Follow
Subscribe
The Psychology Behind Opposers of Same Sex Marriage
Written by guest writer, Audrina Benson.
In the aftermath of the May 8th election in North Carolina, voters were reminded once again of one of the most pressing issues in social policy today - same sex marriage. Though the amendment was passed, effectively only ending recognition of civil unions and other domestic partnerships since gay marriage was already banned in the state, Obama became the first American president to support gay marriage. If Obama’s views can, as he says, “evolve,” why can’t so many Americans?
Studies have shown that people who are outspokenly against gay marriage are affected more viscerally by images they perceive as off-putting. This could imply that homophobia and opponents of same sex marriage are prone to a knee jerk reaction; rather than further investigating the unfamiliar, they react off first impressions.
Probably the most influential element of psychology at play with those who vote against gay marriage is “motivated reasoning.” Because of indoctrination into intolerance, as well as the aforementioned visceral reaction, they look for emotional reasons to validate their opinions. In the end, the facts don’t matter - gay and lesbian parents are as fitting of parents as heterosexual parents; the legalization of same sex marriage in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont has not unraveled the fibers of traditional marriage. What matters is a passionate defense to the adherence of every member of society to a comfortable worldview.
A recently released psychological study by Richard and William Ryan has shown what has been joked about for years - the more homophobic you are, the more likely you are to be gay. Homophobia is often a reflection of hatred of oneself, specifically, a hatred towards something that is perceived of as “wrong.” The researchers extrapolated that this is the thought process at work behind some of the more notable sex scandals in conservative Republicans.
Despite recent controversy, many analysts expect that Obama’s position will not change voting behaviors significantly. Though they may be opposed to gay marriage, there are very few single-issue voters who will be dissuaded from voting for Obama by only one of his platforms. However, some voters feel his timing is suspect. Is Obama pandering, or finally standing up for what he believes in? If he wins re-election, both sides will be watching to see how Obama proceeds to address the issue. Yet according to current research, he is not motivated by homophobia. It is left to the opponents of same sex marriage to check their own judgements of homosexuals.
Comments
Submitted by HOTGUY4GUY on Sat, 2012-06-02 22:54
here here..i agree..i have written in about the same thing...the ads for products should never be in this forum.......
Submitted by sugnfugn4u on Thu, 2012-06-07 22:55
I just wanna get down and dirty. I just love to suck cocks, bigger the better. I like to play with your balls while I suck and ream out your bumhole. Get my tongue way up there and lick while I jack you off and then when it's at it's hardest
stick it up my tight little asshole and cum inside me. I also like French kissing. I'm
jerking off now, I got so hot talking to you. Love and hot kisses, David
Submitted by mentor1934 on Sat, 2012-06-02 16:35
I think this article is very interesting from an objective point of view, but I have thoughts about this as a subjective matter! Is there a struggle for equal rights under the U S Constitution, and thus federal & state offering of equal benefits under the law, or is it a "romantic" belief in a gay relationship being regularized by the use of the word marriage. The word "marriage" evokes such powerful responses positive & negative. Is it not possible that the use of that word engenders more opposition to same sex marriage than some other term might be, with all the same rights & privileges as opposite sex marriage.
The biggest stumbling block seems to be the fixation of "religious" people and clergymen that will mean that churches MUST allow same sex weddings to take place in their precincts. It is my impression that this has NOT been a requirement of advocates of same sex marriage.
The recent U S Court of Appeals striking down sections of the Defense of Marriage Act, and IRS regulations relating to non-recognition of same sex marriages, is base on violations of the U S Consititution's 14th Amendment, requiring equality of treatment under the law of the States, and of the 5th Amendment that applies the same qualification to the Federal Government.
The latest approach to this question is to proceed on it as a civil rights matter.
Considering the number of the divorces of straight marriages, divorce lawyers may well be licking their chops, as to the new business they will get. Afterall, when all is said and done, the real threat to historic religious marriage is divorce.
So maybe, the objective analysis of homophobia, as offered here, while very interesting is less to the point of what same sex couples want, or think they want.
I present these thoughts for discussion, not as a definitive answer.
Submitted by pdxqt on Sat, 2012-06-02 22:40
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments. I will try my best as a gay man who is also a conservative and a PRACTICING Catholic to explain to you the objection to so-called gay "marriage" from the point of view of those of us who oppose it.
No one I know who is conservative has ANY PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with the notion that, in principle, gay folks should similar legal protections to their relationships as straight married people do. None of us think it's fair that there should be a difference in legal status as far as hospital visitation rights, survivor/inheritance rights (like Social Security benefits, for example.) And no one on the right doesn't think it's great for gay couples to be monogamous, faithful and as selfless in their relationships as straight married people are (or should strive to be.) Conservatives, as a general rule, believe in a "live and let live" society. Yes, I know there are bigots who are the exception, but MOST conservatives really don't care what consenting adults do behind closed doors. REALLY, we don't.
The problem, for most of us, is making gay relationships EQUAL to straight marriage. It may be only a cosmetic thing, but most of us object to you calling it a "marriage." Now I speak from a religious perspective, but that's not the only reason to object to it. (In my view, God ordained marriage as one of the Sacraments, reserved to one man and one woman.) Once you cross this threshold, there's no reason to bar anyone else—for whatever reason—from being "married." If you think that's crazy talk, there are ALREADY polygamist groups getting ready to jump on the bandwagon. In 10,000 years of human history, NO CULTURE has ever said two guys or two girls can be "married." The fact that we're even debating this is a credit to the Frankfurt School and it's poisonous legacy of "critical theory." (Google is your friend.) You are BEING USED to turn society upside down, for no other reason than that Gramscian socialists want upheaval leading to a Marxist "worker's paradise."
I hope that helps you guys understand that the opposition isn't unprincipled, and we're really not interested in hating you or oppressing you. Do some research—with an open mind—and maybe you will understand it ISN'T about hate. It's about principle, and no one hates you.
Submitted by headsupguy (not verified) on Mon, 2012-06-04 09:27.
pdxqt, I respect your right to post your opinion here, and I assert my own right to challenge you and register the umbrage I take from the superior tone of your post -- as if you speak for all religious/social conservatives everywhere in your endeavor to "enlighten" the rest of us as to conservative thought on this matter.
Please know that you do NOT grasp, nor do your own views represent the consensus of conservative opposition to marriage equality. Your assertions regarding the beliefs of most other social conservatives are patently false, and there is a massive volume of documentation that disproves your statements.
Unlike you, I do not purport to comprehend the entirety of religious conservatives' objections, but based on my own listening and reading, conservative opposition -- especially religious opposition -- is driven by one or both of two motivations:
1. An intense need to feel superior to some other group, and/or
2. An obsessive revulsion to the image of anal sex, which preempts them from giving any thought to the other aspects of a committed, same-gender relationship.
The above article addresses these two points in different terms.
There's nothing wrong with discrimination in its dictionary sense. Since the beginning of time, humans, being social animals, have always sought out those who are similar in order to form communities. But the unfortunate tendency of humans is not just to congregate, but to marginalize or oppress the "others" ... or terminate them, if perceived as a threat. Throughout its history, the Roman Catholic church has indulged in these activities (see: Spanish Inquisition).
The depth of religious conservative hatred for gay and lesbian people has united evangelical Christians with Mormons and Catholics in their campaign of oppression -- and evangelicals do not even acknowledge the others as Christian!
I submit that religious conservatives don't care about "defense of marriage" as much as they claim. If they did, there would be a vigorous campaign to outlaw divorce, which has harmed the institutions of Marriage and Family far more than a bunch of same-sex couples wanting to commit to each other.
Note: The slippery-slope arguments are just red herrings used to distract when other arguments are debunked. And if a person desires to marry more than one spouse, what of it? Mormon polygamists regarded themselves just as devout as you do.
Married/unmarried status has always been the main qualification by which government treats groups differently. Married people enjoy rights and benefits that unmarried people do not. In its early U.S. history, marriage was reserved only for whites. When slavery was abolished, African-Americans could marry, but only to other blacks. Now, marriage and its privileges are available to all -- except one group.
As long as religious homophobes can persuade governments to continue denying access to rights and benefits for gay and lesbian persons, religious conservatives across the land will continue to believe that it is okay to marginalize and oppress the people they hate. And yes, it is hate. That's why we need marriage equality.
I don't expect that I will ever want to marry someone, so marriage equality will not benefit me personally. But I do support marriage equality because I want to live in a culture where it is socially -- and legally -- unacceptable for certain straight folks to hate me. And yes, they do hate me. Apparently, some gay men hate me, as well.
Submitted by heartflower on Fri, 2012-06-08 19:13
While you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to act upon it in such a way that restrains the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, nor the equal protection under the law granted by the Constitution. The baseless entitlement that the Christian Right feels it has to act upon its opinions in ways that affect others is the cause of the entire problem we are debating. In some sense, the ruminations the article has about why people feel certain ways - while very elementary and psychologically incomplete - are also irrelevant. It's the *actions* of those people, ranging from violence to political organization, that affect others which are Constitutionally treasonous. And the only reason for this entitlement is their unjustifiable referral to absolute authority - the authority of God. I say unjustifiable because a) our nation is founded up on freedom of religion so one man's God is irrelevant to another man, and b) there is no precedent in the teachings of the prophet behind any religion (including Christ) for such tyranny in service of religious dogma. So yes, your opposition is completely unprincipled, according to both Constitutional and religious base principle. With such energy invested unprincipled activity, it's time for some serious self-examination as to your motivations.
Don't like gay marriage being equal to heterosexual marriage? Fine: complain to God. Nobody's forcing you to have a gay marriage. That's what our nation's Constitution says and defines the meaning of the word "freedom" which is used so lightly in our society by bigots who claim it justifies taking someone else's freedoms away.
Finally, you personally should seek therapy for "cognitive dissonance." Given that you're gay, your use of "you," "my," and "us" is terribly confused between your own inalienable interests and those of the tyrants and controllers you so mindlessly serve. Your self-loathing literally drips from each word and arouses oceans of compassionate tears in me for the terrific suffering you are subjecting yourself to needlessly. How can you expect to find the peace and completion you presumably seek in religion if you are constantly at war with yourself? Get some help.
Submitted by hot2meatu on Wed, 2012-09-05 10:45
I appreciate your thoughtful and well-intentioned attempt to explain your point of view. However, as a product of 18 yrs. of Catholic school indoctrination myself, I don't understand how you can logically be a practicing Catholic and gay. Your own church hates you. You are going to hell ( unless you repent on your deathbed) Hope you make it.
When I came out at the age of 70, My Catholic brother and my Baptist brother and their families cut off all contact with me. Perhaps I will meet them again in hell? I don't know what world you are living in, but It has been my long experience that your co-religionists and other 'conservative' Christian groups most certainly wish me ill, and would deny me my legal rights. Would you share where this idyllic world is in which you live?
Further you understanding of cultural anthropology is flawed. There are many different understandings and practices around the world of the concept of marriage. Neither will poygamy bring the end to society, Abraham was a polygamist, as were most of the men in the Old Testament. How about Mormons? Are you voting for the current on? Are you saying that all Muslims are evil people?
I pity you as a victim of a restrictive authoritarian religious group who has not seen how you were brainwashed and controled . You seem fairly intelligent. Open your eyes.
Submitted by pavementsfa on Thu, 2012-09-13 16:56
@pdxqt
You lost me at "Practicing Catholic".
The problem with speaking from a religious point of view is that rationalism goes out the window.
That would be ok if believing in a religion was rational in the first place but it is completely irrational in the first place.
Submitted by HOTGUY4GUY on Sat, 2012-06-02 23:05
i think you are right..the "marriage" word strike an emotional response...i do feel that we are not asking any religious instution to sanction this union. It is a civil action only that we are demanding. So ..all religious groups should just shut up about it as it does not affect their auspices.
Submitted by laeth on Sat, 2012-06-02 19:18
... hmmmmm...
... so adherents to a view...
... engage in "motivated reasoning"...
... to prove said view...
... so how does that argument...
... against another's view...
... not apply to one's own...
... and while i certainly understand...
... promoting an equality of opportunity...
... i do grow weary...
... of these methods that...
... present a good and innocent victimhood...
... combatting an unthinking bullyhood...
... and if one was to wonder...
... if the apa membership...
... primarily have a less visceral response...
... to eating worms...
... does it taint their conclusions...
... about those who stomach it less...
blessings.
laeth
Submitted by Pumpmaster on Sat, 2012-06-02 21:36
I think this article is very interesting from an objective point of view as well. However I have always believed in education, education, education. I find it odd that most school systems here do not teach about sexual orientation in sex ed. They generally only teach the basics of physical anatomy, puberty and sexual relationships within a heterosexual setting. However human beings are far more complex than that. And because of this lack of knowledge everyone assumes that everyone is born heterosexual at birth. And if someone is found to be homosexual in nature it must be because they choose that ((lifestyle)) which seems to be the mind set of that vast major of the masses at large especially the right wing religious right groups. This is because they are not educated at all on the complex subject of human sexual orientation. Or for that matter that homosexuality is also exhibited within other animal species as well. This subject is simply left out of our educational system.
Yet it has been well know for many years now that a certain percentage of people are born left handed. And as you well know being left or right handed is hard wired within the brain depending upon which side of the brain is more dominate in nature. Human sexual orientation I believe also falls within this category as well as it is hard wired within the brain. And despite the fact that our social structure supports only heterosexual relationship in general it is still found; throughout human history, that ten to fifteen percent of the human population is homosexual in orientation. If being gay was simply just a choice then the inner struggle of one’s own sexual attraction to the same sex would not be so hard to do. Yet for many there is a struggle between what our natural sexual orientation is trying to tell us vs. what our social conditioning is telling us we should do instead. For many this inner psychology struggle of opposites is simply too hard to bare. And because of this there are many people still living in the closet today.
However I feel that regardless of one’s orientation be it straight, gay, bisexual or transgender every human being has the right to pursue a positive, healthy, loving, nurturing, long lasting relationship which by all means should be protected equally under the law regardless. For love my friends transcends all barriers of gender, race, social class, or culture. Simply because love is a law unto its own self. And needs no approval by the laws man.
Submitted by Geomath (not verified) on Sat, 2012-06-02 21:52.
I found this a very interesting piece and I plan to share it with my Internet correspondents. I think that even if we put aside the notion that many extremely homophobic people secretly harbor gay orientation, it is the word "marriage" that has galvanized the opposition to recognition of same-sex unions. It was likewise for many years in this country in the opposition to interracial marriages. In both cases, a minority segment of the population was targeted by law to prevent its integration and/or assimilation into the mainstream society.
I believe this is the baseline issue in the debate over same-sex marriage. There is a large part of the American population which wishes to keep LGBT people in a second-class citizen caste for whatever reason. By framing the question in terms of civil and human rights, proponents of same-sex marriage have succeeded in creating a sea change in American public opinion. In less than five years we have seen opposition on the part of the majority of Americans transformed into support, albeit tenuously.
The argument that same-sex marriage bans violate the Fourteenth Amendment may in the end persuade even the Supreme Court to end all such laws and restrictions. The Court may reluctantly acknowledge that all citizens must, in the words inscribed on the Supreme Court building itself, enjoy and have "equal justice under law". That means the state cannot ban, limit, proscribe or deny marriage for any citizens who meet the basic legal and biological requirements.
Submitted by BJHeaven on Sat, 2012-06-02 21:59
I believe you nailed it when you say the more homophobic someone is the more likely it is they are gay, a sexual orientation tard as it were. I always noticed those that bullied and harassed me when I was a kid were bitter fruits themselves. On another note,I am fully in support of gay marriage, but what I don't quite understand is why so many gay people want to mimic all the straight rituals. So much is made of how "creative" gay people are, I would think they would want to create their own ceremonies in this regard. Instead, over and over you see services that MUST be in a church with vows and rings and everything else including the flower girls and rice. Oh well...to each his own. If I wish, I shall have Nine Inch Nails sing "Closer" at my own ceremony, or Shades of Blue singing the wedding-perfect "Oh How Happy"; can we PLEASE give "Amazing Grace" a break? Oh, and skip the rice and typical wedding cake. A flaming margarita for one and all!
Submitted by tiki10 on Sun, 2012-06-03 11:22
<Despite recent controversy, many analysts expect that Obama’s position will not change voting behaviors significantly.>
If anything it will justify the hatred many have against Obama, and might be the final nail in his political coffin.
Submitted by A1Houseboy on Sun, 2012-06-03 22:06
Those that do resist same sex marriage base their knee-jerk reactions to ingraned perceptions and if they want to use religious text as the basis of their position then remember that, Kol mah Sh'Talmid vatik atid l'horot lifnei rabbo, kevar n'emar L'Moshe B'Sinai (Whatever a seasoned scholar is destined to innovate before his master was already revealed to Moses at Sinai, Yerushalmi, Pe'ah 2.4). It is destined to succeed because there is more possibility to the existence of same sex marriage than to restrict recognition of an act to a segment of the population.
What is potentially interesting in this issue is that it very well may be the institution of heterosexual marriage that champions same sex marriage. It doesn't take long in our community to find someone who was formerly in a heterosexual marriage. What? The sanctity of marriage is sometimes shrouded in a perception of being het? Yet from this recognized union comes the idea of stability and environment to raise children. Well, homosexuals have been raising children from the day the first gay man or woman married the opposite sex and started a family. Society in general may not know the person(s) are gay but nonetheless. And god knows that just because evolution has yet to catch up homosexuals will continue to practice the activity of child creation with relish.
Submitted by chi-dad on Mon, 2012-06-04 03:15
I find it interesting that the main topic starts with a reference to the North Carolina vote. From what I've heard the turnout for that vote was about 14%. So if 60% of voters said NO to civil unions, that amount to 8.4% of the eligible voters - hardly an overwhelming mandate. What a shame supporters of civil unions couldn't get more supporters to the polls.
Submitted by Hillbilly on Tue, 2012-06-26 09:54
I live in NC. Try as we might to get the word out, we did not have the bodies or the $ to run many ads. Most folks that voted for it did not know what the law said exactly and now express remorse. It will hurt unmarried heteros more than it will us.
Submitted by ShyPup4LTR (not verified) on Thu, 2012-06-14 22:21.
The psychology of the anti-gay marriage thing is very simple but also shows ignorance within so-called Christian institutions where they oddly cling to the ancient law books of Moses where the only reference to hate for gays is in those old law books of hate and zero tolerance for love and compassion where its been said that the God image of the Old Testament maybe went to Anger Management and then suggested love for ones fellow dude and acceptance of street people and hookers and not to favor some medical association staff and other types of legal suits. How can a Harvard dude like Mitt Romney even be that backwards into the texts that are not even accepted in theory according to the actual intentions of their long haired man of love who then got turned into a Holy Roman institution that would make him sick if he came to life and saw Vatican city with the gold and chessboard piece style hats where disciples formed more rules and dogma based on Pauls wacky personal letters to some village churches (Corinthians, etc) while claiming to hear voices in his head so he could be the new big cheese of a profitable movement. The long haired dudes original message was about love and about as anti wall street/Vegas mentality as it gets.
Submitted by Agog4Amog on Fri, 2012-06-15 21:38
The term homophobia is really misleading. Just because of what lesbians do with eachother disgusts me, doesn't mean that I am afraid of it, it just means that I have natural aversion to it.
Besides, I don't need a piece of paper to prove that I love someone and am commited to him.
Submitted by ShyPup4LTR (not verified) on Mon, 2012-06-18 18:20.
Paper isn't the thing that matters for sure but have to admit that if we went to the extreme of having no paperwork at all for anything and absolutely zero law and regulations then that would make more people do criminal type things and then be living by the idea that their impulse was naturally human with no paper set up to try and take them to court for something serious like harassing someone. I've seen plenty of gay guys be as nasty to other people as any Bible thumper can be where the Bible dude will be just totally illogical when he has to jump into his Old ancient law books to find anti-gay marriage terminology and then be so dumb as to think that his New testament based group should forget love of ones fellow man after GOd went through anger management and fell in love with his fellow man.
A balance between paper and spontaneous emotional quirks is better than one or the other trying to conquer the other for sure.
Submitted by ForkedBeardGuelph (not verified) on Sat, 2012-07-21 15:50.
July 1 was both Canada day and Pride day (in Toronto). While there I noticed a large billboard with a map of our world (planet) flattened-out and each country subjected to specific colours and striped-lines; each denoting the varying degrees of tolerance and rights/privileges re: homosexuality.
As Canadian, I had two reactions of great pride: the first was that we had the best colour and stripe covering the entirity of it's geographical limits. Second, was just how gosh-golly HE-YUGE a landmas it is.
However, directly below this big splat of colour was a mostly colourless void with a dot here and there of colour. I was shocked.
No, I'm not living under a rock here and so I realise that the boarder represents quite a few more differences than which flag we wave... what got me is that there I was celebrating a festival created by/in a county whose (and here is where I fail to word it properly so I'll leave it blank).
The fight is older (in formality) in the USA, and there is a population of approx 636million --- Canada has approx 26million.
The originator of this festival (originally a demonstration) is a country who's tag-line includes land of the free" "and home of the brave".
******==== now, I'm not accusing to provoke violence in words NOR physical actions; I'm simply explaining what my response to seeing this poster was.
On a REALLY good point: neither Canada nor the USA had the worst colours.... Like Uganda, who punish homosexuality with the death penalty by public hanging. Some other countries there are prison sentences (up to 14 yrs). This is in TODAY'S world. So, even though the debate in the USA seems rediculous by so many, at least you can take pride in knowing what filth Does Not happen ... your laws DO protect you and Do honour you ... and I truly hope you can fully one day live-up to your motto as more than something that sounds good.
Good luck guys and gals.
About Age Appropriate
Age Appropriate is an interactive blog for Daddies and the men, hunters, and bears that love them. Covering everything from sex and dating to pop culture and nightlife, Age Appropriate keeps the daddy dialogue open and honest. Think of us as a daily supplement to help keep your hunt as enjoyable, entertaining, and enticing as the catch itself.
Recent Blog Posts
For blog issues, contact us at editor@daddyhunt.com.
Archive
- September 2008 (2)
- November 2008 (23)
- December 2008 (26)
- January 2009 (14)
- February 2009 (5)
- March 2009 (3)
- April 2009 (3)
- May 2009 (3)
- June 2009 (3)
- July 2009 (2)
- August 2009 (2)
- September 2009 (1)
- October 2009 (3)
- November 2009 (3)
- December 2009 (5)
- January 2010 (3)
- February 2010 (2)
- March 2010 (6)
- April 2010 (7)
- May 2010 (5)
- June 2010 (9)
- July 2010 (11)
- August 2010 (15)
- September 2010 (21)
- October 2010 (13)
- November 2010 (16)
- December 2010 (18)
- January 2011 (11)
- February 2011 (10)
- March 2011 (15)
- April 2011 (18)
- May 2011 (10)
- June 2011 (19)
- July 2011 (16)
- August 2011 (15)
- September 2011 (13)
- October 2011 (11)
- November 2011 (9)
- December 2011 (11)
- January 2012 (10)
- February 2012 (15)
- March 2012 (11)
- April 2012 (9)
- May 2012 (10)
- June 2012 (10)
- July 2012 (7)
- August 2012 (6)
- September 2012 (7)
- October 2012 (4)
- November 2012 (5)
- December 2012 (4)
- January 2013 (5)
- February 2013 (6)
- March 2013 (8)
- April 2013 (13)
- May 2013 (7)
This is an interesting article. And it's nice, for a change, to read something that's not a thinly veiled advertisement for a new gay-oriented product, service or website.