Your Views: Gay-marriage opponents use fear to stigmatize others
Same-sex marriage illustrates that, too often, unrecognized motivations cause harm, even unintentionally. A major argument against is natural law. That ideology fears change and seeks stability. It holds that one main centerline way exists and that deviation from it causes personal and social disorganization. Therefore, logically, retain “normal” traditional marriage for safety, say the believers.
For sure, stability and safety are vital. But natural-law devotees must believe less due to realistic fears, and more because their personalities need maximum security from imagined threats. Of this they remain unaware.
But homosexuality is no objective social danger—period. (True, it’s unsettling to some of us!) So, natural-law fervency can accentuate three problems.
(1) Legislating not safety but morality (which is simply less American than it is Taliban).
(2) Opposing a harmless group seeking pair-bonding rights (They should marry heterosexually, or accept separate-hence-unequal civil unions?).
(3) Making the natural-law believers unnecessarily fearful themselves.
I’m astonished by some inhumane statements about gay unions. Do they not wrongly disrespect, demean and denigrate love? Professor Robert George: “An emotional union for adult satisfaction by mutually agreeable sexual play.”
Others say: “deep romantic feeling but unstable, shifting.” Or “validation of sex partners.”
It seems regrettable when some people’s unrecognized personal need for super-safety makes them see and stigmatize a whole group wrongly. Especially when they’re quite unaware of the motivation (ironically, personally and socially harmful!). If they knew these true motives, they might not condemn gays—and feel easier themselves.
BRIAN KEVIN BECK