I’ve got it!
You know when you really like a new band that you’ve heard, and then the next thing you know a bunch of other, uncool, people like that band, too, and it makes you wish you didn’t like that band?
It’s like that.
I have to call BS that this is a sincere complaint about the loss of religious sanctity of marriage. This gay marriage thing is the same as prayer in school, nativity scenes, the “war on Christmas”, etc.
Since everyone is still entirely free to practice their own religion on their own time and their own dime, nobody can honestly say anyone else is taking their religion or beliefs away. What they really feel they’re losing is the cultural dominance of their religion.
Why ask for a valid argument from these people? If they cannot understand that losing cultural hegemony is different from losing personal freedom of religion, they are simply stupid. Don’t bother trying to understand them. Vote for equality and simply crush their ignorant ideas under the boot of social justice.
So…homophobes are hipsters?
Hey, maybe we can divert the next WBC “protest” by driving by with a case of PBR!
Why I actually think this argument exists: at the highest levels, I genuinely believe many if not most Evangelical Christian leaders are more interested in politics, power, and control than faith. I believe they realize that homosexuality is a threat to their control, and spread the whole “destroys the sanctity of marriage” idea purely as a thing for followers to repeat. I don’t believe there’s ever a real reasoned argument anywhere in the chain. They just know it’s a combination of words that gets traction, and they know their followers aren’t going to be involved in meaningful debate anyways.
Cynical, I realize, but I think it fits the evidence as well as anything.
I agree with what gyfalt suggested. The people in my life (like my fundamentalist family) who oppose SSM do so for those very reasons. If something, anything outside of the Godly realm, is seen as permissible, it threatens their very distinct visions of how life should be lived for everyone. So it doesn’t really matter if it only ‘harms’ those that participate in homosexuality, but it erodes what we should stand for… biblical principles. Period. And if it gains any widespread acceptance, than not only are we immoral as a whole (perhaps that’s where they extrapolate it to make their own marriages worthless), but doomed.
Yeah, I don’t understand it much either. Although a million years ago, I used to believe it myself. Because evil, in the form of Satan’s ability to trick us into hellfire and damnation, was real and imminent. That’s what gay marriage, among other things, will do for you.
Recent incidents with conservative, homophobic politicians exposed as “closet homosexuals” always bring me back to that conversation. Did these people genuinely feel love and attraction to their spouse, and just assume that a conventional, heterosexual marriage would “fix” their urges for homosexual sex?
Or was it just a clever ruse – “I will marry this girl, but I am smart and clever enough to hide my tracks when it comes to my dalliances with men” ? Are they genuinely bisexual, or are they just homosexuals in very deep denial? I dunno…
I think it’s the former, because they’d certainly never admit to the latter. Bi being just as bad as gay, dontcha know. Although, I’d definitely believe there are plenty of deeply closeted individuals out there living a dual, bearded life.
“Bisexual” is a lousy term, especially when trying to describe “down low” guys.
I’m sure the truth is all over the board, but my best guess with a lot of arch-conservatives is that they’re deeply sexually repressed and the gay dalliances are, to them, just a way to indulge. I’d wager many of the same would sleep with women as well, but think (possibly rightly) that gay play will be easier to keep a lid on and will be simpler, faster, and more direct.
In other words, I think they want sex, period, and just pursue gay sex because it’s an easy outlet. I doubt most of them have a real handle on their own sexuality, frankly.
I can sort of see a grain of logic in the argument (wait before tearing me a new asshole - I don’t actually support the argument).
I can see how members of a certain group might not want someone outside of the group to redefine its very nature to include something else - for (purposely ludicrous) example, insisting that a golf club, solely devoted to golf, suddenly includes cricket, just because I don’t like golf.
It might not impact any of the golf players at all, but still be considered an affront to the raison d’etre for the club.
As I say though, I don’t support this argument when it comes to marriage, because I happen to think the gender composition of the relationship a mere detail. Marriage is about something people do, not what or who they are.
And in all honesty, I don’t really think the ‘sanctity of marriage’ folks are worried about cricket players spoiling their golf club - they’re just looking for any and every way to stamp down on something they don’t like.
gyfalt’s answer is exactly the explanation I’ve been told. I don’t think it’s even some secret. SSM hurts DSM because it isn’t “Christian” and makes it more likely that God is going to completely turn his back on this nation. They honestly believe that the reason every civilization falls is that they don’t obey God.
I live in Nashville, and was raised in the deeply conservative / fundamentalist “Church of Christ”, so I have good access to people who believe this way. I chatted with an old college friend last night about this issue – he said that he was fine with a few people being gay and shacking up (he thought it was silly to call it “marriage”). It would be wrong to physically harass them in any way, or bully them, or discriminate against them in an obvious way regarding jobs or finances, etc. – that wouldn’t be “Christian”.
(He also said that , in some ways, it was better that gays could pair up openly nowadays, and not feel obligated to marry a woman “as a cover”, and then go out and have homosexual affairs on the side.)
However, the basic problem was allowing these people to think that their homosexual behavior was trivial and normal. They should be made aware that Jesus does not like this behavior, and that their path would lead them to eternal damnation. He was afraid that eventually, if our society continues its present trend, a person could be jailed or at least fined for telling a gay couple that their lifestyle was sinful.
So, straight from the buckle of the Bible Belt, there is an interesting explanation of the conservative Christian viewpoint!
Personnally, I only got married because it was something that homosexuals weren’t allowed to do. Now that many states are allowing it, my wife and I have separated. 
I think astro nailed it.
…in the ASS!!! 
Jesus really IS crying…from laughter after reading this.
In addition to reasons already mentioned, some of the more staunch, deluded social conservatives truly believe that natural disasters and other forms of their perceived god’s wrath are the result of USA society’s tolerance of homosexuality. Marriage would take it a step further. Civil unions, too. The Westboro extremists take it a step further with the beliefs of deity revenge on dead soldiers for the sinful behavior of American citizens…or something like that.
Because, next thing you know, people will be marrying animals!
Don’t know about the politician angle, but I have a homosexual male friend who was married to a woman for 12 years and had two children with her. He said he loved her very much - she was his best friend - but he just wasn’t sexually attracted to her. Sex was a chore. I’m not really sure if he knew he was gay when he married her, but they both realized it and divorced. They remained the best of friends after he came out and she remarried.
I think the main reason some people don’t want SSM is about control. They don’t approve of homosexuality because their Book says it’s bad. If they go along with SSM it means they are approving of something their God says is wrong. If it’s not ok with their God, then it’s not ok for anyone because everyone should follow their Book. Or at least the hand-picked portions they follow.
Imagine you have a degree from Harvard. Now imagine that they start accepting people with 1.5 gpas and 12s on their ACT. Soon, having a degree from there won’t be prestigious. Same idea for marriage.
It’s bullshit, but there you go.
That is a very interesting story about your gay friend. I have always wondered about the whole “I’m gay, but I’m going to marry a woman” phenomenon that many homosexual men do. I’m sure that hardly any one out of this current generation of young people will do that, though…
And back to my conversation with my conservative / fundamentalist friend – he was very concerned that future generations would never even have to confront the notion that the practice of homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible. He said that he figured that there have always been gay people in every society. He doesn’t mind that they pair up, they can even have “civil unions” if they want, just as long as they don’t call it marriage, put it on a par with the basic heterosexual institution. The gays just need to know that what they are doing does not coincide with God’s plan – for that matter, everyone who actively does any type of sin needs to be told the consequences for their ungodly actions.
And, of course, as society veers off from Christian values, it will decline further, with disastrous results for us all. That is the gist of what he said.
There’s nothing to “understand”; you might as well try to “understand” the schizophrenic ravings of some homeless guy who won’t go to a shelter because he thinks it’s a base for brain-stealing space aliens.