They don’t believe that, though. It’s been standard right wing dogma for decades, since Reagan at least (remember “welfare queens?”) if not earlier that the groups they don’t like are all “coddled” and handed “unearned” benefits and privileges.
It’s the opposite of reality, but that’s never stopped them from believing something.
I suspect you’re right.
Their view on SSM (Same-Sex Marriage) implied that marriage was a zero sum game, and that for every SS couple who married, and opposite sex couple would have to divorce.
Those SSMs also “cheapened” and “diminished” the ‘sanctity’ (or WTF ever they would say) of their own marriages.
Because heterosexuals were simply crushing marriage before SSM came about 
I’d imagine that flashing one’s LGBTQ+ card gets preferred seating at sporting events, restaurants, and free upgrades on most major airlines, too.
But the rhetoric really doesn’t change too awfully much from one marginalized group to the next. Wash. Rinse. Hate. Demonize. Repeat.
Indeed. Very recently I read about some group complaining about the rights gay people are getting. They somehow think gay people are getting something extra. Something special. Something straight people do not get. How unfair is that!
It really does not sink in for them that gay people (or any marginalized group) are only asking for the things those straight, white people already have and barely even think about. (sorry, no cite, I tried but a Google search was hard to get right for this…too many results so hard to find the one on point)
Anyone alive for the last fifty years should be familiar with the sheer ignorance of the folks that will point to law that is clearly about discriminating against a class and claim it’s giving ‘’‘special rights’‘’ to one specific part of that class while ignoring that they themselves belong to said class.
“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”
I always thought the straight-o’s were getting all pissed-off at gay people for being able to have all that sex without the risk of inconvenient children appearing. /s
You included the /s but I am not sure you are wrong.
Look at their views towards abortion. If you have sex, you should damn well suffer the consequences! No easy outs allowed.
No ifs, ands, or buts!
Which is the crux of the issue…
There’s a school of thought that says all non-mainstream sexual preferences are the result of boredom with “normal” sex - and if people would only embrace the joys of good ol’ male-on-female missionary-position coitus, all those other preferences would disappear.
What are you talking about? Conservatives complain constantly that White Christian men are the only oppressed people.
I heard about a professor at a college I attended who was not only a very out and in your face lesbian, but she also assigned the class a creative writing exercise, which was what their lives would be like if they were gay. (30+ years ago) I wouldn’t have known what to write, about being cishet and AFAB!
What?
I think that’s rubbish. Those arguments are “logical” rationalizations to justify opposition to homosexuality. It’s a variant of “homosexuality is not natural”.
Conservative belief starts with the premise that gay is bad, then finds reasons why.
I have to push back on this narrative. I don’t think the majority of self-identified conservatives want to “hurt people”. The policies they support may have harms, but their motivation isn’t to gleefully sit there and cackle at the pain others suffer.
Sure, there are plenty of racists and misogynists and bigots who do feel that way. And they are a big chunk of Trump’s support.
But a lot of conservatives don’t think in terms of hurting others. They think the policies of the liberals will hurt them and most Americans in general. They are opposed to a caricature of liberals that they’ve been inundated with for decades. Hell, maybe a century.
There maybe a lot of unthinking selfishness, but that isn’t wishing harm on others. That’s just a lack of perspective on what policies actually mean.
The perception that a person is under attack makes them opposed to the source of that attack. It doesn’t matter that that feeling is an illusion, a persecution complex. The attack feels real to them, and drives their opposition.
Your answer refutes itself. The benefit to seeming straight was continuing to live. You didn’t “act” gay or straight, but the default expectations was that you were straight, if awkward.
As a straight man, I have the same the same opinion. That’s the result of insecurity and social awkwardness. But from the youngest age, I’ve always been interested in girls and women. My parents talk about babysitters from before I remember.
So I recognize that sexual orientation is internal and innate. I think there is a realm for people who choose to explore their sexuality, to not be limited to all one or all other. To decide to explore the alternate and see if there is anything there for them. That doesn’t invalidate to me the concept that there is an internal drive that isn’t chosen.
That’s a very smooth way to say what I’ve said for a long time. Kudos!
“AFAB” is an acronym for “assigned female at birth.”
That is like saying the benefit of having a gun held to your head is that you do what you are told, or die. There is no criticism to my statement.
For the sake of a life partner, if you took the sexual issue out, it seems like it would make more sense from a logical perspective to have a same sex life partner. Most people’s closest friends are of the same sex. It seems like people of the same sex would have more of the same hobbies in common, have more behavioral patterns in common, have more similar life goals, etc. If a man wants a life partner who likes drinking beer, building model trains, playing video games, going to car shows, working on cars, etc., then probably another man would make sense. It would be unusual to find a woman who is passionate about those typically male things.
There was no “alternate sexuality” for me to explore.
Is that really true though? I was accustomed to marriage being between a man and a woman. When gay people were allowed to marry one another I had to amend my definition of marriage, but I didn’t feel as though I was being oppressed.
I wasn’t talking about conservatives in general, but specifically about homophobes. I do think that causing harm is pretty fundamental to the homophobe’s mindset, although a lot of them are good at finding moral justifications for it. But the actual basis for it is the little rush of endorphins they get by acting aggressive towards another person, while being largely insulted from the repercussions of their own aggression.
I took this comment to a new thread.
I wasn’t trying to imply anything about your identity with that remark, but speaking more in general about people.
I was going to post a long set of personal experiences, but it’s way off topic.
You weren’t, but a lot of people are threatened by the idea. Their privilege was “natural” to them, and changing definitions was attacking their identity through their perception of his things are supposed to be.
Not everyone has that feeling about the same topics.
Thank you.
But there are others in the thread talk talking about all conservatives.