Why do those who oppose SSM seem to think that letting gays marry is oppressing them?

I literally cannot wrap my mind around this point of view. I can't think of a single train of thought where this is a reasonable conclusion.

I'm reluctant to even say that it's wrong, because the only scenarios I can think of someone reaching this conclusion is one where some words have bizarre synonyms and they're actually saying something completely different, so obviously I can't call that wrong if I don't know what they're saying.

This is basically just an open invitation for those who hold this view to try to explain it, and others to refute it.

 

Because they are:
(a) Idiots
(b) Liars who don't actually believe they are being oppressed, but hope that by claiming such they will get appeal and get support from people who are idiots, or
(c) A combination of (a) and (b)

 

More seriously, the glue that holds any society together is a shared system of values. For example, a legal system produces decisions that are guaranteed to disappoint the losing party, but it works when all parties agree to abide by the decisions produced by due process of law. The faith in due process is the common value, not the agreement over the correctness of the decisions. But that value can be undermined if too many decisions are widely unpopular. The US Supreme Court is well aware that they have neither the power of the purse (taxation) nor the sword (the police), so respect for and application of their decisions depends on public acceptance. They can't afford to get either too far ahead of or too far behind broad changes in social values.

So society would break down if shared ideas of correct process were too widely violated. If the Super Bowl losers pulled out guns and shot the winners, pro football might not survive. And laws everyone breaks as a matter of course are bad laws, NOT because of what they require, but because they are ignored. Getting busted for speeding, or for pot, is commonly seen as simple bad luck, because enforcement is necessarily random and whimsical. The police CAN bust just about anyone they please, and enforcement (bust) patterns tend to reflect enforcement bias rather than violation patterns. Everyone speeds, or drives while impaired, at one time or another.

So back to SSM, there are those who regard such a practice as a serious violation of a social shared value system. Others regard the prohibition of such a practice as a violation (of equal rights, another value held in high esteem). The conservatives regard their marriages as representing a sacred institution, and SSM to them makes a mockery of that institution, demeaning it in a seriously perverted and intolerable way. So we see advocates for a "separate but equal" practice, whereby same sex couples can enjoy every legal right, privilege, and responsibility of a sacred marriage, except (I guess) it's a different institution in the eyes of their imaginary gods.

 

What don't you get?

Clearly prohibiting them from dictating the freedoms of others infringes upon their god given right to control everyone else!!!

 

The courts are almost unanimously agreeing that those that oppose ssm have no legal standing.

If you look at the figures it is primarily religious and elderly people who are opposed. It is not easy to underarm our accept things that you have been taught the opposite of your whole life.

Tradition and religion are not a legal argument

 

Basically these people aren't thinking with their heads.

But militant homosexuals do harass people who don't support them and accept them as normal.

 

Militant people don't harass, they conquer. There is no such thing as "militant homosexuals" there are overly sensitive people in every sub culture that harass others. There are people who make careers out of it. Jessy Jackson, lulac, Farrakhan. And countless others. They won't go away if Ssm never happens either.

So my question is why bring that up in this discussion?

 

Ironically, some of the same people on the Right who claim "gay marriage will undermine traditional marriage".....


are big fans of Rush Limbaugh....now on his FOURTH "traditional marriage".

 

Because this is common behavior in all cultures and beliefs, it is not just limited to one group. All cultures have their extremists who must impose their morality on to other people.

And secondly, these people love to strong arm those who are weaker than themselves.

 

There are far more evangelical whack jobs that do that. Why aren't you complaining about them? Or white people, black people, Hispanic people, Pentecostals, democrats, libertarians, vegetarians, people who like electric cars, the list goes on and in greater numbers than sensitive gay people.

What people?

 

Because there's an awful lot of them, and you can't fight everything everywhere all the time. When it does come across me, if I can see that it is real crap, I will denounce it, whatever it's source.

people are retarded, though, and always think they're the victims and they don't deserve it or think they can't be challenged.

I don't know or understand where that crap attitude comes from.

The people who are zealous and militant about their beliefs.

 

So you choose to feel this way about homosexuals, people that an actual federal law exists to subjugate them. I think it's more of a personal issue than that for you. I think you are being dishonest to avoid mentioning it. Blacks, whites, vegetarians and so forth are all pigeonholed by society but there isn't a federal law causing it.

(I think you might have a bit of a moderator issue with the word you used. I don't know if it's prohibited to use it in a pejorative mannor on this sight.)

Yeah, once again that occurrs in every single sub group. You are singling out homosexuals for other reasons. I don't condone those actions, but why does it bother to the point of whining about it on the internets with homosexuals? They don't come close to numbers of others that do the same thing.

Individuality.

Militant people don't simply (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and sue they conquer, or attempt to. Zeal is something entirely different.

You are blowing this out of proportion, it's normally an emotional reason people do that.

People with zealous opinions and actions make the cause they are fighting for look less legitimate, I agree with that, but I don't agree with your victimhood when you talk about militants. Go to Iraq find some Isis people and then tell me what militant means.

 

You really don't know me well enough to psychoanalyze me, and you're not a professional psychiatrist with the credentials to do so, so please, stop. I would not do this to you, regardless of what I may feel.

And you are the one who is being somewhat dishonest. I have said in the past I'm not against same sex marriage as I don't support discrimination and do view laws agaionst as a form of discrimination.

But I also abhor marriage for completely different reasons of my own.

I've used it before and have not gotten in trouble for it with the moderators. Not all insult and offensive words are banned on this site. Oh, and a minor correction, it's website.

Obviously they do. They've done it throughout history and they're doing it today. This is a general statement and is not explicit to homosexuality, but there are homosexual who do harass people who do not support them. That is not the way to enact change.

But I really don't think I can help you understand what I am trying to say, so I really have no more to say to you.

 

I am simply going by your actions and words here. It seems you are becoming upset by the suggestion of it.
And also please don't remove my name from my quotes that is extremely dishonest.

I am not the one removing your name from your quotes.

I am not really talking about your feelings about sane sex marriage. Just your instant need to whine about some that support homosexual equality doing what many other groups do in much greater numbers and with more frequency.

I get that you are anti marriage.

My explanation was simply why I altered your text. You see when I alter your posts I give a reason. I am not really going to talk about usage of this word any more, so any responds to this particular segment will be ignored. It was a simple house keeping issue and I don't wish to discuss it any further.

No, militant people conquer through force and violence. Again go to Iraq ant visit with Isis.

That isn't militarism. When you use the word militant it means something other than what you are describing. This is hyperbole and it's why I am saying you are dishonest. You are using a rhetorical move to paint something more negative than it really is.

Yeah they're are Christians that harass homosexuals, there are atheists that harass Christians there are black people that harrass white people and vise versa. None of them are militant because they aren't using force and violence to establish their goals.

I am going to have to disagree. That is exactly how change occurs. Our nation had to fight a revolutionary war to change, then a civil war to stay together, then a cultural war to end racism.

I understand you completely, you just can't figure out how to get me to believe your dishonesty. I see through you. You can throw your hands up in frustration and walk away all you wish. I know it's because I am right on the money.

Your position on this isn't that you don't like the way some people go about getting things done, it's that you don't like the end game. Based on the posts I have read that you posted that is a reasonable assumption to make on my part.

You are using this behavior to justify throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's the same tactic as people who complain about the pride parade.
I would prefer that people stop this behavior of sue and harassment because first it isn't right and second it would remove the fodder you use to justify your position.

 

No, you are not right, but I know that there is nothing I can say or do to prove it to you nor am I inclined to do so. You are just using dishonest tactics to try to correct me to your wrongful pov. You're just an intolerant pos like everybody else.

I have nothing more to say to you.

 

I know I am right. You are simply trying to save face.

I am not the one deleting names out of posts in hopes to get the last word. You did that in purpose and just acted as though it didn't happen. It's hard to accuse somebody of something while you have egg on your face.

Yeah everybody else is wrong and you are the victim of intolerance. Btw I never called you names.

You keep saying the same thing to me though it's indirect. But it's a little more direct in this post.

If you feel like you don't want to talk to me any more, just stop talking to me. And that includes under handed posts without quotes and underhanded removal of my name from my quote. You don't really have the guts for the type of debate you are trying to have.

 

You responded to me.

Good day.

 

Thanks for not deleting my name from my quote.

 

Here's where I have a problem with you. The language you're using here is very inaccurate and does not re[resent the situation. There is a huge difference between people who don't support us, and people who want to do harm to us through law. That's when it gets ugly. You're damn right we're going to get severely irritated with people who want to harm us through law and try to deny us rights. You would too!

What- do you think we should just lay down and let people walk all over us with laws? Not gonna happen, man. Hopefully, this puts thing in perspective for you.

 

I wish you would use the very flow chart regarding 'discussion' that you showed us.

That one sentence undermined anything else you were trying to get across.

- - - Updated - - -

[QUOTE1064196654]Thanks for not deleting my name from my quote.[/QUOTE]

Testing- just to see if I can delete your name from the quote- just curious how it is done

Nope that didn't work- how do you delete a name from a quote? Seems to be a lot of work to do.

 

The range of shared values is often narrow and needs, from time to time, to be shattered by a dedicated minority. The US has a black president today, in part, because guys like me faced National Guard troops, demanding change and were arrested for the trouble. In time, the opposition to the Vietnam War, segregation, women's rights all became the main stream.

So it is with marriage. As the institution failed and divorce became more common than a long term marriage, it lost its meaning to main stream society, a large segment decided not to even bother. As such, when gays and lesbians wanted it, suddenly it was this cherished institution again and it had to be denied to "those people"

As much as your comments are accurate, in the case of SSM, there is a foundation of bigotry, the same thinking that incipiently demands that transgendered people be ostracized.

 

Really? Not one of the vocal anti same sex marriage posters are going to chime in and educate us all as to how they are being oppressed?!?

I am generally interested.

Please keep in mind that marriage is a civil (not religious) contract.
Also an appeal to tradition is not an argument

 

I think many have been trying to explain, but it doesn't register.

And here is why. For many, marriage is primarily a religious condition, in which the State has intruded, often unnecessarily, muddying the waters. But for those people, marriage genuinely is a contract between them and their gods, with State intrusions pretty much irrelevant.

But of course it is! What are we, as a culture, as a society, as a nation, if not a venerated collection of traditions, history, practices, and the like? I think it's a mistake to just reflexively dismiss "this is the way we've always done it" as a meaningless, hidebound, brainless claim. Should we reject, for example, due process of law, because that's the way we've always done it, which isn't an argument? Generally, traditions of long standing ARE standing for a long time because they work, because they serve valuable purposes. They should never be discarded or radically changed lightly.

The argument here, properly as I see it, is that SSM is not a radical change, anymore than inter-racial marriage was a radical change. It's not radical because essentially NO existing laws, rules, regulations, precedents, or policies must be changed to accommodate it. It SEEMS radical to two (non-exclusive!) groups of people: those who use religion as their rationalization, and those who are at least honest enough to admit to plain xenophobia. But as time goes by, tens of thousands of same sex marriages have been performed, and there's no sign of the sky falling, both of these groups are coming to realize that their fears were groundless, their god is still in his heaven, and they don't need to stick their noses into other peoples' marriages.