This is so spot on and yet it mystifies me. I never understand why people don't mind their own business instead of sticking their nose in other people's life, wanting other people's life to be similar to their own. I don't think it's because their looking for validation to their own way of life because let's face it, heterosexuality is the majority at this point in life. So I really don't understand why anyone will want to control how others behave in their life when it doesn't even affect or harm them in any way.
I suppose it seems less likely that it's simply a desire for validation. Though, you can't underestimate the power of insecurity. We have christians buying into the "war on christianity" left and right - that 90% majority under assault by a minority.
Remember too, that regardless of how many normative peers surround one's self, if one feels bad already for different reasons, any reminder no matter how small can cause an outburst. For example, with the "childfree" arguments, a common Freudian slip is for the critic of the childless couple to say "sure having children is a challenge and removes your freedom as an adult but children are a necessary sacrifice."
I've seen this line pop out when the childless folk are
not the ones playing up the "freedom" of not having children.
Also, people who seem to go against a majority may seem flippant to members of the norm - as if they're flouting their uniqueness. Look how popular it is to negatively characterize hipsters, or members of a subculture like hippies. The "you are not a special unique snowflake" like is very popular, including with people who think they're smarter than the average bear.
It's a shame some people conflate believing that an act is morally wrong with hating the people that perpetrate said acts or bashing said people.
The problem with bigotry over intrinsic characteristics, like race, gender, or sexual orientation, is that it's difficult to justify "loving the sinner but hating the sin". "I think homosexuality is morally wrong, but I won't bash gays" is revealed as truly nonsensical and not a statement of reasonable compromise, if one replaces "homosexual" with "black" or "female". The difference is that being gay has been defined as merely a behavior, ye olde "being homosexual is a choice" line, in western culture for a long time. We're in the middle of a transition. Homosexuality is gradually being recontextualized from being an 'act' to a 'state of being'. You do not act gay, you are gay. You do not act straight, you are straight. Thus, being gay (or straight) is removed from the realm of deciding whether or not it's "right".
Thus, a person trying to argue that gay = wrong, or gay = immoral, may still run into trouble even if they believe they're trying to be reasonable by telling themselves "I should not hate this person who is wrong".
Interestingly though, the thought process of traditional bigotry can betray the way some ideas become conflated in a bigoted person. White supremacists often believe that "lesser races" aren't just physically different, but that they ARE immoral.
Intrinsically immoral. Their race actually
does make them "wrong"!
All this seems to be a major reason why there is such an (inevitably losing) fight against "the spread of The Gay". People who can't cope with the idea of homosexuality (for whatever reason) see it being elevated above subjective concepts. It is entering the realm of biology and objectivity. Removing this thing they don't understand, or in some cases fear or are offended by, from the list of things they can
disapprove of.
Unfortunately, the cat is out of the mimetic bag. The Gay has become understood rationally, and the rational framework will keep on trucking even if some people remain uncomfortable, or believe it's a threat to other frameworks that they require remain unchanged in order for their lives to have structure. Such as religious people who can't accept that they might be asked to reinterpret their religion. Funny thing that, by the way. Christians call themselves "Christ-ian" and not "Biblican", as that Jesus guy seems to be the most important part of that old book. But Jesus never did say anything about The Gay. It was all those other lines of text, many of which were written by people who had nothing to do with Jesus...
