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

[PokerGuy]

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.

..... in your mind. There are billions of people in the world, most of whom view it differently than you. It is supreme arrogance and hubris to think that your position is the only correct one and that everyone elses is completely illogical and stupid.

Even if I disagree with another point of view, I can see the logic behind it. It's the zealots that simply discount the other points of view as "illogical".

 

[PrinceofWands]

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.

Of course it is. What's not logical is the restriction. It falls into the exact same category as the Constitution defining slaves as 3/5 of a person. It doesn't matter what tradition defines, it matters what is logically supportable under a given framework of the equality of all humans.

 

[PrinceofWands]

..... in your mind. There are billions of people in the world, most of whom view it differently than you. It is supreme arrogance and hubris to think that your position is the only correct one and that everyone elses is completely illogical and stupid.

Even if I disagree with another point of view, I can see the logic behind it. It's the zealots that simply discount the other points of view as "illogical".

Fine, just show me some logic and we'll proof it. If it stands to proof, then you win.

 

[PokerGuy]

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.

So... who makes the laws? Oh, yeah, SOCIETY, the people. So ultimately, whatever society wants to be the law will be the law, and the government has but to follow it. When society changes enough, the laws will change to reflect it. You seem to have this (typical liberal) elitist notion that government is wise and needs to run the country based on what the elitists think is correct rather than what the people want.

 

[PokerGuy]

Fine, just show me some logic and we'll proof it. If it stands to proof, then you win.

There is no point in bringing logic to you, because in your mind, anything that you disagree with is illogical. Nobody will ever convince you otherwise, and that's fine. In your mind, the only "logic" is yours. Everything else is wrong.

 

[PrinceofWands]

So... who makes the laws? Oh, yeah, SOCIETY, the people. So ultimately, whatever society wants to be the law will be the law, and the government has but to follow it. When society changes enough, the laws will change to reflect it. You seem to have this (typical liberal) elitist notion that government is wise and needs to run the country based on what the elitists think is correct rather than what the people want.

You seem to think that any bunch of crap the people pile on a piece of paper can become law (and stay that way).

Unless your state offers citizen initiatives then any law you vote on will already have been drafted and cleaned up by politicians so as to give it the highest chance of passing muster.

Once passed into law, the courts can still overturn any law as invalid if they violate precepts of our legal foundation. While it is true that SCOTUS does not operate in a vacuum, they still generally try to stay true to logic. Eventually, bad laws get overturned. Bad, in this case, means bigotted and illogical.

 

[Jaskalas]

So... who makes the laws? Oh, yeah, SOCIETY, the people. So ultimately, whatever society wants to be the law will be the law, and the government has but to follow it. When society changes enough, the laws will change to reflect it. You seem to have this (typical liberal) elitist notion that government is wise and needs to run the country based on what the elitists think is correct rather than what the people want.

It is indeed wise to believe that all men should be treated equally.

 

[Ausm]

I would lean toward homophobic myself.

 

[PrinceofWands]

There is no point in bringing logic to you, because in your mind, anything that you disagree with is illogical. Nobody will ever convince you otherwise, and that's fine. In your mind, the only "logic" is yours. Everything else is wrong.

HAHAHAHA typical defeated bullcrap. Again, knowing inside that you are wrong, and biased, you attempt to defend your ego by avoiding a process which would publicly show you to be in the wrong. You might want to see a therapist about overcoming that some time.

Seriously, if you feel I can't proof neutrally then lets get someone else to do it. You pick any public university in the nation and we'll send a request to whoever teaches their logic classes to proof whatever statement you choose to make. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

 

[Red Irish]

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.

A partner of choice, providing you get to decide on the gender of that partner? It is the only logical position. Applying different rules to a certain group on the basis of their sexual preference is illogical. The problem here is that you have a very limited idea of marriage, i.e. marriage must involve a man and a woman. Why do you feel this way? If you suggest that reproduction is the only objective of marriage, are sterile couples married? As I stated above, marriage in the middle ages often involved girls of 12, is this a valid model for marriage? I assume that you feel that it isn't, whereby you admit that our concept of what does or does not constitute marriage has changed over time. Indeed, as you can see, appealing to traditional models may not be on our best interests, unless of course you pick and choose those elements that appeal to your own personal preferences.

In short, we have evolved and are no longer in a postion to advocate that laws should be applied to consenting adults in a different manner on the basis of their sexual preferences.

 

[Red Irish]

..... in your mind. There are billions of people in the world, most of whom view it differently than you. It is supreme arrogance and hubris to think that your position is the only correct one and that everyone elses is completely illogical and stupid.

Even if I disagree with another point of view, I can see the logic behind it. It's the zealots that simply discount the other points of view as "illogical".

Bigotry rather than logic lies behind the arguments of those who reject gay marriage. What reasons are put forth in support of gay marriage that you feel should be rejected?

 

[Red Irish]

So... who makes the laws? Oh, yeah, SOCIETY, the people. So ultimately, whatever society wants to be the law will be the law, and the government has but to follow it. When society changes enough, the laws will change to reflect it. You seem to have this (typical liberal) elitist notion that government is wise and needs to run the country based on what the elitists think is correct rather than what the people want.

I think the majority voted for the Nazi party in pre-war Germany. Should the people always get what they want? Is the majority always right?

It is ironic that you appeal to democracy and weight of numbers when attempting to justify your bigotry. I assume you are aware that the Greeks invented democracy: it was an all male affair, women weren't allowed, and they spent the day debating various issues, providing us with the basis of modern society and western philosophy and sodomising one another.

 

[PokerGuy]

HAHAHAHA typical defeated bullcrap. Again, knowing inside that you are wrong, and biased, you attempt to defend your ego by avoiding a process which would publicly show you to be in the wrong. You might want to see a therapist about overcoming that some time.

Seriously, if you feel I can't proof neutrally then lets get someone else to do it. You pick any public university in the nation and we'll send a request to whoever teaches their logic classes to proof whatever statement you choose to make. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

I have my view, and others have differing views. I, however, am not deluded or arrogant enough to think that my position is the only "valid" one in the world. Only stupid people can be that arrogant. The only thing 'defeated' is your fallacy that your view is the only logical one.

 

[jonks]

It's pretty well summed up by the attorney in California opposing the lawsuit seeking same-sex marriage. When asked by the presiding judge "what harm comes from permitting same sex marriage?" He could only reply, "I don't know."

Ask the folks in Maine who voted Yes on 1 and they probably can't come up with any better answer, seeing as how there is no harm. Hell, the question was posed to the Natl Org for Marriage people and they couldn't even come up with anything that made sense. The old folks will die, the young folks will grow up, and marriage equality will happen. Just not today.

 

[Red Irish]

I have my view, and others have differing views. I, however, am not deluded or arrogant enough to think that my position is the only "valid" one in the world. Only stupid people can be that arrogant. The only thing 'defeated' is your fallacy that your view is the only logical one.

Sometimes there is no grey area. Refusing to allow gay couples to marry is wrong, that's a black-and-white issue.

 

[PokerGuy]

I think the majority voted for the Nazi party in pre-war Germany. Should the people always get what they want? Is the majority always right?

Who said the majority is always right? If not the people, who gets to decide what is right? Are you saying we should have a small group of elite enlightened people that should decide what is right? That's stupid. The people decide what is right. Over time, people change, and laws change with them. Duh.

 

[shadow9d9]

Want to protect marriage? Remove the ability to divorce. Otherwise, stfu.

 

[Red Irish]

Who said the majority is always right? If not the people, who gets to decide what is right? Are you saying we should have a small group of elite enlightened people that should decide what is right? That's stupid. The people decide what is right. Over time, people change, and laws change with them. Duh.

You pointed to the majority and weight of numbers when attempting to defend your position.

I am saying that all laws should be applied to adults in the same manner, irrespective of their sexual preferences. Why are you against the concept of gay marriage? I have yet to hear you spell out your personal opinion.

 

[PokerGuy]

Sometimes there is no grey area. Refusing to allow gay couples to marry is wrong, that's a black-and-white issue.

... and of course, your view is the only correct one right? You are the sole arbiter of what is right? Everyone has an opinion, that's why there's a system for voting that allows everyone to voice that opinion to establish a system for living together even though different people have different opinions.

 

[PokerGuy]

I am saying that all laws should be applied to adults in the same manner, irrespective of their sexual preferences. Why are you against the concept of gay marriage? I have yet to hear you spell out your personal opinion.

That's because you ASSUME that I'm against it. Nowhere did I say that I was.

 

[Red Irish]

That's because you ASSUME that I'm against it. Nowhere did I say that I was.

Are you?

 

[Red Irish]

... and of course, your view is the only correct one right? You are the sole arbiter of what is right? Everyone has an opinion, that's why there's a system for voting that allows everyone to voice that opinion to establish a system for living together even though different people have different opinions.

Opinions should not be allowed to restrict your rights simply because you do not insert your penis into the same places as the majority.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

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.

There is no point in bringing logic to you, because in your mind, anything that you disagree with is illogical. Nobody will ever convince you otherwise, and that's fine. In your mind, the only "logic" is yours. Everything else is wrong.

These "arguments" are identical to kylebisme ranting about 9/11 and saying "well, I already proved it, so I don't need to explain it to you." If you aren't willing to put your arguments out for review on a public forum, there's not much dialogue that can happen between us. It's not conducive to good debate when one side is saying "we know why we believe it, but we're not gonna tell you." If your arguments can be presented in a logical way, present them. If they can't, maybe you need to consider the possibility that they aren't valid arguments.

 

[StageLeft]

Not sure on the main one, I'd say homophobia is a huge influence for most.

I don't care much about it. If I was forced to vote I'd say let them. I do not understand how some are so evangelical about it, though; for most of us it just does not matter either way.

 

[Red Irish]

Not sure on the main one, I'd say homophobia is a huge influence for most.

I don't care much about it. If I was forced to vote I'd say let them. I do not understand how some are so evangelical about it, though; for most of us it just does not matter either way.

I'm not gay, but I do feel that any advances that can be made towards irradicating bigotry do matter and matter very much.