Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: dlx22
its really not that complicated. To begin with, the vast majority of people are not gay. And since most people are not gay the idea of same sex sex/marriage seems to go against against genetically wired instincts, which lead people to be against gay marriage. Many people cannot get beyond their gut instinct of "gross" and see the issue for what it actually is. from what i've seen both sides have avid supporters but the vast majority of people dont give a crap, and will go with their gut instinct, no matter how irrational it is.
That doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. Proponents of gay marriage are ALSO mostly straight people who's genetic instincts don't drift any closer to same sex relationships than those of the people who oppose gay marriage. Is the primary difference really the strength of their personal homophobia? Because I certainly don't find sex with another guy at all appealing, I can't imagine people who oppose gay marriage are MORE turned off by the idea.
Or is the problem that some people are able to separate what they personally like from what they want to allow others to do, while some people are not?
Rainsford, sometimes you seem to go too far in the 'moderate' direction, and miss the point. Here, you reject bigotry as an explanation not because it's wrong, but just because.
Why are people so passionate? I've asked the same question when I look at the white mobs of Leave it to Beaver nice people who felt compelled to show up and scream and throw rocks when the federal government forcibly enrolled a black student at a previously all-white college. How did these people lost their minds and become frothing hate monsters? How did these decent people become so impassioned to hate poor black people they didn't know? How could something the typical American is now so proud we did be something that so many typical Americans were so infuriated by and opposed to when it happened?
The simple answer is, whether you like it or not, for them and for so many opponents of gay marriage today, bigotry. You can look for nuance on that answer, such as resistance to change, but the bottom line is that it was people who were 'defending tradition' when that really meant denying equality to others.
You ask the wrong question with why they are so passionate, since the answer is bigotry. The better question is, what can be done to reduce bigotry?
In the quoted post above, you reject the factor that few people are gay by noting that most supportes of gay marriage are straight.
You commit a logical fallacy there, in oversimplifying - the fact is that so few people being gay means that *more* people will not support them, will not understand them, will be bigoted against them; it doens't mean eveeryone not gay will, because some people - who happen to be the same people who support gay marriage - are more understanding of the principles involved, are more lacking in bigotry, and they support gay marriage. The single biggest factor predicting whether a straight person will support gay equal rights is whether that straight person has personal relationships with gay people. That supports the claim of dlx22, and shreds your argument against him that the percentage of people who are gay isn't an important factor.
While gay marriage may have the support of many straight people, it'd have a lot more support if more people were gay, as that would create the sort of understanding for the people who are not as aware of the principles involved to see some of the error of their ways more directly. For all the over-politicization of Dick Cheney's gay daughter, ever notice how Dick and Lynn Cheney who are otherwise nutty radical right-wingers appear to differ on that one issue from the rest of their crowd?
It's not automatic that even knowing gay people closely removes bigotry, and it's not required to know gay people to understand the principles to support equality.
But it helps many people in both cases.
You wrote, "Or is the problem that some people are able to separate what they personally like from what they want to allow others to do, while some people are not?"
You give them too much credit. Think of it in terms of their simply not caring about the rights of gay people, allowing themselves to simply react to their own disgust and to the culture in which they likely exist, where their friends, their minister, oppose gay marriage and they see no reason to support 'the gay agenda'.
When people are voting on rights, there are biases, such that some rights are respected along the lines of "what right do I have to vote to restrict those people's rights", and others are not, along the lines of "those people have to prove that they deserve my agreeing for them to have rights". Perhaps a good example might be the woman's right to vote, where today, most would say "I have no right to restrict their right to vote and make them second class citizens", but at the time, it might have been "they have to convince me".
That's the gay marriage issue now - many people adotping the "make me" stance in voting for their equal rights, instead of the "can I justify my vote against them" stance.
You need to get past your desire for 'accomoting' the opponents of gay marriage, yoru appearent fear of offending them with the word bigotry, and face bigotry if it exists.
It's one thing to not assume bigotry and to not abuse the word, but when the facts are that it's the cause, you shouldn't deny that just because they are insulted.
When and if the situation goes up to the supreme court, they will rule. The current composition of the court would likely support keeping DOMA in place. I don't give a darn what idiots in CA do or don't do (though I must say I was pleasantly surprised to see that at least more than 50% of the voters got one right this time), I contributed my time and money to help ensure that a single judge could not simply override the will of the people of Ohio. When and if the will of the people changes, so be it.
Facebook
Twitter