View Poll Results: Same-sex marriage is wrong because

Voters
113. You may not vote on this poll
  • It isn't, and should be available to all gay couples

    77 68.14%
  • Being gay is wrong, so they can't get married

    16 14.16%
  • The sanctity of marriage. No, I wasn't laughing. I was coughing. *cough* ... see?

    4 3.54%
  • It will set a bad example for Christian youth

    0 0%
  • I don't honestly have a good reason, but I still say no

    1 0.88%
  • Other (please explain)

    15 13.27%
Page 89 of 158 FirstFirst ... 3979878889909199139 ... LastLast
Results 881 to 890 of 1577

Thread: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

  1. #881
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I knew quite well what I wanted to say. The fact that the only way you could make your point was to take a typo, IGNORE THE REST OF THE SENTENCE, and they try to make it seem like I was never clear goes well further into exposing the depths of your intellectual dishonesty than it goes to demostrate my typing skills. Man up, you ****ed up, tried to make it look like I was saying something I wasn't. Quit making dumb arguments and I'll stop calling out your dumb arguments.
    Homey, 3/4 of the libertarian position is a dumb argument. Cya.....
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  2. #882
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    um...that's what I just said.
    OK. Are you trying to imply that I'm saying you didn't? Because nothing I wrote was indication of your argument; that was my argument. I in no way shape or form am saying you said anything counter to it.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #883
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,526

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    In light of the sudden outbreak in confusion about what the **** is being said...

    After 12 times asking "WHAT IS THE SOCIAL DAMAGED IMPOSED BY GAY MARRIAGE"... And...ONLY IKARI has given ANY opinion....it was a damn good answer, by the way.

    But seriously, I would like more. I need something to write home to my half dozen gay kids...so they'll know why not to get married. I don't want them to screw up a whole nation. I know they don't either. Well, that's not all together true. Maybe they would.
    Last edited by Removable Mind; 05-31-11 at 05:47 PM.

  4. #884
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Homey, 3/4 of the libertarian position is a dumb argument. Cya.....
    This is a fairly retarded argument. Got any other stupid to lay on us. Just get it out of the way now so that it can be over with.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #885
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    OK. Are you trying to imply that I'm saying you didn't? Because nothing I wrote was indication of your argument; that was my argument. I in no way shape or form am saying you said anything counter to it.

    sorry, but the tone of your posts seem like you are agruing against what I am saying.
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  6. #886
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    I didn't move any goal posts.....marriage is an act. You tried to move the goal posts claiming it wasn't about acts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The Marriage License, the thing that legally marries you, is a legal contract.
    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Yeah, so?

    .............
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's not an act, the act is not what's most important currently since the act can be taken by anyone. The contention is the legal argument over same sex marriage; which is the use of government force to forbid adults from freely entering into a government issued and recognized contract. The individual has right to contract.
    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    I think what you mean is: it isn't only an act. Still, it's an act. Getting married is an act.
    Here I tried to help you out but you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Please read what I have written and not your assumptions on what I have written. I have been VERY CLEAR on this, any human should be able to read the words and understand. The point of contention with marriage is not the act of being married. Anyone, even homosexuals, can currently go through the act of being married. The contention is the legal recognition of that marriage, which is the contractual aspect of marriage; the Marriage License. Which is a government granted and recognized contract. Contention on the marriage front is not the mere act of being married, but the legal ability to have one's marriage recognized by the State.
    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Uh-huh. How does one enter into the legal contract known as marriage without Getting Married?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Common law marriage or simply going to the court house and filling out the paper work all do not involve an actual ceremony. You can, however, go through the act of marriage without legally being married.

    What was your point then? Cause I think it just backfired.
    and here you start acting like an ass....

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Is there even a point to this horribly stupid argument of yours? You can live with someone for a long time and not be married. It seems like every time I disporive your point, you have another dumbass question which does nothing to promote the debate. You can live with someone for a long time, claim you are married, and you are actually married (that's common law marriage). Now of course for all legal definitions, the ones that matter if you're not trying to play word games and are actually willing to debate the topic in an intellectually honest manner, same sex couples cannot be common law married either. To legally be married you have to sign the Marriage License, which is contract.
    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    I dunno, is there a point to your asinine assertion that marriage is not an act? It obviously is, one "get's married" or even "enters into the marriage contract" both acts, denying it is beyond moronic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    So you're not going to read, huh? That's what we've come to. Sad. I didn't say that marriage does not include an act. I said the act, in the sense of ceremony, is not the contention. It's the ability to engage in the legal contract of marriage which is the contention. People can still pretend to be married. You can go through the actions of being married, even be married in a church in front of your god; but you cannot legally enter into the marriage contract. A contract which is government issued and recognized as contract. That's the contention. Marriage does contain action; but the contention in regards to SSM is not the action of being married; but rather the denial of their right to contract.

    Please learn to read, there's very little point in rehashing things which have already been said. A little honesty on your part will go a long way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I care about actual debate, which is not what you present. You can oppose SSM all day long for whatever reason. End of the day the actual action taking place is the use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual. Some of us want to remove that force, other of you want to excuse that force. And now you're just trying to scrape together arguments on how you can argue for this flavor of government force.

    And it isn't MY point of contention (again with the reading...Jesus our school systems are failing us). It is the contention of the entire SSM argument. Their desire is to obtain the recognition of their right to contract so that they may engage in the the contract called the Marriage License and have their marriage legally recognized by the State.
    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Well, jeez let's talk about literacy...

    If there are more than one party to and argument, and one thing is important to one party but not important to another...does that one party's argument cease to exist?

    I think not....are Libertarians required to be egomaniacs?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, the argument still exists. But if someone makes a stupid argument, even if they believe it's important, it's still stupid. It's stupid to say "signing something is an act and I'm against that act" because essentially everything is an "act" at that point. What you're concerned with seems to be the ability of same sex couples to legally access the "marriage" title. The act of marriage is represented in the ceremony and not all forms of marrage go through that act. Hell not all forms of marriage require you sign a marriage license either. Common law marriage doesn't have a marriage license. It's still denied to same sex couples though. But as it stands the Marriage License is a government issued and recognized contract, and the individual has right to contract.
    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    and it's stupid to say marriage is not an act. Whether it is something else or not doesn't change that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Well it's good I did not say it was not an act. Someone who actually read what I wrote could understand that.
    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Actually you said both, You don't seem to have a train of thought...actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, I should have typed "it's not the act" instead of an. Because in the very same sentence (if you'd PLEASE READ) it says "the act is not what's most important currently since the act can be taken by anyone." Which clearly is saying that the action part of marriage isn't the contended part. It's the legal definition.

    Please have some shred of intellectual honesty and please read the entire sentence. kthnxbye
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Read the rest of the god damned sentence. There was a common there. For ****'s sake, how damned difficult is it for you to finish a sentence? Pretty damned when you want to take things out of context and harp on typos to try to make an entire argument out of. Jesus tap dancing Christ on a pogo stick.
    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Hmm, since you started this of in reply to my opposition to an immoral act statement, and led the sentence with, it's not an act...but then said it's not the act and now say you didn't mean what you said....it would seem that this is all one big confusion over your inability to communicate.

    I'll accept that you just ****ed up.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I said it was a typo. However, my position has been very clearly laid out in subsequent posts. Read or just GTFO because you're just wasting time and energy currently. I really honestly don't understand it. If it said "it's not an act" and ended there; I could see the confusion, but the rest of the sentence clearly stated that the action portion of marriage wasn't the contented portion. And from that point on I was very clear in what I was saying. You're still just trying to scrape a cover for that mouth running of yours. Not only was it originally there that I meant the act portion wasn't contended, but in subsequent posts I was very clear on that. You want to try to harp on a type and nothing more; but it's not a good argument. Had I said it several times and then changed tune; fine. But not when it was clarified in the very sentence you're trying to abuse.
    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Actually you just wasted an ass-ton of my time, because you apparently don't know what the **** you're trying to say. Great, everyone should be able to contract.....got it, cya.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I knew quite well what I wanted to say. The fact that the only way you could make your point was to take a typo, IGNORE THE REST OF THE SENTENCE, and they try to make it seem like I was never clear goes well further into exposing the depths of your intellectual dishonesty than it goes to demostrate my typing skills. Man up, you ****ed up, tried to make it look like I was saying something I wasn't. Quit making dumb arguments and I'll stop calling out your dumb arguments.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  7. #887
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Deemed by whom? Has it always been thus? If they have the parts (naturally) why can't they use them at will with whom ever they choose?
    Deemed by the government.

    Nope, its not always been that way. There's been times in history where 14 or 15 could easily be considered an adult.

    They can't use their parts "at will" with whomever they choose for the same reason we can't choose to use our hands to choke people whenever we choose simply because we "naturally" have them. In the case of the 14 and 35 year old, the 35 year old is violating the rights of minor who is not empowered to be able to agree to engage in such acts with an adult.

    Why is 17 a minor and 18 is not?
    Its how the laws been set. A line must be set at a certain age. If you have an argument on why it should be 17 instead of 18, I'm happy to hear it.

    I agree that a minor needs protection, by how do we define who is a minior and who isn't? What science is that based on?
    Never heavily researched it. Do you know? Or are you just saying things hoping they'll make a point without actually knowing what it is you're talking about?

    My point is there is an awful lot of interpretation in the constitution.
    Well yeah, are you going to tell me the sky is blue next. What I can tell you though from accepted and long standing constitutional law is this. There's this thing called the Equal Protection Clause. It has three teirs of protection in regards to the state discriminating against people.

    There's the bottom teir, middle, and top. As you go higher up in teirs the state not only has to have a more important interest in enacting the discrimination but also needs more evidence that the discrimination is needed to reach that interest.

    See, that's the thing. The government absolutely CAN discriminate. There's nothing wrong with the government discriminating. As long as it can make the necessary argument.

    In the case of age discrimination, its the bottom teir. That means to discriminate against age the government only needs to show a rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.

    Gender on the other hand is middle teir, requiring an IMPORTANT state interest rather than simply a legitimate one and that the discrimination is substantially needed to serve said interest.

    State has an interest in preserving tradition? Can't be that important, part of the traditional marriage definition in this country changed once already. State has an interest in pushing for family? Can't be that important since they don't require you to agree to start a family when you get married, they allow infertile individuals to get married, and same sex couples are able to start a family. Reduce work load on the tax system by allowing some people to co-submit? Same sex couples can live together too.

    You're attempting to discredit my argument by pointing out that the government discriminates, but its never been my stance that it doesn't do that. It does, and it absolutely can. As long as it can meet the standards of the EPC.

    I can specifiy why I think our marriage laws don't. Can you tell me what IMPORTANT state interest in gained substantially through the discrimination of men and women regarding marriage?

    Whether it does or does not is often up for interpretation.
    Indeed it does. I've made my argument multiple times, and again just now, as to why it doesn't meet the level necessary to be constitutional. Please, make your argument why it is constitutional.

    I don't care about gun ownership.
    So you're fine with guns being banned?

    I disagree with that interpretation.
    So a man can do something a woman can't........but that's not gender discrimination. So you're saying that's not making a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person belongs rather than according to any actual merit? A woman can't marry women, but a man can, because she's a woman and somehow that's not discriminating against her because she's a woman due to..........?

  8. #888
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Here I tried to help you out but you said:
    Is there a point to this other than to demonstrat how you're argument against me is built on one type that was clarified not only IN THE SAME SENTENCE IT WAS MADE IN, but then again in every subsequent post? Thanks.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  9. #889
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    sorry, but the tone of your posts seem like you are agruing against what I am saying.
    Tone is inferred. But no, I was not trying to make it seem like you were making counter arguments. I was clarifying and outlining my own.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #890
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

    In response to mac - drawing the line between juvenile/minor and adult at the age of 18 is based on psychological studies. CC can probably answer the question better than I can, but it has to do with brain development and maturity level. I mean, the line has to be drawn somewhere.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •