Equal marriage rights passed in NY

[BigBallinStalin]

Shall we place the Dodge King Crown upon patrickaa317's head?


(see below)

For this topic, I'm against federal government intervention, and I'm against oppression by the majority on issues which they should have no say--i.e. personal liberty to love and marry whoever you want. The arguments are clear.

So you would be cool with polygamy and incestual marriage (hetero or homo) as long as both parties agree?

You still haven't quite explained how you think homosexual marriage opens the door to homosexual incestuous marriage, while heterosexual marriage has managed to avoid that door being opened.

What do you see as the primary difference between them that would open the door to incest in the case of homosexual marriage, but not in the case of heterosexual marriage?

You've kind of made this your talking point- what's the reasoning behind it? It kind of looks very strongly like you have an irrational fear of homosexuals getting this right, given that your concern doesn't really extend to heterosexual marriage opening a door to heterosexual incest.

Heterosexual incest can be deemed a social concern due to the reproductive issues it carries with it which is why it is illegal in the vast majority of states and nation while the reproductive concern is not an issue for incestual homosexual relationships yet no gay marriage supporters will come out and say whether they feel male cousins should be allowed to marry or not.

So what is your stance on two male cousins, brothers, nephew/uncle, wanting to get married?

[patrickaa317]

For this topic, I'm against federal government intervention, and I'm against oppression by the majority on issues which they should have no say--i.e. personal liberty to love and marry whoever you want. The arguments are clear.

So you would be cool with polygamy and incestual marriage (hetero or homo) as long as both parties agree?

Before I answer, you need to realize that you're not being honest with yourself (whether that's intentional or unintentional is unknown). You have failed to publicly recognize that your stance on legal homosexual marriages is discriminatory.


So, admit that your stance is discriminatory, and in exchange, I'll entertain your question.


EDIT: thx, Sym

I'm saying in an ideal world marriage should be between one man and one woman, that are not related. If a state chooses to redefine that, that is their choice as it should be handled at the state level (just as you feel it should be handled at a district level).

Now what is your answer to my question? Do you really feel that you can marry whoever you want (given consent from both parties) or are there limits that you want to apply but refuse to mention?

[patrickaa317]

Shall we place the Dodge King Crown upon patrickaa317's head?


(see below)

For this topic, I'm against federal government intervention, and I'm against oppression by the majority on issues which they should have no say--i.e. personal liberty to love and marry whoever you want. The arguments are clear.

So you would be cool with polygamy and incestual marriage (hetero or homo) as long as both parties agree?

You still haven't quite explained how you think homosexual marriage opens the door to homosexual incestuous marriage, while heterosexual marriage has managed to avoid that door being opened.

What do you see as the primary difference between them that would open the door to incest in the case of homosexual marriage, but not in the case of heterosexual marriage?

You've kind of made this your talking point- what's the reasoning behind it? It kind of looks very strongly like you have an irrational fear of homosexuals getting this right, given that your concern doesn't really extend to heterosexual marriage opening a door to heterosexual incest.

Heterosexual incest can be deemed a social concern due to the reproductive issues it carries with it which is why it is illegal in the vast majority of states and nation while the reproductive concern is not an issue for incestual homosexual relationships yet no gay marriage supporters will come out and say whether they feel male cousins should be allowed to marry or not.

So what is your stance on two male cousins, brothers, nephew/uncle, wanting to get married?

Actually I've been asking that from the beginning but nooone will answer it.

The below is from my second post in this forum:

Let me ask you this. Why do you support two individuals of the same gender to get married if they are in love but are not willing to support two individuals of the same gender to get married if they are in love and are related? I don't want a canned answer like "that's just gross". I could provide that answer myself but I personally do not agree with gay marriage to begin with. If people want to jump out and call me ignorant for asking that question, have at it as that seems to be how these threads end up going anyway. If you don't agree with a viewpoint and challenge it, you just get called ignorant.

[Symmetry]

Erm, that doesn't really answer the question though, does it? We want to know why you have a double standard about this. Why do you think homosexual marriage will open the door to homosexual incestuous marriage, but don't have the same concern over the government acknowledging heterosexual marriage?

You kind of seem to have a double standard on this, and you've yet to explain why you see homosexuals having this right leading to incest, when heterosexuals having the same right has remarkably avoided it.

What do you see as the primary difference?

It sort of looks like you have an irrational fear of homosexuals getting this right- that you fear it will lead to homosexual incest. But you seem to have dismissed that fear as being irrational when it comes to heterosexual marriage.

Why all the dodging?

[Woodruff]

Shall we place the Dodge King Crown upon patrickaa317's head?


(see below)

For this topic, I'm against federal government intervention, and I'm against oppression by the majority on issues which they should have no say--i.e. personal liberty to love and marry whoever you want. The arguments are clear.

So you would be cool with polygamy and incestual marriage (hetero or homo) as long as both parties agree?

You still haven't quite explained how you think homosexual marriage opens the door to homosexual incestuous marriage, while heterosexual marriage has managed to avoid that door being opened.

What do you see as the primary difference between them that would open the door to incest in the case of homosexual marriage, but not in the case of heterosexual marriage?

You've kind of made this your talking point- what's the reasoning behind it? It kind of looks very strongly like you have an irrational fear of homosexuals getting this right, given that your concern doesn't really extend to heterosexual marriage opening a door to heterosexual incest.

Heterosexual incest can be deemed a social concern due to the reproductive issues it carries with it which is why it is illegal in the vast majority of states and nation while the reproductive concern is not an issue for incestual homosexual relationships yet no gay marriage supporters will come out and say whether they feel male cousins should be allowed to marry or not.

So what is your stance on two male cousins, brothers, nephew/uncle, wanting to get married?

Truthfully, Patrick has made a reasonable case for incest being reasonable in a homosexual relationship from a government standpoint whereas it should not be in a heterosexual relationship. I think it's accurate for him to state that it is almost entirely the case that the potential progeny is the reason why it is illegal in a heterosexual relationship. Don't you?

[Woodruff]

For this topic, I'm against federal government intervention, and I'm against oppression by the majority on issues which they should have no say--i.e. personal liberty to love and marry whoever you want. The arguments are clear.

So you would be cool with polygamy and incestual marriage (hetero or homo) as long as both parties agree?

Before I answer, you need to realize that you're not being honest with yourself (whether that's intentional or unintentional is unknown). You have failed to publicly recognize that your stance on legal homosexual marriages is discriminatory.

So, admit that your stance is discriminatory, and in exchange, I'll entertain your question.

I'm saying in an ideal world marriage should be between one man and one woman, that are not related. If a state chooses to redefine that, that is their choice as it should be handled at the state level (just as you feel it should be handled at a district level).

Is this your way of acknowledging that your stance is discriminatory? Or is it just avoiding the question entirely?

[BigBallinStalin]

For this topic, I'm against federal government intervention, and I'm against oppression by the majority on issues which they should have no say--i.e. personal liberty to love and marry whoever you want. The arguments are clear.

So you would be cool with polygamy and incestual marriage (hetero or homo) as long as both parties agree?

Before I answer, you need to realize that you're not being honest with yourself (whether that's intentional or unintentional is unknown). You have failed to publicly recognize that your stance on legal homosexual marriages is discriminatory.


So, admit that your stance is discriminatory, and in exchange, I'll entertain your question.


EDIT: thx, Sym

I'm saying in an ideal world marriage should be between one man and one woman, that are not related. If a state chooses to redefine that, that is their choice as it should be handled at the state level (just as you feel it should be handled at a district level).

By supporting the state's right in deciding this matter and since the state's stance just so happens to align with your stance on "an ideal marriage," then it's no surprise that you would cover-up your discriminatory stance by leaving the issue up to the state's discretion.


I bet that you would not be in support of a state's right to decide on this issue if the state supported gay marriage. Instead, you would switch to another argument that supports your ideal yet unreasonable vision of marriage for only heterosexuals (as you have already done with the "majority vote" argument, or with your "this is a representative democracy whose majority of the legislators just so happens to share my biased beliefs" argument). Currently, you continue to not admit to the discriminatory nature of your stance because then you would expose to everyone that you, in fact, are the type of person who agrees with discriminating against people based on their sexual preferences. It's an embarrassing belief, but it can be corrected by honestly dealing with your problem.

You may object to the above, but the contradiction between what you type and your actual belief is clear. Your purposeful alignment of your biased belief of "an ideal marriage" with the "state's right to decide" argument betrays your discriminatory attitude (as I've shown above). That much is clear. Currently, you're digging yourself into a hole after I called you out on your supporting a discriminatory policy.


Be an ideal human being for us, or at the very least, be honest with yourself by admitting that you support a discriminatory policy.





(Furthermore, the distinction (in terms of consequences and actual representation) between a city district and a State or the federal government on deciding this issue is vastly different from one another, so you are wrong in saying that your stance is "just like" my approach.)

[BigBallinStalin]

Now what is your answer to my question? Do you really feel that you can marry whoever you want (given consent from both parties) or are there limits that you want to apply but refuse to mention?

In this discussion, you have to concede on certain points; otherwise, I have no need to oblige you with an answer to irrelevant issues. That's the nature of trade. I'm asking for a reasonable favor in exchange for entertaining your irrelevant question.*

*(which you have yet to address-- see: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=147980&view=unread#p3245857 ) [inb4 "patrickaa317: I already answered that with a reply that doesn't answer the points Symmetry is making."])

[PLAYER57832]

I am just not for allowing anyone and everyone to define marriage though.

I agree. Allowing everyone to have their say on public policy is almost like... democracy. We wouldn't want that now, would we?

If it's done through the constitutional way of defining what is marriage and what isn't, that is totally fine and I will agree with the result (I may not like it but I will go along with the outcome). Just because a certain group demands something, doesn't mean it should always be given to them.

People don't get things becuase they demand them, but they do when it is the right thing to do, when they are being harmed by lack of change and no one else will be harmed by making the change. That is the caser here.

If we were to take a national vote on marriage and it was decided to be only between one man & one woman would the gay marriage activists drop the issue or would they take it to the courts saying that we shouldn't be allowed to vote on how things affect others?

Well, see usually you get to vote on things that impact you. Are you suggesting you are gay?

No, woodruff is correct. In this case, you are conveniently hiding behind the premise of democracy, because you are convinced that most people would vote with you and you really don't think the matter should change.


So.. why are you against homosexual marriages being legally recognized?

[Metsfanmax]

We do not have to defend incestual marriage. The two topics are not related. We are not arguing that the state may redefine marriage at any time; we are arguing that the state needs to apply that definition equally. An inequality exists right now, because some people are disallowed from marrying the one person they want to marry. However, as is the case in NY anyway, we have now fixed that; everyone is treated equally under the law. This means also that no one is allowed to marry their cousin, regardless of sexual orientation. It would be a violation of the Fourteenth to allow gays to do so but NOT allow straight people to do so.

[Phatscotty]

We do not have to defend incestual marriage. The two topics are not related. We are not arguing that the state may redefine marriage at any time; we are arguing that the state needs to apply that definition equally. An inequality exists right now, because some people are disallowed from marrying the one person they want to marry. However, as is the case in NY anyway, we have now fixed that; everyone is treated equally under the law. This means also that no one is allowed to marry their cousin, regardless of sexual orientation. It would be a violation of the Fourteenth to allow gays to do so but NOT allow straight people to do so.

yes but incestual marriage does show that there are people who the state says you cannot marry, and the reasons are beyond discrimination or treated less equal.

[Metsfanmax]

We do not have to defend incestual marriage. The two topics are not related. We are not arguing that the state may redefine marriage at any time; we are arguing that the state needs to apply that definition equally. An inequality exists right now, because some people are disallowed from marrying the one person they want to marry. However, as is the case in NY anyway, we have now fixed that; everyone is treated equally under the law. This means also that no one is allowed to marry their cousin, regardless of sexual orientation. It would be a violation of the Fourteenth to allow gays to do so but NOT allow straight people to do so.

yes but incestual marriage does show that there are people who the state says you cannot marry, and the reasons are beyond discrimination or treated less equal.

It is still an entirely separate argument. The question here is whether applying the Fourteenth Amendment would force you to conclude that incestual marriage must be legalized. The conclusion is that it does not -- as long as no one may marry their cousin, the equal protection clause is upheld. If we use the Fourteenth Amendment, we must only defend all types of marriage that apply equally to everyone.

[Night Strike]

We do not have to defend incestual marriage. The two topics are not related. We are not arguing that the state may redefine marriage at any time; we are arguing that the state needs to apply that definition equally. An inequality exists right now, because some people are disallowed from marrying the one person they want to marry. However, as is the case in NY anyway, we have now fixed that; everyone is treated equally under the law. This means also that no one is allowed to marry their cousin, regardless of sexual orientation. It would be a violation of the Fourteenth to allow gays to do so but NOT allow straight people to do so.

yes but incestual marriage does show that there are people who the state says you cannot marry, and the reasons are beyond discrimination or treated less equal.

It is still an entirely separate argument. The question here is whether applying the Fourteenth Amendment would force you to conclude that incestual marriage must be legalized. The conclusion is that it does not -- as long as no one may marry their cousin, the equal protection clause is upheld. If we use the Fourteenth Amendment, we must only defend all types of marriage that apply equally to everyone.

The 14th Amendment IS being upheld with the current definition: all men can marry one woman at one time. Conversely, All women may marry one man at one time. That is why laws against interracial marriages violated the Constitution: Some men could only marry some women, therefore there was no equal protection. Because it's impossible for the law to state that marriage is between people that like/love each other, then there is no issue for equal protection for homosexuals.


Another issue based on a comment I heard on the radio today. It's impossible for marriage to be considered a right, therefore discrimination via the definition of marriage cannot be considered unconstitutional. Remember, every right in the Constitution only requires that others in essence leave you alone to exercise your own rights (except for the right to a trial by jury, of course). If marriage were a right, any person could go up to another person and claim that it is their right to marry that person. And the person on the receiving end would be powerless to stop that demand. (Yes, this argument is analogous to the best argument against the health care mandate.) Therefore, marriage cannot be considered a right. Furthermore, that means that whoever writes the definition of marriage has the freedom to define it in whatever way society deems appropriate (barring of course inter-racial/religious/nationality prohibitions). Society has decided to define marriage as something between one man and one woman at one time, so no one has the power to use the argument that their rights are being violated.

[demonfork]

We do not have to defend incestual marriage. The two topics are not related. We are not arguing that the state may redefine marriage at any time; we are arguing that the state needs to apply that definition equally. An inequality exists right now, because some people are disallowed from marrying the one person they want to marry. However, as is the case in NY anyway, we have now fixed that; everyone is treated equally under the law. This means also that no one is allowed to marry their cousin, regardless of sexual orientation. It would be a violation of the Fourteenth to allow gays to do so but NOT allow straight people to do so.

yes but incestual marriage does show that there are people who the state says you cannot marry, and the reasons are beyond discrimination or treated less equal.

It is still an entirely separate argument. The question here is whether applying the Fourteenth Amendment would force you to conclude that incestual marriage must be legalized. The conclusion is that it does not -- as long as no one may marry their cousin, the equal protection clause is upheld. If we use the Fourteenth Amendment, we must only defend all types of marriage that apply equally to everyone.

The 14th Amendment IS being upheld with the current definition: all men can marry one woman at one time. Conversely, All women may marry one man at one time. That is why laws against interracial marriages violated the Constitution: Some men could only marry some women, therefore there was no equal protection. Because it's impossible for the law to state that marriage is between people that like/love each other, then there is no issue for equal protection for homosexuals.


Another issue based on a comment I heard on the radio today. It's impossible for marriage to be considered a right, therefore discrimination via the definition of marriage cannot be considered unconstitutional. Remember, every right in the Constitution only requires that others in essence leave you alone to exercise your own rights (except for the right to a trial by jury, of course). If marriage were a right, any person could go up to another person and claim that it is their right to marry that person. And the person on the receiving end would be powerless to stop that demand. (Yes, this argument is analogous to the best argument against the health care mandate.) Therefore, marriage cannot be considered a right. Furthermore, that means that whoever writes the definition of marriage has the freedom to define it in whatever way society deems appropriate (barring of course inter-racial/religious/nationality prohibitions). Society has decided to define marriage as something between one man and one woman at one time, so no one has the power to use the argument that their rights are being violated.

It must be true then....since you heard it on the radio and all.

[PLAYER57832]

We do not have to defend incestual marriage. The two topics are not related. We are not arguing that the state may redefine marriage at any time; we are arguing that the state needs to apply that definition equally. An inequality exists right now, because some people are disallowed from marrying the one person they want to marry. However, as is the case in NY anyway, we have now fixed that; everyone is treated equally under the law. This means also that no one is allowed to marry their cousin, regardless of sexual orientation. It would be a violation of the Fourteenth to allow gays to do so but NOT allow straight people to do so.

yes but incestual marriage does show that there are people who the state says you cannot marry, and the reasons are beyond discrimination or treated less equal.

Incest leaves the potential for children who are going to have medical problems. Also, it tends to begin as children and to be tied to abuse.

[Symmetry]

We do not have to defend incestual marriage. The two topics are not related. We are not arguing that the state may redefine marriage at any time; we are arguing that the state needs to apply that definition equally. An inequality exists right now, because some people are disallowed from marrying the one person they want to marry. However, as is the case in NY anyway, we have now fixed that; everyone is treated equally under the law. This means also that no one is allowed to marry their cousin, regardless of sexual orientation. It would be a violation of the Fourteenth to allow gays to do so but NOT allow straight people to do so.

yes but incestual marriage does show that there are people who the state says you cannot marry, and the reasons are beyond discrimination or treated less equal.

It is still an entirely separate argument. The question here is whether applying the Fourteenth Amendment would force you to conclude that incestual marriage must be legalized. The conclusion is that it does not -- as long as no one may marry their cousin, the equal protection clause is upheld. If we use the Fourteenth Amendment, we must only defend all types of marriage that apply equally to everyone.

The 14th Amendment IS being upheld with the current definition: all men can marry one woman at one time. Conversely, All women may marry one man at one time. That is why laws against interracial marriages violated the Constitution: Some men could only marry some women, therefore there was no equal protection. Because it's impossible for the law to state that marriage is between people that like/love each other, then there is no issue for equal protection for homosexuals.


Another issue based on a comment I heard on the radio today. It's impossible for marriage to be considered a right, therefore discrimination via the definition of marriage cannot be considered unconstitutional. Remember, every right in the Constitution only requires that others in essence leave you alone to exercise your own rights (except for the right to a trial by jury, of course). If marriage were a right, any person could go up to another person and claim that it is their right to marry that person. And the person on the receiving end would be powerless to stop that demand. (Yes, this argument is analogous to the best argument against the health care mandate.) Therefore, marriage cannot be considered a right. Furthermore, that means that whoever writes the definition of marriage has the freedom to define it in whatever way society deems appropriate (barring of course inter-racial/religious/nationality prohibitions). Society has decided to define marriage as something between one man and one woman at one time, so no one has the power to use the argument that their rights are being violated.

I'm kind of struggling with the constitutional/unconstitutional line of justification for this. Presumably you're aware that the 14th amendment did not come out of nowhere- it was an acknowledgement that the constitution was flawed and needed amending.

To be honest, I've never really understood the worship of the constitution in some parts of American politics. Don't misunderstand me- it's a brilliant document, and well worthy of respect, but for me its major achievement is that it can be amended, and even that those amendments can be reversed. It's a living document, and that's what makes it so great.

Maybe heading a bit off topic with this, but I hope you see my general point.

[Symmetry]

Thought I'd add a poll- we've all discussed this fairly extensively, it would be interesting to see if anyone changed their opinions. Please bear in mind that it's not a poll about gay marriage exactly- I'm just kind of interested in whether this affected anyone's point of view on the subject.

Kind of an experiment. And the "did not change either way" option isn't a cop out.

[keiths31]

This thread has gotten stupid...it's not even enjoyable to read anymore. I think the issue is dead. Let it go.

[Symmetry]

This thread has gotten stupid...it's not even enjoyable to read anymore. I think the issue is dead. Let it go.

Meh- I kind of put the poll in as it's clearly entering its end game. It's not quite over yet, but I would like to see if the discussion had an influence, and there are a few lines of conversation/argument still going on.

[Night Strike]

I'm kind of struggling with the constitutional/unconstitutional line of justification for this. Presumably you're aware that the 14th amendment did not come out of nowhere- it was an acknowledgement that the constitution was flawed and needed amending.

The 14th Amendment was inserted primarily to make sure states didn't try to institute slavery-esque policies that the federal government had already abolished. However now, the amendment is used almost exclusively to justify every single program or policy the federal government passes and to force those programs onto the states as a defacto repeal of the 10th Amendment. However nowhere in the 14th Amendment did it repeal the 10th Amendment, so it's another case of incorrect interpretations being used to justify an expansion of the federal government.

To be honest, I've never really understood the worship of the constitution in some parts of American politics. Don't misunderstand me- it's a brilliant document, and well worthy of respect, but for me its major achievement is that it can be amended, and even that those amendments can be reversed. It's a living document, and that's what makes it so great.

It's great that the document can be amended, but the reason it is so valued in the country is because that document is supposed to be the framework on how our federal government is to operate. It's not worshiping a document to strongly believe that the government should actually follow its own rules. If our federal government can somehow go around and make policies that don't follow the Constitution, we will quickly be heading down the road to a tyrannical government. The Constitution is pretty specific in the limited number of powers the people chose to grant to the federal government, and all we people are now asking is for the government to stop unilaterally expanding their own powers beyond the scope of that document.

[Metsfanmax]

The 14th Amendment IS being upheld with the current definition: all men can marry one woman at one time. Conversely, All women may marry one man at one time. That is why laws against interracial marriages violated the Constitution: Some men could only marry some women, therefore there was no equal protection. Because it's impossible for the law to state that marriage is between people that like/love each other, then there is no issue for equal protection for homosexuals.

Laws against interracial marriage said that any man could marry any woman with the same color skin. That is, everyone had the same requirement: you can only marry one woman/man whose skin color is the same as yours. That sounds pretty equal to me, no? Everyone has the same rule to follow.

[Symmetry]

The 14th Amendment IS being upheld with the current definition: all men can marry one woman at one time. Conversely, All women may marry one man at one time. That is why laws against interracial marriages violated the Constitution: Some men could only marry some women, therefore there was no equal protection. Because it's impossible for the law to state that marriage is between people that like/love each other, then there is no issue for equal protection for homosexuals.

Laws against interracial marriage said that any man could marry any woman with the same color skin. That is, everyone had the same requirement: you can only marry one woman/man whose skin color is the same as yours. That sounds pretty equal to me, no? Everyone has the same rule to follow.

No- it's different. I'm against marrying a person of another race- it's not a right granted by the constitution.

I'm now in favour of people marrying a person of a different race- it's in the constitution.

Of course, now, in the present day, I think that the constitution is pretty changeable and basing moral opinions on what should or shouldn't be allowed solely based on it seems a little ridiculous to me.

[Night Strike]

The 14th Amendment IS being upheld with the current definition: all men can marry one woman at one time. Conversely, All women may marry one man at one time. That is why laws against interracial marriages violated the Constitution: Some men could only marry some women, therefore there was no equal protection. Because it's impossible for the law to state that marriage is between people that like/love each other, then there is no issue for equal protection for homosexuals.

Laws against interracial marriage said that any man could marry any woman with the same color skin. That is, everyone had the same requirement: you can only marry one woman/man whose skin color is the same as yours. That sounds pretty equal to me, no? Everyone has the same rule to follow.

No, because the law didn't allow everyone to be on the same plane. Since a man could only marry some women, the amendment was being violated.

[natty dread]

No, because the law didn't allow everyone to be on the same plane. Since a man could only marry some women, the amendment was being violated.

a) a man can only marry some women
b) a man can only marry women

How is a different from b?

[PLAYER57832]

The 14th Amendment IS being upheld with the current definition: all men can marry one woman at one time. Conversely, All women may marry one man at one time. That is why laws against interracial marriages violated the Constitution: Some men could only marry some women, therefore there was no equal protection. Because it's impossible for the law to state that marriage is between people that like/love each other, then there is no issue for equal protection for homosexuals.

Laws against interracial marriage said that any man could marry any woman with the same color skin. That is, everyone had the same requirement: you can only marry one woman/man whose skin color is the same as yours. That sounds pretty equal to me, no? Everyone has the same rule to follow.

No, because the law didn't allow everyone to be on the same plane. Since a man could only marry some women, the amendment was being violated.

You wish to claim that is true because it matches your beliefs. There is, however no logical reason to deny homosexuals the same priviliages hetersexuals enjoy. The difference is just that you feel homosexuality violates your religion. Well, plenty in the south belief interracial marriage violates religion as well.

In order to prove a real distinction, you have to show how allowing these people to marry will cause you harm. So far, all you have said is "it changes the definition", along with some utterly irrelevant bit about how divorce is ruining the institution of marriage.

Oh.. by-the-way, by continuing to call this an "institution", you are actually violating your own arguments, because an institution is something established by the government.