CDZ Why do some people feel threatened by Gay marriage & equality for Gays

[320 Years of History]

Do you want a well developed answer to your thread question or do you prefer the typical drivel that one can find on here? If the former:

• The Roots Of Homophobia - Hating Gays - An Overview Of Scientific Studies | Assault On Gay America | FRONTLINE | PBS
  
• The Media’s Influence on Public Perception of Homosexuality
  
• Who is afraid of sexual minorities? Homosexuals, moral panic and the exercise of social control
  
• The Future Impact of Same-Sex Marriage
  
• Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage: An Obligation Not a Decision

 

[320 Years of History]

Who feels threatened?

The short answer to your question is: a whole lot of conservatives.

​

Among marriages short and long, in their course exactly two people on the planet have had a direct impact on the strength and sanctity of those joinings. Every single day spouses work together diligently to have a vital, honest, loving relationship and they're the only ones who can make that happen or keep it from happening -- period. The idea that anyone else’s marriage affects one's own is fairly ridiculous for marriage is about a couple's being fully invested in honoring their own marital vows.

Ultimately this isn’t about one's theology, it’s about the fading fine art of minding your own business. It’s about honoring Marriage as an institution (if one is married) by realizing that one is not a local corporate franchise, one is a unique (if you will) “mom and pop” organization expressing what love looks like in the precisely beautiful, once-in-History union of which one is a part.

Even if one believes that same-sex marriage is sinful or immoral (which is one's right), claiming that it does any sort of residual collateral damage to one or one's spouse says more about the fragility of one's relationship than it does about the LGBT community as a viable threat. For all the public discourse about what a “Biblical Marriage” is, the Scriptures give a lot less instruction on how to be married, than they do about how to be a loving, decent, compassionate person within or without it. Yet even when the text speaks directly on matrimony itself, it does so with expectation that married people will work out those words in the confines of their own covenant relationship. It never implies implicitly or openly that we get to police other people or they us. Interestingly, the same folks claiming that gay people are damaging Marriage, aren’t nearly as vocal about the rampant infidelity, abuse, and divorce out there in so many heterosexual marriages. In those cases, they don’t view those people as a threat and are quite able to separate themselves from the greater married world when it suits them.

It comes down to attention. Consider the example of an individual who engages a personal trainer and arrives at the gym for their first session worried about being embarrassed in front of other more fit, more experienced people in the gym. Such concerns are misplaced for when those other folks are on the floor, they are so focused on what they’re doing and working so hard, they don’t have the time or energy to be worrying and thinking about "you."

An acquaintance recently lamented the fact that “homosexuals are tearing apart the family unit”. I wonder whose “family unit” he was referring to. I know it isn’t mine. My family unit is pretty spectacular and secure because it exists independently of those outside my house, regardless of sexual orientation or any other possible variable. I have authority and direct influence regarding only one family unit on the planet. That’s how this life works.

As a father, my own dad-ness is not affected by how other fathers parent their children; my son-ness not impacted by the other children out there in the world. Likewise, as friend, sibling, co-worker and in every other role I get to play here, I and those I am in relationship with work out the specific sacredness that exists there.

The difficult pill for so many Christians to swallow is this: Gay people have families; caring, beautiful, flawed, loving ones. They daily navigate complicated relationships with siblings, parents, children, and yes even spouses (and in-laws). They live lives together in deep community marked by all the compassion, frustration, intimacy, laughter, heartache, and richness that you share with your own family.

If one can’t admit and respect that, and if one finds oneself somehow threatened by any other person’s pursuit of happiness or expression of family, that’s likely a "you" problem. There’s something incredibly troublesome when we as people of faith require others to believe what we believe, or worse, when we act as if their refusal to believe what we believe or practice what we practice in any way devalues our faith experience.

Straight Christians, when they married didn’t make those flowery vows to all married people, before or since. They didn’t profess their undying love and commitment to an institution. They didn’t expectantly join the ranks of a club or fraternity or corporation.

One did not get married to marriage. One pledged to a person; promising to love one's spouse as faithfully and passionately and completely as one could for the rest of one's life. That’s all one is obligated, expected, and qualified to do.

The bottom line: If one's marriage is adversely affected by anyone else’s marriage (straight or gay), one probably doesn't have a very good marriage. That should be cause for great worry.

Outside of one's spouse, the only person who can really threaten one's marriage, is oneself.

 

[Iceweasel]

So for me the issue isn't who's marrying who, it's who has the final say so. Citizens or the state.

Is it fair to assume, then, that if enough duly-elected legislators elected by citizens revise laws to include gay marriage that it would be acceptable?
.

Sure. That's how states used to do it. But it didn't happen that way.

 

[Iceweasel]

The bottom line: If one's marriage is adversely affected by anyone else’s marriage (straight or gay), one probably doesn't have a very good marriage. That should be cause for great worry.

That's called political spin. It's a strawman since nobody on Earth ever made that argument. This is what the left does. They are intellectually dishonest and attempt to demonize any opposition through shaming, ridicule, lies, smears and insults. The bottom line is does a free society get to define its' culture or not? If two men can marry, why not three? Who are you to say?

The left argues against tradition then runs right back to tradition when it suits their purpose.

 

[320 Years of History]

The bottom line: If one's marriage is adversely affected by anyone else’s marriage (straight or gay), one probably doesn't have a very good marriage. That should be cause for great worry.

That's called political spin. It's a strawman since nobody on Earth ever made that argument. ...If two men can marry, why not three? Who are you to say?

Red:
"That" what?

Blue:
As far as I'm concerned, three people can marry or whatever term you want to give it their union. I'm not trying to say what other people can or cannot do as go their love-relationships. How they structure their love-relationships is their business, not mine; it has no impact on me.

Other:
One of the major issues I have with Republican conservatives is that they want the government and law makers to stay out of everyone's business until:

• Gay people want to get married,
• Some bunch of nitwits can't exhibit the intellectual acuity to get one of the literally millions of available jobs,
• A woman wants an abortion, or
• A white person announces some cocamamy theory about their individual failure to receive an opportunity and blames it on ideas that are designed and implemented to minimize entire classes of minorities' enduring similar misfortune.

In short, the conservative model is "We want the government to stay out of our lives, set and uphold no ethical standards, until we don't want it to."

 

[Iceweasel]

The bottom line: If one's marriage is adversely affected by anyone else’s marriage (straight or gay), one probably doesn't have a very good marriage. That should be cause for great worry.

That's called political spin. It's a strawman since nobody on Earth ever made that argument. ...If two men can marry, why not three? Who are you to say?

Red:
"That" what?

Blue:
As far as I'm concerned, three people can marry or whatever term you want to give it their union. I'm not trying to say what other people can or cannot do as go their love-relationships. How they structure their love-relationships is their business, not mine; it has no impact on me.

Other:
One of the major issues I have with Republican conservatives is that they want the government and law makers to stay out of everyone's business until:

• Gay people want to get married,
• Some bunch of nitwits can't exhibit the intellectual acuity to get one of the literally millions of available jobs,
• A woman wants an abortion, or
• A white person announces some cocamamy theory about their individual failure to receive an opportunity and blames it on ideas that are designed and implemented to minimize entire classes of minorities' enduring similar misfortune.

In short, the conservative model is "We want the government to stay out of our lives, set and uphold no ethical standards, until we don't want it to."

Who said that? Oh, that's right, you did. No conservative I've ever heard made that argument (see above). We have laws against public nudity as well as many other moral laws. It's up to the people of the state to decide, not a few people running central government. If a state decides on polygamy it's fine with me too.

But mostly I believe government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether at this point. No official recognition of marriage period. Your marriage should be between you and whoever on whatever terms you agree to.

Kids complicate things but with modern dna testing the guy's feet can be held to the fire. And that already happens.

 

[Holos]

I suspect that there might be a few answers.

Perhaps its a hangover from a previous age where homosexuality was illegal and frowned upon ?

Possibly due to ignorance.

Possibly due to their religious teachings.

Maybe something in their own psyche that drives it.

My own view is quite simplistic. Its none of my business who people want to shag. And it doesnt affect me in any way if two people of the same sex want to get hitched. Good luck to them, we need more love in the world.

I would suggest that my view is a conservative one and is shared by the majority of decent conservatives.

In our lifetime homosexual activity could get you arrested, and it still could in some of the more backward countries of the world. Do you want to see us make common cause with the likes of Saudi Arabia ?

I do not believe it is true that homosexual activity can get you arrested, in this country or in any other country of the whole world.

The felt threat in relation to homosexuality, to my understanding, is not so much related to the interactions between many different citizens, be it two, three, four, or how many would participate in enacting behavior and also possibly arresting it. Instead, I believe it relates to singular identity, and how a singular citizen is capable of recognizing that "all sexual organs are different, because all people of disclaimed or undisclosed gender and sex are different" - except, of course, their very own, as they have to compare their particular gender and sex to their own sexual organ, and how it has changed and developed from birth and from their usual habits, which extend from the very minuteness of consumption patterns to the very details of reading words, sentences and paragraphs. For example, often a text is describing how a singular citizen is under the effect of different identities to provide information on how that citizen may be fully effective in a society in which those identities are already understood, established and freely available. However, if the singular individual happens to dissociate themselves in perceiving those multiple identities by thinking or interpreting them as strictly external, pertaining only to other singular citizens besides themselves, then their comprehension of the city in which they live can become distorted an apparently unlawful, causing them to feel confusedly threatened because they struggle with the fundamental comprehension of citizenship to which that city already ascribes to. Although it may seem startling, the place in which we live tends to know more about ourselves than our yet inquiring and associating identities (it provides our oxygen and everything else we appreciate). If we decide that the place is only a reflection upon our disassociating singularity, even if we then associate with other disassociating singular citizens sharing common traits, our perceptions will be misunderstood as identity and our histories, laws, relationships won't be perceived as they truly are, always providing, arising from a very long developed past, possibly remaining in a very long developing present, and definitely continuing into a developing future.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

So for me the issue isn't who's marrying who, it's who has the final say so. Citizens or the state.

Is it fair to assume, then, that if enough duly-elected legislators elected by citizens revise laws to include gay marriage that it would be acceptable?
.

Did you get an answer to this ?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Tommy, it isn't a matter of feeling threatened by gays. Its a matter of authoritarianism. Both sides have authoritarians. This is just one way those on the right manifest themselves.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Tommy, it isn't a matter of feeling threatened by gays. Its a matter of authoritarianism. Both sides have authoritarians. This is just one way those on the right manifest themselves.

I get that. But there does seem to be an industry that has grown up around this. Many characters are making a good living out of attacking Gays.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Tommy, it isn't a matter of feeling threatened by gays. Its a matter of authoritarianism. Both sides have authoritarians. This is just one way those on the right manifest themselves.

I get that. But there does seem to be an industry that has grown up around this. Many characters are making a good living out of attacking Gays.

Same reason assholes like Al Sharpton etc etc get rich off preaching hatred towards whitey.

There are unfortunately people who have figured out a way to make money off of riling other people up over silly and hateful things.

 

[Mac1958]

So for me the issue isn't who's marrying who, it's who has the final say so. Citizens or the state.

Is it fair to assume, then, that if enough duly-elected legislators elected by citizens revise laws to include gay marriage that it would be acceptable?.

Did you get an answer to this ?

Yes, in post 28.
.

 

[Holos]

I believe it relates to singular identity, and how a singular citizen is capable of recognizing that "all sexual organs are different, because all people of disclaimed or undisclosed gender and sex are different" - except, of course, in recognizing their very own singular biology, as they have to compare their singularity to changes and developments occurred since birth and deriving from their usual personal habits which extend from the very causes and consequences of consumption to the very details of reading words, sentences and paragraphs.

 

[rdean]

Why do some people feel threatened by Gay marriage & equality for Gays

People don't. Right wingers do. Whether or not they are people is and has been questionalbe for a while now.

 

[Holos]

Why do some people feel threatened by Gay marriage & equality for Gays

People don't. Right wingers do. Whether or not they are people is and has been questionalbe for a while now.

Right wingers are people.

 

[the_human_being]

I suspect that there might be a few answers.

Perhaps its a hangover from a previous age where homosexuality was illegal and frowned upon ?

Possibly due to ignorance.

Possibly due to their religious teachings.

Maybe something in their own psyche that drives it.

My own view is quite simplistic. Its none of my business who people want to shag. And it doesnt affect me in any way if two people of the same sex want to get hitched. Good luck to them, we need more love in the world.

I would suggest that my view is a conservative one and is shared by the majority of decent conservatives.

In our lifetime homosexual activity could get you arrested, and it still could in some of the more backward countries of the world. Do you want to see us make common cause with the likes of Saudi Arabia ?

Actually we look upon them as being filthy and carriers of germs, bacteria, and disease. I don't feel particularly at ease around anything that is unclean.

 

[JoeMoma]

I suspect that there might be a few answers.

Perhaps its a hangover from a previous age where homosexuality was illegal and frowned upon ?

Possibly due to ignorance.

Possibly due to their religious teachings.

Maybe something in their own psyche that drives it.

My own view is quite simplistic. Its none of my business who people want to shag. And it doesnt affect me in any way if two people of the same sex want to get hitched. Good luck to them, we need more love in the world.

I would suggest that my view is a conservative one and is shared by the majority of decent conservatives.

In our lifetime homosexual activity could get you arrested, and it still could in some of the more backward countries of the world. Do you want to see us make common cause with the likes of Saudi Arabia ?

Ok only like one guy I know of actually got aressted for homosexuality. And that wasn't even about him being gay. A jealous lover called in a fake robbery to catch him with another guy and the guy was acting belligerent and the cops wanted to charge him with anything they could find.

Secondly this op is a loaded post. But to answer you're question since you can't seem make the giant leap of trying to understand and empathize yourself. They view marriage as a holy sacrament between them and God, and they don't want to see that turn into a mockery in front of God, so they turned to the government to force their way upon other people. Which is bad...but let's not pretend the other side does not wish to use the government in the same way. People against gay marriage are absolutely entitled to their own beliefs, they shouldn't be using government to get their way.

Thirdly, do you think Hillary is some mighty fortress for gay rights?? After all as a senator she did say that Heterosexual marriage is a fundamental pillar in America and should be protected as much as possible. And yes Saudia Arabia is one of the worst countries when it comes to human rights across almost all spectrums, so why do we keep supporting politicians who butter up to them for their donations?!?!? This includes Hillary, Obama, the Bush's and pretty much 80% of senate and congress.

Lastly, the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage should be left to the states to decide back in 2012 or whenever that was. They then went against that ruling a mere 2 years later and said states have no say in the matter. There is no other way to look at their rulings and say they are not an activist Supreme Court, why is that bad. Because 9 unelected officials should have no place in acting on what their personal beliefs are. Let's imagine by some miracle October surprise, trump and hackers comes out with some really damning evidence on Clinton and trump wins. Now trump nominates judges who will be more supportive of his fascistic policies...do you really want the people in the Supreme Court to have the type of power to sway us into fascistic rule, much like they gave themselves the power in the most recent gay marriage ruling??

Trump seems gay friendly to me.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I suspect that there might be a few answers.

Perhaps its a hangover from a previous age where homosexuality was illegal and frowned upon ?

Possibly due to ignorance.

Possibly due to their religious teachings.

Maybe something in their own psyche that drives it.

My own view is quite simplistic. Its none of my business who people want to shag. And it doesnt affect me in any way if two people of the same sex want to get hitched. Good luck to them, we need more love in the world.

I would suggest that my view is a conservative one and is shared by the majority of decent conservatives.

In our lifetime homosexual activity could get you arrested, and it still could in some of the more backward countries of the world. Do you want to see us make common cause with the likes of Saudi Arabia ?

Ok only like one guy I know of actually got aressted for homosexuality. And that wasn't even about him being gay. A jealous lover called in a fake robbery to catch him with another guy and the guy was acting belligerent and the cops wanted to charge him with anything they could find.

Secondly this op is a loaded post. But to answer you're question since you can't seem make the giant leap of trying to understand and empathize yourself. They view marriage as a holy sacrament between them and God, and they don't want to see that turn into a mockery in front of God, so they turned to the government to force their way upon other people. Which is bad...but let's not pretend the other side does not wish to use the government in the same way. People against gay marriage are absolutely entitled to their own beliefs, they shouldn't be using government to get their way.

Thirdly, do you think Hillary is some mighty fortress for gay rights?? After all as a senator she did say that Heterosexual marriage is a fundamental pillar in America and should be protected as much as possible. And yes Saudia Arabia is one of the worst countries when it comes to human rights across almost all spectrums, so why do we keep supporting politicians who butter up to them for their donations?!?!? This includes Hillary, Obama, the Bush's and pretty much 80% of senate and congress.

Lastly, the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage should be left to the states to decide back in 2012 or whenever that was. They then went against that ruling a mere 2 years later and said states have no say in the matter. There is no other way to look at their rulings and say they are not an activist Supreme Court, why is that bad. Because 9 unelected officials should have no place in acting on what their personal beliefs are. Let's imagine by some miracle October surprise, trump and hackers comes out with some really damning evidence on Clinton and trump wins. Now trump nominates judges who will be more supportive of his fascistic policies...do you really want the people in the Supreme Court to have the type of power to sway us into fascistic rule, much like they gave themselves the power in the most recent gay marriage ruling??

Trump seems gay friendly to me.

I dont think that Trump holds a strong position on any issue apart from Trump.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I suspect that there might be a few answers.

Perhaps its a hangover from a previous age where homosexuality was illegal and frowned upon ?

Possibly due to ignorance.

Possibly due to their religious teachings.

Maybe something in their own psyche that drives it.

My own view is quite simplistic. Its none of my business who people want to shag. And it doesnt affect me in any way if two people of the same sex want to get hitched. Good luck to them, we need more love in the world.

I would suggest that my view is a conservative one and is shared by the majority of decent conservatives.

In our lifetime homosexual activity could get you arrested, and it still could in some of the more backward countries of the world. Do you want to see us make common cause with the likes of Saudi Arabia ?

Actually we look upon them as being filthy and carriers of germs, bacteria, and disease. I don't feel particularly at ease around anything that is unclean.

I think that this, and a few other posts are outside the rules,and spirit,of the CDZ.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I suspect that there might be a few answers.

Perhaps its a hangover from a previous age where homosexuality was illegal and frowned upon ?

Possibly due to ignorance.

Possibly due to their religious teachings.

Maybe something in their own psyche that drives it.

My own view is quite simplistic. Its none of my business who people want to shag. And it doesnt affect me in any way if two people of the same sex want to get hitched. Good luck to them, we need more love in the world.

I would suggest that my view is a conservative one and is shared by the majority of decent conservatives.

In our lifetime homosexual activity could get you arrested, and it still could in some of the more backward countries of the world. Do you want to see us make common cause with the likes of Saudi Arabia ?

Ok only like one guy I know of actually got aressted for homosexuality. And that wasn't even about him being gay. A jealous lover called in a fake robbery to catch him with another guy and the guy was acting belligerent and the cops wanted to charge him with anything they could find.

Secondly this op is a loaded post. But to answer you're question since you can't seem make the giant leap of trying to understand and empathize yourself. They view marriage as a holy sacrament between them and God, and they don't want to see that turn into a mockery in front of God, so they turned to the government to force their way upon other people. Which is bad...but let's not pretend the other side does not wish to use the government in the same way. People against gay marriage are absolutely entitled to their own beliefs, they shouldn't be using government to get their way.

Thirdly, do you think Hillary is some mighty fortress for gay rights?? After all as a senator she did say that Heterosexual marriage is a fundamental pillar in America and should be protected as much as possible. And yes Saudia Arabia is one of the worst countries when it comes to human rights across almost all spectrums, so why do we keep supporting politicians who butter up to them for their donations?!?!? This includes Hillary, Obama, the Bush's and pretty much 80% of senate and congress.

Lastly, the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage should be left to the states to decide back in 2012 or whenever that was. They then went against that ruling a mere 2 years later and said states have no say in the matter. There is no other way to look at their rulings and say they are not an activist Supreme Court, why is that bad. Because 9 unelected officials should have no place in acting on what their personal beliefs are. Let's imagine by some miracle October surprise, trump and hackers comes out with some really damning evidence on Clinton and trump wins. Now trump nominates judges who will be more supportive of his fascistic policies...do you really want the people in the Supreme Court to have the type of power to sway us into fascistic rule, much like they gave themselves the power in the most recent gay marriage ruling??

Trump seems gay friendly to me.

I dont think that Trump holds a strong position on any issue apart from Trump.

That of course isn't true. But brings up something amazing. The GOP voters REJECTED a candidate who did have a strong stance on gays in favor of one who doesn't and STILL that isnt good enough for some liberals. I think yall just like to complain.