Why Do Straights Hate Gays?

[A_Wanderer]

but doesn't the word "marriage" imply some sort of respect? someone could have an awful marriage, but that wouuld be the fault of the individuals, not that the institution is flawed.

Your not going to squeeze an ounce of respect from people that think where you stick your John Thomas makes you hellbound so in that context I think (and im sure that you do) it's unfair to expect legal sanction to stop those attitudes altogether.

I have my suspicion that the institution of marriage is flawed since a large proportion of people are not capable of being monogamous for decades on end but the merits of these arrangements doesn't matter because in terms of having a legal framework for recognising relationships a situation where hetero couples get all manner of legal protections and rights while gays don't is wrong, and as you have alluded to some of these are very practical and basic protections.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

So a few gay people who do this = gay people are not "human"? Do you honestly think those more "flamboyant" gay people represent the majority of gay people? So carnival type gay pride parades are a reason for straight people to hate gays? Well gee, logic follows that we straights give gay people plenty of reason to hate us, considering the ways in which some of us behave in public and parade our sexuality around.

Ask those same questions to some ultra consrevative bigot and he´ll probably say yes. And if you´re trying to get unanimous acceptance, surprise, he´s one of the people you are going to have to convince.

 

[yolland]

I don't know about social respect, since that isn't mandated, but in law we have a pro-freedom and an anti-freedom position, regardless of how we percieve personal morality.

Exactly, and that's where the problem in appealing to the otherwise eminently worthy-sounding notion of one's right to a certain personal moral standpoint comes in. No one seriously believes that people who are opposed to gay marriage, adoption, etc. would give a 56-hour marriage and perhaps a kid or two who gets caught in its aftermath a resounding thumbs-up simply because it's straight, but the fact is we're all willing to recognize the problems you'd get into trying to use the law to prevent such inevitabilities, yet some aren't willing to extend that same recognition to gay people. Would some gays and lesbians proceed to make lousy spouses and parents given the chance to do that freely, yeah sure, will some straight people always perceive homosexuality as a regrettable moral failing, yes probably, but those just aren't legitimate reasons to deny freely chosen, fully and meaningfully consensual relationships which don't cause tangible, quantifiable harm the same legal validation as the wide variety of straight relationships out there. I can understand frowning on the Jim Crow analogy to the extent that discrimination against gays is on the whole less far-reaching in its consequences, but on the other hand I don't think there's anyone who opposes full legal rights and protections for gay people and couples who doesn't on some level feel resentment towards gay people for encroaching on their uniquely rightful space, as they see it.

I'm not one to get into rhetorical gestures about how I personally supposedly "love" or "hate" some entire social group or another, that feels both misleading and beside the point to me, but I do hate injustice and the demotion of anyone to second-class personhood by applying legal strictures to their freedom and autonomy using logic (it's not 'ideal', 'cheapens' others' relationships, etc.) which we'd immediately recognize as unacceptable grounds for discrimination in other cases. Reserve the right for yourself to attend a church where gay people cannot have wedding ceremonies, fine, because your place of worship is not where the rights and freedoms of citizens before the law are enumerated. But that right should not extend into the public sphere.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But that right should not extend into the public sphere.

Public sphere in which context?

 

[yolland]

The Defense of Marriage Act, for example.

 

[coemgen]

So a few gay people who do this = gay people are not "human"? Do you honestly think those more "flamboyant" gay people represent the majority of gay people? So carnival type gay pride parades are a reason for straight people to hate gays? Well gee, logic follows that we straights give gay people plenty of reason to hate us, considering the ways in which some of us behave in public and parade our sexuality around.

I don't think that's what he was getting at. He wasn't saying they weren't humans, he was saying they should be more relatable to heterosexuals if they want to be taken seriously. He has a point. Two guys walking around in chaps with their asses hanging out is only going to perpetuate the supposed myth that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, much like a goth or a jock. That picture also, I think, would say to most who oppose gay marriage that it's an adventurous relationship, rather than a committed one. Yes, there are "flamboyant" heterosexuals, but I would think most who disagree with gay marriage disagree with that, too.
Also, flamboyant gays may not be the majority, but the ironic problem is they're more visible . . . because they're flamboyant. Therefore, that's where the stereotype comes into play. That's why the point was made — a more effective gay pride parade may be a group of homosexuals that look more like everyone else. I think the point he was trying to make is if you want to be treated equally, try not to appear so different. It's only going to make things more difficult for you.

 

[Irvine511]

No one seriously believes that people who are opposed to gay marriage, adoption, etc. would give a 56-hour marriage and perhaps a kid or two who gets caught in its aftermath a resounding thumbs-up simply because it's straight,

but, that's the joke.

that's the message being given when we're going to allow Britney to continue to marry whomever she wants for whatever reason she wants, yet we're going to amend the Constitution to prevent gays from marrying anyone.

they might not "seriously believe" that what Britney does is immoral, but i think they do "seriously believe" that she's not intrinsically immoral because she puts penises in her vagina. so no matter what she does, so long as it is heterosexual, if we are to maintain the position that marriage is the sole province of heterosexuals due to the superiority of heterosexuality over homoseuxality, the sex Britney has and the relationships Britney enters will always be better.

they just don't get that this is the logical conclusion of the maintenance of the "specialness" of heterosexuality. it's a fundamentally absurd position.

 

[Irvine511]

That's why the point was made — a more effective gay pride parade may be a group of homosexuals that look more like everyone else.

if you go to a gay pride parade, probably 75% of the people marching are "normal" people -- you know how in, say, a St. Patrick's Day parade, persons of Irish heritage from, say, the police department will march? it's the same thing with a gay pride parade.

i agree that the assless chaps get the most attention. and it's a difficult thing to explain, and would take more time than i have here, but do know that this conversation goes on amongst gays all the time. and, ultimatley, the gay community is as diverse as any other, if not more so, since homosexuality is found amongst all races, religions, ethnicities, and socioeconomic groups.

it was interesting, i was reading an article about the creation of programing for LOGO, the gay/lesbian network. someone said that it wasn't like creating a channel for, say, people who all like golf. or gardening. it's like creating a channel for people who all have red hair.

 

[coemgen]

but, that's the joke.

that's the message being given when we're going to allow Britney to continue to marry whomever she wants for whatever reason she wants, yet we're going to amend the Constitution to prevent gays from marrying anyone.

they might not "seriously believe" that what Britney does is immoral, but i think they do "seriously believe" that she's not intrinsically immoral because she puts penises in her vagina. so no matter what she does, so long as it is heterosexual, if we are to maintain the position that marriage is the sole province of heterosexuals due to the superiority of heterosexuality over homoseuxality, the sex Britney has and the relationships Britney enters will always be better.

they just don't get that this is the logical conclusion of the maintenance of the "specialness" of heterosexuality. it's a fundamentally absurd position.

Here's where I think conservatives are coming from though: They disagree with immoral hetero marriages, too, but they can't stop it. They feel they can stop homosexual marriages, and indeed, they have to a large extent. I'm not taking a stance either way, I'm just explaining where they may be coming from. I don't think they see Britney's marriage as being any better, just as another immoral problem that's tougher to prevent. Again, I'm trying to speak objectively.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes, and the fact that they see ill considered hetero marriages as the next oroblem to roll back is the reason that they represent a pernicious threat to liberty.

 

[yolland]

It's not tougher to prevent, just make divorce illegal and perhaps require a 'character assessment' by a psychologist employed by the state before getting married. Problem solved.

Naturally the resistance to that would be more vigorous, but that's because you're dealing in consequences that directly affect the majority.

 

[Irvine511]

Here's where I think conservatives are coming from though: They disagree with immoral hetero marriages, too, but they can't stop it. They feel they can stop homosexual marriages, and indeed, they have to a large extent. I'm not taking a stance either way, I'm just explaining where they may be coming from. I don't think they see Britney's marriage as being any better, just as another immoral problem that's tougher to prevent. Again, I'm trying to speak objectively.

so they will protect Britney's freedom as a heterosexual, no matter what the costs, but they will deny the freedom of any homosexual. they're saying that even the best homosexual marriage is as or more immoral than the worst straight marriage.

this is why people like Kramer use the word "hate."

(i appreciate that you're putting forward a position, not an opinion, no worries )

 

[coemgen]

if you go to a gay pride parade, probably 75% of the people marching are "normal" people -- you know how in, say, a St. Patrick's Day parade, persons of Irish heritage from, say, the police department will march? it's the same thing with a gay pride parade.

i agree that the assless chaps get the most attention. and it's a difficult thing to explain, and would take more time than i have here, but do know that this conversation goes on amongst gays all the time.

That may be the case. I've never been to a gay pride parade. : ) The problem is, as with a St. Patty's parade, the media are going to focus on the most flamboyant. It gets a reaction out of people. This is damaging to gays because the reaction from the other side is political . . . or even hateful. I understand though that not all gays are this way — the ones I know aren't.

 

[coemgen]

so they will protect Britney's freedom as a heterosexual, no matter what the costs, but they will deny the freedom of any homosexual. they're saying that even the best homosexual marriage is as or more immoral than the worst straight marriage.

this is why people like Kramer use the word "hate."

(i appreciate that you're putting forward a position, not an opinion, no worries )

I'm not saying it's right, only trying to explain where they're coming from. I'm glad you understand this.

Like I said before, I'm on the fence with this. You could say I'm now at a point where I'm trying to put my own opinions aside and just watch the two sides make their points. I guess what I'm seeing is misunderstanding on both sides and a sort of apples and oranges food fight that's not getting anywhere. I'd like to see real, honest progress to a place of peace and understanding, where ever that is. But it has to come from both sides, not just the anti-gay marriage side. It was interesting to hear you say earlier that people who are anti-gay marriage can feel homosexuality is gross, as long as they don't take away gay rights. I think a lot of people who are anti-gay marriage feel they're being told they can't even that way. To them, gays are trying to take away their right to feel a certain way about something. You know? And maybe that's another part of the discussion (I won't say debate any more) — gay people are saying their sexuality is simply who they are, they can't help it. At the same time, those against gay marriage are saying the icky feeling they get when they see two men kiss is who they are, too. They can't help it. It doesn't mean they hate, it's just the natural reaction they get. If both sides could understand that and start there and respect that, THEN the discussion can begin. Both sides have to respect the weight of the issue to the other side. (Again, I'm speaking in general terms. Nothing personal here.)

 

[Irvine511]

I think a lot of people who are anti-gay marriage feel they're being told they can't even that way. To them, gays are trying to take away their right to feel a certain way about something. You know?

i don't understand this. can you explain further?

 

[coemgen]

It's not tougher to prevent, just make divorce illegal and perhaps require a 'character assessment' by a psychologist employed by the state before getting married. Problem solved.

Naturally the resistance to that would be more vigorous, but that's because you're dealing in consequences that directly affect the majority.

I don't think divorce should be illegal — like the Bible, I think it should be an option if abuse or infidelity is present, but I do think it should be much harder to divorce and that counseling should be mandatory before that decision is made. I think premarital counseling should be mandatory, too. We're coached on how to do a job interview and how to be a good employee, but when it comes to marriage and children, there's not much there before hand — unless it comes from a church or other religious source. Not everyone has this (and not all offer it).

 

[coemgen]

i don't understand this. can you explain further?

I've spoken with gays who say if a straight person sees two men kissing and says "That's disgusting" that they're being hateful because they're labeling it as something gross. Well, maybe to them it is. That's the natural reaction they have. It doesn't mean they're being hateful. Does that make sense? (I've also spoken with gays who could care less what people's personal reaction is)

 

[Irvine511]

I've spoken with gays who say if a straight person sees two men kissing and says "That's disgusting" that they're being hateful because they're labeling it as something gross. Well, maybe to them it is. That's the natural reaction they have. It doesn't mean they're being hateful. Does that make sense? (I've also spoken with gays who could care less what people's personal reaction is)

what would you say if you heard someone say that a black man kissing a white woman was gross or disgusting? would that seem a hateful comment to you?

 

[coemgen]

what would you say if you heard someone say that a black man kissing a white woman was gross or disgusting? would that seem a hateful comment to you?

Maybe so, but honestly, and I think I can say this objectively, I don't think that's a fair comparison. You're still dealing with a guy and a girl. A person in your example would be saying the phrase out of cultural opinions. A person in my example is saying it out of sexual opinions, but it's even more than that. It goes against their own sexuality. Does that make sense? Again, it kind of seems like apples and oranges, although I see where you're coming from.

 

[indra]

I don't think divorce should be illegal — like the Bible, I think it should be an option if abuse or infidelity is present, but I do think it should be much harder to divorce and that counseling should be mandatory before that decision is made. I think premarital counseling should be mandatory, too. We're coached on how to do a job interview and how to be a good employee, but when it comes to marriage and children, there's not much there before hand — unless it comes from a church or other religious source. Not everyone has this (and not all offer it).

Oh christ no. Don't make divorce any harder than it already is. If a couple made a mistake getting married, don't make them keep making that mistake. I really don't think the majority of divorces are easy for the participants, and if a divorce is easy it just means the marriage wasn't good in the first place. And as far as children are concerned -- I think a good divorce is far preferable to a bad marriage for them.

 

[coemgen]

Oh christ no. Don't make divorce any harder than it already is. If a couple made a mistake getting married, don't make them keep making that mistake. I really don't think the majority of divorces are easy for the participants, and if a divorce is easy it just means the marriage wasn't good in the first place. And as far as children are concerned -- I think a good divorce is far preferable to a bad marriage for them. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's a good point. Although, that's why I said premarital counseling should be part of the process, too. At the same time, I do think a divorce should be much easier than breaking up. Marriage is much, much more than dating. At least it should be seen as that, especially with children involved. And as far as children, yes a bad marriage may be worse than a divorce, but what's a bad marriage? If abuse is involved or infidelity, people should divorce if they want to. The marriage agreement, from both a secular and religious standpoint, has been broken. However, other things that make a marriage bad can be worked on and aren't as damaging, for the most part. Having said that, too, the real saints in all of this are those who are willing to work with their spouse who's cheated on them or is abusive and things get better. That takes courage, humility and love on a whole other level. (However, sometimes the courage, humility and love at that same level is seen through getting out of an abusive, completely disrespectful relationship.)

 

[A_Wanderer]

It's none of your business and nor is it the governments to get involved in mandating other peoples relationships or arrangements.

 

[coemgen]

It's none of your business and nor is it the governments to get involved in mandating other peoples relationships or arrangements.

I know, and look at the situation the U.S. is in. A freaking 50 percent divorce rate. There's all kinds of problems that creates. Besides, the government already mandates relationships and arrangements. You have to have a marriage license. At the very least a judge has to acknowledge the marriage. If a marriage splits, child support has to be paid. Etc.
To buy a hand gun, we have to take a test and there's a waiting period. To drive a car we have to pass a written and driving test. Why should there be something similar before a marriage?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Should I have a test and waiting period before changing my will or signing a lease?

A handgun and a car are each items that when used improperly can harm other individuals within a society, this is not true of marriage which is a contract between two individuals, the sanctioning of which is done through the law of the land.

People make bad choices in relationships because it is driven by addiction, making it harder to get into or out of a marriage is not going to make those choices any less bad or for at least 50% of people regretting their choices.

A clear cut case of individual liberties versus morality policing, and if the role of marriage in society today is the socially beneficial institution that you alluded to then all government involvement should cease.

 

[Irvine511]

Maybe so, but honestly, and I think I can say this objectively, I don't think that's a fair comparison. You're still dealing with a guy and a girl. A person in your example would be saying the phrase out of cultural opinions. A person in my example is saying it out of sexual opinions, but it's even more than that. It goes against their own sexuality. Does that make sense? Again, it kind of seems like apples and oranges, although I see where you're coming from.

i think if you went back 50 years, you'd find someone saying exactly the same thing about interracial love.

do you not think that revulsion at male/male or female/female love is cultural? why are so many straight men thrilled at the idea of homosexual "acts" between two women, but not two men? surely the revulsion isn't revulsion to homosexuality, then, but a revulsion about a body that doesn't appeal to them.

 

[coemgen]

A handgun and a car are each items that when used improperly can harm other individuals within a society, this is not true of marriage which is a contract between two individuals, the sanctioning of which is done through the law of the land.

Tell this to two of my best friends who's parents got divorced. It does hurt other individuals and it's more than simply a contract between two individuals. Maybe not on paper, but once a child enters the picture they're a part of the agreement, too. Maybe not a contract, but you know what I'm getting at. (actually, you do have the factor of child's support)

People make bad choices in relationships because it is driven by addiction, making it harder to get into or out of a marriage is not going to make those choices any less bad or for at least 50% of people regretting their choices.

I very much disagree with this. Not all bad choices are made by addiction. Communication and money issues are at the root of most divorces. These are things that can easily improve with adequate counseling/guidance.

A clear cut case of individual liberties versus morality policing, and if the role of marriage in society today is the socially beneficial institution that you alluded to then all government involvement should cease.

I understand, and agree with your point about it being liberties verses morals, but you lost me with the last part. What are you getting at? Maybe what I'm throwing out there isn't the best way to go about it, of course I'm just throwing it out there without having a lot of research to back me up. I admit it's mainly simply out of opinion and emotion, however, to just let things continue as they are without any changes is a worse thing to not give much thought to.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Tell this to two of my best friends who's parents got divorced. It does hurt other individuals and it's more than simply a contract between two individuals. Maybe not on paper, but once a child enters the picture they're a part of the agreement, too. Maybe not a contract, but you know what I'm getting at. (actually, you do have the factor of child's support)

And would they be any less messed up if their parents stuck together because the government was using force to make them? And as far as child support goes that falls under the responsibilities that you accept when you make the mistake or choice to have a kid. Trying to make a moral society is a really bad bordering on evil way to wield government force, and love is an addiction; if people don't want to be with eachother when romantic love has burned out forcing them to remain together is not only damaging to them, it is damaging to the people around them - like black holes.

I wouldn't want the government forcing me to go through councelling and consideration if I ever wanted to get married and I don't want to be paying for that councelling for other people through taxes.

 

[coemgen]

i think if you went back 50 years, you'd find someone saying exactly the same thing about interracial love.

do you not think that revulsion at male/male or female/female love is cultural? why are so many straight men thrilled at the idea of homosexual "acts" between two women, but not two men? surely the revulsion isn't revulsion to homosexuality, then, but a revulsion about a body that doesn't appeal to them.

No, I don't think it's cultural at all. And I don't think you can't compare it to interracial love. The way someone relates sexually is completely different than the way someone relates racially. It's a whole different level of relating. If someone has an issue with an interracial couple kissing, it's not the act that gets to them, it's the race. Someone can spend time with people of another race and overcome that. In the case of two gay men kissing, it goes beyond what race they are. It's the act, because it goes against their own sexual orientation. In this case, yeah, someone could hang out with gay people and be comfortable around them, but may not change how they feel about men kissing men because you can't change how they relate sexually. Do you see the difference? It's more than skin color we're talking about. And the reason many men are thrilled at seeing two women together is because they're attracted to women!

 

[coemgen]

And would they be any less messed up if their parents stuck together because the government was using force to make them? And as far as child support goes that falls under the responsibilities that you accept when you make the mistake or choice to have a kid. Trying to make a moral society is a really bad bordering on evil way to wield government force, and love is an addiction; if people don't want to be with eachother when romantic love has burned out forcing them to remain together is not only damaging to them, it is damaging to the people around them - like black holes.

I wouldn't want the government forcing me to go through councelling and consideration if I ever wanted to get married and I don't want to be paying for that councelling for other people through taxes.

Like I said, maybe making it lawfully mandatory isn't the best way. I see what you're saying. Something needs to be done though.

As far as my friends, yes, they'd be better off if their parents got counseling and worked it out. In fact, part of the reason the marriages split in both cases was the mother was alcoholic. If counseling were in place, this could've been addressed. If a person gets in a car accident because they're drunk, a judge can order them to get help. Why can't this happen in a marriage? As far as romantic love, what does that mean? How do we define that? Often times, it can be tied to something else that can be fixed in counseling. It doesn't always just fade out on its own. If a guy is addicted to porn and he stops having a sexual relationship with his wife, that can be fixed through counseling. It is all the time. If there's no counseling, he just goes on to another marriage and has the same addiction/problem.

Maybe part of the solution is just having someone explain to couples as their about to divorce the benefits of counseling and providing a list of reputable/certified counselors that deal with the issues they may be having, so at the very least, the option is put before them. Too often, it's not even considered because couples have no hope when in fact what they may be going through is terribly common and manageable.

 

[Irvine511]

No, I don't think it's cultural at all. And I don't think you can't compare it to interracial love. The way someone relates sexually is completely different than the way someone relates racially. It's a whole different level of relating. If someone has an issue with an interracial couple kissing, it's not the act that gets to them, it's the race. Someone can spend time with people of another race and overcome that. In the case of two gay men kissing, it goes beyond what race they are. It's the act, because it goes against their own sexual orientation. In this case, yeah, someone could hang out with gay people and be comfortable around them, but may not change how they feel about men kissing men because you can't change how they relate sexually. Do you see the difference? It's more than skin color we're talking about. And the reason many men are thrilled at seeing two women together is because they're attracted to women!

no, i don't see the difference, and you're last sentence has proved my point: straight men are in fact often turned on by homosexualitiy between (usually hot) females.

so it is not the presence of homosexuality that makes someone go "ewww," it's the idea of two bodies to which you are not attracted. it's physical, it's superficial, it goes no deeper than that -- just like, 50 years ago, the cosmetics of race would have been an important part of sexual attraction.

i'll also offer myself up as an example. i've grown up in a heteronormative world. it's normal for me to see physical expressions of affection between men and women. i feel neutral about it even though it is as alien to my sexual orientation as two men kissing are to yours. the difference is that i haven't had it beaten into my head that this is gross/disgusting/unnatural.

now, where my orientation rears it's ugly head is when i start to think about specific sexual acts. to be blunt, i probably find the idea of performing oral sex on a woman as "gross" as you might find the idea of kissing (or more) with a man. and that's fine. but i've learned to be mature about it, not to scream "ewwww!" if/when i hear straight men talking about it, because it's like brussel sprouts -- some people just don't like them.

as stated in "trainspotting": "it's aw tae do wi' aesthetics and fuck all tae do wi' morality."