Who is harmed by same-sex marriage?

[Urmanian]

I think a huge concern over this when I look at it is the incoming religious freedom vs civil rights battler. For instance. If Same-Sex Marriage is fully legalized there could appear a stance that harms ones religious freedom. For example, two males, after being together for nearly 5 years decide to get married. The church they want is their dream church, a small country church that has beautiful stained glass windows. When they go to ask for a marriage the Priest tells them he will no marry them and they cannot get married in the church. Though disappointed they move on. Later they find out that the Priest later married a straight couple inside the church, even though he refused the same-sex couple. The same-sex couple sees this and thinks they were discriminated against and refused just because they were homosexual. Being deeply offended they take this to court and sue the Priest for discrimination. The Case goes all the way up to the State Court who finds the Priest guilty and is forced to either

1) Marry the Same-Sex Couple
2) Allow the Same-Sex Couple to get married in his Church
3) Or Pay a hefty fine for his discrimination

If that happened, which if same-sex marriage was approved could happen. This man would've have been found guilty just because he refused them because he is a Christian who believes homosexuality is wrong, as most Christians do. Being forced to do any one of those 3 things infringes on his religious freedom, which IS wrong

Of course, this is all hypothetical, but I believe still possible in a society that still has a heavy anti-homosexual tone

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

[Binyalan]

Doesn't hurt anybody except those idiots who are opposed to same-sex marriage.

I'm opposed to a brother and sister getting married and having sexual relations, even if there is a guarantee that the sister could not physically have children.

Who else are they harming? Noone.

p.s. as it is the custom to confess your own beliefs - in order not to be misunderstood as being a bigot. I am personally in favour of gay marriage. I'm however interested in the arguments made, and cannot take an argument as valid just because it confirms said beliefs.

[Urmanian]

I'm opposed to a brother and sister getting married and having sexual relations, even if there is a guarantee that the sister could not physically have children.

why?

[Farnhamia]

I think a huge concern over this when I look at it is the incoming religious freedom vs civil rights battler. For instance. If Same-Sex Marriage is fully legalized there could appear a stance that harms ones religious freedom. For example, two males, after being together for nearly 5 years decide to get married. The church they want is their dream church, a small country church that has beautiful stained glass windows. When they go to ask for a marriage the Priest tells them he will no marry them and they cannot get married in the church. Though disappointed they move on. Later they find out that the Priest later married a straight couple inside the church, even though he refused the same-sex couple. The same-sex couple sees this and thinks they were discriminated against and refused just because they were homosexual. Being deeply offended they take this to court and sue the Priest for discrimination. The Case goes all the way up to the State Court who finds the Priest guilty and is forced to either

1) Marry the Same-Sex Couple
2) Allow the Same-Sex Couple to get married in his Church
3) Or Pay a hefty fine for his discrimination

If that happened, which if same-sex marriage was approved could happen. This man would've have been found guilty just because he refused them because he is a Christian who believes homosexuality is wrong, as most Christians do. Being forced to do any one of those 3 things infringes on his religious freedom, which IS wrong

Of course, this is all hypothetical, but I believe still possible in a society that still has a heavy anti-homosexual tone

As Fintan said, it is already established that churches do not have to marry people who do not fit their definition of the institution.

[Cosara]

Hey, OP
Stop making these threads. Please!
Sincerley, NS player who is sick and fucking tired of people making these threads.

[Old Tyrannia]

Who is harmed by same-sex marriage? Who indeed? Why, I am, of course!

I have a rare condition, you see. Every time a new homosexual couple are legally married, my heart skips a beat. Now, I can survive skipping the occasional heartbeat, being young and fit and healthy, or at least as fit and healthy as someone who sits on NationStates all day can be, so as of yet I haven't suffered greatly. But imagine if every country in the world was to legalise same-sex marriage. Millions of homosexuals would get married all the time! My heart simply couldn't take the strain.

So, all you people insisting that gay marriage never hurt anyone. I hope you're all very proud of yourself, because you're all going to be responsible for my premature death. Before I've even qualified from university I am to be struck down by a heart attack, all because some gay people simply must get married. You selfish, evil people.

[Farnhamia]

Hey, OP
Stop making these threads. Please!
Sincerley, NS player who is sick and fucking tired of people making these threads.

I'll take this as "No, I have no answer to the question of who would be harmed, so I'll just post a whine."

[Cosara]

Hey, OP
Stop making these threads. Please!
Sincerley, NS player who is sick and fucking tired of people making these threads.

I'll take this as "No, I have no answer to the question of who would be harmed, so I'll just post a whine."

I am serious. I am tired of seeing people make these threads!

[Farnhamia]

I'll take this as "No, I have no answer to the question of who would be harmed, so I'll just post a whine."

I am serious. I am tired of seeing people make these threads!

Why? You could take a break from NSG if it's getting to you.

[Republic of Neighpal]

Intoducing same-sex marriage harms hundreds of thousands who would never have married under the new law. One would break the social contract and individuals would be robbed of their fundamental right to consent to marriage based on their free will.

It would be a gross injustice to children. Children would be harmed since they no longer would have the right to a father, alternatively a mother. It is a human right for children to know their mother and father. However, it is not a human right for adults to have children artificially. Children's rights should outweigh adult requirements. A UN Convention states that children have the right, as far as possible, to know their parents and be cared for by them. To pass laws that deprive children of the right to know their father or mother is discrimination.

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

Parents and family are fundamental to individuals and to society. Biological parenthood, blood ties and kinship forms the foundation of human identity and community. Defining gender-neutral caregivers as "parents" is a large-scale experiment with unknown and unforseen consequences for children, adults and society. Children will be stigmatized. The term "marriage" means the relationship between man and woman, mother and father are not substitutable for each other. Mom and Dad are not just different sexes, but they are two different and unique individuals for the child and the child is a unique person for them.

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State. Homosexual marriage does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

It would be a gross injustice to legal thinking. The socialist marriage is a pseudo language game, which is based on emotion and not on the biological family. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in biology and human nature, and thus governed by natural law.

show me some definate proof that that isn't complete opinion and impossible from an unbiased, trustable source, and i might consider thinking about that.

about the "Defining gender-neutral caregivers as "parents" is a large-scale experiment with unknown and unforseen consequences for children, adults and society. Children will be stigmatized. The term "marriage" means the relationship between man and woman, mother and father are not substitutable for each other." part:


it's not an experiment if we've been doing it for about 4 million years, give or take.

ya'know, if people would quit pissing and moaning about how gay people, children wouldn't be stigmatized and discriminated against.

and as for marriage, why is it that, in some 1st and 2nd rate countries, the divorce rate is near or greater than 50%, while gays in countries that allow some for of same sex union or marriage (let alone acknowledge that they are also human) have almost never gotten divorced. I myself have only heard of a gay divorce once or twice, and while i'm sure there are more out there, i doubt either gay ex has tried to assault, steal, embezzle, murder, slander, or in any way try to ruin the formerly signifigant other's life via messy divorce.

and as for the mother and father part, the only reason why kids of same-sex parents ever wind up being messed up in the head, is because of being bullied, directly and non-directly, being treated like shit by right-wing pricks of "superior moral concience", who are usually the absolute worst and most judgemental people alive.

and just think, if people just accepted it, or at least, didn't make a whole big shitstorm of it, few, if any of what you said, would be valid.

[Minarchist States Of Equality]

All it would harm are all those homophobic conservatives who would look dumb and they deserve it.

[Binyalan]

I think a huge concern over this when I look at it is the incoming religious freedom vs civil rights battler. For instance. If Same-Sex Marriage is fully legalized there could appear a stance that harms ones religious freedom. For example, two males, after being together for nearly 5 years decide to get married. The church they want is their dream church, a small country church that has beautiful stained glass windows. When they go to ask for a marriage the Priest tells them he will no marry them and they cannot get married in the church. Though disappointed they move on. Later they find out that the Priest later married a straight couple inside the church, even though he refused the same-sex couple. The same-sex couple sees this and thinks they were discriminated against and refused just because they were homosexual. Being deeply offended they take this to court and sue the Priest for discrimination. The Case goes all the way up to the State Court who finds the Priest guilty and is forced to either

1) Marry the Same-Sex Couple
2) Allow the Same-Sex Couple to get married in his Church
3) Or Pay a hefty fine for his discrimination

If that happened, which if same-sex marriage was approved could happen. This man would've have been found guilty just because he refused them because he is a Christian who believes homosexuality is wrong, as most Christians do. Being forced to do any one of those 3 things infringes on his religious freedom, which IS wrong

Of course, this is all hypothetical, but I believe still possible in a society that still has a heavy anti-homosexual tone

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

The slippery slope supposedly started with Christians tolerating marriage of Christians in the congregation to atheists, Jews, and others. If one partner does not accept Jesus as God's son who died for our sins, then the two cannot be married under God.

From the Protestant perspective, Catholics cannot be married. Catholics are idolaters, and idolatry is a crime against God as much as homosexuality is. A Protestant Church could no more marry one of their congregation to a Catholic than marry one of their congregation to a bisexual.

[Tsuntion]

I'll take this as "No, I have no answer to the question of who would be harmed, so I'll just post a whine."

I am serious. I am tired of seeing people make these threads!

These threads have been going for years and will not stop. At least this OP tried for a different angle than usual.

[Defero Populus]

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?

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.

1. Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships.

Gay marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse’s health insurance policy.

On Dec. 17, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019.

Arguments often heard in support of homosexual civil “marriage” revolves around all the government “benefits” that homosexuals claim they are denied. Many of these “benefits” involve one thing—taxpayer money that homosexuals are eager to get their hands on. For example, one of the goals of homosexual activists is to take part in the biggest government entitlement program of all—Social Security. Homosexuals want their partners to be eligible for Social Security survivors benefits when one partner dies. Even though t Social Security survivors benefits were intended to help stay-at-home mothers who did not have retirement benefits from a former employer

Another example, homosexuals who are employed by the government want to be able to name their homosexual partners as dependents in order to get the taxpayers to pay for health insurance for them. Never mind that most homosexual couples include two wage-earners, each of whom can obtain their own insurance. Never mind that “dependents” were, when the tax code was developed, assumed to be children and stay-at-home mothers. And never mind that homosexuals have higher rates of physical disease, mental illness, and substance abuse, leading to more medical claims and higher insurance premiums

2. Schools would teach that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones.

The advocates of same-sex “marriage” argue that it will have little impact on anyone other than the couples who “marry.” However, even the brief experience in Massachusetts, where same-sex “marriage” was imposed by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court and began on May 17, 2004, has demonstrated that the impact of such a social revolution will extend much further—including into the public schools.

In September 2004, National Public Radio reported, “Already, some gay and lesbian advocates are working on a new gay-friendly curriculum for kindergarten and up.” They also featured an interview with Deb Allen, a lesbian who teaches eighth-grade sex education in Brookline, Mass. Allen now feels “emboldened” in teaching a “gay-friendly” curriculum, declaring, “If somebody wants to challenge me, I’ll say, ‘Give me a break. It’s legal now.’” Her lessons include descriptions of homosexual sex given “thoroughly and explicitly with a chart.” Allen reports she will ask her students, “Can a woman and a woman have vaginal intercourse, and they will all say no. And I’ll say, ‘Hold it. Of course, they can. They can use a sex toy. They could use’—and we talk—and we discuss that. So the answer there is yes.”

The parents of a kindergarten student in Lexington, Massachusetts were upset when their son’s school sent home a book featuring same-sex couples with the child in a “Diversity Bag.” David Parker, the child’s father, met with his son’s principal to insist that the school notify him and allow his child to opt out of discussions of homosexuality in the classroom. State law specifically guarantees parents the right to opt their child out of any curriculum involving “human
sexuality issues.” Nevertheless, the principal refused, and because Parker was unwilling to leave without such assurances, he was arrested for trespassing and spent a night in jail—“stripped of my shoes, my belt, my wedding ring, and my parental rights,” as he later put it. Lexington school superintendent Paul Ash evaded the state law by insisting that books about homosexual couples dealt with “family experiences” and “diversity,” not “human sexuality.” Six months later,
the criminal charges against Parker were dropped—but Ash continued to bar Parker from all school
property, meaning that he is “banned from voting, teacher-parent conferences, and school committee meetings.”

3. Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father.

The greatest tragedy resulting from the legalization of homosexual “marriage” would not be its effect on adults, but its effect on children. For the first time in history, society would be placing its highest stamp of official government approval on the deliberate creation of permanently motherless or fatherless households for children.

Same-sex marriage has lead to increased acceptance of single parenthood and has undermined the institution of marriage in Scandinavia. Sweden began offering same-sex couples benefits in 1987, followed by Denmark in 1989 and Norway in 1993. According to a Feb. 29, 2004 report by Stanley Kurtz, PhD, 60% of firstborn children in Denmark and a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock.

Children raised by their married mother and father experience lower rates of many social pathologies, including:
• premarital childbearing;
• illicit drug use;
• arrest;
• health, emotional, or behavioral problems;
• poverty;
• or school failure or expulsion.

Gay marriage will lead to more children being raised in same-sex households which are not an optimum environment for raising children because children need both a mother and father. Girls who are raised apart from their fathers are reportedly at higher risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy. Children without a mother are deprived of the emotional security and unique advice that mothers provide. An Apr. 2001 study published in American Sociological Review suggesed that children with lesbian or gay parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior . In the 1997 book Growing up in a Lesbian Family: Effects on Child Development, Fiona Tasker, PhD, and Susan Golombok, PhD, observed that 25% of sampled young adults raised by lesbian mothers had engaged in a homoerotic relationship, compared to 0% of sampled young adults raised by heterosexual mothers.

Surveying the research (primarily regarding lesbians) in an American Sociological Review article in 2001, they found that:
• Children of lesbians are less likely to conform to traditional gender norms.
• Children of lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior.
• Daughters of lesbians are “more sexually adventurous and less chaste.”
• Lesbian “co-parent relationships” are more likely to break up than heterosexual marriages.

4. Fewer people would remain married for a lifetime.

Marriage is already threatened with high divorce rates (between 40% and 50%) and with 40.6% of babies being born to unmarried mothers in 2008. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would further weaken the institution.

Gay activists often point to high divorce rates and claim that married couples fare little better than homosexuals with regard to the duration of their relationships. The research, however, indicates that male homosexual relationships last only a fraction of the length of most marriages.
Married Couples. A 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first marriages last ten years or longer, with fifty percent lasting twenty years or longer.


A 2002 U.S. Census Bureau study reported similar results, with 70.7 percent of women married between 1970 and 1974 reaching their tenth anniversary and 57.7 percent staying married for twenty years or longer.


The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years. While this "snapshot in time" is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.


In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."

A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.

5. Fewer people would remain monogamous and sexually faithful.

One value that remains remarkably strong, even among people who have multiple sexual partners before marriage, is the belief that marriage itself is a sexually exclusive relationship. Among married heterosexuals, having sexual relations with anyone other than one’s spouse is still considered a grave breach of trust and a violation of the marriage covenant by the vast majority of people.

Yet the same cannot be said of homosexuals—particularly of homosexual men. Numerous studies of homosexual relationships, including “partnered” relationships, covering a span of decades, have shown that sex with multiple partners is tolerated and often expected, even when one has a “long-term” partner. Perhaps the most startling of these studies was published in the journal AIDS. In the context of studying HIV risk behavior among young homosexual men in the Netherlands (coincidentally, the first country in the world to legalize homosexual civil “marriage”), the researchers found that homosexual men who were in partnered relationships had an average of eight sexual partners per year outside of the primary relationship.



A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals."

6. Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow.

Gay marriage could potentially lead down a "slippery slope” ending with giving people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry. Glen Lavy, JD, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, argued in a May 21, 2008 Los Angeles Times Op-Ed, "The movement for polygamy and polyamory is poised to use the successes of same-sex couples as a springboard for further de-institutionalizing marriage."

If the natural sexual complementarity of male and female and the theoretical procreative capacity of an opposite-sex union are to be discarded as principles central to the definition of marriage, then what is left? According to the arguments of the homosexual “marriage” advocates, only love and companionship are truly necessary elements of marriage. But if that is the case, then why should other relationships that provide love, companionship, and a lifelong commitment not also be recognized as “marriages”—including relationships between adults and children, or between blood relatives, or between three or more adults? And if it violates the equal protection of the laws to deny homosexuals their first choice of marital partner, why would it not do the same to deny pedophiles, polygamists, or the incestuous the right to marry the person (or persons) of their choice?

Jasmine Walston, the president of “Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness,” as saying, “We’re where the gay rights movement was 30 years ago.” The story also quoted Barb Greve, a program associate with the Association of Unitarian Universalists’ Office of Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Concerns in Boston. Greve, helpfully described as “a transgender person who likes to be called ‘he,’” said, “There are people who want to be in committed relationships—whether it’s heterosexual marriage, same-sex “marriage” or polyamory—and that should be acknowledged religiously and legally.”

7. Conflict With Religion

Marriage is a religious rite. According to a July 31, 2003 statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II, marriage "was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman

Gay marriage is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups. The Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church, Islam, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex marriage. Expanding marriage to include same-sex couples may lead to churches being forced to marry couples and children being taught in school that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex marriage.

Marriage Historically

Every society has had some form of the institution of marriage.

Throughout history and across societies, marriage has always been defined, in both law and language, as the union of a man and a woman.

A core purpose of Marriage is to guarantee that, insofar as possible, that each child is emotionally, morally, practicality, and legally affiliated with the woman and man whose sexual union brought the child into the world.

Although certain aspects of the institution of marriage have varied from society to society, it has universal functions. These universal functions are:

* Complementing nature with culture to ensure the reproductive cycle;
* Providing children with a mother and father whenever possible;
* Providing children with their biological parents when ever possible;
* Bringing men and women together for both practical and symbolic purposes.
* Providing men with a stake in family and society

Mutual affection and companionship between partners is common, although not universal, feature of marriage.

Restrictions based on the race of the partners are not, and never have been, a universal feature of marriage.

No society has established Same-sex marriage as a cultural norm.

Marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples because homosexual relationships have nothing to do with procreation. Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification.

The No Harm Principle

“The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

“[T]he plain fact is that none of us is a complete civil libertarian. We all believe that there is some point at whichs the public authorities ought to step in to limit the “self-expression” of an individual or group even where this might be seriously intended as a form of artistic expression, and even where the artistic transaction is between consenting adults. A playwright or theatrical director might, in this crazy world of ours, find someone willing to commit suicide on stage, as called for by the script. We would not allow that-any more than we would permit scenes of real physical torture on the stage, even if the victim were a willing masochist. And I know of no one, no matter how free in spirit, who argues that we ought to permit gladiatorial contests in Yankee stadium, similar to those once performed in the Coliseum of Rome-even if only consenting adults were involved.”
Irving Kristol

If the no harm principle was applied to law the following things would be legal (assuming all parties are consenting)

* All Drugs & Alcohol
* Euthanasia/Suicide
* Prostitution
* Polygamy
* Cannibalism
* Bestiality
* Incest
* Abortion (According to some people)
* Dueling/Fights to the Death
* All weapons of any kind be owned.

Even Children/Elderly should be allowed to do any things above because they are willing to consent and it does not harm you.

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF11B30.pdf
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27626727/Proposed-Findings-of-Fact-by-Prop-8-Proponents-Filed-02-26-10
http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/08/contra-mundum-consenting-adults-and-harm.html
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/

[Sinlenian Zindujan]

Now imagine, that there is a THING taht you hate. But this THING unfortunately exists. But at first this THING doesn't tends to be an eyesore for you - it hides somewhere in other people's bedrooms, and you don't care about it. But then suddenly this THING began to appear everywhere you go, and everywhere you look - on the TV, in magazines, on the Internet, and just on the streets in the form of civilian processions. And what's more important - you don't have any rights to fight it back, unless you'll become a hermit, cut off the Internet connection and throw away your TV set.
In ten words: these days of openness about sex has gone too far.
Asexuals. In most of the capitalist states they are being opressed. People think that not having sex is uncool, they see asexuals as nerds, loosers etc. While fags had stole all the tolerance. While a person, especially a teenager, can become outcast just because he likes anime or he has some connections to the furry fandom, fags are untouchable - one bad word adressed to them, and you will have legal consequenses.
In other words, if a person differs from others, but he's not gay, he'll be oppressed and misunderstood. But if he's some sort of a pervert - he's given with a green light. While there's a lot of people out there who don't have acess to proper healthcare and normal accomodation, the government just ignore them in favor of some perverts, thus making them a part of the oppressing class.

[Curiosityness]

Nobody at all. Except for someone who is ignorant and homophobic

[Farnhamia]

Now imagine, that there is a THING taht you hate. But this THING unfortunately exists. But at first this THING doesn't tends to be an eyesore for you - it hides somewhere in other people's bedrooms, and you don't care about it. But then suddenly this THING began to appear everywhere you go, and everywhere you look - on the TV, in magazines, on the Internet, and just on the streets in the form of civilian processions. And what's more important - you don't have any rights to fight it back, unless you'll become a hermit, cut off the Internet connection and throw away your TV set.
In ten words: these days of openness about sex has gone too far.
Asexuals. In most of the capitalist states they are being opressed. People think that not having sex is uncool, they see asexuals as nerds, loosers etc. While fags had stole all the tolerance. While a person, especially a teenager, can become outcast just because he likes anime or he has some connections to the furry fandom, fags are untouchable - one bad word adressed to them, and you will have legal consequenses.
In other words, if a person differs from others, but he's not gay, he'll be oppressed and misunderstood. But if he's some sort of a pervert - he's given with a green light. While there's a lot of people out there who don't have acess to proper healthcare and normal accomodation, the government just ignore them in favor of some perverts, thus making them a part of the oppressing class.

Please provide evidence - on-line evidence we can review - of asexuals being oppressed. I would suggest that when you graduate high school and get out in the real world, you'll find that the vast majority of people are content to live and let live.

[Binyalan]

It harms those who think they have the right to decide over other people's love because some god supposedly forbade it.
No-one should stand in the way of two people who want to marry each other, whether they have the same sex or not.

Why stay at two people? Why can't three people marry each other? Are we excluding bisexuals from marriage who may love and be in a strong relationship with both a man or woman?

When asexuals marry, there is no question of sex. Why then should they be restricted to just being two people in a marriage?

[Kvatchdom]

Just to clear it out, historically Traditional marriage (in the biblical sense) has been many things, like between one man, his sister and maid, between one man, 700 wives and 300 whores. It's also been between a man and a kitchen accessory.

[Minarchist States Of Equality]

It harms those who think they have the right to decide over other people's love because some god supposedly forbade it.
No-one should stand in the way of two people who want to marry each other, whether they have the same sex or not.

Why stay at two people? Why can't three people marry each other? Are we excluding bisexuals from marriage who may love and be in a strong relationship with both a man or woman?

When asexuals marry, there is no question of sex. Why then should they be restricted to just being two people in a marriage?

It shouldn't be it's none of the government's or the damned churches business what people do in their bedrooms.

[Minarchist States Of Equality]

Now imagine, that there is a THING taht you hate. But this THING unfortunately exists. But at first this THING doesn't tends to be an eyesore for you - it hides somewhere in other people's bedrooms, and you don't care about it. But then suddenly this THING began to appear everywhere you go, and everywhere you look - on the TV, in magazines, on the Internet, and just on the streets in the form of civilian processions. And what's more important - you don't have any rights to fight it back, unless you'll become a hermit, cut off the Internet connection and throw away your TV set.
In ten words: these days of openness about sex has gone too far.
Asexuals. In most of the capitalist states they are being opressed. People think that not having sex is uncool, they see asexuals as nerds, loosers etc. While fags had stole all the tolerance. While a person, especially a teenager, can become outcast just because he likes anime or he has some connections to the furry fandom, fags are untouchable - one bad word adressed to them, and you will have legal consequenses.
In other words, if a person differs from others, but he's not gay, he'll be oppressed and misunderstood. But if he's some sort of a pervert - he's given with a green light. While there's a lot of people out there who don't have acess to proper healthcare and normal accomodation, the government just ignore them in favor of some perverts, thus making them a part of the oppressing class.

Please provide evidence - on-line evidence we can review - of asexuals being oppressed. I would suggest that when you graduate high school and get out in the real world, you'll find that the vast majority of people are content to live and let live.

My brother is asexual and he is never oppressed. I don't know where you live but most of the world is happy to let other live their lives the way they see fit.

[Silent Majority]

No society has established Same-sex marriage as a cultural norm.

As someone kindly pointed out the other day, this is false. There were a number of Native American tribes that performed same-sex marriages before they were forced to stop by european settlers.

[Divair]

-snip-

A for effort. Shame it's all a bunch of BS.

[Urmanian]

Now imagine, that there is a THING taht you hate. But this THING unfortunately exists. But at first this THING doesn't tends to be an eyesore for you - it hides somewhere in other people's bedrooms, and you don't care about it. But then suddenly this THING began to appear everywhere you go, and everywhere you look - on the TV, in magazines, on the Internet, and just on the streets in the form of civilian processions. And what's more important - you don't have any rights to fight it back, unless you'll become a hermit, cut off the Internet connection and throw away your TV set.
In ten words: these days of openness about sex has gone too far.
Asexuals. In most of the capitalist states they are being opressed. People think that not having sex is uncool, they see asexuals as nerds, loosers etc. While fags had stole all the tolerance. While a person, especially a teenager, can become outcast just because he likes anime or he has some connections to the furry fandom, fags are untouchable - one bad word adressed to them, and you will have legal consequenses.
In other words, if a person differs from others, but he's not gay, he'll be oppressed and misunderstood. But if he's some sort of a pervert - he's given with a green light. While there's a lot of people out there who don't have acess to proper healthcare and normal accomodation, the government just ignore them in favor of some perverts, thus making them a part of the oppressing class.

how's life in the la la land where homosexuals are given special treatment and protection from the government and gays are universally tolerated while asexuals are oppressed and shunned? because that's certainly not the reality where I live.

besides, calling homosexuals "just perverts" while claiming that your sexuality (asexuality) is oppressed and deprived of special protections...there's some hypocrisy in that, don't you think?

[Tsuntion]

-snip-

A for effort. Shame it's all a bunch of BS.

Why an A for effort? 'Tis copy-pasted, though they do get some marks for formatting it.