SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

Ikari said:

It leads to centaurs, which would destroy the whole of our culture. Think of all the useless doorways! We'd have to remake elevators and escalators. Centaurs will be the death of us all!

Click to expand...

/whispering "You forgot about the gryphons."

mac said:

Yes, and that they have been generally short lived and the "acceptance" rescinded, for lack of a better word.

Click to expand...

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree here; bottom line I believe what you call an inherent aversion to homosexual behavior is a learned, rather than innate. Nurture over nature, if you will.

mac said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

StillBallin75 said:

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree here; bottom line I believe what you call an inherent aversion to homosexual behavior is a learned, rather than innate. Nurture over nature, if you will.

Click to expand...

And I'll admit that that is entirely possible.

Ikari said:

Because I think that a lot of the things accessed thorugh the marriage license should be regularly available to everyone. As such, I would break down the marriage license into many other contracts which can be available to all. You can maybe package contracts together for ease of people reporting marriage; but that's really about it. Leave marriage to the Churches.

Click to expand...

um...that's what I just said.

govt civil union to cover all the legal aspects and a marriage decree from the church for the religious aspects.

Ikari said:

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.

Click to expand...

Homey, 3/4 of the libertarian position is a dumb argument. Cya.....

OscarB63 said:

um...that's what I just said.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

mac said:

Homey, 3/4 of the libertarian position is a dumb argument. Cya.....

Click to expand...

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.

Ikari 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.

Click to expand...

sorry, but the tone of your posts seem like you are agruing against what I am saying.

mac said:

I didn't move any goal posts.....marriage is an act. You tried to move the goal posts claiming it wasn't about acts.

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

The Marriage License, the thing that legally marries you, is a legal contract.

Click to expand...

mac said:

Yeah, so?

.............

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

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.

Click to expand...

mac said:

I think what you mean is: it isn't only an act. Still, it's an act. Getting married is an act.

Click to expand...

Here I tried to help you out but you said:

Ikari said:

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.

Click to expand...

mac said:

Uh-huh. How does one enter into the legal contract known as marriage without Getting Married?

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

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.

Click to expand...

and here you start acting like an ass....

Ikari said:

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.

Click to expand...

mac said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

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.

Click to expand...

mac said:

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?

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

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.

Click to expand...

mac said:

and it's stupid to say marriage is not an act. Whether it is something else or not doesn't change that.

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

Well it's good I did not say it was not an act. Someone who actually read what I wrote could understand that.

Click to expand...

mac said:

Actually you said both, You don't seem to have a train of thought...actually.

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

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

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

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.

Click to expand...

mac said:

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. :roll:

I'll accept that you just ****ed up.

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

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.

Click to expand...

mac said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

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.

Click to expand...

:roll:

mac said:

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

So you're fine with guns being banned?

I disagree with that interpretation.

Click to expand...

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..........?

mac said:

Here I tried to help you out but you said:

Click to expand...

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.

OscarB63 said:

sorry, but the tone of your posts seem like you are agruing against what I am saying.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

StillBallin75 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there is some arbitrary nature to it somewhere. An age had to be picked. But there are also ways for minors to achieve adult status and "divorce" essentially their parents. Not really done much because there's relatively little to no need to do so. 18 is where it's at for better or for worse.

If nobody can offer a credible list of what social damages are imposed on this nations by gay marriage...then what's the point of this thread?

If there are no social consequences caused by gay marriage...then what the hell would induce hundreds to post on this topic?

All we're left with is...If a person believes it's immoral...don't ****do it. What else is there to say?

Zyphlin said:

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.



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.



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?



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?



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.



So you're fine with guns being banned?



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..........?

Click to expand...

lets cut to the chase.

I understand levels of scrutiny, and I understand why you and others think banning SSM is gender discrimination, and why that should be denied via the EPC. My point is that the state is able to categorize people for the purpose of applying the EPC and it is recognized that under certain circumstances, equal protection doesn't necessarily apply. I don't agree that just because a person is not allowed to do something another person can do that it is discrimination. I also believe that under the constitution, American society is allowed to impose it's morals on itself except when such imposition directly opposes the constitution.

And except for the fact the private firearm ownership is constitutionally allowed, I don't care about it.

StillBallin75 said:

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.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, the human brain doesn't stop developing until around the age of 25....

Removable Mind said:

If nobody can offer a credible list of what social damages are imposed on this nations by gay marriage...then what's the point of this thread?

If there are no social consequences caused by gay marriage...then what the hell would induce hundreds to post on this topic?

All we're left with is...If a person believes it's immoral...don't ****do it. What else is there to say?

Click to expand...

Well, if I was ptif I would reply that gay parents will make their kids gay and thus we would have an increasing population and age demographic crisis on our hands.

but I'm not ptif.

mac said:

lets cut to the chase.

I understand levels of scrutiny, and I understand why you and others think banning SSM is gender discrimination, and why that should be denied via the EPC. My point is that the state is able to categorize people for the purpose of applying the EPC and it is recognized that under certain circumstances, equal protection doesn't necessarily apply. I don't agree that just because a person is not allowed to do something another person can do that it is discrimination. I also believe that under the constitution, American society is allowed to impose it's morals on itself accept when such imposition directly opposes the constitution.

And except for the fact the private firearm ownership is constitutionally allowed, I don't care about it.

Click to expand...

Only to a very limited degree. In my discussions with both legal professors and lawyers, there has to be shown just cause for the discrimination. As I understand it, if there is no just cause, no argument of a just reason for the discrimination, society cannot impose their moral values.

And would we want them to? Think for a minute if you're on the other side of such a thing?

mac said:

From what I understand, the human brain doesn't stop developing until around the age of 25....

Click to expand...

I think the question that's being asked is at what point is an individual completely responsible for his/her own decisions, as opposed to being totally susceptible to the influence and control of others. 18 is where the psychologists suggested that the legal system draw the line.

that being said, there are plenty of people older than 25 who act like children (as evidenced by this forum), so what the hell do I know lol.

StillBallin75 said:

I think the question that's being asked is at what point is an individual completely responsible for his/her own decisions, as opposed to being totally susceptible to the influence and control of others. 18 is where the psychologists suggested that the legal system draw the line.

that being said, there are plenty of people older than 25 who act like children (as evidenced by this forum), so what the hell do I know lol.

Click to expand...

All true. But I would argue if we're going to draw a line, and we should, I'd go with where the brain is developed. Of course, young folks make better grunts in the military, for example, largely because they are more able to be molded.

mac said:

From what I understand, the human brain doesn't stop developing until around the age of 25....

Click to expand...

From what I been reading thus far...not to many will ever make it to full blown development - regardless of their age.

Still nobody has given any reasonable list of the social damage caused by gay marriage. Amazing...all this BS for nothing.

Removable Mind said:

If nobody can offer a credible list of what social damages are imposed on this nations by gay marriage...then what's the point of this thread?

If there are no social consequences caused by gay marriage...then what the hell would induce hundreds to post on this topic?

All we're left with is...If a person believes it's immoral...don't ****do it. What else is there to say?

Click to expand...

What? You don't buy the centaur argument? It's clearly true. If you allow same sex marriage, next thing you know you have to allow bestiality. And if you allow bestiality, then some dude will marry a horse and guess what you get when a dude ****s a horse. A centaur. This is all clear and measured science. Duh.

But in reality, there's little to no data to indicate what would happen. I think the most probable outcome would be nothing. People are free to believe it's immoral till the cows come home. They can stand on the corner and preach it till they are blue in the face. What they cannot do is use government force to stop it; which is what is being done currently. It's the use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual with no proof of harm demonstrated. It's a bit sad that people feel their righteous indignation has place in law.