• 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?

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

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.

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,094
3,630
126
The SSM movement just has to wait them out, worst case scenario.
That does tend to occur when the younger generation is taught something that the older generation opposes. Eventually the younger generation will inherent the earth.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
If I say that God has called marriage sacred, that means nothing to those who do not believe in God. Nothing can be sacred or moral, logically, to those who do not believe in God or do not believe in something other than the physical world b/c there are no foundations and values can be shifted on a whim at the individual level and the societal level. This does not mean that I won't try to defend the sacred, even though it falls on deaf ears.
The bolded statement is hogwash. It comes from the same narrow-minded sewer than insists that non-believers cannot possibly find life meaningful or worth living, that they cannot have a sense of morality even stronger than yours.

Frankly, having read the nonsense spouted by you self-righteous idiots, I can state with utmost confidence: I'll put my morality, my decency, my sense of compassion, my "goodness" up against yours any day. I'm a MUCH better human being than you will ever be.

And your statement demonstrates exactly WHY you and your ilk are in fact bigots: You are so narrow in your thoughts, so limited in your imagination, that have no capacity to conceive or grant that those with different fundamental beliefs from yours can feel powerfully compelled by their sense of right and wrong, that they can live their lives dedicated to doing the right thing.

You, apparently, need an authority figure to inform you what's right and wrong. You admit your feeble mind cannot figure it out for yourself. You need it written in a book that you BELIEVE comes from God, foolishly overlooking that in all likelihood the book you cling to so desperately is the product of error-prone humans creating chains of corrupted transcription.

My morality, on the other hand, is the product of thousands of generations of the human race struggling up from the muck, the product of what ACTUALLY gives life meaning.

I have great respect for those who gain strength and goodness from their religions. But when religions are just self-justifying delusions, I have nothing but contempt.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
I'm a pretty conservative/libertarian guy, but I think the government regulating what two consenting adults contract between themselves is WRONG. The government should not have the power to tell me I can't marry Halle Berry, nor should it have the power to tell me I cannot marry Dave Justice. The right almost as much as the left is in love with using the power of government to enforce its will on others.

Full disclosure: I do not want to marry Halle Berry or Dave Justice.
 

tealk

Diamond Member
May 27, 2005
4,104
0
76
Men would mock the warning signs of the end of the age saying, These signs have always been around (2 Peter 3:3-4). The Bible even reveals their motivation, they love lust.

2 Peter 3:3-4
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
Men would mock the warning signs of the end of the age saying, These signs have always been around (2 Peter 3:3-4). The Bible even reveals their motivation, they love lust.

2 Peter 3:3-4
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation
Get help. Now.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Men would mock the warning signs of the end of the age saying, These signs have always been around (2 Peter 3:3-4). The Bible even reveals their motivation, they love lust.

2 Peter 3:3-4
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation

'Do not ask which creature screams in the night.
Do not ask who crouches in the shadow.
For it is my voice that wakes you in the night
And me who watches you from the shadow.
I am Tzeentch and you are the puppet
That dances to my tune.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Men would mock the warning signs of the end of the age saying, These signs have always been around (2 Peter 3:3-4). The Bible even reveals their motivation, they love lust.

2 Peter 3:3-4
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation
"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34)
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
tealk said:
Men would mock the warning signs of the end of the age saying, These signs have always been around (2 Peter 3:3-4). The Bible even reveals their motivation, they love lust.

2 Peter 3:3-4
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation
"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34)
And lest we forget:

44 And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou shalt have; of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall ye take your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigor.
(Leviticus 25:44-46)
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
And lest we forget:

(Leviticus 25:44-46)
"But if ... evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)

There's a whole BOOK of these quotes! It starts out like a fairy tale with 2 people in this garden but then it just gets all gross. He bangs her, then she bangs her kids, then one kid kills the other, incest, murder, smiting. It's a pretty deviant novel. Can't recall the name tho.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
2
0
Religion. There are secular and religious views of marriage, with religious being predominant; and TMK from a religious perspective gay "marriage" in the traditional sense simply isn't possible due to the religious defintion of marriage. To ask for Gay marriage is, to many people, to challenge the basic tenants of their faith.

I'm Deist and quite honestly I couldn't care less about the religious aspects. IMO Gays should be able to do whatever they want to, but at the same time I'm not going to ask people to sacrifice their faith for it.

Personally I think there should be an establishment of a homosexual denomination to solve the religious issue. God knows there are denominations for everything else under the sun (in almost every religion).


That said, forbidding legal marriage or "civil unions" is just flat out stupid. We have separation of Church and State for a reason.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,797
10,977
136
Religion. There are secular and religious views of marriage, with religious being predominant; and TMK from a religious perspective gay "marriage" in the traditional sense simply isn't possible due to the religious defintion of marriage. To ask for Gay marriage is, to many people, to challenge the basic tenants of their faith.

I'm Deist and quite honestly I couldn't care less about the religious aspects. IMO Gays should be able to do whatever they want to, but at the same time I'm not going to ask people to sacrifice their faith for it.

Personally I think there should be an establishment of a homosexual denomination to solve the religious issue. God knows there are denominations for everything else under the sun (in almost every religion).


That said, forbidding legal marriage or "civil unions" is just flat out stupid. We have separation of Church and State for a reason.
Some religions already perform gay marriages.

Nobody has (at any time) suggested that religions that do not wish to perform such marriages be required to.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
The bolded statement is hogwash. It comes from the same narrow-minded sewer than insists that non-believers cannot possibly find life meaningful or worth living, that they cannot have a sense of morality even stronger than yours.

Frankly, having read the nonsense spouted by you self-righteous idiots, I can state with utmost confidence: I'll put my morality, my decency, my sense of compassion, my "goodness" up against yours any day. I'm a MUCH better human being than you will ever be.

And your statement demonstrates exactly WHY you and your ilk are in fact bigots: You are so narrow in your thoughts, so limited in your imagination, that have no capacity to conceive or grant that those with different fundamental beliefs from yours can feel powerfully compelled by their sense of right and wrong, that they can live their lives dedicated to doing the right thing.

You, apparently, need an authority figure to inform you what's right and wrong. You admit your feeble mind cannot figure it out for yourself. You need it written in a book that you BELIEVE comes from God, foolishly overlooking that in all likelihood the book you cling to so desperately is the product of error-prone humans creating chains of corrupted transcription.

My morality, on the other hand, is the product of thousands of generations of the human race struggling up from the muck, the product of what ACTUALLY gives life meaning.

I have great respect for those who gain strength and goodness from their religions. But when religions are just self-justifying delusions, I have nothing but contempt.
First, I never said that you cannot have a sense of morality. I would never say that b/c that goes against my foundational beliefs. Everyone has a sense of morality to some degree (although it is possible to destroy it). I said you cannot logically claim morality if you come from a naturalistic perspective. How can you say "this is right" and "this is wrong" if what determines right and wrong come from inside of you alone? What if the "right and wrong" that comes from inside of me conflicts with your "right and wrong"? Who then can claim that they hold what is moral?

You can't even claim that the culture determines what is moral. Cultural morality also comes from single individuals. Cultural morality is based upon the morality of the majority of individuals within the culture. How is the morality of a group of people the "true" morality if it conflicts with morality of one individual? Is somehow the fact that there are more people who believe the same way is the determining factor in what makes morality?

If there truly is something called "morality," it has to come from something outside of human experience. Otherwise it is foolishness and merely a tool to wield by the majority. You feel "morality," and yet there is no such thing in a naturalistic perspective.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
2
0
Some religions already perform gay marriages.

Nobody has (at any time) suggested that religions that do not wish to perform such marriages be required to.
1. Good for them

2. Of course not. But this is one of those fields where an individual's values, usually dictated at least in part by religion, indirectly intervene. The opposed don't have to cite the Bible, the religious definition is already implanted as the universal definition. See "preserving the institution of marriage".
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
First, I never said that you cannot have a sense of morality. I would never say that b/c that goes against my foundational beliefs. Everyone has a sense of morality to some degree (although it is possible to destroy it). I said you cannot logically claim morality if you come from a naturalistic perspective. How can you say "this is right" and "this is wrong" if what determines right and wrong come from inside of you alone? What if the "right and wrong" that comes from inside of me conflicts with your "right and wrong"? Who then can claim that they hold what is moral?

You can't even claim that the culture determines what is moral. Cultural morality also comes from single individuals. Cultural morality is based upon the morality of the majority of individuals within the culture. How is the morality of a group of people the "true" morality if it conflicts with morality of one individual? Is somehow the fact that there are more people who believe the same way is the determining factor in what makes morality?

If there truly is something called "morality," it has to come from something outside of human experience. Otherwise it is foolishness and merely a tool to wield by the majority. You feel "morality," and yet there is no such thing in a naturalistic perspective.
By asking that bolded question, you again show your shallowness and lack of imagination. You PRESUME that - absent a message from God - what defines "the good" and "the bad" must comes from "inside the individual."

Again, hogwash. The concept of "good" and "bad" comes from what eons of human experience PROVES is good or bad. Murder is "bad" because it leads to a society filled with chaos, resentment, distrust, hatred, grief, loss, insecurity, fear, vengeance, and innumerable other self-evidently negative results. Do you get it: SELF-EVIDENT?

Do you REALLY think humanity needed God to say, "Thou shalt not kill?" Is it your "thesis" that the experience of civilizations is so arbitrary that without God whispering in our ears we wouldn't have been able to divine that a society that treats murderers with impunity is horrible? Did God really need to instruct us that theft, adultery, and lying are bad things? Can you really not understand how humanity with its advanced intellect can determine all by itself that what is destructive = "bad" and what is constructive = "good?"

Think of it as a form of natural selection: Those societies that did not embrace/enforce those behaviors that were constructive or did not discourage those behavior that were destructive tended to decline. Those that did tended to prosper. The "good" is what works. The "bad" is what doesn't.
 
Feb 16, 2005
13,792
4,808
136
That's a very bigoted statement. An inability to conceive the alternative to a proposition.
You're right, I should have taken the word religious out. It only has to do with it part of the time. They can be completely ignorant bigots without any faith based idealogoy whatsoever.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
By asking that bolded question, you again show your shallowness and lack of imagination. You PRESUME that - absent a message from God - what defines "the good" and "the bad" must comes from "inside the individual."

Again, hogwash. The concept of "good" and "bad" comes from what eons of human experience PROVES is good or bad. Murder is "bad" because it leads to a society filled with chaos, resentment, distrust, hatred, grief, loss, insecurity, fear, vengeance, and innumerable other self-evidently negative results. Do you get it: SELF-EVIDENT?

Do you REALLY think humanity needed God to say, "Thou shalt not kill?" Is it your "thesis" that the experience of civilizations is so arbitrary that without God whispering in our ears we wouldn't have been able to divine that a society that treats murderers with impunity is horrible? Did God really need to instruct us that theft, adultery, and lying are bad things? Can you really not understand how humanity with its advanced intellect can determine all by itself that what is destructive = "bad" and what is constructive = "good?"

Think of it as a form of natural selection: Those societies that did not embrace/enforce those behaviors that were constructive or did not discourage those behavior that were destructive tended to decline. Those that did tended to prosper. The "good" is what works. The "bad" is what doesn't.
Your attacks on the previous poster are pretty rude, and your own comments could get the same attacks.

You limit your discussion to one example, murder - picking one example only can easily lead to false conclusions about such a large issue as 'right and wrong'.

And even on your one example, you post both baseless claims - such as claiming 'natural selection' is the definition of 'good', even while arguing against the very implementation of 'natural selection' by legalizing murder and allowing the 'stronger' to kill the 'weaker' and purportedly strengthen the species - and a false argument for your position, talking about how 'societies that allow murder' don't last *proved from experience with such societies*, when there are no such societies I know of having been tried.

Your summary at the end is nothing but an amoral argument for 'might makes right' - the opposite of civilization and moral principles. Under your position, if Hitler had had the military might to win, he'd by definition be 'right', instead of just being powerful and wrong. Under your position, the robber who kills his victim and takes his property and gets away with it is 'right'. You say 'what works' is good, to the history of dictators who did well were 'right', and if one enslaved the US, he'd be 'right' too.

You posted simplistic blather that not only has nothing to say about what's right but actively promotes wrong and evil messages on the topic.

You did one thing right though, which was to challenge the only definition being religious dogma, and to point to other ways to look at the issue.

Natural selection seems to appeal those who look for the most simplistic position.

The most basic forms of human society are thuggish - systems where people are coerced to oppress one another for their own benefit and even more that of the 'rulers'. 'Right and wrong' don't play a big role in what happens in such societies. Our more evolved societies- welcome to the 18th century humanism - attempt to base society more on those principles.

Taking this bask to the thread topic, what's 'right and wrong' about gays and gay marriage involves a basic issue of one majority mistreating a minority for no good reason, whether that's execution, impriisonment, economic sanctions or denying the civil right of marriage. OUr political system offers no real protection for a minority like gays, beyond the conscience of the majority, which too often falls short (see centuries of racism).

You won't find much useful on what's right for gays and gay marriage in your 'natural selection' blather. A more rational and principled argument is required for that.

I've said many times that in my opinion, the only real argument for the discrimination against gays on marital rights is bigotry, empowered by the popular vote, where the majority who are not gay can without any price to pay go into a little box curtained off and express their bigotry. Progress is possible in that system, as shown with racism and sexism, but difficult.

Progress on racism and sexism came less from the majority simply doing what's right than from pressure those groups could bring that gays don't have. Women wanting the vote or an end to pay discrimination had the power both of numbers - just over half the population - and a unique position to inflict suffering on the men who voted. Little happend for a century on race after slavery was ended until the treatment of blacks became an international embarrassment and propaganda problem from the Soviets in the cold war, where US efforts to win the hearts and minds of third world nations who were being courted by communists who promised an end to the brutal western-backed governments were damaged by the pictures of the mistreatment of blacks in the US.

Gays lack that leverage. They simply have to appeal to morality and justice, and that's an uphill struggle as even former victims of discrimination - blacks - become the oppressor.

Their only real leverage usually has been the courts, where state constitutions' declarations of equality have had challenges their authors had not planned on by gays.

This has led to some victories that have helped 'get the majority used to equality', and make discrimination harder to justify. They're slowly overcoming bigotry.

Most people who oppose gay marriage simply have no idea about the injustice they are supporting. Democracy indulges their complacency.

"Let them eat civil unions". "Let them eat separate but equal".
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
But this is one of those fields where an individual's values, usually dictated at least in part by religion, indirectly intervene. The opposed don't have to cite the Bible, the religious definition is already implanted as the universal definition. See "preserving the institution of marriage".
you mean preserving the most recent definition of the institution of marriage? it wasn't always this way, and it can survive another change, especially since the law as it is now makes no sense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tM0Pg_KKV8
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
Your attacks on the previous poster are pretty rude, and your own comments could get the same attacks.

You limit your discussion to one example, murder - picking one example only can easily lead to false conclusions about such a large issue as 'right and wrong'.

And even on your one example, you post both baseless claims - such as claiming 'natural selection' is the definition of 'good', even while arguing against the very implementation of 'natural selection' by legalizing murder and allowing the 'stronger' to kill the 'weaker' and purportedly strengthen the species - and a false argument for your position, talking about how 'societies that allow murder' don't last *proved from experience with such societies*, when there are no such societies I know of having been tried.

Your summary at the end is nothing but an amoral argument for 'might makes right' - the opposite of civilization and moral principles. Under your position, if Hitler had had the military might to win, he'd by definition be 'right', instead of just being powerful and wrong. Under your position, the robber who kills his victim and takes his property and gets away with it is 'right'. You say 'what works' is good, to the history of dictators who did well were 'right', and if one enslaved the US, he'd be 'right' too.

You posted simplistic blather that not only has nothing to say about what's right but actively promotes wrong and evil messages on the topic.

You did one thing right though, which was to challenge the only definition being religious dogma, and to point to other ways to look at the issue.

Natural selection seems to appeal those who look for the most simplistic position.

The most basic forms of human society are thuggish - systems where people are coerced to oppress one another for their own benefit and even more that of the 'rulers'. 'Right and wrong' don't play a big role in what happens in such societies. Our more evolved societies- welcome to the 18th century humanism - attempt to base society more on those principles.

Taking this bask to the thread topic, what's 'right and wrong' about gays and gay marriage involves a basic issue of one majority mistreating a minority for no good reason, whether that's execution, impriisonment, economic sanctions or denying the civil right of marriage. OUr political system offers no real protection for a minority like gays, beyond the conscience of the majority, which too often falls short (see centuries of racism).

You won't find much useful on what's right for gays and gay marriage in your 'natural selection' blather. A more rational and principled argument is required for that.

I've said many times that in my opinion, the only real argument for the discrimination against gays on marital rights is bigotry, empowered by the popular vote, where the majority who are not gay can without any price to pay go into a little box curtained off and express their bigotry. Progress is possible in that system, as shown with racism and sexism, but difficult.

Progress on racism and sexism came less from the majority simply doing what's right than from pressure those groups could bring that gays don't have. Women wanting the vote or an end to pay discrimination had the power both of numbers - just over half the population - and a unique position to inflict suffering on the men who voted. Little happend for a century on race after slavery was ended until the treatment of blacks became an international embarrassment and propaganda problem from the Soviets in the cold war, where US efforts to win the hearts and minds of third world nations who were being courted by communists who promised an end to the brutal western-backed governments were damaged by the pictures of the mistreatment of blacks in the US.

Gays lack that leverage. They simply have to appeal to morality and justice, and that's an uphill struggle as even former victims of discrimination - blacks - become the oppressor.

Their only real leverage usually has been the courts, where state constitutions' declarations of equality have had challenges their authors had not planned on by gays.

This has led to some victories that have helped 'get the majority used to equality', and make discrimination harder to justify. They're slowly overcoming bigotry.

Most people who oppose gay marriage simply have no idea about the injustice they are supporting. Democracy indulges their complacency.

"Let them eat civil unions". "Let them eat separate but equal".
You're grossly misinterpreting my post. It's so far off the beam that you conflate natural selection with "might makes right."

Let's keep this simple:

The original assertion by Spittledip (against which I argued) was that God is the only objective source of what constitutes good and evil, that any other notion of good and evil must come from inside the individual himself and is therefore arbitrary.

I argued against that position by pointing out a totally rational concept of good and evil: That what is "good" is what leads to the success of human society, and that what is "bad" is what doesn't.

I offered murder as an example: Murder is "wrong" not because in some cosmic (aka God) sense it's been pre-ordained to be a bad thing. It's wrong because over eons societies that allowed murder with impunity have faded away. I could have used incest or rape or many other examples; but why bother? My intent was to illustrate a mechanism, not to provide an exhaustive list.

How you get from my argument to "might makes right" is mystifying to me. My argument doesn't justify ANY particular behavior; rather, it explains how objective morality has arisen, without the need for God.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY