• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

What is the most probable motivation for the states that reject gay marriage?

Why do the voters in Maine and other states reject gay marriage?

  • In their heart of hearts, they are homophobic.

  • They don't hate gays; they reject the reasons put forth in support of gay marriage

  • Don't know.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
I'd like to get an idea of what this forum thinks honestly motivates people to vote down gay marriage.

Speaking for myself: I don't hate gays. With very few exceptions (terrorists, child rapists, etc.) I don't hate anyone at all. Not even Michael Moore. For the simple reason that, just like me, they're doing what they think is right, and even if that's dead wrong, I prefer that people follow their minds and stick to their convictions.

That being said, I believe my reasoning in opposing gay marriage makes sense. I won't go through it because most of you won't agree. But I think the voters in Maine believed the same thing: They don't hate gays. They oppose gay marriage on a basis that makes sense to them.

Even if they're wrong, I can't ask any more of them. If I can't persuade people otherwise, then I can't berate them for voting their conscience.

Also, if you think I should add further to my poll, lemme know.
 
Last edited:

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
Get ready for a barrage of libtards to come in and call you and everyone who voted the same way in various states biggots, hateful etc etc etc.

Also, I don't see a poll?
 

surfsatwerk

Lifer
Mar 6, 2008
10,110
4
81
This is a civil rights issue, it should have never been up for a vote. And people voted against it because they're scared of man on man buttsecks.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
Get ready for a barrage of libtards to come in and call you and everyone who voted the same way in various states biggots, hateful etc etc etc.

Also, I don't see a poll?
Took me a minute to get it up. Should be there now.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
Yeah, we should just ask serfsatwerk what is a right and what isn't, and be done with it. No need for pesky voting, laws and that kind of nonsense. :rolleyes:
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
You have a narrow view of marriage. Marriage in the middle ages, as I pointed out in the other thread on this subject, often involved 11 or 12 year old girls. So, appealing to tradition is fine and well, but what is your cut off point, at what point in history do you decide that you have found the ideal model of the traditional marriage? Clearly pointing to tradition as a means of excluding homosexuals involves arbitrary choices that have little to do with the tradition of the institution of marriage. Does God still want us to deflower young girls who have not reached the age of 13? Clearly our definition of marriage can and should change over time. I have yet to see a convincing argument for excluding homosexuals from marriage, or an argument that, when scrutinised, isn't grounded on the bigotry of the person putting forward this argument, admitted or otherwise.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
And you don't think that's a sweeping, unfair generalization?
Nope.

It may not be a 'fear' of homosexuals, but it IS a bias/discrimination against their choices and has absolutely NO supportable, objective arguments. You simply can't argue against equal rights for everyone and not be a close-minded, ignorant, worthless, bigot.

Welcome to the misogyny/anti-semitic/slavery issue of our age. Mind you, I believe you have the right to be stupid and bigoted...just don't be surprised when people who are better than you treat you like the wife-beater/nazi/kkk member that you are equivalent to.
 
Last edited:
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
As opposed to the tyranny of the minority?
Inherent within the 'tyranny of the majority' concept is the idea the the rules they railroad will have actual negative impacts on some other portion of the society. Either the rules are immoral, or exploitive, or damaging, etc.

No such potential for harm exists in equitable implementation of civil rights and government benefits.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
Nope.

It may not be a 'fear' of homosexuals, but it IS a bias/discrimination against their choices and has absolutely NO supportable, objective arguments. You simply can't argue against equal rights for everyone and not be a close-minded, ignorant, worthless, bigot.

Welcome to the misogyny/anti-semitic/slavery issue of our age.
Just because YOU don't agree with a viewpoint does not mean it's not a valid argument. You're back to the same BS argument: "I disagree with your point of view, therefore it's not a valid argument". I support equal rights, but your definition of "equal rights" is not the same as someone else's. Perhaps my definition also includes the right of someone to marry multiple partners. Does that mean it should be so just because I think so?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
As opposed to the tyranny of the minority?
What tyranny is that, not to be able to tell others what they can and cannot do?

See that's the thing, allowing gays to marry has no consequences on those who are not gay. To prohibit it by law is just legislating discrimination.

Like most Heterosexuals I find the thought of men having sex with each other appalling but I don't believe that my problem with it should prohibit them from being married.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,901
11,114
136
As opposed to the tyranny of the minority?
Next thing you know those uppity women are going to want to vote!

Granting rights to those who should already enjoy them in a nation that prides itself on boasting loudly of it's freedoms should be a no-brainer. Doing so does no harm to any other group which is usually the standard by which these things are judged.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,119
3,656
126
Like most Heterosexuals I find the thought of men having sex with each other appalling but I don't believe that my problem with it should prohibit them from being married.
The problem is that we're involved at all. There should be nothing to rule on in the first place. I propose removing government from marriage. Heh, yeah like that'll happen.
 

surfsatwerk

Lifer
Mar 6, 2008
10,110
4
81
Yeah, we should just ask serfsatwerk what is a right and what isn't, and be done with it. No need for pesky voting, laws and that kind of nonsense. :rolleyes:
How about we start voting for removing everybody's right to bare arms? Or better yet let's vote to remove free speech.

We went through this garbage 50 years ago with interracial marriage. There is no new argument and the government has no business telling two consenting adults who they can or can't marry.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Just because YOU don't agree with a viewpoint does not mean it's not a valid argument. You're back to the same BS argument: "I disagree with your point of view, therefore it's not a valid argument". I support equal rights, but your definition of "equal rights" is not the same as someone else's. Perhaps my definition also includes the right of someone to marry multiple partners. Does that mean it should be so just because I think so?
Equal isn't particularly subjective.

1=2 is an untrue statement.
person can have union = person can't have union is likewise untrue.

It's just that simple. It's not invalid because I disagree with it, it's invalid because it is logically invalid. If two people have different rights, then THEY ARE NOT EQUAL. Really can't make it simpler than that.

Now, you can have the marriage argument, which I've never opposed. There is simply no question that 'marriage' can be defined in different ways, and so on. The only thing I've ever argued is that if the government grants benefits to a 'union' then it must grant benefits to all 'unions' without regard for the underlying nature of that union.

Either absolutely ALL benefits and the specific legal status of 'union' is removed, or it's granted to every person equally. Anything else is discrimination. Personally I don't care which is implemented, as long as it's equal for everyone.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
The problem is that we're involved at all. There should be nothing to rule on in the first place. I propose removing government from marriage. Heh, yeah like that'll happen.
So you want to do away with Marriage Licenses and leave it to religious institutions to decide who should be married and who shouldn't? Fuck them, they should have no say in it what so ever beside the ceremonial events they perform.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,119
3,656
126
So you want to do away with Marriage Licenses and leave it to religious institutions to decide who should be married and who shouldn't? Fuck them, they should have no say in it what so ever beside the ceremonial events they perform.
What is a Marriage License without government law behind it? That's the point.
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Either way, it's one group deciding for the other what should or should not be allowed in society.
It is one group deciding what should or should not be allowed in society with regards to the other group. Are you seriously arguing that where you are not allowed to disallow gay marriage this would represent an infringement of your democratic rights?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
Equal isn't particularly subjective.

1=2 is an untrue statement.
person can have union = person can't have union is likewise untrue.
You're assuming all types of "unions" are the same, which not everyone agrees with. Is a union with multiple partners the same? In your zeal for your position, you fail to recognize that there are arguments for the oposing position that may or may not be reasonable. Just because you discount them doesn't mean they are not valid.

It's just that simple.
No, it's not. It's only simple for those who completely discount anything other than their own beliefs as automatically baseless and invalid.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY