For me, the issue was that Anderson was getting the rematch regardless, before the opening bell rang. He got beat, cleanly and clearly. No controversy. If the fight was close, fine. But it wasn't.
I think I get what you're saying though and I've been echoing a similar sentiment all year. I know match making is difficult. I know they're running a business around a sport. In the end, all I'm really asking for is the illusion of legitimacy. At least pretend that they're trying to retain some sort of sporting credibility. Title challengers should at least be coming off of a win... Even if it's just one win! In 2013 if all goes to plan by years end, we'll have had 5 title fights where the challenger is coming off a loss. In the cases of Edgar, Diaz, Sonnen and Tate I found the decision to put them in title fights completely unacceptable.
I'm fine with the first two...but the last one delegitimizes the sport. It's right up there with giving sonnen a title shot when he'd never won at 205. It's weak. If the champ gets finished, he's finished, and should earn the rematch. I can see taking a resume into case when the fight is close...maybe not as razor thin as Rua/Machida or Edgar/Maynard. But that's as far as it should go.
I think a case for an auto-rematch can be made under a few exceptions, however. A razor close fight or draw (Machida/Shogun, Edgar/Maynard), a rubber match where no other legitimate contender is a viable option (Arlovski/Sylvia III) or when a champ has been on as dominant a run as Anderson and Georges have been on, regardless how they lose. That's just my take.