![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"Even the 'ick' factor is a cover for something else. Despite the pretended revulsion for 'gay' sex acts, the fact is that homosexuals do nothing sexually that heterosexuals don't do. One only has to look at the amatuer porn posted by gays and straights alike on sites like xtube.
"The real motivation of those opposed to gay rights is simply meanness. They opponents are bullies. They like being able to look down on others. They enjoy the fact that they have 'special rights' that gay people don't. In other words, the opponents of gay rights are not nice people. One doesn't have to demonize them to realize that they lack the kind of moral compass one gains from being able to empathize with others not like oneself."
-- Crookedtimber commenter JayJonson, 2009-04-12
(no subject)
from maugorn
It's easy to deduce that a bully, at their core is acting against feelings of insecurity, and they create a sense of security thru domination.
The problem arises when they achieve a very positive payoff from these actions and no negative reinforcement. That latter is extremely important, because they learn to crave the rush that comes from domination, and to insure that rush, they pick their targets the same way a predator picks theirs- the weak, the isolated, the wounded, etc.
That's why they go after the non-conforming, because they're more likely to garner popular support for their actions by taking on the role of "enforcer" for the mob.
And as they perpetrate their abuse they very assiduously do whatever they can to KEEP their victims in those desirable states. An obvious way is to perpetuate the Myths that keep the victim as a "deserving" class for their abuse. This modus seems to apply pretty equally from the playground all the way up to Auschwitz.
So picking on homosexuals, UNTIL they are more popularly and unilaterally defended is, right now, a no brainer.
And IMHO , I think the quote has it right on for a lot of people, especially the louder mouthed ones. Look closely, and you'll see that by and large, it's not lack of privilege that provides their motivation. The most virulent attacks are going to come from the people who enjoy and actively practice the rights that are being withheld. The rank and file will join in with the bashing, it's true, but the leaders of the charge are going to be wealthy, and powerful, and very likely, married.
I'm also predicting that if you study it more, that the non-rich, non powerful who join in this fray AS LEADERS* are going to definitively exhibit a pattern of playing "enforcer" for any societal mores that are easy to pick on. And they will do so ways that are NOT designed to correct so much as PUNISH the behaviour.
*whether it's just mouthing off, or organising local resistance, or thru more violent personal acts.
There are plenty of people with deep convictions and faith, who adhere strictly to moral codes for their personal lives, and who, if asked might tell you what they think is wrong about what someone else is doing.
These folks are generally decent, but sometimes are duped into being enablers for a leader who's a bully.
But a *true* fanatic, who you'll find as a footsoldier or general in a moral cause- if you look below their facade, you will find someone whose payoff is the domination of others.
The "self-frustated denyee" definitely exists, but they're not as common as you'd think. And their methods are very different from your average bully.
Most of the most vocal opponents of gay marriage, from the snarky co-worker up to the high paid lobbyists, are going to be VERY into establishing and preserving the "schoolyard heirarchy" because THAT's where the payoff is.
The payoff here, if you peel away the onion layers, are
(no subject)
ranting to my longsuffering roommate aboutbouncing an idea off my roommate that one of the effects of homophobia is that opponents of civil rights for LGBT people think of us primarily in terms of sex (similarly to misogynists who think of women solely in terms of sex and motherhood, and so can't respect a colleague if she isn't male because all they think of when they look at her is sex). I've been struck by that whenever I see people say, while attacking the very grouping of people as LGBT, "you define yourselves by sex, and that's immoral and disgusting" -- they're projecting their definition. So on one side we have people insisting that we are, well, fully people, and on the other we have people saying "all you do is have icky kinds of sex", which, as Mr. Johnson cogently points out, are all also performed by heterosexuals.I'm not sure I'm right. I'm still turning the idea over in my head. But your post today reminded me of these thoughts.
(no subject)
1. Come from an authoritarian background of the sort that dictates rigid gender and social roles (i.e. that one of the things you do in life is grow up, get [heterosexually] married and have children), and you don't get to opt out of the process (which is why a lot of these people say or imply that gay people are perpetual children or irresponsible, etc.).
2. Has played along with the obligatory social roles they feel they have to.
3. Resents the hell out of it for one reason or another, and doesn't want anyone else to get a pass. (E.g. "I had to marry a woman and I'm totally miserable, so you should have to to.")
-- ?!
pls. ignore
Re: pls. ignore
Re: pls. ignore
(no subject)
That's why it's usually the same people who are also rigid about sex roles, too. I can understand why that's so scary. What if the way other people lived their lives made you think your entire system might be worthless and you have just wasted your entire life?