It's gotta be bigotry.

That statement in my title rhymes. It's gotta be bigotry.

That's the conclusion I came to last night after thinking about gay marriage/gay rights for about two hours. I was really trying to delve into the thoughts of those who are against it, see what was at work here.

It's gotta be bigotry.

There's NO other explanation. I imagined a country in which homosexuals could marry the person they love, have or adopt children togther, enjoy the same rights, benefits, protections as straight people who get married.

I tried to imagine the horrible things that would happen.

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Children would grow up not batting an eye at such a thing---does that scare conservatives?

At first, people might have to explain homosexuality to their kids a bit more. Does that scare conservatives? It's very simply taken care of---just tell the child most men fall in love with women and most women fall in love with men, but some men fall in love with men and some women fall in love with women. No judgement statements attached, just fact. That was my explanation to my then-five year old when she asked me what the word "gay" meant. It's been a non-issue ever since. She knows about it, it's no big deal.

Other than that, I can't think of a damn thing they have to be worried about. If they think it's gonna bust up their marriage, they have far bigger problems than the gay couple down the street getting married.

So what's the big deal? It's gotta be bigotry.

It can't be the Biblical thing for a few reasons:

1. Unless you can read the original languages the Old Testament was written in, you cannot be sure of the meaning of any of it. Sorry, but it's true.

2. Let's assume it's translated correctly: divorce is mentioned far more often than homosexuality. In fact, the punishment for divorce is being stoned to death. There is no punishment listed for homosexuality.

3. We do not live in a theocracy. Though some might want it that way, we don't. In fact, that's quite the opposite of what our country was framed to be. Any arguments concerning the government based on one religion's book are moot for the purposes of OUR laws.

And how Christian IS it to deny the happiness of others? To keep them as second-class citizens? Not very, I can tell you that. Jesus wasn't about punishment, control, keeping people down. He was about love.

So it's gotta be bigotry. All this stuff about box turtles and other crap is a smokescreen to hide (really pitifully) their own hatred and prejudices.

I really wish everyone would let go of the hate already, EVOLVE.

is that they think if it appears "normal" in society, that their kids - or maybe kids in general - will grow up seeing it accepted and will *decide* to be gay. "Oh, hey, I could be gay. That would be cool." I really think that's their stupid irrational fear.

but it is the root of a whole lotta problems, isn't it?

How the blazes do we get rid of the notion that people choose to be gay? Why can't people get it that some people just are?

like God makes people perfect, perfect = straight, therefore no one can naturally be gay, therefore it must be a choice?

Some warped logic there but I think that's it.

Adam & Steve anyone?

It's my firm belief you can't just DECIDE to be gay anymore than a gay person can just DECIDE to be straight.

Oh I could have gay sex. But that wouldn't make me gay. I couldn't make myself gay anymore than I could make myself purple or the Queen of England.

:shrug:

Maybe righties should start understanding that. Then they'd relax a bit (we hope).

And with the level of bigotry and the lack of civil rights gay people have in this country, why would people be running around choosing to be gay? Why would people have chosen to be gay when there was even more violence toward gays than there is now? If it were a choice, it would be obvious it would be a very very unpopular choice.

And I didn't choose to be straight. I couldn't choose to be gay. Like you said, I could have gay sex, but I couldn't change how and to whom I am attracted.

But logic isn't an issue. It's all emotion, wrapped in in a warped interpretation of their religion.

and 17 years old, back in the late 70s. She knew she was gay, but was SO SCARED of it. After her third attempt (and the most serious one), she was in the hospital and her parents were just wild with worry, not knowing what was wrong with her and wanting desperately to help her (they were really good people, my aunt and uncle).

Well, she finally admitted it to them. Both of them broke down in sobs, RELIEVED that that's ALL IT WAS. They all ended up laughing and crying at the same time. Because she had a supportive family, she ended up ok. She's now in her late 40s, successful, and has been with her partner 17 YEARS.

But I shudder to think about those who don't, even now, when we have more awareness.

I have been trying so hard to figure out what it is exactly that makes people react against gay people in this manner. We're not talking about special privileges -- we're talking about making sure that everyone has the same rights. I don't get people's reaction to it. I'm not gay and I don't get it. I was raised in a fundie household and I don't get it.

As you said, we don't live in a theocracy (yet) and the only reason to deny the right to marry to same-sex couples is based on some people's interpretation of a couple of lines in a religious text. Why can people not see that that should not be informing our public policy?

Ugh, the whole thing makes my head hurt.

(not stuck on, held up by magnets) that reads "EQUAL RIGHTS ARE NOT SPECIAL RIGHTS!"

I love it. Once I get tired of one of my current bumper stickers, it's going on the car next.

because these pompadoured firebreathers are using exactly the same rhetoric, word for word, that they used on interracial couples in the 50s and 60s. I know. I was there.

:-(

Well, they got the legal right to marry, so why not homosexuals?

I do think I will see this happen. I just hope it's sooner rather than later. And anyone who tells me "wait, just wait until a good time to push for it" is in danger of some violence from a non-violent person. They shouldn't HAVE to wait.

You got it. I was there, too.
Pulpit bullies & the KKK driving the hatred & feeding on it.

Not something a person can forget.

Same straw now for the same bigoted fires.

..."pompadoured firebreathers"... Yup. }(

That I agree with. I've never heard any other valid statement to the contrary. "Protection of marriage" - what the hell does that mean? Boggles my mind.

I thought about all their statements:

"sanctity of marriage:" Sanctity means "the quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability."

Ok, well, the state of Texas didn't give my marriage sanctity. No church did, as we were married by a JP. WE give our marriage sanctity. How we treat each other, how we love each other. No one and nothing else has anything to do with that. So how can a gay couple marrying cause my marriage to be any less sacred to me?

OH MY GOD, I JUST got it!!!! If gay people are allowed to be married, in conservative's eyes, that means THEIR marriage will MEAN LESS.

That's it. That's GOT to be it. It's a fear that their marriage will be diminished in meaning by the very FACT that gay couples can enter into the same union. (Or at least, that's how THIS argument goes...but I think even this argument is eyewash to cover up very real prejudices AGAINST gays, not trying to protect marriage.)

But if that's the case, then your straight marriage didn't have much to stand on in the first place, did it? I mean, my marriage won't be lessened by any gay couples getting married. Why should it? And I've never had a single person explain to me how my marriage would be diminished or lessened by gays being married. Never once, and I've asked plenty of them. They just stammer and say vague phrases like "sanctity of marriage," "protection of marriage." Which doesn't answer my question. How is MY marriage going to be affected? It's not.

So what's the big deal? :shrug:

If you love and respect your partner your marriage/union doesn't need "protection." I don't really think it's a have/have-nots issue. Oh, some may paint it that way, but there's definitely an underlying motive. And as far as I can tell, that underlying motive is bigotry plain and simple. Fear - maybe. But fear based on bigotry.

Lately, wedge issues seem to be prevalent in US politics and even here at DU. Fortunately, most seem to be on the right side of the fence with this issue. I have many gay friends. They joke with me for being a "breeder" I joke with them because I can coordinate my wardrobe better than they can and I am straight.

Anyhow, this is politically pandering at its best. "Fix and protect marriage." What? They are kidding, right? Bad influence on children? What? I guess those politicians are doing a good job modelling for them. Oh this all just makes me sick. I'm getting quite depressed lately.

It's fear of the feminine and feminization.

It's fear in some men of their own sexual response to their imaginings (they give more thought to what goes on in other people's bedrooms than any group I have ever known).

It's fear a loss of power - if there's no difference between men and women as demonstrated by the "family structure" and who's allowed to love whom" then the traditional "male" role loses it's value in society.

Anyone ever wonder at the contradiction that "every guy's fantasy" is two women getting it on but homosexuality is an enormous fear? Has that ever added up right to anyone else?

Especially this:

"It's fear a loss of power - if there's no difference between men and women as demonstrated by the "family structure" and who's allowed to love whom" then the traditional "male" role loses it's value in society."

Well, then they need to get over their chauvanistic selves.

That is why they hate abortion and birth control, too. When women can express themselves sexually without fear of unwanted pregnancy, these men lose power over them.

Bigotry does not exist in a vacuum...

fear does

Care to elaborate?

that basically asks the same thing, I'm hoping someone will answer it.

Voice of the People


What is it exactly you want? You chose a President for his Pro-life promises, believing it is a for or against issue. It's not...Women, do not WANT to have abortions and in my mind, a person must be sick in the head to believe any woman wants to have an abortion or is a matter of convenience. So, it boils down to the causes. What are they? According to research the causes are medical, (harm to the woman, or deformity) or economic. So, will making abortion "illegal" help? To stop abortions we have to work on the core problem, better healthcare (including education and Planned Parenthood) and an improved economy, (which includes education, child care, food stamps and jobs). Do you now see the problem? The Republicans scream we have to make this illegal, we have to stop abortions, the whole time cutting the very programs that help stop abortions.

You chose a President for his tax cuts. Although they are tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of the country, somehow you believe you'll qualify. Now, we have a deficit higher than ever (not including the war costs), a weak dollar (that most other countries have begun to dump), the President hinting that the government will default on Treasury bonds, no relief in sight, just higher prices, taxes and fees for 99% of us to pay. Very nicely done, look at the future your children and grandchildren will have, paying off YOUR debt.

You chose a President that promised to keep “those gays from marrying and ruining your marriage” Oh boy, this was a real threat. Why would this concern you? Give me one good reason why this affects YOUR life.

You chose a President believing he will keep you safe, when the evidence shows he had multiple warnings, in quite specific terms, months prior to 9/11 and he chose to go on vacation. Budgets for firefighters, policemen and other first responders have been cut, creating shortages of personnel and not plugging the porous borders has not made us safer.

So is this what you wanted?

:thumbsup: Don't hold your breath, though. They never have an answer.

With gay marriage you have a commitment between two people who are essentially social equals. Or at least two men or two women are always closer in social status to each other than a man and a woman are. It threatens the patriarchal need for male dominance in every relationship.

No matter how equal a marriage between a man and a woman may be in private, in the larger social content, the woman still has lower status by virtue of being born female. And heterosexual marriage has helped perpetuate that, since through most of history marriage has basically been the ownership of a woman by a man. She and their offspring being "his" and taking his name.

I remember reading once about the rare "matriarchal" cultures in which the children always took the name of the mother, rather than the father. It makes more sense, actually. There is lots of evidence for who the child's mother is. Witnesses of her pregnancy and the birth. But the father's identity is much more open to question. At least until very recently, with the invention of DNA testing.

With gay marriage, everything doesn't revolve around reproduction. Couples can decide a division of household chores and outside work based more on individual preferences than sex roles. Also the choice to raise children is more of a real choice. Never an accident due to no birth control, or failure of birth control.

It doesn't fit the patriarchal mandate, and shows traditional couples (especially the women in them) more clearly just what those things are in traditional marriage that can make it so stifling. Which would make them less willing to follow the mold. More awareness is never good for the right-wing agenda.

please accept this one. :D
:toast:

but a lot of the irrational bigotry is a product of fear of our own sexuality. Psychological studies have shown that men who are high in homophobia tend to become more aroused when watching male pornography than do men who are low in homophobia. They are turning fears they have about themselves into hatred and discrimination against others.