• 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 8 - 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.

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Some people who are against gay marriage are homophobic, and some are not. Just b/c you think someone is in the wrong does not mean you hate them or think poorly of them. If that were the case, everyone would have to hate everyone else b/c every person does wrong every day. For those who base their self-worth on thinking they are better than other people, this would be more of an issue.
To be honest, I've never heard a single argument against gay marriage that wasn't either of the form "it's weird so I don't like it" or was rooted in religion. While they may not be homophobic, they are definitely bigots.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Oh my, how evil of Wiki. Would you mind, since you sound like a Christian with a persecution complex, telling us if you are a Christian. I am always interested in how bigotry like yours gets started, i.e., where such ignorance is transmitted from.

Are you a Christian?
Heh, sorry to disappoint you but I am atheist and I laugh at people citing somekind of text to proof a point without any independent thinking, whether that text is bible or wiki.

I have no problem with gay people, in fact, one of my good college buddy was gay. What they do in their private life is their business, I respect that and they should have all the rights of everyone else.

But marriage is something defined by human society through out history by every single culture as between a man and women, the basis of human family and the basis of every single culture and civilization to grow and thrive. All these gay marriage talk is horseshit, just bunch of liberal whinning about language, like calling all black people white is gonna solve the racist issue.

Just give the gay couple equal right and let's move on.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,297
127
106
But marriage is something defined by human society through out history by every single culture as between a man and women, the basis of human family and the basis of every single culture and civilization to grow and thrive. All these gay marriage talk is horseshit, just bunch of liberal whinning about language, like calling all black people white is gonna solve the racist issue.

Just give the gay couple equal right and let's move on.
You are wrong. The counter points in this very thread prove you are wrong.

If this is just a "bunch of liberal whinning about language" then it is you who wish to limit the type of free speech of others....again you are wrong to do so.

History is no excuse. History has shown that there are more ways than just one to be "married"

How you can continue to cling to your mistaken understanding is pathetic.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
1
0
Why do we kiss religions ass

Ya know.. if Christians didn't run this country and we told them and their "marriage" to fuck off.. they would easily become just as violent as many claim muslims are
 

TheNoblePlatypus

Senior member
Dec 18, 2001
291
0
76
There is no actual reason for people to not want gays to marry. There is also no real reason for people to believe in a God either. Reason and faith don't mix.


I also want to know if you'd call it homophobia to be disgusted when you see 2 males showing any sort of affection, but alternatively have my eyes dry out staring at 2 women doing the same thing. I have a feeling that's what most males think about when they vote on the subject.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,183
3,872
126
Heh, sorry to disappoint you but I am atheist and I laugh at people citing somekind of text to proof a point without any independent thinking, whether that text is bible or wiki.

I have no problem with gay people, in fact, one of my good college buddy was gay. What they do in their private life is their business, I respect that and they should have all the rights of everyone else.

But marriage is something defined by human society through out history by every single culture as between a man and women, the basis of human family and the basis of every single culture and civilization to grow and thrive. All these gay marriage talk is horseshit, just bunch of liberal whinning about language, like calling all black people white is gonna solve the racist issue.

Just give the gay couple equal right and let's move on.
Fine by me, let's allow them to marry. They'll be happy and you can call it horse shit.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
You are wrong. The counter points in this very thread prove you are wrong.

If this is just a "bunch of liberal whinning about language" then it is you who wish to limit the type of free speech of others....again you are wrong to do so.

History is no excuse. History has shown that there are more ways than just one to be "married"

How you can continue to cling to your mistaken understanding is pathetic.
Yeah, like pointing to some cult in Fujian and one Roman guy like they represent the human history and gay marriage is widely accepted pathetic?

All these whinning reminds me of some of the women I see trying to break the glass ceiling in work places and failed. All they do is whine about inequality and prejudice but they sit on their butt with their negativies and neglect the one thing that gets them to the top, perform and work well with the rest of the world.

Until gay couples show that they are the same with the rest of the world with stable relationship and no wierd pride parade with bunch of punks and cross dressors, there will always be prejudice against them. And until you take care of the prejudice, all the arguement about terms and language isn't gonna matter.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,297
127
106
Yeah, like pointing to some cult in Fujian and one Roman guy like they represent the human history and gay marriage is widely accepted pathetic?

All these whinning reminds me of some of the women I see trying to break the glass ceiling in work places and failed. All they do is whine about inequality and prejudice but they sit on their butt with their negativies and neglect the one thing that gets them to the top, perform and work well with the rest of the world.

Until gay couples show that they are the same with the rest of the world with stable relationship and no wierd pride parade with bunch of punks and cross dressors, there will always be prejudice against them. And until you take care of the prejudice, all the arguement about terms and language isn't gonna matter.
no its your point of view that is pathetic.

I see that you think gays are just a bunch of weird punks and cross dressers. I think if you were OPEN to seeing gay couples that are in "stable" and good relationships it wouldn't matter, you would always find something wrong with them.

What you posted says alot about you...none of it good. I would be embarrassed posting something like that on a public forum, you seem to think its ok. You managed to take pot shots at gays AND women...congrats dude...
 
Last edited:

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Darwinism, Darwinism guys. If all of our ancestors are homosexual, the human race won’t exist today. So this is in our blood, it’s part of our DNA. A lot living species such as birds, fish all have natural born instinct that let them travel to the places they have never visited in their lifetime to lay eggs or find food just like their ancestors.

The homosexual or couples refuse to have children fail to leave behind their DNA prints in the human race. So their DNA are naturally being filtered out of the human race throughout the history.

edit: sorry, I decide to remove my last paragraph here as it sounds like I am accusing homosexual being genetically inferior. What I am trying to say is most people naturally feel a man need to be with a woman because it's part of DNA (to answer OP's questions why they are against gay marriage) Homosexual is a minority group of the human race because of evolution. (since they can't leave their DNA behind)
Dumbest argument ever.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Most people I see cursing on the forum are all Deo-Phobes. Biggotry of the uncivilized anarchists.

Haters of All religions have no common sense. Society is more than a religious norm, and Morality is not solely founded on religious principles. There is no right to be a homosexual guaranteed in the constitution. You have a right to be free and do as you will, but other people do not have to accept your acts as normal. So go sit on a stick.
Why do you feel the need to legislate "normal" ?
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Some people who are against gay marriage are homophobic, and some are not. Just b/c you think someone is in the wrong does not mean you hate them or think poorly of them. If that were the case, everyone would have to hate everyone else b/c every person does wrong every day. For those who base their self-worth on thinking they are better than other people, this would be more of an issue.
Simply thinking someone's action is "in the wrong" is NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES a valid reason to legislate that action to be illegal.

There needs to be demonstrable harm done to others by performing said action, before outlawing it should even be on the table.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
To be honest, I've never heard a single argument against gay marriage that wasn't either of the form "it's weird so I don't like it" or was rooted in religion. While they may not be homophobic, they are definitely bigots.
This.
 

BassBomb

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2005
8,392
1
76
Something about how what gay people do will mess up their own family lives and morals... I don't really get it.

Oh and you can be a homophobe and still support gay marriage. I would consider myself homophobic, but I don't give a damn if they can marry (they should be able to)
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,568
1,528
126
Since the loss in Maine, Im starting to realize something. A new strange thinking.
That being, if heterosexual marriage, the so called “normal” marriage is what voters want to block gays from sharing. If this thing opponents call “normal marriage” is what voters claim total ownership of. If those opponents are the kind of evil people that their stripes show them to be in the voting booth, then just maybe gay folks “do not” want to wallow in the same muck they wallow in. Maybe gays don’t want to share this strange evil custom owned by them called “marriage”? Maybe gays should shoot for something better, something more lasting, more loving, more moral and truthful, more accepting and open than this thing labeled “normal marriage”?
Just maybe… Yes just maybe…“GAYS are too good for THEM?
Now THAT’S a thought…

And by “THEM” I mean the majority of the voting public. Those folks turning
out to express their freedom to bigot and judge.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
To be honest, I've never heard a single argument against gay marriage that wasn't either of the form "it's weird so I don't like it" or was rooted in religion. While they may not be homophobic, they are definitely bigots.
"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

I do not think that all people who are against gay marriage meet up to the definition/description of bigotry.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Simply thinking someone's action is "in the wrong" is NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES a valid reason to legislate that action to be illegal.

There needs to be demonstrable harm done to others by performing said action, before outlawing it should even be on the table.
Whether or not what you said is true, that is not what I was discussing. I was addressing the OP which is about what is the motivation for those who vote against same sex marriage.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

I do not think that all people who are against gay marriage meet up to the definition/description of bigotry.
What part of the definition do these people not meet, that people who are against interracial marriage do meet? Do you think there are those who are against interracial marriage who are not bigots?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Since the loss in Maine, Im starting to realize something. A new strange thinking.
That being, if heterosexual marriage, the so called “normal” marriage is what voters want to block gays from sharing. If this thing opponents call “normal marriage” is what voters claim total ownership of. If those opponents are the kind of evil people that their stripes show them to be in the voting booth, then just maybe gay folks “do not” want to wallow in the same muck they wallow in. Maybe gays don’t want to share this strange evil custom owned by them called “marriage”? Maybe gays should shoot for something better, something more lasting, more loving, more moral and truthful, more accepting and open than this thing labeled “normal marriage”?
Just maybe… Yes just maybe…“GAYS are too good for THEM?
Now THAT’S a thought…

And by “THEM” I mean the majority of the voting public. Those folks turning
out to express their freedom to bigot and judge.
I think the logic there is flawed. The antidote to discrimination is not to accept it. It's equal rights.

Maybe slaves don't want to be free citizens like the evil slaveowners, right? The leading argument against womens' right to vote was that they were too good for that dirty act.
 

Possessed Freak

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 1999
6,045
1
0
I would rather get rid of state/national awareness of marriages. Call them all social contracts at the government level. Leave it to a minimum age of consent requirement at the state level and that is it. If you get married you did so at some religious center, which qualifies as a social contract at the state/national level. If you choose to get the contract at a state facility, no marriage... just a social contract.

Leave the religions up to what they want to call marriage and keep the damn states out of it.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
To be honest, I've never heard a single argument against gay marriage that wasn't either of the form "it's weird so I don't like it" or was rooted in religion. While they may not be homophobic, they are definitely bigots.
Nothing personal, but I think you're being dishonest. You've heard just such arguments, you simply don't agree with them.

Here's a link you might investigate:

http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=1940

(2) The social recognition of committed heterosexual bonding has been a constant for thousands of years. No-one of a conservative inclination wants to mess lightly with that. Counter-arguments like “so was slavery” are unconvincing, as the occasional slights suffered by homosexual couples are microscopic by comparison with the injustice of human beings buying and selling other human beings.
No thoughtful, humane person wishes any harm to homosexuals; and if harm is done, it can and should be punished under long-standing laws. Let people live and love as they want. Human nature is what it is, though, and no-one of a conservative outlook can take lightly an attempt to carry out a radical overhaul of a key human institution, in a direction pointed directly at widespread (though I think normally mild) human emotions of disdain and disgust.
You may not agree with them, but there are arguments that aren't based on repulsion with gays, or aren't rooted in religion.
 
Last edited:

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
I would rather get rid of state/national awareness of marriages. Call them all social contracts at the government level. Leave it to a minimum age of consent requirement at the state level and that is it. If you get married you did so at some religious center, which qualifies as a social contract at the state/national level. If you choose to get the contract at a state facility, no marriage... just a social contract.

Leave the religions up to what they want to call marriage and keep the damn states out of it.
Why should religions have the only say, to placate the Religious bigots?
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,592
10,560
136
Nothing personal, but I think you're being dishonest. You've heard just such arguments, you simply don't agree with them.

Here's a link you might investigate:

http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=1940

You may not agree with them, but there are arguments that aren't based on repulsion with gays, or aren't rooted in religion.
Appeal to Tradition and Red Herring fallacies found (among many others).

Nobody has yet been able to produce a single logical argument that isn't hinged on multiple interlocking fallacies or a containing a religious bent which can survive the harm test.

What tangible harm does allowing gay marriage do to the heterosexual population in our secular nation?
 
Last edited:

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
Appeal to Tradition and Red Herring fallacies found (among many others).

Nobody has yet been able to produce a single logical argument that isn't hinged on multiple interlocking fallacies or a containing a religious bent which can survive the harm test.

What tangible harm does allowing gay marriage do to the heterosexual population in our secular nation?
Again, this is not meant to convince you. It is clear both sides will not listen.

The point is, arguments do exist which are neither hateful nor religious.

And exactly what is an Appeal to Tradition fallacy?
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,592
10,560
136
Again, this is not meant to convince you. It is clear both sides will not listen.

The point is, arguments do exist which are neither hateful nor religious.

And exactly what is an Appeal to Tradition fallacy?
Answer my question.

Google it and be enlightened in the ways of poor arguments.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY