotry to point it out. Just as the segregationists had no good arguments, the anti-SSMers have no good arguments. And repeating over and over that they do won’t make it true, or make either of those groups worthy of respect.

And the pro-SSM side has plenty of arguments besides demonizing their opponents. Fairness comes to mind. The anti-SSMers have nothing.

[Lobohan]

@raindog

And type slower too. That helps.

Doesn’t it bother you that you believe something but can find no evidence for it?

You made an assertion and can’t support it. Have you asked yourself why you can’t support it?

[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.

[raindog]

@Lobohan

Doesn’t it bother you that you believe something but can find no evidence for it?

So we’re clear, what is it I believe?

You made an assertion and can’t support it. Have you asked yourself why you can’t support it?

What assertion is that?

[raindog]

@Bryan_Ekers

So you chose to type something flippant instead of answering what should be a very simple question. I’ll try to conceal my shock.

You posted* “I suggest we start using BIGGER and BIGGER capital letters to ask this question, since the frst 25 times in lower case clearly had no effect.”*

What exactly were you expecting?

[Der_Trihs]

@raindog

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.

Yes, it is what you offered. You are arguing for the anti-SSM side. Badly.

@raindog

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.

Except that it’s not an irrational prejudice to think that the anti-SSM side is motivated by homophobia, or to think it has no good arguments. That’s what the evidence shows; and you keep heaping up the evidence every time you refuse to produce your no doubt imaginary reasonable argument against SSM.

[Der_Trihs]

@raindog

So we’re clear, what is it I believe?

Yes; you are almost certainly anti-SSM, whether you are willing to admit it or not. You are just avoiding coming out and saying so because you clearly realize that there ARE no good arguments for it, despite your constant insistence that there must be.

@raindog

What assertion is that?

That the anti-SSM side has reasonable, rational arguments. I and others say they don’t; and you keep underlining that fact with your refusal to provide those imaginary arguments…

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Milossarian

The overarching argument I hear for same-sex marriage is why should gay consenting adults be denied the same rights as straight adult couples have to marry? Making the key points that they are “adults” and “consenting.”

So why should multiple consenting adults who wish to marry be denied the same rights that a couple has?

“Because a marriage is between a couple. Two people?”

Opponents of gay marriage can make a similar declarative statement:

“Because a marriage is between a man and a woman.”

The problem here is the weird confluence of religion, tradition and government (which is supposed to provide equal rights and protections to all).

That is not the argument.

On the face of it I agree that consenting adults should be free to enter into any arrangement they see fit. If a woman/man, over her/his own free will and fully knowing the situation, chooses to become Wife/Husband #4 that should be her/his business.

However, from a legal perspective there are real problems with the government recognizing such an arrangement. Part of the legal framework of a marriage is a means for equitable splitting of assets should the marriage be dissolved. In practice this can be a sticky situation when it is just two people breaking up. I simply cannot envision how it would work when there are multiple spouses in the same marriage. The complexities become mind boggling to say the least.

Still, we feel protecting everyone’s rights is a legitimate state interest. In a multiple partner marriage this becomes near impossible. Add in things like dividing the estate upon death and who can make medical decisions for their spouse and so on and it melts the brain to contemplate and would be a serious mess to handle in the courts.

That said I am sure if you want to marry one woman/man and have three more live with you that you can do that. But only one of them has any legal standing (which perhaps is akin to what you got at later in your post).

So, their is a rational reason to ban polygamy.

Still waiting to see one to ban SSM.