Do Those Who Oppose Gay Marriage Suffer From Homophobia?

Stick and Stones...

Those without an argument love to throw names around, attacking the person rather than the issues. This is usually the case with those who favor Gay marriage. Opponents are invariably referred to as homophobes, or suffering from homophobia. What does this mean? According to the Anti-Defamation League:

Homophobia is the hatred or fear of homosexuals - that is, lesbians and gay men - sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility. Homophobia is not confined to any one segment of society, and can be found in people from all walks of life. Organized hate groups have viciously attacked homosexuals and have used especially violent language in attempting to persecute and intimidate them.

Unfortunately, most pro-Gay people lump all disagreements about homosexuality together and say that those who don't agree with the Gay community are suffering from homphobia - in other words, they either hate or fear homosexuals. This, of course, is patently false, and they know it. However, words are powerful and putting a label on someone in an attempt to shame them seems, to homosexuals, to be the best way to silent opposition.

Square Dancing Gays
Square Dancing Gays

Disagreement Doesn't Equal Hatred

This writer has known several Gay individuals and they were nice people. Likewise, one of the funniest comedians in the entertainment field is Ellen DeGeneres, and one of the best singers is Elton John. However, that doesn't mean one who has Gay friends or likes some Gay people in the entertainment field has to agree with their lifestyle or that they should have the right to redefine marriage. Likewise, one can have friends engaged in other forms of immorality without agreeing with their lifestyle.

It's strange how Gay couples want to pretend to be a normal family, compete with kids - who didn't come into existence through the union of a man and a man, by the way! - and one of the partners pretending to be either the husband or the wife. This writer is convinced that they know this is an unnatural partnership and they're desperately trying to convince themselves and others that it is perfectly normal.

A recent study has shown the harmful effects on these relationships. The results of that study can be found at "A Non-Religious Case Against Same-Sex Marriage." Naturally, the study has come under immediate attack.

What about the impact legalizing same-sex marriage will have in all areas of life and "anti-discrimination" laws that will attempt to make Christians violate their consciences? The Gay community like to compare itself to the fight Blacks had for equality. That being the case, they would make it illegal for a Christian baker to refuse service to a Gay couple who want a wedding cake with a Gay couple on top. However, I wonder it they would agree it should also be illegal for a Gay baker to refuse service to a member of the so-called "Christian" Westboro Baptist Church who wants a big cake with "God Hates Fags" written on it?

The issue isn't about hatred, it's about truth and about morality, words that are becoming increasingly obsolete in today's permissive society.

More by this Author


Comments 5 comments

Rebecca Rizzuti profile image

Rebecca Rizzuti 2 years ago from Indianapolis, Indiana

As the hubs on this account will likely attest, I'm in favor of de-regulating marriage entirely, therefore allowing homosexuals the same rights as heterosexual people under the law. Because free thought cannot be legislated, no law can prevent homosexuality from occurring. Because these people will continue to fall in love with one another and engage in sexual or romantic practices, there is no legitimate reason, in my opinion, to prevent them from getting married. If you look at my account you'll see that I've given reasons why I believe that de-regulation is better for the country than banning homosexual marriage.

It seems to me that the arguments made on the page regarding non-religious reasons to not support gay marriage apply to many cases in which the parents divorce as well, and the argument only applies if one takes the point of view that the purpose of marriage is to have children. Since people of all sexual orientations can currently adopt in many areas and are able to request artificial insemination -- including single people -- the validity of this argument is, in my mind, questionable.

Gay marriage won't force Christian bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings. Militantly liberal individuals who believe that their rights trump the rights of others will. The two may be intertwined with one another, but these types of arguments don't help the conservative movement at all. I'm in favor of more rights and freedoms for everyone. A Christian Baker's right to not prepare cakes for a gay wedding doesn't mean that the gay couple shouldn't be allowed to get married. Their rights should be equal to one another, as they are both human beings.

One right we don't have is the right not to be offended. If people are offended, then so be it.

It seems to me that opponents of gay marriage need to find better arguments to support their point of view, because I am a Christian and a Constitutional Conservative and am not convinced.


Abitibibob profile image

Abitibibob 2 years ago from Fort Wayne Author

Really? You, as a Christian, have no problem with Gay couples marrying, adopting children and raising them to believe that homosexual behavior is normal and moral, even though the Scriptures explicitly condemn such behavior? Well, that's your choice.


Rebecca Rizzuti profile image

Rebecca Rizzuti 2 years ago from Indianapolis, Indiana

Can you show me where I said any of that?

I don't believe in a theocracy. The first amendment of the constitution of the United States tells us that there shall be no established religion. This means that the banning of gay marriage for reasons pertaining to the Biblical scriptures would be counter-constitutional. As a constitutional conservative, I believe that this is the wrong thing for the United States.

You cannot legislate thought. Many Christians seem to believe that banning gay marriage is the answer to what they see as a moral crisis in the United States, but banning gay marriage won't stop people from being gay or participating in homosexual activity.

My proposal has always been, as I stated, that marriage should be de-regulated and left to society and the Church to decide. I also fully support Arizona's proposal to allow business owners to refuse to serve homosexual customers for moral or religious reasons.

That is the heart of the first amendment. Banning gay marriage for religious reasons is a step toward the total loss of our first amendment rights, including our freedom of religion and our freedom of speech.

You have the right to your beliefs, but you don't have the right to not be offended by mine. Whatever my faith or my religious preferences, they have little to do with my political choices, which are made for the good of the country and not with a theocratic agenda in mind.

The scriptures also explicitly condemn the consumption of pork and shellfish, or the inking of one's skin, and yet Christians continue to consume these foods and get tattoos. Why is homosexuality such an agenda?

You didn't address my concerns that I directed at you, nor did you ask what I believe, but instead (as is so often the case) determined what you thought I believed in a reactive manner. I would hardly call that Christ-like.

Although you didn't ask, I believe that children do best in a nuclear family with their biological mother and father. My point (had you asked or taken the time to thoroughly read my argument) is that the article you makes an argument against gay marriage using points which are pertinent in /any/ situation in which a parent of one gender is missing from the family equation.

If you're going to ban gay marriage, then by this argument you should also ban divorce. A biblical argument could also be made in favor of banning divorce as well. Is that your proposal, or is this a "pet issue" for you?

Think through the problem with logic, and try to apply some Christian love to the situation as well as some good, old fashioned American patriotism. This country stands against a theocracy and that is one of the things the first settlers in the new world were attempting to escape: The Catholic Church and the Church of England.

Not everyone in this country believes as you do and God gave them the free will to make their choices. If He won't regulate their thoughts, what do you think gives you and others like you that right?


Abitibibob profile image

Abitibibob 2 years ago from Fort Wayne Author

If you'll look again you'll see that I simply asked you a question. I didn't say Gay marriage should be banned because it's against Scripture. I wrote about the impact legalizing it would have on society. I'm not in favour of a theocracy either, until Christ returns.

You favour the nuclear family and that children do best in one? Good. But you don't seem to be very concerned about the effect a Gay family would have on the thinking of their "children." At least, not enough to speak out against such an arrangement.

Are you of the mindset that abortion is wrong, that it is killing a child? If so is it your view that you don't want to forbid others from having an abortion if they feel it isn't killing a child? By not acting, by not speaking out against abortion, you become an accessory to the death of countless children. Likewise, if you don't wish to stop Gays from marrying and raising children, you become an accessory to whatever negative consequences result. And in addition to the warping of the minds of the children, I can guarantee you they will not stop campaigning until it becomes illegal to refuse service to Gays.

I wonder where you would draw the line, and why. I assume you wouldn't want a law banning polygamy, then? What about a law banning man/boy relationships? If you say that's different, would your reason be that the child isn't capable of making a responsible decision regarding that relationship? Would you say this is immoral? If so, who decides that it is immoral? Is it some subjective standard determined by society? If so, that standard can change over time. Or is it a God-given instinct that this is immoral?

Also, you said you are in favour of that Arizona law that appeared to be so general that anyone could ban any person from their establishment - Gay, or Black, or Hispanic, or whatever - for moral or religious reasons? (That law, by the way, never mentions Gays.)

So you think it's okay to ban Gays from establishments for religious reasons but not okay to campaign against Gay marriage for religious reasons? Sounds rather inconsistent to me.

Yes, people can think whatever they want and no government can make them think differently. However, when those thoughts are put into action in such a way as to have a negative impact on others, then the government can act. That's why there are laws.

Incidentally, your mention of the forbidding of pork and shellfish would indicate that you may not be aware of the impact of the New Covenant.


TIMedWork 2 years ago

Rebecca,

Keeping up with the latest news, one will read where, in the states of Oregon and Washington, and others, it is in the courts where gay couples are successfully suing Christian bakers, and photographers, simply because they choose to not involve themselves and their businesses in homosexually themed nuptials. In Washington, the bakers had, for years, served this couple that sued them. They just didn't want to express themselves artistically, in something which offended their deeply held religious beliefs. In so suing them, the gay couple forced them to close the business. The State's Attorney General is the one who brought the suit at the behest of the gay couple who raised an issue, took to the papers and blogs, and protested vehemently, stating that one's deeply held religious beliefs are insufficient to protect one from having to act against them. And they won.

This very same reasoning could remove any support that Anne Frank might have had. As, though the deeply held religious beliefs, of those who hid her, should not defend them in so doing. As long as the state is acting according to whatever ends up on the books, in time. And as there is such a strong move by some for sharia law to be used in the courts, which calls for the stoning of homosexuals, should those who have deeply held religious beliefs against stoning, speak out and act in protest, based on their deeply held beliefs, even if in defiance of the law? Though this is not yet the case in the U.S., it does happen throughout the world.

When and where do we draw the line? And why is "equal" now to also mean "equivalent" as well? Why do we have these two words if they have the same meaning?

The only valid justification for government to be involved in the private affairs of individuals is, as those activities burden the community with additional obligations costing tax dollars. New people, procreated, will cost for hospitals, schools, housing and roads. Adopted children do not increase the number of people; just their address. Adopting children does not increase the tax base for the future. Procreating children does. And, as has also been in the news, when a lesbian couple parted ways, the sperm donor became legally liable for the support of the child, conceived in vitro. There seems to be no limit as to where this Mad Hatter approach to society will finally end, when the very small minority, through screaming and tantrums, can cause the vast majority to abandon reasoning for that which flies in the face of logic, and clearly unsupported by nature's attitude of survival of the fittest. That a thing occurs in nature, does not necessarily make it natural. No more so that we should refrain from attempting to separate conjoined twins, born quite naturally to their mother; and appearing with calculable regularity in the human species.

However, as one chooses to avoid the discomfort brought on by the raring objections from the minority to your dissension, then it is understandable that looking the other way is the easiest way out. But for members of society, who look to others to do their part, new tax payers and their procreative parents, should have preference over those who do not produce equally. Now, that is equality.

Another parted lesbian couple, one of whom became impregnated with the aid of medical contrivance, leaft and took her child that was born to her. She subsequently married a man and is living a according the the natural order of humans that bring humanity into the next generation. Yet the courts concluded that the baby, now a young girl, must spend time alone, living with the woman who has no connection to the child at all, and whom the child never knew, for intent and purpose -to her a total stranger- for the sake of parental rights, according to the reasoning that is encroaching into our courts and their thinking.

Where does it end, if not now? No minority has the inherent right to change the meaning of words for the majority. There is no moral foundation for such. And morality has been denounced repeatedly by the homosexual community as a basis for any law. So, regarding democratic principles, and not religious belief, there is no justification for 0.7% of the population - that number of homosexuals who, in survey said they wanted to marry (25% of 3%)- to dictate to 99.29 % of the population that we should all buy new dictionaries, and muddle our thinking, while we undefine marriage until further notice.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working