Who is harmed by same-sex marriage?

[Neutraligon]

Living in the bell was probably a poor choice.

No security deposit and I needed a landlord that was cool with my pigeons, what am I supposed to do?

Do you also have moving gargoyles?

[Emperor Pudu]

No security deposit and I needed a landlord that was cool with my pigeons, what am I supposed to do?

Do you also have moving gargoyles?

Technically they belong to the landlord.

[Aryan Shield Command]

I know the topic of whether same-sex marriage is a right (particularly in the U.S.) is frequently debated in these forums (as is the topic in general), but I have a specific set of questions:

1. Does anyone on these forums actually claim they personally would suffer some harm if same-sex marriage was allowed and recognized on the same terms as opposite-sex marriage? If you claim you would be harmed, please be specific as to how.

2. We know that same-sex couples, homosexual individuals, children of same-sex couples, children of homosexuals, and homosexual children are directly harmed in multiple ways by the failure of government to allow and recognize same-sex marriage, but can anyone identify any individual or group that would be directly harmed if government allowed and recognized same-sex marriage? If you assert any individual or group would be directly harmed, please be specific as to who and how.

These questions are independent of whether same-sex couples or homosexuals have a right to marriage.

By the way, although I am focused on same-sex marriage in the U.S., other perspectives are most welcome.

No one living can be personally harmed by the homosexuals in this case; for it (homo-sexuality) mostly stops them from procreating and passing on the genes for this aberration.

Who is harmed by same-sex marriage?
The principles of civilization that created great societies were founded upon one man and one women as THE model for a family and in Holy union of marriage. Anything deviating from this is an abomination in my view. You asked Who and not What; so...Who is harmed? Any offspring by proxy as they have to live in an abnormal household raised without benefit of the other sex, or the generations lost as family lines are extinguished in the selfish pursuit of sin.

[Neutraligon]

I know the topic of whether same-sex marriage is a right (particularly in the U.S.) is frequently debated in these forums (as is the topic in general), but I have a specific set of questions:

1. Does anyone on these forums actually claim they personally would suffer some harm if same-sex marriage was allowed and recognized on the same terms as opposite-sex marriage? If you claim you would be harmed, please be specific as to how.

2. We know that same-sex couples, homosexual individuals, children of same-sex couples, children of homosexuals, and homosexual children are directly harmed in multiple ways by the failure of government to allow and recognize same-sex marriage, but can anyone identify any individual or group that would be directly harmed if government allowed and recognized same-sex marriage? If you assert any individual or group would be directly harmed, please be specific as to who and how.

These questions are independent of whether same-sex couples or homosexuals have a right to marriage.

By the way, although I am focused on same-sex marriage in the U.S., other perspectives are most welcome.

No one living can be personally harmed by the homosexuals in this case; for it (homo-sexuality) mostly stops them from procreating and passing on the genes for this aberration.

Who is harmed by same-sex marriage?
The principles of civilization that created great societies were founded upon one man and one women as THE model for a family and in Holy union of marriage. Anything deviating from this is an abomination in my view. You asked Who and not What; so...Who is harmed? Any offspring by proxy as they have to live in an abnormal household raised without benefit of the other sex, or the generations lost as family lines are extinguished in the selfish pursuit of sin.

Source that living with two parents of the same gender causes harm.

Also to the first, polygamous marriages were very common and do not fit the one man one woman model of family.

[Farnhamia]

I know the topic of whether same-sex marriage is a right (particularly in the U.S.) is frequently debated in these forums (as is the topic in general), but I have a specific set of questions:

1. Does anyone on these forums actually claim they personally would suffer some harm if same-sex marriage was allowed and recognized on the same terms as opposite-sex marriage? If you claim you would be harmed, please be specific as to how.

2. We know that same-sex couples, homosexual individuals, children of same-sex couples, children of homosexuals, and homosexual children are directly harmed in multiple ways by the failure of government to allow and recognize same-sex marriage, but can anyone identify any individual or group that would be directly harmed if government allowed and recognized same-sex marriage? If you assert any individual or group would be directly harmed, please be specific as to who and how.

These questions are independent of whether same-sex couples or homosexuals have a right to marriage.

By the way, although I am focused on same-sex marriage in the U.S., other perspectives are most welcome.

No one living can be personally harmed by the homosexuals in this case; for it (homo-sexuality) mostly stops them from procreating and passing on the genes for this aberration.

Who is harmed by same-sex marriage?
The principles of civilization that created great societies were founded upon one man and one women as THE model for a family and in Holy union of marriage. Anything deviating from this is an abomination in my view. You asked Who and not What; so...Who is harmed? Any offspring by proxy as they have to live in an abnormal household raised without benefit of the other sex, or the generations lost as family lines are extinguished in the selfish pursuit of sin.

Oh, please, civilization is not based on the notion of opposite-sex marriage and it is certainly not based on opposite-sex marriage blessed by a Middle Eastern tribal deity whose followers got lucky. What you consider an abomination is irrelevant to my right to equal protection under the law in the US.

[Galloism]

No one living can be personally harmed by the homosexuals in this case; for it (homo-sexuality) mostly stops them from procreating and passing on the genes for this aberration.

Who is harmed by same-sex marriage?
The principles of civilization that created great societies were founded upon one man and one women as THE model for a family and in Holy union of marriage. Anything deviating from this is an abomination in my view. You asked Who and not What; so...Who is harmed? Any offspring by proxy as they have to live in an abnormal household raised without benefit of the other sex, or the generations lost as family lines are extinguished in the selfish pursuit of sin.

Oh, please, civilization is not based on the notion of opposite-sex marriage and it is certainly not based on opposite-sex marriage blessed by a Middle Eastern tribal deity whose followers got lucky. What you consider an abomination is irrelevant to my right to equal protection under the law in the US.

But farn, that leaves you in selfish pursuit of sin.

Heh heh. Just like old times. You want blondes, brunettes, or redheads this time?

Deal's a deal. I get the other two.

[Euroslavia]

I know the topic of whether same-sex marriage is a right (particularly in the U.S.) is frequently debated in these forums (as is the topic in general), but I have a specific set of questions:

1. Does anyone on these forums actually claim they personally would suffer some harm if same-sex marriage was allowed and recognized on the same terms as opposite-sex marriage? If you claim you would be harmed, please be specific as to how.

2. We know that same-sex couples, homosexual individuals, children of same-sex couples, children of homosexuals, and homosexual children are directly harmed in multiple ways by the failure of government to allow and recognize same-sex marriage, but can anyone identify any individual or group that would be directly harmed if government allowed and recognized same-sex marriage? If you assert any individual or group would be directly harmed, please be specific as to who and how.

These questions are independent of whether same-sex couples or homosexuals have a right to marriage.

By the way, although I am focused on same-sex marriage in the U.S., other perspectives are most welcome.

No one living can be personally harmed by the homosexuals in this case; for it (homo-sexuality) mostly stops them from procreating and passing on the genes for this aberration.

Who is harmed by same-sex marriage?
The principles of civilization that created great societies were founded upon one man and one women as THE model for a family and in Holy union of marriage. Anything deviating from this is an abomination in my view. You asked Who and not What; so...Who is harmed? Any offspring by proxy as they have to live in an abnormal household raised without benefit of the other sex, or the generations lost as family lines are extinguished in the selfish pursuit of sin.

All I can say is...


Your logic makes absolutely no sense.

[Farnhamia]

Oh, please, civilization is not based on the notion of opposite-sex marriage and it is certainly not based on opposite-sex marriage blessed by a Middle Eastern tribal deity whose followers got lucky. What you consider an abomination is irrelevant to my right to equal protection under the law in the US.

But farn, that leaves you in selfish pursuit of sin.

Heh heh. Just like old times. You want blondes, brunettes, or redheads this time?

Deal's a deal. I get the other two.

You get the other two? I may be old but I can still manage at least two. Whoremonger, make it a triple for me and my friend here!

[Choronzon]

The principles of civilization that created great societies were founded upon one man and one women as THE model for a family and in Holy union of marriage

That is hilariously untrue.

[Ocarith]

Personal Opinion: Legalizing gay marriage is not a great idea. I mean, America is a role model for many nations in the world, and it will be sort of morally inappropriate to legalize gay marriage in America.

It's 'sort of morally inappropriate' to treat a legal institution differently for different people, especially when the Constitution explicitly says we shouldn't.

Things cannot and should not all be equal. Police Officers are more privileged under the law than regular citizens. This is there for a reason. One cannot conceive of a society that would function when the police force has no more power than a regular citizen. Frankly a society operates on a system based on inequality. Same-Sex Marriage creates a line of inequality.

Once one right is granted, as in gays can marry, then wouldn't it be discrimination to forbid homosexuals who are relatives from marrying? This couple cannot logically provide children therefore no abominations. The same rights would end up being granted to that relationship, even if it only consists in 1 in a million people. Someone always feel like he/she is unequal. Be them proponents of bestiality, child marriage, etc. Do they feel unequal that they cannot marry under US law? They probably do, but inequality is a natural result of humanity.

The fact of the matter is the importance of a society must lie in the couples that do have or have had the capability to produce and raise offspring properly. The chief concern for children is to be raised in a family that consists of both a united mother and father. Now that is not to say that children should be forbidden to be raised in any other situation, but that the situation described is most ideal for the development of a child. Studies show, that I can site, that children raised in a mother-father situation tend to lead more stable lives while those under homosexual couples tend to be more prone to homosexuality, unfaithfulness to a partner, HIV disease and drug use. Children of homosexuals couples are also more likely to develop some form of depression. These circumstances are lessened under a heterosexual marriage. Now, yes, I am off topic a tad bit.

Gay Marriage does not physically harm people, but it is more of a societal and mental harm than anything. Marriage has been defined for nearly 2500 years, and has been a stable system which gradual improvements. However, same-sex is not one of those improvements. We should not seek to redefine an institution for less than 2% of the World population when it has been defined for thousands of years. This is not an issue of equality, this is not a civil rights issue. Gay is not the new 'black' nor will it be. I am neither a bigot nor an idiot, just a person concerned about marriage. I care about who gets married, if you don't then you probably should leave the conversation to those who do.

Edit: I also do not wish to become like the Ancient Greek society, a morally corrupt, depraved, and sick society that has, thank the Lord, ceased to exist.

[Agymnum]

Once one right is granted, as in gays can marry, then wouldn't it be discrimination to forbid homosexuals who are relatives from marrying? This couple cannot logically provide children therefore no abominations. The same rights would end up being granted to that relationship, even if it only consists in 1 in a million people. Someone always feel like he/she is unequal. Be them proponents of bestiality, child marriage, etc. Do they feel unequal that they cannot marry under US law? They probably do, but inequality is a natural result of humanity.

Bestiality and child marriage involve at least one party which cannot provide legal consent.

Same-sex marriage does not.

You are a bigot, and I would appreciate it if you were brave enough to publicly admit that fact instead of hiding behind "It's not about my opinion, it's about the good of society" card. That card got old years ago when racists used it to justify segregation and opposing interracial marriage.

We are all bigots to a certain degree. It is nothing to be ashamed of. It is only when your bigotry gets in the way of other people's freedom that your bigotry must stop.

[Euroslavia]

It's 'sort of morally inappropriate' to treat a legal institution differently for different people, especially when the Constitution explicitly says we shouldn't.

Things cannot and should not all be equal. Police Officers are more privileged under the law than regular citizens. This is there for a reason. One cannot conceive of a society that would function when the police force has no more power than a regular citizen. Frankly a society operates on a system based on inequality. Same-Sex Marriage creates a line of inequality.

Once one right is granted, as in gays can marry, then wouldn't it be discrimination to forbid homosexuals who are relatives from marrying? This couple cannot logically provide children therefore no abominations. The same rights would end up being granted to that relationship, even if it only consists in 1 in a million people. Someone always feel like he/she is unequal. Be them proponents of bestiality, child marriage, etc. Do they feel unequal that they cannot marry under US law? They probably do, but inequality is a natural result of humanity.

The fact of the matter is the importance of a society must lie in the couples that do have or have had the capability to produce and raise offspring properly. The chief concern for children is to be raised in a family that consists of both a united mother and father. Now that is not to say that children should be forbidden to be raised in any other situation, but that the situation described is most ideal for the development of a child. Studies show, that I can site, that children raised in a mother-father situation tend to lead more stable lives while those under homosexual couples tend to be more prone to homosexuality, unfaithfulness to a partner, HIV disease and drug use. Children of homosexuals couples are also more likely to develop some form of depression. These circumstances are lessened under a heterosexual marriage. Now, yes, I am off topic a tad bit.

Gay Marriage does not physically harm people, but it is more of a societal and mental harm than anything. Marriage has been defined for nearly 2500 years, and has been a stable system which gradual improvements. However, same-sex is not one of those improvements. We should not seek to redefine an institution for less than 2% of the World population when it has been defined for thousands of years. This is not an issue of equality, this is not a civil rights issue. Gay is not the new 'black' nor will it be. I am neither a bigot nor an idiot, just a person concerned about marriage. I care about who gets married, if you don't then you probably should leave the conversation to those who do.

Edit: I also do not wish to become like the Ancient Greek society, a morally corrupt, depraved, and sick society that has, thank the Lord, ceased to exist.

Ah yes, another slippery slope argument consisting of "But then men will want to marry children and animals!". *yawn* Marriage has not had the same definition for 2500 years regardless of what you seem to think. Also, I'd like a source for the underlined above in your post.

[Thafoo]

The principles of civilization that created great societies were founded upon one man and one women as THE model for a family and in Holy union of marriage

That is hilariously untrue.

Some societies also were founded upon stoning adulterers.

We should do that. /sarcasm

[Agymnum]

That is hilariously untrue.

Some societies also were founded upon stoning adulterers.

We should do that. /sarcasm

We should kill those who do not worship the same religion as us.

And we should make it mandatory that those who shame themselves should be offered to honorably commit suicide as an alternative to facing criminal charges.

And we should [insert ancient tradition here]. Really, this argument destroys itself quickly.

[Urmanian]

Things cannot and should not all be equal. Police Officers are more privileged under the law than regular citizens. This is there for a reason. One cannot conceive of a society that would function when the police force has no more power than a regular citizen. Frankly a society operates on a system based on inequality. Same-Sex Marriage creates a line of inequality.

Once one right is granted, as in gays can marry, then wouldn't it be discrimination to forbid homosexuals who are relatives from marrying? This couple cannot logically provide children therefore no abominations. The same rights would end up being granted to that relationship, even if it only consists in 1 in a million people. Someone always feel like he/she is unequal. Be them proponents of bestiality, child marriage, etc. Do they feel unequal that they cannot marry under US law? They probably do, but inequality is a natural result of humanity.

The fact of the matter is the importance of a society must lie in the couples that do have or have had the capability to produce and raise offspring properly. The chief concern for children is to be raised in a family that consists of both a united mother and father. Now that is not to say that children should be forbidden to be raised in any other situation, but that the situation described is most ideal for the development of a child. Studies show, that I can site, that children raised in a mother-father situation tend to lead more stable lives while those under homosexual couples tend to be more prone to homosexuality, unfaithfulness to a partner, HIV disease and drug use. Children of homosexuals couples are also more likely to develop some form of depression. These circumstances are lessened under a heterosexual marriage. Now, yes, I am off topic a tad bit.

Gay Marriage does not physically harm people, but it is more of a societal and mental harm than anything. Marriage has been defined for nearly 2500 years, and has been a stable system which gradual improvements. However, same-sex is not one of those improvements. We should not seek to redefine an institution for less than 2% of the World population when it has been defined for thousands of years. This is not an issue of equality, this is not a civil rights issue. Gay is not the new 'black' nor will it be. I am neither a bigot nor an idiot, just a person concerned about marriage. I care about who gets married, if you don't then you probably should leave the conversation to those who do.

Edit: I also do not wish to become like the Ancient Greek society, a morally corrupt, depraved, and sick society that has, thank the Lord, ceased to exist.

slippery slope and "think of the children!" based on unsourced assertions. yawn. we know your views are really full of hateful bigotry, so why don't you make up better excuses so we can at least be amused? look above, one of your comrades in hate is defending "principles of civilization" and fighting "selfish pursuit of sin" now THAT'S a riot!

also the ancient greek society was homophobic (as long as two consented adults were at it of course, rape of little boys was a-OK with them)

[Liriena]

It's 'sort of morally inappropriate' to treat a legal institution differently for different people, especially when the Constitution explicitly says we shouldn't.

Things cannot and should not all be equal. Police Officers are more privileged under the law than regular citizens. This is there for a reason. One cannot conceive of a society that would function when the police force has no more power than a regular citizen. Frankly a society operates on a system based on inequality. Same-Sex Marriage creates a line of inequality.

Once one right is granted, as in gays can marry, then wouldn't it be discrimination to forbid homosexuals who are relatives from marrying? This couple cannot logically provide children therefore no abominations. The same rights would end up being granted to that relationship, even if it only consists in 1 in a million people. Someone always feel like he/she is unequal. Be them proponents of bestiality, child marriage, etc. Do they feel unequal that they cannot marry under US law? They probably do, but inequality is a natural result of humanity.

The fact of the matter is the importance of a society must lie in the couples that do have or have had the capability to produce and raise offspring properly. The chief concern for children is to be raised in a family that consists of both a united mother and father. Now that is not to say that children should be forbidden to be raised in any other situation, but that the situation described is most ideal for the development of a child. Studies show, that I can site, that children raised in a mother-father situation tend to lead more stable lives while those under homosexual couples tend to be more prone to homosexuality, unfaithfulness to a partner, HIV disease and drug use. Children of homosexuals couples are also more likely to develop some form of depression. These circumstances are lessened under a heterosexual marriage. Now, yes, I am off topic a tad bit.

Gay Marriage does not physically harm people, but it is more of a societal and mental harm than anything. Marriage has been defined for nearly 2500 years, and has been a stable system which gradual improvements. However, same-sex is not one of those improvements. We should not seek to redefine an institution for less than 2% of the World population when it has been defined for thousands of years. This is not an issue of equality, this is not a civil rights issue. Gay is not the new 'black' nor will it be. I am neither a bigot nor an idiot, just a person concerned about marriage. I care about who gets married, if you don't then you probably should leave the conversation to those who do.

Edit: I also do not wish to become like the Ancient Greek society, a morally corrupt, depraved, and sick society that has, thank the Lord, ceased to exist.

This is the most absurdly idiotic thing I've read in weeks. Not a single one of your arguments was even remotely close to being valid, relevant or even true.

- Your analogy regarding policemen is worthless, and you know it. It is in no way equivalent to the debate on LGBT rights and/or same-sex marriage, and it utterly fails to prove your point in any way.
- The LGBT rights advocates have no ideological, ethical or moral responsibility to address, let alone advocate for incest, bestiality, child marriage or anything other than same-sex marriage. Nor can the LGBT rights movement be held responsible for any of those things, for they do not belong to their ideology. It's practically the same as if you blamed supporters of the death penalty in the United States for the Armenian Holocaust. The perceived "inequality" of incestuous couples, pedophiles or zoophiles is not the responsibility of LGBT rights advocates, and neither does this perceived "inequality" make the legal marginalization of same-sex couples valid or necessary in any way. You are grasping at the most thin straw I've ever seen, and that straw is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
- Don't you even try to pull a sweeping argument about "human nature" out of the darkest crevices of your ass to justify your unbelievable bullshit.
- Since you place such value on granting only fertile couples willing to reproduce naturally the right to marry, why are you not advocating against infertile opposite sex couples? Or elderly couples?
- The chief concern for children is to be raised in a family by responsible and committed adults, period. The gender of the parents, or the biological link (or lack thereof) between parent and child, are irrelevant. Being raised by your biological father and mother in now way inherently implies that you will be a happier, healthier and more productive child.
- What you claim to be the "most ideal" situation is only such in your egotistic mind.
- Studies actually show, and I can cite, that committed same-sex couples are (statistically) as proficient at raising children as committed opposite-sex couples. Gender is not the issue. Stability, responsibility and commitment are.
- If the Regnerus study, or NARTH, or the FRC are your sources, then allow me to laugh and scoff. If I am correct in this assumption, then you are actually asking us, the people of NSG, to take ethically unacceptable, methodologically worthless and rhetorically fatuous "research" seriously.
- Even if your sources were even remotely truthful, it would still be a massive and unacceptable leap of logic to arrive to the conclussion that all of the afflictions suffered by children of same-sex couples are in any way the direct responsibility of same-sex couples. Correlation does not equal causation.
- Marriage has existed for far longer than 2500 years, and it has had countless definitions in countless different cultures.
- Preserving a traditional definition only because it's traditional is irrational and irresponsible, considering the undeniable reality that the current nation-wide legal definition of marriage in the United States (and most other countries) leaves same-sex couples and their families unprotected in the face of countless ordeals.
- Same-sex marriage is obviously an improvement, since it provides legal protection to thousands of couples and their families.
- Don't try to pull an argumentum ad numerum on us. That homosexuals allegedly account for less than 2% of the world's population does not, in any way, make them any less worthy of equal protection under the law and liberty. Just like all racial and religious minorities, sexual minorities cannot be ignored, marginalized or outright persecuted by the law just because they are a minority. This is perhaps your weakest argument yet.
- It is a civil rights issues, and an issue of equality, if it involves a minority being unjustly subjected to legal discrimination on the whim of an insanely egotistic and irresponsible majority.
- Gay is not the new black. Gay is gay.
- You are a bigot by definition, but not an idiot. You are just a dishonest, ignorant and/or self-centered individual who is desperately trying to dominate those who do not conform to your own lifestyle.
- I do care about who gets married, which is why I advocate for same-sex marriage.
- Do not disrespect the Greek society. This is the society that brought you our civilization's early philosophy, government and ethics. "Morally corrupt"? They were no different from most societies, and they didn't really cease to exist. They were conquered by far less civilized and far more brutal societies.
- Don't bring God into this.

[Norjagen]

Seeing as marriage is no longer a religious institution but a legal one, with tangible consequences and benefits, it seems entirely immoral to exclude a large group of people, based on sexual orientation. Quite frankly, so long as no one's being harmed, (and no one is) I figure just about any two consenting adults can be married. Hell, even if some guy wants to have three wives, or some lesbian girl wants to have a harem of other girls, and everyone consents to the arrangement, then more power to them, so long as no one's harmed.

I am firmly of the opinion that most of the people who oppose gay marriage are cut from the same cloth as the Westboro Baptists; namely, they have nothing better to do than stick their nose into other peoples' business in an attempt to make them miserable, while hiding behind the cloak of religion to feel better about themselves.

[Free Detroit]

It makes baby jesus cry.

[Anachronous Rex]

It makes baby jesus cry.

But... Baby Jesus has two daddies...

[Free Detroit]

Edit: I also do not wish to become like the Ancient Greek society, a morally corrupt, depraved, and sick society that has, thank the Lord, ceased to exist.

Methinks someone got confused about "Rome" v. "Greece"... but homosexuality was still looked down upon in both societies (there's some evidence that homosexual relationships were common in Greece despite this - for example - in the gymnasium or the military, but... gays at the gym? in an all-boys school? in the navy? I've NEVER heard of such a thing! )

[Condunum]

It makes baby jesus cry.

No, no, not anymore. I taught him to be more thoughtful of others and now he giggles.

[Free Detroit]

It makes baby jesus cry.

But... Baby Jesus has two daddies...

Yeah, but he's a whiny little bastard. Everyone knows it.

[Condunum]

But... Baby Jesus has two daddies...

Yeah, but he's a whiny little bastard. Everyone knows it.

I'd appreciate if you stopped insulting my baby

[Norstal]

It makes baby jesus cry.

But... Baby Jesus has two daddies...

Two daddies and one woman. More like polygamy. Hmmm, then again, God should be both sexes.

[Condunum]

But... Baby Jesus has two daddies...

Two daddies and one woman. More like polygamy. Hmmm, then again, God should be both sexes.

Holy fuck. This just made me realize something.