A friend of mine and I were having a discussion yesterday about the whole issue of why gay marriage was so threatening to so many heterosexual people, and just conversing back and forth about the whole issue when she said what her main theory was; and it totally made sense. She said that she believed that the reason gay marriage is so threatening to so many people, is not because it would “disrupt the institution of marriage”, or not even because it would allow us to have the same rights as other people. She said that it was because if we were allowed to marry, it would mean that eventually, we would become more visible with our relationships, and move towards being more open about the existence of those relationships. Gay people would begin to look like a couple when in public; because they would be recognized as a couple by law. We would begin to become more visible, and as such, would cement our place in mainstream society as something more than a sexual deviant or a queeny comic relief.
And you know what, I think she is right. The prospect of seeing two gay men holding hands strolling down the street is such a powerful image to some people that it can drive people to violence; it already has. I think that by “allowing” gay marriage to become legal, the threat of that image becoming more and more mainstream, and the possibility of gay people finding themselves represented more in society in a normal way is just too threatening to some people; more than “upholding the institution of marriage” (whatever that means… 50% divorce rate anyone?). What do you all think? It is an interesting idea, and one that I hadn’t really thought of before. I never made the connection, but honestly wonder, could this be it? Could this be the biggest threat to the legalization of gay marriage; mainstreaming, and thereby providing a more visible presence, of homosexuality? Hmmm… thoughts?
I think a lot of the surveys that are out there say stuff like people overall are pro domestic partnerships but are not for marriage. In NJ the domestic partnership laws/benefits almost resemble that of “marriage”. I think that the word marriage is too closely connected to religion. When we go for “marriage”, it is probably percieved to the general public, “you have to change your faith beliefs.”
I think one day, states and federal government will allow domestic partners and later on all “marriages” well cease from a goverment bodies and straight and gay couples will have to apply for domestic partner benefits and if they want to get “married” they will go to their religious institution.
Interesting question Duane. It just so happens that the idea of violence to quell the homosexuals is getting some attention. A friend tipped me to a legal wrangling in CA where they are trying to eliminate the so called “gay panic” defense.
http://usagenda.blogspot.com/2006/07/score-one-for-homosexual-agenda.html
And in answer to your question, I agree that it is truely an issue of visual comfort. It always has been, even before the marriage debate.
Why is it that heterosexual people are obsessed with creating a mental image of what you and I do in the bedroom? Yes it’s gross to them. Just like it is gross to me to think of having sex with a woman. That’s why I don’t think about that. But straight men are always sure some fag is out to get them, and the mere sighting of a gay couple holding hands is for some reason enough to shake their masculinity to the core. I don’t understand why?
And then they get all wound up by a man leering at another man. Checking him out & sizing him up.
Yet they don’t see that is EXACTLY how they treat EVERY woman they see on the street? It’s OK when they stare exclusively at a womans tits or her ass, and it’s sometime OK when they verbally take that one step further. So why is it so foriegn to see a man doing that to another man? We are all MEN after all. We are visual by nature, and therein lies the reason for the big deal with marriage. Men, no matter the persuasion can’t help but visualize themselves with others sexually. And if they accidentally end up doing that with another man it freaks them out. And rightfully so if it’s not part of their deal to find that hot. Wanna gross me out? Force me to consider in my mind having sex with a woman. YIKES! See, I just went there, had a mental freak out, but I didn’t try to ban marriage because of it?!
Craziness. All of it.
Your friend makes a rather interesting and strong point… one I’ve never thought of either. Good post, Duane. Hope you have a great weekend.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head there (or at least one of its heads)… for a lot of people, having same-sex relationships legitimized is disconcerting, as well as the awkwardness it may create for them (”mommy, why are those boys holding hands?”).
I think also that the issue is multi pronged .but this is a great prong to touch on, oit makes great sense and I hadn’t really thought about this aspect either.
I think that your friend has a valid point. I also think that many republicans hide behind the “Sanctity of marriage” idea because they are afraid to admit that the idea of homosexual couples being granted things like health care, survior benefits, etc, scares the crap out of them. Big business and government would be forced to acknowledge loving homosexual realtionships. GASP.
It’s really quite simple.
2 men holding hands will look normal.
Normal = good and moral.
If gay marriage is good and normal then what about us straights? (isn’t the opposite of good bad?) If we can’t accept that heterosexuality is bad then we’ll be very very confused and our whole basis of civilization and moral order (coming straight from the bible) will have to be questioned. Most people don’t like to be confused and they like to have neat simple rules to live by of which ‘lawmakers’ are the guardians of this responsibility. Just a thought.