MichaelEmeryArt

Cognitive dissonance

We could call it- the Opposing Forces of Our Minds

Though,sadly over-looked "Cognitive Dissonance" is a condition all people deal with daily


Cognitive Dissonance is when you have a conflict between your beliefs, opinions, values, and your behavior, or the uncomfortable tension we feel when we are holding two conflicting thoughts in our mind at the same time.


Human beings aren’t rational, we are rationalizing creatures, and we want to appear reasonable to ourselves and others, so our mind has a way of making us believe our own lies, better known as denial, or in this case cognitive dissonance.



                                             Ego Defense Mechanisms

Our ego goes to great lengths to defend itself, with the intent of protecting our mind and ourselves, or egos from anxiety and to provide ourselves with a refuge from a situation where we cannot currently cope.

One of the ways it does this is through cognitive dissonance, which is closely related to denial and rationalization, justification, and we do this all the time without ever realizing it. We need to feel in control of ourselves, so at times, it’s just easier to form the belief that we know the reasons for the things that we think and do.


--------------Let me make this quite Clear, this is the Root cause of nearly all addictions--------------------------------------

                      Yet by it's self it is secretive, it is hiding behind what it is Causing



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                 Examples


                         For myself, being Androgynous

                         being a smoker

                         being a alcoholic

                         working for someone whom clearly isn't honest, yet your caught in a trap, Need to Live/pay bills -yet-bound to a job


                         Dissonant self-perception: A lawyer can experience cognitive dissonance if he must defend as innocent a client                               he thinks is guilty. From the perspective of The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective (1969),                               the lawyer might experience cognitive dissonance if his false statement about his guilty client contradicts his                                     identity as a lawyer and an honest man



                                                                         This list is Endless


--------------------------------------------This is where The Idea or the Defining of Cognitive; Falls Short-------------------------------------------------


                                  Here in this article at ;- psychologytoday.com-Cognitive Dissonance, Willpower, and Your Brain-


                                       I will paste here, a aspect of article;

      

                                "Cognitive dissonance occurs when you are caught between trying to decide between two conflicting                                                      options. One of these options is irrational; nevertheless, you are emotionally inclined to choose it. On the other                                      hand, the second option is more rational, but you are not inclined to choose it."


                                          For one to assume "irrational" is to judge or concrete something into a form, to generalize.

                                                           When Cognitive Dissonance simply means" Two Conflicting ideas"

                                       We have to stop assuming one or the other is Irrational, as they very well might not be!

                                                         Example;  When I was 6 years old, my parents got a divorce, one day my dad came to pick-up                                                                                my two brothers and I, A argument arose between my mom and dad on front steps, my two brothers where already in dad's car, my mom and dad both where gripping one of my hands ,tugging me back and forth,my mom crying,wanting me to stay,I was torn so badly at that moment, having to decide between my mom or dad,the memory was burnt in my mind for-ever......There was No irrational or one more rational things here!


                      I encounter so often , people like whom wrote this article, telling one aspect of some, thus conveying to it's readers-


                                                                         -This is it's Definition-                                                                                                         


                                   When in fact; Something may be Rational one moment and be Irrational the Next !


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is a consequence of a person performing an action that contradicts personal beliefs, ideals, and values; and also occurs when confronted with new information that contradicts said beliefs, ideals, and values.[1][2]

In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), Leon Festinger proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency in order to mentally function in the real world. A person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance. This is done by making changes to justify their stressful behavior, either by adding new parts to the cognition causing the psychological dissonance, or by actively avoiding social situations and/or contradictory information likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance.[1]

I did a web search "unity of american society since vietnam war"

As I figured most of what I found was very shallow,as those whom where writing about it, did not have the ability to have a "big-picture understanding" etc. I also ran a search " psychologically why was the Vietnam war maybe the worst war in modern times",,there again,,shallow,like "why didn't we win!" or how many died,compared to other wars etc.,I personally was looking for someone whom had written something about the High degree of Cognitive Dissonance occurred,not only by the soldiers,the military support peoples,nurses,etc,.Yet by the American public,,how it caused Apathy,Diffusion of responsibility, loss of Unity of American Culture(which has been on the decline since). The following site I found at least empathetic to what happened,and the result of.

(The Psychological Effects of the Vietnam War)

Rogers Commission

Simplified cross section of the joints between rocket segments SRB; outside to left.
Legend:
A – steel wall 0.5 inches (12.7 mm) thick
B – base O-ring gasket,
C – backup O-ring gasket,
D – Strengthening-Cover band,
E – insulation,
F – insulation,
G – carpeting,
H – sealing paste,
I – fixed propellant

The Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, also known as the Rogers Commission after its chairman, was formed to investigate the disaster. The commission members were Chairman William P. Rogers, Vice Chairman Neil Armstrong, David Acheson, Eugene Covert, Richard Feynman, Robert Hotz, Donald Kutyna, Sally Ride, Robert Rummel, Joseph Sutter, Arthur Walker, Albert Wheelon, and Chuck Yeager. The commission worked for several months and published a report of its findings. It found that the Challenger accident was caused by a failure in the O-rings sealing a joint on the right solid rocket booster, which allowed pressurized hot gases and eventually flame to "blow by" the O-ring and make contact with the adjacent external tank, causing structural failure. The failure of the O-rings was attributed to a faulty design, whose performance could be too easily compromised by factors including the low temperature on the day of launch.[63]

Members of the Rogers Commission arrive at Kennedy Space Center.

More broadly, the report also considered the contributing causes of the accident. Most salient was the failure of both NASA and Morton Thiokol to respond adequately to the danger posed by the deficient joint design. Rather than redesigning the joint, they came to define the problem as an acceptable flight risk. The report found that managers at Marshall had known about the flawed design since 1977, but never discussed the problem outside their reporting channels with Thiokol—a flagrant violation of NASA regulations. Even when it became more apparent how serious the flaw was, no one at Marshall considered grounding the shuttles until a fix could be implemented. On the contrary, Marshall managers went as far as to issue and waive six launch constraints related to the O-rings.[9] The report also strongly criticized the decision-making process that led to the launch of Challenger, saying that it was seriously flawed:[19]

failures in communication ... resulted in a decision to launch 51-L based on incomplete and sometimes misleading information, a conflict between engineering data and management judgments, and a NASA management structure that permitted internal flight safety problems to bypass key Shuttle managers.

— Rogers Commission Report Chapter V[19]

Richard Feynman

One of the commission's members was theoretical physicist Richard Feynman. Feynman, who was then seriously ill with cancer, was reluctant to undertake the job. He did so to find the root cause of the disaster, and to speak plainly to the public about his findings.[64] At the start of investigation, fellow members Dr. Sally Ride and General Donald J. Kutyna gave Feynman a hint that the O-rings were not tested at temperatures below 10 °C (50 °F).[65] During a televised hearing, Feynman demonstrated how the O-rings became less resilient and subject to seal failures at ice-cold temperatures by immersing a sample of the material in a glass of ice water. While other members of the Commission met with NASA and supplier top management, Feynman sought out the engineers and technicians for the answers.[66] He was critical of flaws in NASA's "safety culture", so much so that he threatened to remove his name from the report unless it included his personal observations on the reliability of the shuttle, which appeared as Appendix F.[66] In the appendix, he argued that the estimates of reliability offered by NASA management were wildly unrealistic, differing as much as a thousandfold from the estimates of working engineers. "For a successful technology," he concluded, "reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."[67]


"One day [early in the investigation] Sally Ride and I were walking together. She was on my right side and was looking straight ahead. She opened up her notebook and with her left hand, still looking straight ahead, gave me a piece of paper. Didn't say a single word. I look at the piece of paper. It's a NASA document. It's got two columns on it. The first column is temperature, the second column is resiliency of O-rings as a function of temperature. It shows that they get stiff when it gets cold. Sally and I were really good buddies. She figured she could trust me to give me that piece of paper and not implicate her or the people at NASA who gave it to her, because they could all get fired. I wondered how I could introduce this information Sally had given me. So I had Feynman at my house for dinner. I have a 1973 Opel GT, a really cute car. We went out to the garage, and I'm bragging about the car, but he could care less about cars. I had taken the carburetor out. And Feynman said, "What's this?" And I said, "Oh, just a carburetor. I'm cleaning it." Then I said, "Professor, these carburetors have O-rings in them. And when it gets cold, they leak. Do you suppose that has anything to do with our situation?" He did not say a word. We finished the night, and the next Tuesday, at the first public meeting, is when he did his O-ring demonstration...I never talked with Sally about it later... I kept it a secret that she had given me that piece of paper until she died [in 2012].[2]
-General (ret) Donald Joseph Kutyna

The reason I write this,is this type thing ,on a smaller scale,"I see it and have in the building trades,all the time".."threat of losing one's job, if one speaks up!"
 or doesn't comply,and when the wealthy hold the Power,,it is a dangerous game.(cause most likely,more times then not,"The Wealthy are far from being the Wise"..they just have the money!)

I have be doing quite of bit of research on what I call (as the term is new) "Psychological Homeostasis",,closest term I found is "behavorial homeostasis"

Alison Bonds Shapiro's  article above only thing I found similar to my idea of.↑ "Getting out of the way"

,and it is a very good on the point,,,Yet here it is aimed at the Wealth/and holders of Power,..We assume everybody knows what it means to "Live paycheck to paycheck" or be without a job, a means to pay for a place to live ,a way to eat,survive!. There are many,many Wealth/power holders whom have no clue!,,,thus they are "Comfortable" thus in a state of " "Psychological Homeostasis".

T.S. Eliot, “Preface,” to Simone Weil, The Need for Roots:

As a political thinker, as in everything else, Simone Weil is not to be classified. The paradoxicality of her sympathies is a contributing cause of the equilibrium. On the one hand she was a passionate champion of the common people and especially of the oppressed — those oppressed by the wickedness and selfishness of men and those oppressed by the anonymous forces of modern society. She had worked in the Renault factory, she had worked as a field laborer, in order to share the life of people of town and country. On the other hand, she was by nature a [xii] solitary and an individualist, with a profound horror of what she called the collectivity — the monster created by modern totalitarianism. What she cared about was human souls. Her study of human rights and human obligations exposes the falsity of some of the verbiage still current which was used during the war to serve as a moral stimulant. Not the least striking example of her shrewdness, balance and good sense is her examination of the principle of monarchy; and her short review of the political history of France is at once a condemnation of the French Revolution and a powerful argument against the possibility of a restoration of the kingship. She cannot be classified either as a reactionary or as a socialist.

This book belongs in that category of prolegomena to politics which politicians seldom read, and which most of them would be unlikely to understand or to know how to apply. Such books do not influence the contemporary conduct of affairs: for the men and women already engaged in this career and committed to the jargon of the market-place, they always come too late. This is one of those books which ought to be studied by the young before their leisure has been lost and their capacity for thought destroyed in the life of the hustings and the legislative assembly; books the effect of which, we can only hope, will become apparent in the attitude of mind of another generation.

T.S.ELIOT

September 1951


T S Eliot Simon Fieldhouse.jpg

Homeostasis Psychology

   

John Montgomery, Ph.D.

Homeostasis Psychology is an exciting new psychology

model that is both a unifying theoretical framework for understanding human behavior, and a powerful new therapeutic and coaching method that can profoundly impact nearly every aspect of your life.

Developed by John Montgomery, Ph.D., and based on

extensive, cutting-edge research in neuroscience and psychology, the Homeostasis Psychology method is a powerful integration of psychodynamic therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and mindfulness. John is also a certified therapist in Advanced Integrative Therapy, a comprehensive mind-body therapy that he integrates into his practice, which operates out

of both New York City and Westchester, NY.

John is the author of numerous professional and general

articles, for publications such as the Washington Post, the Economist, and Psychology Today, and is the primary author of two books. He is an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Psychology Department at New York University.

Homeostasis Psychology proposes that as we live our modern lives, we typically alternate between two opposing forces or internal 'drives': a destructive 'addictive' drive that sabotages our goals and creates unnecessary pain and emotional distress; and the healthy 'homeostatic' drive, the guiding force within us that is always trying to move us into states of peace, well-being, vitality, and true aliveness, and to lead us on a path of growth and fulfillment.

                   The destructive addictive drive arises because, under the typical circumstances of modern life, we are all highly prone – perhaps surprisingly – to begin deriving unconscious biochemical rewards in our brains from distressing states such as anxiety, anger, regret, and self-pity. These unconscious rewards can generate true biochemical addictions to these painful emotional states, which reinforces the thought and behavior patterns that repeatedly generate these states. The addictive drive, much like a thought and behavior 'parasite,' can begin to effectively colonize our brains and bodies, and appears to be directly responsible for the great majority of the psychological and physical illnesses that we suffer in modern life. The homeostatic drive, on the other hand, is the force of all love and self-love, the force that directly guides the healthy and vital 'flow' of our lives.

       Based on cutting-edge research in neuroscience and psychology, Homeostasis Psychology uses a variety of powerful methods to help people disengage from the destructive addictive drive, and to fully connect with the healthy, healing, and loving homeostatic drive. Homeostasis Psychology is an extremely powerful method for addressing a wide variety of psychological ills, including anxiety disorders, depression, eating disorders, substance abuse, and alcoholism.


Homeostasis is a term that refers to psychological and physiological balance achieved when one's needs and desires have been met. In a physiological context, homeostasis is disrupted by what is referred to as a need state, which is an innate need, like hunger.

Concepts of Systems Theory

A system is characterized by a group of parts that interact to form a coherent whole. Systems have distinct boundary separating them from external elements and distinguishing between inputs, or factors that impact the system, and outputs, or effects and products of the system. Systems may also have feedback loops, which occur when outputs of a system return as inputs, forming a circuit. Changes in one component of a system will affect other components as well as the overall entity. This dynamic makes it possible to predict what might happen when a system experiences a known change.

Systems theory has been applied in the field of psychology, where it is called systems psychology. People who view psychology through the lens of systems theory see individuals as seeking homeostasis within their systems or groups. To create a system that works for all members, the expectations, needs, desires, and behaviors of each person within it must be considered. When issues arise, these are attributed to breakdowns in systemic interactions rather than deficiency of one person.


Cognitive Dissonance

By Saul McLeod, updated 2018

Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors. This produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance, etc.

For example, when people smoke (behavior) and they know that smoking causes cancer (cognition), they are in a state of cognitive dissonance. note;this very simple form of-me

           " Here again, it is assuming we always have a Option, or a ability to control our environment "    -me 10/7/2018

                                For example for myself, knowing I am Androgynous(female roled,male), I can't change this,yet hide it from a 
                                society where it is "shamed"- a source of great cognitive dissonance for myself, a great part of why I became a                                     alcoholic


                                 A belief, is very powerful, say All of a sudden The Truth of Creation was revealed, those whom where wrong,                                        what would they feel?- And somebody is Wrong!

                                       Soon One See just how Big of a Deal Cognitive Dissonance is !

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Self-Perception Theory


                        Psychology has long recognized that people must know themselves in order to survive and adapt in life. The value of self-knowledge stems from the fact that the self represents the only constant throughout life. Because of this if the self is well defined, it can provide a solid basis of values, preferences, and attitudes to manage the many decisions of daily life. Clear self-knowledge helps people to quickly decide and express their views on issues such as capital punishment, the ideal profession, or their tastes in music, whereas the absence of clear self-knowledge can leave an individual paralyzed by these decisions. Given the importance of self-knowledge, psychologists have spent a great deal of time attempting to understand how people come to know themselves.



Beyond its simplicity, however, self-perception theory has been so influential because it provides an important contrast to the most famous psychological theory of how behavior shapes self-knowledge: cognitive dissonance theory. Cognitive dissonance theory assumes that people are motivated to maintain consistency between self beliefs and experience an unpleasant state of dissonance when they hold two inconsistent beliefs about the self. Thus the inconsistency between the thoughts “I do not like psychology” and “I constantly read about psychology” arouses dissonance, and people are motivated to reduce dissonance by changing one of those thoughts. The most direct way to resolve dissonance is to change the prior belief (“I do not like psychology”) to align with the behavior (“I spend a great deal of time learning about psychology”). That is the person can resolve dissonance by making their initial attitude more favorable (I really do like psychology) and, hence, consistent with their behavior.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                           Examples of Collective Cognitive Dissonance

Good Luck finding out much currently on "Collective Cognitive Dissonance ", I did find this on internet ;

                                                  -Collective Cognitive Dissonance / Wikipedia-


            I found this which could be called "Collective" (a large group of peoples);


                     Cognitive Dissonance: A Critical Tool in Social Justice Teaching - pdf


                       excerpts from;     Cognitive Dissonance: A Critical Tool in Social Justice Teaching


                             " I usually begin my social justice education workshops the same way: “Raise your hand if you believe the United States was founded on Christian or Judeo-Christian principles.”  Without fail and regardless of audience, the response is the same. Virtually everybody in the room affirms the perseverance of this misperception. " 

                                " This is especially true when our current beliefs place us in a privileged bubble, as the belief that “the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles” does for white people, Christians, and white Christians in particular. It is in these moments, often described as cognitive dissonance (a term popularized in Leon Festinger’s [1957] study of a doomsday cult’s stubborn belief persistence), when a learner—any one of us—finds her- or himself grappling with new information in light of old understandings. " 


                               These realizations—that a considerable portion of my educational work is the facilitation of and the facilitation through cognitive dissonance—has been the most important revelation of my life as a social justice educator-activist. It has changed virtually everything about how I teach about poverty, racism, sexism, imperialism, nationalism, heterosexism, and other oppressions, not because I want to protect the feelings of those who are experiencing cognitive dissonance related to one or more of these issues, but because everybody experiences cognitive dissonance related to one or more of these issues.  And my second most important revelation has been this: the best way—perhaps the only way— to engage cognitive dissonance as a pedagogical tool in social justice learning is to teach explicitly about cognitive dissonance. Of the hundreds of pedagogical strategies, curricular tools, and facilitative approaches I’ve pursued over the years as a social justice educator, none has affected my teaching and learning spaces more vitally than this one. 
 
Teaching about Cognitive Dissonance
                                                                          -Paul C. Gorski


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Elliot Aronson - Wikipedia


                      Elliot Aronson (born January 9, 1932) is an American psychologist who is best known for his experiments on the theory of cognitive dissonance and for his invention of the Jigsaw Classroom, a cooperative teaching technique which facilitates learning while reducing interethnic hostility and prejudice. In his popular (1972) social psychology textbook, The Social Animal, (now in its 11th edition), he stated Aronson's First Law: "People who do crazy things are not necessarily crazy," thus asserting the importance of situational factors in bizarre behavior. He is the only person in the 120-year history of the American Psychological Association to have won all three of its major awards: for writing, for teaching, and for research.[3] In 2007 he received the William James Award for Lifetime Achievement from the Association for Psychological Science, in which he was cited as the scientist who "fundamentally changed the way we look at everyday life.” [4] A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked Aronson as the 78th most cited psychologist of the 20th century.[5] He officially retired in 1994 but continues to teach and write.[


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

excerpt from TruthMove;  

                                           

                                    " Denial and avoidance are among the most important psychological concepts to the Truth Movement. Mentally, what allows people to block out clear signs that our modern way of life is corrupt and unsustainable? What keeps people from caring?

How are people able to go on with their lives as normal when they hear that 50% of all species will be extinct by 2100? Why don’t such facts disturb people and make them curious enough to start looking into the details for themselves?

Cognitive dissonance relates to the concept of being exposed to information or having experiences that conflict with our existing base of “what we know.” The theory holds that our minds are not always flexible or rational when it comes to evaluating uncomfortable information or questioning our own beliefs.

“Dissonant cognitions” will cause us to dismiss or alter conflicting information or add justification to one side or the other—not necessarily rationally—in order to regain psychological balance. It’s an important concept to consider in terms of the way people block things out or justify things to themselves.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A great cause of Cognitive Dissonance for the People, is when The setting- U S Government- it's self questions;

                                                                 the U S Constitution it's Self

   

                                   This is a Very Dangerous Game, some are playing here, I don't think one has to think long on this.


                                                       A Civil War happened Once, and very Likely could happen again!


                              This is a Subject that is very fresh in American's Minds- Same Sex marriage-

               I personally have stayed away from discussing it, until just recently. Then it dawned on me after reading this at ctpost.com


                                                   Same-sex marriage: A constitutional right-ctpost.com


                       

A judge's recent reversal of a state ban on same-sex marriage in California created as much celebration as it did controversy -- a controversy that still plagues America and gay couples today. The "morality" of homosexuality could be debated for all of eternity, for whenever religious dogma dictates ethical standards, no amount of valid reason, logic, science or argument could persuade the already convinced.

But should morality -- particularly religious morality -- play a role in forming the laws that govern the United States and its citizens? It's difficult to view that as fair, as everyone's moral code differs from each other. And it would be unjust to inscribe one religion's morality into a law that affects many, some of whom do not adhere to said religion (America is not a theocracy, after all). Regardless of such debate, the most important factor deciding the outcome of the legality of same-sex marriage is the law. Indeed, morality in a nation is important, but it should never supersede the ultimate and most fundamental law of the land: the U.S. Constitution.


      

The Constitution exists to provide a framework and foundation for the entire country and its citizens. It protects certain rights, ensures state laws do not violate them, and literally outlines the construct of our political system. So, when a state violates a specific measure or law cited as protected in the Constitution, it should be struck down as a violation against the people.

But where is same-sex marriage protected under the Constitution? Well, the protectors of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, have 14 times verified that marriage is a protected right for all citizens. As stated under the 14th Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." A state law banning gay marriage clearly abridges the privileges of its citizens, deprives people of their liberty, and strictly denies people equal protection of the laws.


               On June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that a state law forbidding interracial marriage was unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia. To stress the point previously mentioned, Chief Justice Earl Warren, in his delivery, stated, "These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." Since marriage in the Constitution is a basic civil right of all men, gay marriage ought to be no less protected and allowed than interracial marriage.


               No amount of citizen support, referendum votes or money is enough to overturn protected and guarded rights outlined in the Constitution. I realize a lot of people are arguing that 7 million Californians voted to ban same-sex marriage, and that their votes should count. But the Constitution exists to protect us from such violations. Can you imagine a popular vote to take away the freedom of speech for particular individuals in a certain state? Or a vote to ban the freedom of religion in another? Actually, in the 1960s Californians voted to change their state Constitution to allow discrimination against race in the sale of one's home. The U.S. Constitution exists to protect its citizens against violations of their rights, and it outlines the right to marry as one of those guarded principles. Therefore, no state law, no religious moral code and no state vote should be allowed to trump our sacred Constitution and strip certain citizens of their privacy, liberty and basic civil rights, especially the right to marry.


                                                     Just because maybe myself and any others don't think same sex marriage should be legal, if I hold that option, it is mine alone, and I have no right to expect another to live by it- If this where allowed we would have a Civil War !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       I don't get it; why this is so hard to accept,  here is a Example;

        Wikipedia;  

Same-sex and third-gender marriages

As noted above, several kinds of same-sex, non-sexual marriages exist in some lineage-based societies. This section relates to same-sex sexual unions. Some cultures include third gender (two-spirit or transgender) individuals, such as the berdache of the Zuni in New Mexico. We'wha, one of the most revered Zuni elders (an Ihamana, spiritual leader) served as an emissary of the Zuni to Washington, where he met President Grover Cleveland. We'wha had a husband who was generally recognized as such.[44]

While it is a relatively new practice to grant same-sex couples the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly granted to mixed-sex couples, there is some history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[45][46] Ancient Greek same-sex relationships were like modern companionate marriages, unlike their different-sex marriages in which the spouses had few emotional ties, and the husband had freedom to engage in outside sexual liaisons. The Codex Theodosianus (C. Th. 9.7.3) issued in 438 CE imposed severe penalties or death on same-sex relationships,[47] but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex relationships in that culture exist.[48] Same-sex unions were celebrated in some regions of China, such as Fujian.[49] Possibly the earliest documented same-sex wedding in Latin Christendom occurred in Rome, Italy, at the San Giovanni a Porta Latina basilica in 1581.[50] 



These People where practicing this Long before America was America!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obergefell v. Hodges-Wikipedia


                    

576 U.S. ___ (2015) (/ˈoʊbərɡəfɛl/ OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities.[2][3]

Between January 2012 and February 2014, plaintiffs in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee filed federal district court cases that culminated in Obergefell v. Hodges. After all district courts ruled for the plaintiffs, the rulings were appealed to the Sixth Circuit. In November 2014, following a lengthy series of appeals court rulings that year from the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits that state-level bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, the Sixth Circuit ruled that it was bound by Baker v. Nelson and found such bans to be constitutional.[4] This created a split between circuits and led to an almost inevitable Supreme Court review.

Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and requires all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.[5] This established same-sex marriage throughout the United States and its territories. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court examined the nature of fundamental rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution, the harm done to individuals by delaying the implementation of such rights while the democratic process plays out,[6] and the evolving understanding of discrimination and inequality that has developed greatly since Baker.

Majority opinion

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the Court's opinion declaring same-sex couples have the right to marry.

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The majority held that state same-sex marriage bans are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. 


                                  In my opinion the following individuals have greatly hindered the "Idea" our fore-fathers

                                                          intended for the Concept of America


Dissenting opinions

Chief Justice Roberts

In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts argued same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Roberts accepted substantive due process, by which fundamental rights are protected through the Due Process Clause, but warned it has been misused over time to expand perceived fundamental rights, particularly in Dred Scott v. Sandford and Lochner v. New York.[132] Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[133] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[134] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage.[135]

More generally, Roberts stated that marriage, which he proposed had always had a "universal definition" as "the union of a man and a woman", arose to ensure successful childrearing.[136] Roberts criticized the majority opinion for relying on moral convictions rather than a constitutional basis, and for expanding fundamental rights without caution or regard for history.[137] He also suggested the majority opinion could be used to expand marriage to include legalized polygamy.[138] Roberts chided the majority for overriding the democratic process and for using the judiciary in a way that was not originally intended.[139] According to Roberts, supporters of same-sex marriage cannot win "true acceptance" for their side because the debate has now been closed.[140] Roberts also suggested the majority's opinion will ultimately lead to consequences for religious liberty, and he found the Court's language unfairly attacks opponents of same-sex marriage.[141]


Justice Scalia

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Thomas. Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of "the freedom to govern themselves", noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted.[142] Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[143] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law".[143] Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."-note by me( In my option this statement ""the freedom to govern themselves", in essense creates)

                                                       - Cognitive Dissonance-

How would he know this? "Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption. Un-believable!, so now because I think Judge Scalia,set on the bench of the highest court in the land,  and bases his option on a assumption that he thinks what might have been done when the Fourteenth Amendment was written over 250 years ago!- I can believe he even said this!   

        "Would Not have been unconstitutional Then, first of all it ain't Then!"

                                              So as U S citizens we see a Court divided by personal options/distorted at that

                                                         Just Imagine if the Majority thought as him-we would have a Dictatorship

More generally, Roberts stated that marriage, which he proposed had always had a "universal definition" as "the union of a man and a woman"

                             where do people come up with this "Roberts stated that marriage, which he proposed had always had a "universal definition"- his own constructed world?

Furthermore, Thomas insisted that "liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement" such as a marriage license



                                           This is a good example of individuals in the "Cave"-Plato's cave 
note-(Allergory means"a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.) and the individuals being pre-conceived by the shadows(old beliefs/socially constructed ideas), very much hindered by them,thus no ability to see reality as a whole.

Amendment 1 Bill of rights
- Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press



Amendment 5 Bill of rights
- Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property



Amendment 10 Bill of rights
- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People

.

                                        The Foundations of Free Government- America Founding Documents
                                                                              -Declaration of Independence-

                                      We hold (To consider, regard, or believe.) these truths to be self-eviden (Clearly understood to be true without needing proof or reasoning.)t, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed (Supplied, furnished, or equipped; gifted or enriched; clothed.) by their Creator ((That is, God.)) with certain unalienable (Unable to be alienated, given up, or transferred to someone else.) Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty (Freedom from unjust restraint or control; freedom to do as one chooses within the bounds of just laws.) and the pursuit (The act of seeking or following something in order to obtain or accomplish it. (The ) of Happiness. --
That to secure (To safeguard or protect; to make certain.) these rights, Governments are instituted (To safeguard or protect; to make certain.) among Men, deriving (Receiving; obtaining.) their just (Reasonable; proper; lawful.) powers from the consent (Approval or agreement.) of the governed (The people who live under the government being referred to.), --
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of (Causing destruction to; seeking or tending to destroy.) these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter (To change or make different.) or to abolish (To destroy or put an end to; to make void (without legal force or effect).) it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them ((That is, the people.)) shall seem most likely to effect (To cause, accomplish, or bring about.) their Safety and Happiness.

                                     -This is what our Founders wanted-
  They where not individuals stuck in a Cave, seeing Shadows of their Pre-Concieved Notions
                                      

Primary Documents in American History

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution



                                                This is a Case of Great Cognitive Dissonance of American People

                                                            Thus a form of Collective  Cognitive Dissonance


                                                                 even if at a "subconscious level"

                                  which Cognitive Dissonance is most often at a ""subconscious level"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                        Americans’ Plummeting Trust In Government


The share of Americans who say they trust the government “just about always” or “most of the time” has fallen to 19 percent, less than one-third of its level back in the 1960s.

1960196519701975198019851990199520002005201020150%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%Oct. 2015: 19%