Why is opposition to gay marriage so strong?

[Rainsford]

We have thread after thread on the topic of gay marriage, and I don't want to start another one debating whether we like gay marriage or not. We never seem to get anywhere, and I'm forced to think that people will change their minds or not in their own time, debating gay marriage is like debating whether or not you like Chinese food...whatever anyone else thinks, it seems like people will think whatever they want to think about it.

But really debating gay marriage as a concept is missing the point. People in the US are free to think whatever they like about most things, including gay marriage. It's new and different and given the generally sexually conservative nature of this country, I'm not surprised that some people don't approve of gay marriage.

Here's where I get a little confused though...why is opposition to gay marriage as a legal right so incredibly strong? It's an issue that draws incredibly strong outrage from a large number of people, raises millions of dollars of political campaign funds, and fuels a movement that will stop at nothing to make sure gay marriage is banned. When the courts decided it was an implicit right in the California constitution, the anti-gay marriage folks went so far as to try to amend the constitution to specifically prohibit it. How many issues, even the important ones, rate a constitutional amendment? But somehow gay marriage, an issue with less than obvious effects on the people voting against it, meets the criteria to spur a national debate and a strong opposition movement?

Part of living in a free country means there are things that are allowed that you don't particularly like or agree with. Anti-gay marriage folks obviously know this, because they aren't stupid, but for some reason gay marriage is an issue that they feel so strongly about that they're willing to make an exception. It's tempting to just say they are being bigoted, but not liking gay marriage and not liking it enough to make it a major political issue are two very different things...and not approving of gay marriage doesn't quite explain the strength of the movement opposing it.

Honestly I think it's a "culture war" issue more than anything else. It's not gay marriage itself that pisses off its opposition, it's that people are trying to allow behavior that social conservatives don't approve of. If gay marriage was explicitly legal already, I doubt there would be very much effort to change that law. But listening to the rhetoric of the people who oppose gay marriage, I think the issue might just be a focal point for a face-off between different social views. Gay marriage opponents don't want gay marriage because it represents a cultural "loss" for them, I'm not sure they really care about gay marriage itself.

But then again, I might be wrong. Still, the fact that gay marriage is such a huge issue makes little sense to me...whatever negative effects gay marriage has on society, they can't possibly be strong enough to warrant the kind of opposition gay marriage sees. Something else must be going on...

 

[fskimospy]

I believe that most of the outrage is manufactured. There is a constant need for a cultural wedge issue, and this is a very convenient one, as a large percentage of the population has an extreme dislike for homosexuals. I mean, can you think of many other groups where members of it are beaten to death on a fairly regular basis?

If you want to mobilize your troops, the best way to do it is not to tell them what they are for, as enthusiasm wanes quickly, but what they are against, as hatred and fear are far more enduring.

 

[OrByte]

I may be remembering this wrong, and hopefully someone can back me up on this. But the movement to amend the California Constitution started BEFORE the Ca Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage.

I distinctly remember seeing the signature drives around the groceries stores and malls in order to get the backing for the California Amendment, and this was well before the Ca SC ruling.

I too wish to understand why the opposition to equal treatment is so significant when dealing with marriage rules. A part of me thinks this anti-gay movement is an unintended consequence of the 2008 General Elections. I think that since the abortion debate was 'old news' some culture war enthusiasts decided to make 'anti-gay' the centerpiece of their movement for the 2008 elections. Drum up votes for the religious base.

And then it (Anti-gay crusade) just took a life of its own.


just my .02

 

[Rainsford]

The problem I have with gay marriage as a wedge issue is that it might explain the politicians' attraction to the issue, it doesn't explain why it works as a wedge issue. Wedge issues only work if you can convince people to care strongly about something...or if they already care a lot about it. I'm not sure why gay marriage meets that criteria.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Part of living in a free country means there are things that are allowed that you don't particularly like or agree with.

I suspect many, many people say that they are proud of living in a free country, yet neither know nor agree with the ideal of "freedom". Instead, they wish to live among people who for the most part share their views.

 

[nageov3t]

I think it's mostly about the buttsex

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it's mostly about the buttsex

You think the Far Right is afraid of losing it's air tight integrity?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The problem I have with gay marriage as a wedge issue is that it might explain the politicians' attraction to the issue, it doesn't explain why it works as a wedge issue. Wedge issues only work if you can convince people to care strongly about something...or if they already care a lot about it. I'm not sure why gay marriage meets that criteria.

Well, elite action on a subject has a strong influence on the rest of us. The thing is that they CAN convince people to care strongly about something.

I see what you mean though, certain issues are much easier than others to make people care about, so why does gay marriage work so well? If I had to take a guess, I would say it is something similar to the Symbolic Racism described by David Sears. In that case, he argued that racism still strongly exists in America, but it is channeled through more acceptable avenues into opposition to ideas and policies strongly associated with black people, but not the blacks directly. (as this is no longer acceptable)

A lot of people in America harbor a dislike for homosexuals. It's no longer okay to just hate the homos publicly though, as seen in this whole gay marriage debate. (the anti-gay marriage people are always bending over backwards to say that they aren't homophobes) So, how do you oppose the gay people you still hate, but in a way that is acceptable? You oppose gay marriage.

That's my take on it at least. Elites making a conscious effort to harness latent homophobia.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The problem I have with gay marriage as a wedge issue is that it might explain the politicians' attraction to the issue, it doesn't explain why it works as a wedge issue. Wedge issues only work if you can convince people to care strongly about something...or if they already care a lot about it. I'm not sure why gay marriage meets that criteria.

Well, elite action on a subject has a strong influence on the rest of us. The thing is that they CAN convince people to care strongly about something.

I see what you mean though, certain issues are much easier than others to make people care about, so why does gay marriage work so well? If I had to take a guess, I would say it is something similar to the Symbolic Racism described by David Sears. In that case, he argued that racism still strongly exists in America, but it is channeled through more acceptable avenues into opposition to ideas and policies strongly associated with black people, but not the blacks directly. (as this is no longer acceptable)

A lot of people in America harbor a dislike for homosexuals. It's no longer okay to just hate the homos publicly though, as seen in this whole gay marriage debate. (the anti-gay marriage people are always bending over backwards to say that they aren't homophobes) So, how do you oppose the gay people you still hate, but in a way that is acceptable? You oppose gay marriage.

That's my take on it at least. Elites making a conscious effort to harness latent homophobia.

You might be right, if only because gay marriage examples put forward by anti-gay marriage activists almost always talk about two MEN getting married, even though gay marriage is at least as much about gay women as it is about gay men. But women who like other women, while not really socially acceptable to many people either, doesn't have the homophobic impact that men who like men does...especially when you're talking about straight men.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it's mostly about the buttsex

You think the Far Right is afraid of losing it's air tight integrity?

I think sex between gay men grosses people out.

I think if there were a way to just legalize lesbian marriage, it would pass.

 

[LumbergTech]

I think that for a large percentage of people it makes them ill to think about having sex with the same sex. It evokes a negative physical reaction. For others, it bothers them to see men (or women) acting outside of their prescribed gender role. When someone doesn't examine closely why these feelings occur, they (ignorantly) come to the conclusion that its somehow wrong. They then concoct a bogus set of reasons that attempt to mask their true reasoning. I believe that they are threatened by this type of social group (same sex couple) because they somehow feel like they will be diminished or not know their proper role anymore (it makes the world seem less concrete to them).

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

You might be right, if only because gay marriage examples put forward by anti-gay marriage activists almost always talk about two MEN getting married, even though gay marriage is at least as much about gay women as it is about gay men. But women who like other women, while not really socially acceptable to many people either, doesn't have the homophobic impact that men who like men does...especially when you're talking about straight men.

I agree that the anti-gay people use men as an example far more than women. I guess that really does bolster the homophobia argument.

I can't really say I'm surprised though, I mean did anyone HONESTLY think that people are fighting against this because they are worried about people marrying dogs or whatever? My ass.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
I think that for a large percentage of people it makes them ill to think about having sex with the same sex. It evokes a negative physical reaction. For others, it bothers them to see men (or women) acting outside of their prescribed gender role. When someone doesn't examine closely why these feelings occur, they (ignorantly) come to the conclusion that its somehow wrong. They then concoct a bogus set of reasons that attempt to mask their true reasoning. I believe that they are threatened by this type of social group (same sex couple) because they somehow feel like they will be diminished or not know their proper role anymore (it makes the world seem less concrete to them).

That's giving an awful lot of power to people most opponents of gay marriage will never meet. Clearly they feel it would affect them strongly enough that they have to ban it at all costs...that just doesn't really add up.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think sex between gay men grosses people out.

I think if there were a way to just legalize lesbian marriage, it would pass.

I doubt it. They'd say lesbian marriage would open the door to men getting married and incest and people marrying their animals. Bigoted stupidity.

 

[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.

 

[Lemon law]

Rainsford, I think you have asked the question that also somewhat baffles me. After all, as a happily married man married to a woman, why should I care if some other man prefers men as a sex partner and other women prefers another women as a sex partner. I am not planning on leaving my wife to go live with some male sex partner and I am not worried that my wife will leave me to go have sex with some other woman.

But the moment I married my wife and I got married, and we both signed the State issued marriage license, we both agreed to a powerful set of rights and obligations. Those rights and obligations were put there for a reason, namely to promote social stability, and only some of those right and obligations regard the rights of children that may or may not result from our union. Since I consider these right and obligations as something good for me, how can I, in good conscience, deny those same rights to Gay and Lesbians couples?

And while I agree with eskimospy and his contention that there are no shortage of people who will exploit wedge issues for political gain or fame, I also think there is some knee jerk belief that somehow, if we
punish and shame Gays and Lesbians, they will magically become normal heterosexual humans and end of problem.

Maybe this punish the lifestyle would be valid if it were a free choice, but if its genetically driven, which I strongly suspect, its about as efficient as punishing someone for being left handed or having brown eyes.

But Gays and Lesbians have been with us since the dawn of prehistory, many societies have tried to punish it out of existence, and they have had exactly zero success. Sorry, even if I am in the majority here,
I do not get my jollies making other peoples lives as miserable as possible for no reason.

Which is why I view many of those supposedly Christian men and women pushing prop 8 in California and a homophobic agenda on the world as sick sick sick human beings.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think sex between gay men grosses people out.

I think if there were a way to just legalize lesbian marriage, it would pass.

I doubt it. They'd say lesbian marriage would open the door to men getting married and incest and people marrying their animals. Bigoted stupidity.

I'm trying to look PAST explanations like "bigoted stupidity" if possible. That's not very helpful to figuring out where people are coming from, and while I'm sure you're right about the motivations of SOME people, I have a hard time believing that's universal among people who oppose gay marriage.

 

[Throckmorton]

Here is a note I posted on Facebook last night: http://www.facebook.com/note.p...hp?note_id=18173139990

Gay marriage is a matter of religious freedom

It should be obvious by now that gay marriage doesn't affect the sanctity of anyone's straight marriage, that denying a class of people a right is discrimination, that many other rights are affected, etc...

But what bothers me is that gay marriage is presented as a religious issue, which completely misconstrues the relationship between religion and government. Here is why it makes no sense:



* Marriage is a civil institution in addition to a religious one. A couple gets a marriage license in addition to being married in the church, temple, coven, or whatever. A couple can also be married without involvement of religion, yet every religion is not forced to recognize that legal union.





* The tradition argument is ridiculous.

The problem is marriage is not just a tradition among people belonging to anti-gay religions. Marriage is a part of almost every culture on earth, and probably has been since the dawn of humanity.

Anatomically modern humans have existed for 120,000 years and religion has existed for 70,000 years (http://www.sciam.com/article.c...rings-to-a-stone-snak). That means, assuming humans have always been monogamous, that marriage was nonreligious for 50,000 years. For the next 70,000 years it was a religious institution for some societies, but for others it remained a social contract, or a property exchange, or a legal arrangement. There has never been one definition of marriage that all humans on earth agreed upon, or even an agreement that marriage requires religion.

Even American legal marriage has been redefined several times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H..._marriage_in_the_U.S.)
There was nothing traditional about miscegenation or the redefinition of husband and wife as individuals.





* The other main argument is that Christianity currently defines marriage before God as heterosexual only, so that should be the law.

But even though the majority of Americans are Christian, we have a secular state with separation from religion as a core principle. Didn't we all learn that in grade school?

A religion forbidding gay marriage should mean only one thing- that members of that religion cannot marry someone of the same sex upon pain of damnation, or not getting the 72 virgins, or disappearing into nonexistence, or whatever those scriptures say.

What would it be like if religions other than Christianity had the majorities necessary to pass their own "Proposition 8s"?

Hindus could ban marriage between people of different castes. It's IN the Bhagavad Gita.

Muslims could pass laws allowing marriage between old men and nonconsenting 10 year old girls because Muhammad did it. It's IN the Koran.

Jews and Muslims could form a coalition and ban pork. It's IN the Torah AND the Koran.

Catholics could ban all masses that do not involve transubstantiation of the eucharist into the body and blood of Christ. Protestants would be REQUIRED to hire a priest to execute the transubstantiation. It's IN the Bible. Hear that Episcopalians?? Your non-transubstantiated eucharist violates the sanctity of communion.

The point is, you can only justify banning a state civil marriage based on one religion's beliefs if you think that my alternate Propositions should be legal in a country with freedom of religion.

Let's not forget that some Christian sects do allow gay marriage.



* There's another problem with the "Christianity says" argument. It's hypocritical. The assumption is that because the Christian God approves only of heterosexuality that ANY heterosexual marriage is OK.
Even the most die hard gay marriage opponent apparently has no problem with the government recognizing non-Christian marriages, but those are invalid in the eyes of God!!

Here is a list of marriages that should be illegal following the logic used to ban gay ones:
-Jewish marriages
-Muslim marriages
-Hindu marriages
-Buddhist marriages
-Secular marriage by judges

If the only valid marriage is one sanctified by God, shouldn't all those people be forced to marry in a church?



* There is no mainstream movement to apply Biblical restrictions to divorce in order to protect the sanctity of marriage.
The Bible is very clear that divorce is bad. http://www.gotquestions.org/divorce-remarriage.html

Malachi 2:16a - ?I hate divorce, says the Lord God of Israel.?

Matthew 19:6 - ?So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate?


It seems that the Bible permits divorce in the case of unfaithfulness:


4 ?Haven?t you read,? he replied, ?that at the beginning the Creator ?made them male and female,??a? 5 and said, ?For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh??b?? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.?

7 ?Why then,? they asked, ?did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away??

8 Jesus replied, ?Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.?



There you have it. The Bible SAYS that divorce is wrong except in the case of adultery. Why shouldn't that be made law?

There seems to be a de facto acceptance by Christians that religious proscriptions are separate from the laws of the state. Yet an exception is made for marriage!

Let me know when there's a movement to ban shellfish because the Bible forbids it.




Bans on gay marriage amount to members of one religion using government to force people of all other religions and beliefs to conform to SOME of its own arbitrarily-selected sacraments.

 

[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?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
I think that for a large percentage of people it makes them ill to think about having sex with the same sex. It evokes a negative physical reaction. For others, it bothers them to see men (or women) acting outside of their prescribed gender role. When someone doesn't examine closely why these feelings occur, they (ignorantly) come to the conclusion that its somehow wrong. They then concoct a bogus set of reasons that attempt to mask their true reasoning. I believe that they are threatened by this type of social group (same sex couple) because they somehow feel like they will be diminished or not know their proper role anymore (it makes the world seem less concrete to them).

That's giving an awful lot of power to people most opponents of gay marriage will never meet. Clearly they feel it would affect them strongly enough that they have to ban it at all costs...that just doesn't really add up.

I think it adds up when you consider much of what people rely upon for their decision making is based on religion and how they were raised.

Once the anti-gay movement became a religious crusade, people began to personalize the anger and frustration that gays and gay sympathizers presented in homes, schools, and communities.

In short, God told people to hate on gays. And God can be pretty influential.

A personal observation: The Eastern Orthodox churches here in my community were extremely vocal and active over this issue. It was like there were Russian and Armenian teens on every street corner howling in protest of gay marriage. A new phenomenon? These Eastern European immigrants have alot to say when it comes to religious freedom. Including their freedom to hate on the gay community.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
I think that for a large percentage of people it makes them ill to think about having sex with the same sex. It evokes a negative physical reaction. For others, it bothers them to see men (or women) acting outside of their prescribed gender role. When someone doesn't examine closely why these feelings occur, they (ignorantly) come to the conclusion that its somehow wrong. They then concoct a bogus set of reasons that attempt to mask their true reasoning. I believe that they are threatened by this type of social group (same sex couple) because they somehow feel like they will be diminished or not know their proper role anymore (it makes the world seem less concrete to them).

That's giving an awful lot of power to people most opponents of gay marriage will never meet. Clearly they feel it would affect them strongly enough that they have to ban it at all costs...that just doesn't really add up.

I suggest you do some study on societal attitudes about gender. If you begin here, you can see where the homophobia is coming from. There isn't one faction to blame or some simple answer. Gender is a very complicated issue in any society. When gender roles appear threatened, their strict adherents become quite scared and upset.

As orByte mentioned, religious groups fan the flames of a natural feeling by trying to make the threat more real by making up bogus reasoning that gays are somehow going to hurt us if they are allowed to marry.

 

[dlx22]

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?

i really think it comes down to education. The better educated people are, the more likely people can see past their homophobia

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I mean, can you think of many other groups where members of it are beaten to death on a fairly regular basis?

Link?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Part of living in a free country means there are things that are allowed that you don't particularly like or agree with.

I suspect many, many people say that they are proud of living in a free country, yet neither know nor agree with the ideal of "freedom". Instead, they wish to live among people who for the most part share their views.

That goes both ways you know.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think it's mostly about the buttsex

You think the Far Right is afraid of losing it's air tight integrity?

I think sex between gay men grosses people out.

I think if there were a way to just legalize lesbian marriage, it would pass.

That's because the female body is beautiful, and twice as much of a beautiful thing is good. The male form is nasty, smell, sweaty and hairy. One of them having sex is bad enough, two of them doing together is repulsive. I find it odd that more women aren't lesbians quite frankly. Lesbians who would of course invite me to join them.