• 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 2 - 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.
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
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.

Honestly there's nothing wrong with that. Since, if we do away with it, there's absolutely NO difference between a married person and an unmarried one. Hell, people could marry 20 people, their pet goat, and the corner mailbox. It wouldn't have ANY meaning so there'd be no reason to care. In fact, we'd save trillions on divorce proceedings.
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
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.



No, it's not. It's only simple for those who completely discount anything other than their own beliefs as automatically baseless and invalid.
Present a "valid" argument, it'll take me all of 2 seconds to tear it down.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
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:
I bet you could pass a law in some states that bans the following of Islam.

It's funny how America likes to beat its chest about being the ''land of the free" and yet refuses to stand up and defend that freedom.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
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?
Society has a right to define what is, or is not, a valid "union". One group wants to define it one way, another group wants to define it another way. No matter how you turn it, one side's view is going to be imposed on the other.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
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.

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

Fact: The government will grant certain legal status and benefits to two people that enter into a civil contract with one another.

Boundary: The government is required to offer exactly equal rights and protection to all citizens.

Argument: Only certain people should be allowed to enter into this civil contract.

Solve.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,901
11,114
136
Society has a right to define what is, or is not, a valid "union". One group wants to define it one way, another group wants to define it another way. No matter how you turn it, one side's view is going to be imposed on the other.
Relativist fallacy.
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Society has a right to define what is, or is not, a valid "union". One group wants to define it one way, another group wants to define it another way. No matter how you turn it, one side's view is going to be imposed on the other.
When I tell you where I'm going to insert my penis, that's fine. When you tell me where I'm going to insert my penis, that's wrong. When you apply different rules to me on the basis of where I insert my penis, that's wrong again.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
Present a "valid" argument, it'll take me all of 2 seconds to tear it down.
No, it will take you 2 seconds to "tear it down" in your tiny little mind. Your verison of tearing it down will basically amount to "you're wrong!".
 

surfsatwerk

Lifer
Mar 6, 2008
10,110
4
81
Society has a right to define what is, or is not, a valid "union". One group wants to define it one way, another group wants to define it another way. No matter how you turn it, one side's view is going to be imposed on the other.
No part of society is forcing you to marry another man.
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
No, it will take you 2 seconds to "tear it down" in your tiny little mind. Your verison of tearing it down will basically amount to "you're wrong!".
Present the "valid" argument and let's see if you're right about my little mind. Incidentally, I wasn't being boastful, I think anybody with a mind, tiny or otherwise, can see that there are no valid arguments for excluding gays from marriage.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Society has a right to define what is, or is not, a valid "union". One group wants to define it one way, another group wants to define it another way. No matter how you turn it, one side's view is going to be imposed on the other.
NO IT DOES NOT!!!

Society may have the right to form norms of behavior (and actually I would argue against this), but it has NO POWER WHATSOEVER TO DEFINE LEGAL STATUS. That is a right reserved to the government on behalf of the people and the government is required to act according to certain guidelines REGARDLESS of the will of the people.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
Fact: The government will grant certain legal status and benefits to two people that enter into a civil contract with one another.

Boundary: The government is required to offer exactly equal rights and protection to all citizens.

Argument: Only certain people should be allowed to enter into this civil contract.

Solve.
Define "civil contract" in this context. Is it defined as "union between two willing adults", or is it defined as "union between a man and a woman". If the former, then yes, all adults should be able to enter into it. If the latter, then no. What is being argued about is whether it's the former or the latter, and one group's view will end up being codified into law.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
No, it will take you 2 seconds to "tear it down" in your tiny little mind. Your verison of tearing it down will basically amount to "you're wrong!".
No, he'll tear it down in logical argument. And if he doesn't, I will.

Logic isn't subjective. It follows rules and strictures which are defined.

The problem is that you KNOW deep inside that you have no logical argument...no support whatsoever for your position. However, in an attempt to protect your ego your psyche creates all sorts of twists and rationalizations so that you don't have to face the fact that you're not a good human being. It's a natural human function, but it doesn't negate the clarity of logic.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
NO IT DOES NOT!!!

Society may have the right to form norms of behavior (and actually I would argue against this), but it has NO POWER WHATSOEVER TO DEFINE LEGAL STATUS. That is a right reserved to the government on behalf of the people and the government is required to act according to certain guidelines REGARDLESS of the will of the people.
Wrong. Society can define any and everything. Even the constitution, the document at the foundation of the US government and society can be modified by the people at any time. That means EVERYTHING is subject to restriction in one way or another by society.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
No, he'll tear it down in logical argument. And if he doesn't, I will.

Logic isn't subjective. It follows rules and strictures which are defined.

The problem is that you KNOW deep inside that you have no logical argument...no support whatsoever for your position. However, in an attempt to protect your ego your psyche creates all sorts of twists and rationalizations so that you don't have to face the fact that you're not a good human being. It's a natural human function, but it doesn't negate the clarity of logic.
Blah blah blah..... you only see "logic" in the positions you agree with, and discount the other ones as illogical. And no, you would not "tear it down" either, you would just "tear it down" in your mind since you've already (incorrectly) made up your position as the only logical one.
 

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Wrong. Society can define any and everything. Even the constitution, the document at the foundation of the US government and society can be modified by the people at any time. That means EVERYTHING is subject to restriction in one way or another by society.
But surely all restrictions should be applied to everyone equally, insofar as this is possible. In any event, is the gender receiving the attentions of your penis a valid basis for applying different standards to you?
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Define "civil contract" in this context. Is it defined as "union between two willing adults", or is it defined as "union between a man and a woman". If the former, then yes, all adults should be able to enter into it. If the latter, then no. What is being argued about is whether it's the former or the latter, and one group's view will end up being codified into law.
Here's where you're wrong.

The definition is irrelevant because of the boundary. The government is not allowed to implement rights differently based on any defining factors.

If the union is defined as 'between a man and a woman' then the government has offered a distinction between individuals which will lead to unequal treatment under the law, thereby invalidating the attempted definition.

SOCIETY can define the nature of unions, but societal rules are NOT law. Any time society defines something in a way contrary to law, the government must act to overturn it. See suffrage, civil rights, or any other similar situation. It doesn't matter AT ALL what the people want; the government is REQUIRED to ensure absolutely equal rights for all citizens.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Wrong. Society can define any and everything. Even the constitution, the document at the foundation of the US government and society can be modified by the people at any time. That means EVERYTHING is subject to restriction in one way or another by society.
Wrong. It never has, and it never will. We don't operate based on societal perception, we operate based on law. Where society acts counter to law, it is SOCIETY that is wrong.

If society riots and burns down a neighborhood, this is not accepted.

If society does not want black to vote, this is not accepted.

If society does not want women to work, this is not accepted.

In all instances of society oppressing individual rights the government acts (albeit slowly) to correct the injustice and bring societal behavior in-line with established law and founding ideology.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Blah blah blah..... you only see "logic" in the positions you agree with, and discount the other ones as illogical. And no, you would not "tear it down" either, you would just "tear it down" in your mind since you've already (incorrectly) made up your position as the only logical one.
No, YOU can't accept that your view has no logical support because it forces you to admit bias.

Again, logic is NOT subjective. Your position has failed all logical tests, and always will.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,511
1
81
The tyranny of the majority.
Marriage is a religious practice. Every major religion forbids same sex marraige.
Maybe if the gays would get their shit straight and call it what it is, a Civil Union, they'd have a better chance.
America is a religious nation. Be in Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu.
I had this arguement with someone yesterday, and It is my belief that homosexuality is a choice. It is influenced by life experiences and pre-disposition to it at an early age.
There are those that say they new when they were 5 or 6, but when most of us were 5 or 6 we all though the other gender was yucky and had cooties.
If you try to defend homosexuality with saying it is genetic, then you must also allow for pedophilia and a host of other activities that mainstream America deems immoral because they could be proven to have genetic links.
Some will try to compare it to bigotry and racism but you can't choose what ethnicity you are, you can choose whether or not you want to stick it in a mans butt or not.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Marriage is a religious practice. Every major religion forbids same sex marraige.
Maybe if the gays would get their shit straight and call it what it is, a Civil Union, they'd have a better chance.
America is a religious nation. Be in Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu.
I had this arguement with someone yesterday, and It is my belief that homosexuality is a choice. It is influenced by life experiences and pre-disposition to it at an early age.
There are those that say they new when they were 5 or 6, but when most of us were 5 or 6 we all though the other gender was yucky and had cooties.
If you try to defend homosexuality with saying it is genetic, then you must also allow for pedophilia and a host of other activities that mainstream America deems immoral because they could be proven to have genetic links.
Some will try to compare it to bigotry and racism but you can't choose what ethnicity you are, you can choose whether or not you want to stick it in a mans butt or not.

Peer reviewed, overwhelming scientific proof please.

It also doesn't matter in this argument, because the issue isn't rather churches can choose to refuse to marry two men or two women...it's rather the government can offer certain contractual benefits to some people, but not to others. The homosexual activities aren't relevant to the discussion. Two male heterosexuals have as much right to civil union as two homosexual males, which is exactly the same right that a man and woman have to it (again, regardless of sexual orientation).
 
Last edited:

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,901
11,114
136
Marriage is a religious practice. Every major religion forbids same sex marraige.
Maybe if the gays would get their shit straight and call it what it is, a Civil Union, they'd have a better chance.
America is a religious nation. Be in Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu.
I had this arguement with someone yesterday, and It is my belief that homosexuality is a choice. It is influenced by life experiences and pre-disposition to it at an early age.
There are those that say they new when they were 5 or 6, but when most of us were 5 or 6 we all though the other gender was yucky and had cooties.
If you try to defend homosexuality with saying it is genetic, then you must also allow for pedophilia and a host of other activities that mainstream America deems immoral because they could be proven to have genetic links.
Some will try to compare it to bigotry and racism but you can't choose what ethnicity you are, you can choose whether or not you want to stick it in a mans butt or not.
In light of this post I request that an "ignorance/stupidity" option be added to the poll.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
But surely all restrictions should be applied to everyone equally, insofar as this is possible.
And who says that they are not? Everyone is allowed to marry a parter of choice, provided they abide by a bunch of restrictions: no siblings, no parents/children, must be adults, must be consenting, must have a license, must not already be married etc and must be of opposite gender. There are many restrictions, and you want to remove one of the restrictions. One can certainly make many good arguments for that, but it's certainly NOT the only logical position.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
It boils down to supporting discrimination against other of-age, consenting adults. Some people can't help but try to enforce their views and morals upon others.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY