Sunday, August 19, 2012

Here We Go Again

One of my arguments against the push to legalize gay marriage is that we don't know where it will stop. What "rights" will we be protecting next. I may have an answer.

Asexuals – the fourth sexual orientation


There appears to be a small movement to have this group recognized with one researcher even suggesting they be afforded protection.

"We want asexuality to be recognised as a valid sexual orientation, rather than a disorder or something people have to hide." 

So companies will now have to hire a certain percentage of asexual employees. Schools will not be able to discriminate against the sexless. Political campaigns will scramble over themselves to have at last a couple of asexual staff members on staff just to show they are inclusive. Finally, we will have to ask all visitors to the hospital if they have sex out of fear of not allowing an asexual person to visit their, um, partner?

It's going to be confusing.

Read the article, it's short but entertaining. While reading it I thought that it was like something straight out of The Onion but they are clearly serious.


cube said...

This is why I'm against changing the legal definition of marriage. I have nothing against civil unions, but the gay agenda goes far beyond wanting equal rights.

Chuck said...

Cube, that is exactly where I come down. Not a huge fan of civil unions but not a huge opponent either.

DaBlade said...

Divide, label, assign special rights. This is a tough category for the left, as there is a lack of deviant behavior they normally celebrate.

Brooke said...

That's it. I'm just gonna make up something as far as sexual orientation, announce it to everyone and their uncle and then claim aggrieved minority status and watch the special treatment roll in.

Why not?

Ducky's here said...

What does asexuality have to do with the gay agenda ?

Man, the fringe rights see gays everywhere. They scare you more than Muslims.

Chuck said...

DaBlade, good point. There are no animals involved and no one is of the opposite sex

Although I guess in theory you could also not have sex with someone of the opposite sex and/or animals. I guess I am being a little culturally insensitive. I apologize.

Broke, maybe you can get health insurance for your non-partner.

Ducky, it has nothing to do with the gay agenda other than the slippery slope notion that once we redefine for one group than it opens the door for every aggrieved person/group out there.

For the record it was meant as sarcasm.

Personally I think the next big thing to come down is NAMBLA but then you probably do not see a connection between that and the gay agenda either.

Z said...

Ducky: the lefty who embraces homosexuality but slams Republicans he hates for being gay as if it's the worse pejorative, even if they're not.


I think Brooke's right...we all need to think up some whacky distinction then get paid for being it. Whatever IT is. Hey, wait, maybe that's what CLinton meant!? :-) Something sexual..or A?