CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Do you think Same Sex Marriage should be reversed?
With a simple majority of 5 to 4 SCOTUS was no5 convinced that SSM should be forced on all. The dissenting arguments were more compelling. America generally opposed same sex marriage. Obama appointed 11 openly gay federal judges and a lot of liberal judges. The cases took that path to the SCOTUS where Obama had added two gay apologist judges.
The other side is that it is a right which someone claims is implied in the 14th Amendment.
I'm personally indifferent towards the moral aspects of this issue (I couldn't care less what legal status two consenting adults wish to possess), therefore my argument is solely from a legal standpoint. In short, the Supreme Court, being an entity of the Judicial branch of government, possesses no Constitutional (and therefore legal) authority to create law, which lies exclusively in the grasp of the Legislative branch. Given this, their arbitration (as opposed to interpreting a law to such an effect, which falls within their jurisdiction) is illegal, and should therefore be abolished.
Actually, that is exactly what they did. They created a law allowing SSM and then imposed it upon all stares and citizens. It is akin to the slavery laws. Which a SCOTUS court upheld.
No. That's actually not what they did. They ruled that every state had to treat gay marriage just like straight marriage. That doesn't mean a new law was created.
They didn't create slavery laws either. Congress created amendments to ban the practice.
You know the answer to that question, right? So, you know which political party initially decided that restrictions were a good idea for marriage right? So, which political party do you sound more like when you decide to restrict marriages for gays?
But no amendment has been created to cover gay marriage. The 13th ammendment explicitly refers to abolishment of slavery. The 14th amendment says nothing about gay marriage.
You can't ban gay marriage without preventing equal treatment under the 14th amendment.
So, which part of the equal protection clause was put into use?
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
This is a reference to the privileges which had already existed at least in some states. Such as with interracial marriage. That privilege was abridged by the Virginia racial purity law, but initially the law did not exist.
I don't see how the clause covers totally new interpretations of what constitutes a privilege to which citizens are entitled. Such as with gay marriage, polygamous marriage, homosexual incestuous marriage e.t.c
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is with reference to protection under criminal and civil law. I.e. everyone has the same rights to defend themselves in court. Still no connection to various interpretations of the term "marriage".
A literal implementation of the equal protection clause would be to allow civil unions, and grant this right to every consenting adult person.
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I'm a simple man, and the Constitution is a simple document. That's by DESIGN..
Now, you can SAY the words above DON'T mean what they do, but I ain't buying it.. In the language I speak, those words mean that if you have a right, I have that same right..
If they wanted to limit it like you SAY they did, they could have SAID so, but they DIDN'T..
The words say what they mean, and mean what they say..
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This part of the clause doesn't even apply here.
Which laws specifically are reffered to, in the case of gay marriage?
Was the statement meant to apply to any possible future interpretation of legal terms? I.e. if you refuse to interpret the term marriage in our new way, it means you're refusing us equal protection of the law?
So, which part of the equal protection clause was put into use?
The first part. States were starting to legalize gay marriage, so it was just like interracial marriage.
A literal implementation of the equal protection clause would be to allow civil unions, and grant this right to every consenting adult person.
That doesn't actually change anything. It doesn't matter what you call it. It's a good idea. It would show that it is a government registration, and would simplify things. But, the government does not like simplifying things.
The first part. States were starting to legalize gay marriage, so it was just like interracial marriage.
Well I guess I kind of walked myself into a trap. My main argument was different, but more complicated and I was saving it for the future. But the way I formulated my post actually supports the other side. My fault here. I will post my main argument later after some editing.
That doesn't actually change anything. It doesn't matter what you call it.
I disagree. The term marriage has a lot of connotations and just saying that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, leaves an implicit psychologial messages to kids. That, in my view is the main reason why tha gay ageda has been struggling to have marriage, not just civil unions. It gives them a much better opportunity to push their narrative onto impressionate children. Which is not really so neutral or innocent.
I myself have never been against civil unions, with no restriction on the sex or quantity of participants. Marriage is a totally different thing, or should be at least.
The term marriage has a lot of connotations and just saying that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, leaves an implicit psychologial messages to kids.
This is not avoided by calling all marriages civil unions.
SCOTUS erred. Obama appointed two justices who lied during confirmation. The decision was 5 to 4 and no valid constitutional argument for it was ever made. Trump will appoint two more justices and a 7 to 2 decision will reverse the Obama court and 120 conservative federal judges will keep thinks in order.
The government doesn't use definitions to determine how to handle situations, it uses policies. Your statement is fucking stupid. You are like a child.
All laws are based on some tuupe of morality. Consenting adult is a spurious legal definition. Changing the definition of marriage is likecha given the definition of citizen to mean anyone in the world.
The Supreme Court operated solidly within its Constitutional jurisprudence, just as it would have had its ruling gone the other way. A case was brought before the Court on the constitutionality of a class of legal practices. The court created no law, but instead ruled on that class of practice. It's ruled that any congressional jurisdiction which permits marriage or civil union generally but creates concurrent prohibitions thereupon for a certain class of persons is in violation of federal law visa vis the Equal protection clause and previous federal judicial precedents. The Supreme Court has mandated compliance with pre-existing and a priori law passed by the US Congress; that create no new law. Notably, its ruling does not require any jurisdiction to recognize same sex marriage. What it actually requires is that if that jurisdiction recognizes other marital unions then it must extend that recognition equally under the law.
The idea of consenting adult is a cop out, because states decide that and not SCOTUS. When one says consenting adults it becomes a state issue and not SCOTUS.
Same Sex Marriage is not a right and it was forced on America due to the actions of Obama. It is not a done deal because Trump will add two more justices and 11 immediate federal judges and a total of 120 federal judges.
Here the FRAUD goes with more nonsense marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution but the SCOTUS should be the kangaroo court just bypassing Congress. Your a Classic Progressive FRAUD !
So the right to an abortion isn't in there either. But check out the Ninth Amendment. Then maybe you won't think that progressives are FRAUDS, but merely just frauds. Or something.
Outlaw, have you not figured it out yet. EVERYTHING a liberal demands is in the Constitution. You just have to stick your nose in a little deeper and find it. LOL
You must keep up... The 9th Amendment is where you find gay marriage, not abortion.. You probably won't find the word, though.. That's because the Constitution was written for adults..
I agree. The problem that liberals and liberal gays have is two fold. There is no scientific nor Constitutional basis to support same sex marriage or homosexuality. So, enters the fraud Obama. Americans focused on the birther issue and Muslim thing, but ignored three gays at his Rev. Wright church who said that Obama was down low gay. At worse, this set Obama up to be blackmailed. Obama stacked the court with liberal federal judges, 11 openly gay federal judges and two SCOTUS gay apologist judges. Same Sex Marriage is not constitutional. It was an Obama totalitarian move.
Marriage is a Constitutional right. It does not need to be written in constitutional form Under United States Constitution or Amendment of. The United States Constitution and Amendments to the United States Constitution do not place any limit on Constitutional meaning. This means any meaning derived from both basic principle and legal precedent by word meets a basic Title as Constitutional.
1. The United States Constitution is an official document of impartial Judicial separation.
2. Because something is a Constitutional right does not also make it legal.
3. Because a Law is written does not make the law legal.
4. Laws are tests which can be conducted in a process of separation. Laws are most effective when they are conducted in an impartial method of separation.
The Argument of debate is a question with an answer that was never tested as illegal. All trials were tested as immoral to use double jeopardy as a shield form the crime once in a Court of law.
The Crime sir is you are being tricked to commit perjury and do not know it. This and only this is what must be defended as a United States Constitutional obligation. Judicial Law is being manipulated to make you the criminal.
Well, this is a debate on same-sex marriage, not on Mr. Obama's personal issues. I Am not trying to present an argument here in the first place, I just wanted to point out the irrelevance of this.
Sorry, not Even SCOTUS said that same sex marriage was a right and they imposed it based on a fictious Dignity clause. They cited nothing in the Constitution.
In fact, slow-brain, Trump will not overturn anything. It will be based on the Constitution and the SCOTUS court.
This is a very ignorant response and rather ironic. Same sex marriage is a human right. And the fact is, you fear what you consider to be abnormal, you are using the amendments as a way of trying to cover up the fact you have no idea what you're talking about. I can't take homophobes seriously, the reason being, they speak no sense. come back with some real facts, maybe then someone will take you seriously.
Marriage is a right in all Constitution. Not some Constitution. This includes the United States Constitution. Why? It is a Instruction to specification of Judicial Constitutional Separation. The legal test on marriage is against the Separation of church and State.
1. State means word State. Not boundary state of governing ground here. A definition the word can make between two points. Point one (a) basic principle, point two (b) legal precedent. Can the meaning by a method separating the definition from morality alone on behalf of marriage be made in this context? Yes it can. Why is it not then? Because the witness is being manipulated by confusion of interpretation. The witness only need tell what a witness sees.
Yes, there are states the word represents that are entwined in these rights. this is only an addition of interpretation away form the one criminal issue that can be tried in court at any trial.
Obama made two appointments to the Supreme Court which is not sufficient for a majority, so your claim is a bit of a reach. Trump will add his Justices and, similarly, will not bear full responsibility for their rulings since the rest of the Court was not appointed by him. Further, all members of the Court were confirmed by Congress so the responsibility is dispersed there as well for both Obama and Trump. More accurately, the rulings are attributable to the justices who make them since they are not obliged to the Executive in any way.
Same sex marriage is not a guaranteed right, but neither is opposite sex marriage. The federal Constitution guarantees neither, and the decision to recognize marital unions is reserved to that states or any lower authority the states relegate the decision to. However, where any jurisdiction within the United States decides to recognize some martial unions it must recognize all of them pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause. It is still entirely the prerogative for states and local jurisdictions to not recognize marital unions at all, and some localities have taken that liberty.
No, Obama added two justices and they lied and claimed that same sex marriage was not a constitutional right. Obama then appointed 11 openly gay federal justices and over 50 liberal federal justices. Except for when they mhhrdered Sclaia and it being in the land duck years, the Senate will confirm the appointed, not the Congress.
Your citing of the equal protection clause makes no sense, because the jurisdiction made no decision. You are saying that if normal marriages are accepted, then polygamy marriage or donkey and human marriages must be accepted.
You are making stuff up, because an adult can have sex with a 16 year old in Arkansas, but not in California. And the couple can not move to California and claim that their union was legal in Arkansas. Also, a person can start drinking at 18 in some states, but if they move to California, and even if they're an alcoholic then they have to wait until they are 21.
Yes, Obama appointed two Supreme Court Justices and the Senate is a part of Congress. That's all consistent with what I said, so I'm not sure what you think you're disagreeing with. My point was that blaming Obama is a bit contrived since he didn't appoint most of them and it's really the justices who decided anyways.
The jurisdiction made a decision to pass a law and a private citizen sued them for it. The case reached the Supreme Court and they decided to hear it. That's literally the only way the Supreme Court can rule on anything, and it's what happened here. So the Equal Protection Clause is entirely relevant.
Because the Supreme Court does not have to hear a case just because it is brought before it, there is no reason to assume that a ruling for polygamy or zoophilia would ever be heard. Because the particulars surrounding such cases would differ from those surrounding SSM, there is no reason to assume the ruling would go similarly either.
The EPC can also be over-ridden by legitimate state interests. In the case of SSM the Supreme Court ruled that such an interest did not exist. In the case of statutory rape and minors in possession, the judiciary has held that there is (namely, protecting minors). The authority to determine the legal age of majority has remained reserved to the states, except for federal enfranchisement. I think you're right that this reservation of authority is inconsistent from marital law to assault or drinking law, but that doesn't invalidate the application of the EPC on SSM since it could just as equally be argued that the other authorities should not have been reserved to the states. Moreover, that inconsistency isn't necessarily unconstitutional and is essentially a consequence of a rolling body of justices.
There are only NINE justices in the supreme court.... Any lower court person is called a JUDGE... Thought you might wanna know just to not confuse everyone you talk to.
However, where any jurisdiction within the United States decides to recognize some martial unions it must recognize all of them pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause
What do you mean, "recognize all of them"? There are countless possibilities as to how matrial union may be redefined in the future.
I spoke a bit loosely. Obviously, the EPC doesn't extend to protect behavior which clearly and directly violates the rights or wellbeing of those under it's jurisdiction. This is the legal basis from which human trafficking is not protected under commerce law, nor speech intended to incite violence, etc. However, most marital unions don't constitute a clear and direct harm to the wellbeing of any party (homosexual union plainly doesn't). The only probable case I can think of would be continued restriction on pedophilic union, given the well-documented psychological (and, in some cases, physical) harms to children. Possibly incestual unions, although I think that's rather tenuous. But if you're thinking poly, zoophilia, etc. I don't think there's a legal basis for exception to the EPC.
Sodomy is dangerous and unhealthy and should be treated like quarantine for any disease. The issue is marriage and the attempt to cha he the definition to something that it is not.
I remember when AIDS was first identified as a disease, it was in the newspaper in the early eighties about a virus discovered when suddenly many sodomites were falling deathly ill and dying. When the disease was first identified, it was called GRID....Gay Related Immune Deficiency. The name was quickly changed to AIDS to avoid putting the blame where it belongs, on sodomites, for fear of attacks on sodomites.
SCOTUS appealed to the special protection clause, thus implicitly defining "gay marriage" as a privilege. So it can't be considered a "right" even according to the SCOTUS ruling.
No illegal acts cannot be reversed by legislation of Congressional law. Damage done, so to speak. It is a crime that has taken place and left unenforced by the Court, meaning a law has been broken and not tested to insure the general welfare. A New declarations can be constitutionally applied adding and define a witnessed separation between civil liberties.
A plagiarism is publicly used describing a wrong doing, and it can be foundation for Constitutional finding. An example of grievance to define a state of this union and form separation from perjury among other crimes.
This new State of this Union forces a response of agreement or calls for an open common defense by written argument of why it should not proceed in imperial separation only. This is a witnessing event and has a standard of independence delegated by existing written law.
Binivir meaning only a non-sexually descriptive union between two men. A likelihood to which has always been capable of being performed in society.
UnosMulier meaning only a non-sexually descriptive union between two women. A likelihood to which has always been capable of being performed in society.
It is your liberty to make any presumption you wish, I am defending the United States Constitution.
To understand the principle behind my argument. Something being a right does not make it legal. When something is illegal it is going to be continual tested by judicial separation. This has a cost to the tax payer. That is why we have law so it can be legally tested.
So, do you think SSM is a right and if so based on WHAT? If you say because you think sexual orientation is a protected class then you would be wrong. Sexual orientation is not even a quasi-suspect class. If sexual orientation is ever made a protected class, then according to the APA that would inlcude pedophilia.
Sooner or later you conservatives will probably get your way.
But here's a few problems with that you need to keep in mind...
1) You're on the wrong side of history. I'm serious. 50 years from now your kids and grandkids will look back at opposition to gay marriage with the same kind of amazement people today feel when they read about men who opposed women getting the right to vote. The inevitable path in the Western world is for protection of homosexual rights. The only way you can go back from that is if you are throwing out Western society itself in favor of Old World theocratic and authoritarian structures.
2) You right now are setting a precedent that it is somehow acceptable to reject what the highest court in the land decides as long as you disagree with it. Which also means someday, when you finally get the balance of power to shift in the rulings, then you will have no basis whatsoever to look down on the critics who take shots at the new rulings. And just like you may now think abortion clinic bombers are in their rights and homophobic behaviors are in their rights you then will have to watch the more liberal counter voice also bombing what they bomb and hating what they hate and just accept they're never going to stop. You set a dangerous precedent when you think it's OK to thumb your nose at a final court ruling.
3) The fact remains that voluntary homosexuality hurts no one engaged in voluntary heterosexuality. Your objection to them living their lives how they want is analogous to when people hated garlic eating immigrants even though they themselves need not be eating garlic.
(1) We are all on the wrong side of history, eventually. Moral perspectives are temporally subjective, and the notion of progress a myth. There is only people in the present passing judgement on others, present and past, from the basis of their personal subjective preferences. Why should the opinion of the future matter at all, let alone more than the opinion of the present? Particularly when we consider that tomorrow's morality will eventually be wrong too from the perspective of a still later tomorrow.
(2) This is a strawman. They are not advocating rejecting the decision of the Supreme Court (nor bombing abortion clinics). They are asking whether people think the Court should reverse its decision, which is entirely its prerogative and doesn't set a particularly dangerous precedent.
(3) Moral psychology suggests that conservative and liberal oriented persons regard the constitution of morality in significantly different ways. Perhaps most relevant in this case, conservatives tend to emphasize purity harms in their moral considerations which liberals do not. From that basis, voluntary homosexuality hurts the people involved and also damages the overall social fabric. With that in mind, claiming that there are no harms may be more an assertion than a complete argument.
I respect Jace that you always bring solid arguments.
History - yes it's true that history usually goes back and forth. But then again if society is going to take away the right for women to vote, or re-enslave Blacks, or establish a monarchy over democracy, then I'm afraid my time and place in that history has been a failure. I don't believe the US is about to go back to any of those earlier ways, and likewise I don't think it will go back to banning or villifying homosexuality or gay marriage, which is why I say banning same sex marriage is the wrong side of history.
SC Decisions - Actually many of the critics of same sex marriage do indeed advocate disobeying the SC or blowing up abortion clinics. I've debated them on three different debate websites. I know I'm correct when I say if the ruling went in their favor and the rest of us advocated disobeying or blowing stuff up they'd be dumbfounded and would argue we simply must respect the verdict of the SC.
Harm - It is true that perceiving a harm is often equated with actual harm, such as with victims of sexual harrassment. I disagree completely though with your characterization of purity and morals between conservatives and liberals. Per your argument women who continued to show their ankles back in the day they were supposed to cover them up somehow committed actual harm to those who were complaining. Or whites who insisted eating next to a black person turned their stomach had somehow actually been physicall harmed by the black person being there.
Thanks! Likewise, I appreciate your presence here. It's always a pleasure.
History: While I can understand why those developments would be a failure from your perspective, I'm not sure how that relates to my concerns with your earlier remarks. Rather than a condemnation from the future, it's one from the immediate present. I don't think it's especially likely that the US would revert on many of the things you mention either, but I also don't think I'm quite as certain as you that it wouldn't. And over enough time the US won't even exist anymore, which makes the possibility of homophobia (etc.) more likely than if we just contain the discussion to the US. Moreover, even if there were never a reversal on these matters that seems more like an observation of who won the disagreement than who was right (morally or rationally).
SC Decisions: Many of them do, of course. It just didn't seem to be the purview of the prompt we were responding to, but I don't bother remembering the OP to be honest and if you were bringing that extra info to the table then it makes sense. Thanks for explaining.
Harm: I'm not defending the view, to be clear. I think purity harms are fairly indefensible, but my argument against them relies either on my presupposing my own ideas about harm or my subjective beliefs that morality at large is indefensible. I'm curious what argument you have against purity harms in particular. It's clear you find them objectionable, but not evident why. In terms of valid argumentation, then, it's not really terribly different from someone just asserting that women's ankles are harmful... or that homosexuality is, for that matter.
Your arguments are baseless and not well structured.
You mention blacks and women, but fail to cite the history of their rights and the Constitutional process. You want homosexuality and same sex marriage to come about without a legal or constitutional process.
When slavery ended, they were not able to simply say okay they are freed and they have rights under the Bill of Rights. No, they freed them with the 13th Amendment, established rights with the 14th and voting rights with the 15th.
Then women came along and there was the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, but they were not designed for women despite women trying to use them. Women did had to go throu hhst t the Constitution, like blacks and amend it won't the 19th Amendment.
Gays do not want to do what is required and they want to ignore the Constitution. Before the SCOTUS decision gays had a chance, but nkw support for SSM is a low 30%.
SC Decision...you act as if gays and liberals did not b,is stuff up. In fact, over 1,000 churches have been blown up, burned or vandalised, by gays, since
2002. Also, look at all the liberal violence during the election and even afterwards.
You call blowing up abortion clinics violence, well be sure to tell us that when gays start calling for us to blow up Islamic countries who behead gays or when we blew up two innocent Japanese cities. Your argument is baseless, since liberals have blown up more stuff and gays even more. Dylan Roof was gay and he killed 9 blacks in church, because the church opposed SSM.
Hmm, you've been a member for 5 days, and you sound like either FromWithin or SaintNow. I see you adding to SaintNow's comment in the other column so I think odds are you're just another double identity for a regular member. And you know what, when people have to resort to trickery to try to move their agenda forward it's kind of an admission they don't think they have a very good case.
Why not, you liberals waited 7,000 years a d for Obama to get your way.
We are not concern3r by your refusal to be rational.
1. Yeah, the slaves owners set the same and you liberal Democrats went to war to defend slavery. There is no such thing as gay marriage. It is same sex marriage, which is just like incest marriage, polygamy marriage or pedophilia marriage. It has nothing to do with western sociery, except for the destruction of it. After 7,000 years, all societies have proven that SSM at best is it needed and at worse is destructive like a chemical warfare attack.
2. Yet, the same thing happened with slavery, the highest court in the land ruled that slavery was legal and they did that under Democrats. The Republicans came in and the highest court in the land reversed that decision and ruled slavery illegal. And for over 100 years you Democrats fought against it and opposed Civil Rights Acts for blacks.
3. That is no fact and a lie. Voluntary homosexuality has nothing to do with same sex marriage. We with polygamous relationships but that it not reason to justify polygamy. You lose when You shift the argument from same sex marriage to whether homosexuality hurts someone. It hurts the gay, their parents, the spouses and any children involved. AIDS, suicide, drug abuse and children being without one basic necessary parent.
Here we have a fool who supports no restriction abortion. This fool lacks the simple intellect to not see how his entire argument is speaking to how someday his kids and grandkids will look back at his support of abortion on demand (just as idiots who supported slavery), and be shamed to have a relative in their family who supported such hideous inhumanity towards our innocent lives.
Sanctioning Homosexual marriage hurts all our children by sending them the message that unnatural abnormal sex is normal and something they can experiment with.
You are truly a fool not to get it. Look at our culture and think just once in your life.
Nope, your no restriction abortion smear is a favorite of yours which I have countered a dozen times on this site already. I do not support it. And the only way you ever arrive at someone supports it is by claiming voting even once for a Democrat makes it so. Not good enough. Nowhere close to true.
And your critique of homosexual marriage would actually slam lots of straight married couples. Many of them also have anal sex, and oral sex, sex during their periods, and all kinds of fetish sex. Some straight families have incest and rape and pedophilia. There's tons of bad example involving drugs and alcohol. There's domestic violence blowing the roof off. And there's religious crackpots keeping their kids in brainwashing camp. All that happens in all sorts of straight married couples. Guess we shouldn't let the straights get married either.
Why do I ever bother thinking I would get an honest credible argument from you?
For you to keep denying what you support with no restriction abortions is mind numbingly childishly stupid.
Gay marriage sanctions an unnaturral abnormal sexual orientation as being normal to our children....FOOL!
What any person does in the bedroom is not known or talked about to our children. What we are talking about has nothing to do with any particular sex act, but fools like you bring it up to try and defend the indefensible.
It has everything to do with an unnatural abnormal sexual relationship being lifted up as normal to our impressionable children. Let me repeat... you absolute fool!
Your last post was a rehash which answered none of the holes I blasted in your position. But let's address the "fool" label.
I may in fact be a fool. We all are fools sometimes. I'm human. I can make mistakes.
If I think there's a chance I might be wrong I'll admit it.
I remember once criticizing you for always saying I'm going to hell, you objected, and on closer look it was SaintNow who did that and not you. And I admitted it. Remember that? Granted there's a better than average chance FromWithin and SaintNow are the same player anyway, but I owned up to it.
Have you ever done anything like that? No. Not once.
You've been lambasted for your habit of banning and many of us have caught you in lies about the reason you do it. Any admission from you on it? Never.
And basically, isn't anyone who is fixated on a particular topic a fool? Whether it be conservativism or liberalism, or one narrow interpretation of god, or abortion? When everything you say and breathe comes down to one topic aren't you essentially a fool? Of course. But you'll never admit that.
First of all, what kind of moron could possibly think me and Saintnow are the same person?
I guess that just shows how bigoted leftwing Liberals think. They lump all Christians together. Kind of like how racists lump all Black people together.
I have apologised to people when I have been wrong about some issue. I DON'T LIE OR DECIEVE PEOPLE, so I have never had to apologise for a lie.
You are the fake news. You throw out garbage of how I lie about things but you give us no examples or evidence of such lies.
When even no restriction abortions comes to an end, as did slavery, I will no longer speak to the barbaric inhuman fools who keep it legal. Fools can't prioritise issues to their importance. The Left worries more about forcing every public schools to allow boys in our daughters bathrooms. I though the Left was big on privacy? Oh, I forget, that only applies to the privacy of a person to kill an unborn baby.
Let me repeat... you fool! You are not foolish as we all are at times..... you are a fool! Big difference.
I don't call people names unless they are such deceptive phonies. Most posts you write revolve around phony suggestions of how you are moderate! With most issues you side with the extreme Left. You voted for a corrupt Liberal Hillary Clinton which says it all. You spew the same hateful rhetoric about Trump with NO EVIDENCE!!!!!
I've witnessed you repost verbatim the argument of your alleged counterpart in a thread. Sometimes you forget which character you're posting under. Others on this site have pointed it out, too.
As for being a big fool, perhaps that is true. I doubt, however, that the majority of our peers on this debate site would consider me a fool. That seems to be just you and the other heads of your hydra avatar team.
If you took the time to see our banter back and forth, only a complete MORON would suggest we are the same person.
Looks like another apology on the way. If you were not such fake news and did not blurt out mindless accusations with no evidence, maybe people would not call you a fool.
Actually you could have staged that entire thing just so you can trot it out when facing this accusation. You folks who spend a lot of time on this site with multiple avatars will go to great lengths to keep up your charades.
There's really no way for an average member of this site to know definitively who it is they're debating against and which combination of avatars they control. So you could be right, you could be wrong. I don't know.
I've seen what I've seen. I'm not going to apologize.
LOL, of course you won't apologise, you are a total fool!
To even suggest I would spend that much time writing counter arguments against myself all because I was trying to fool people like you? Look at how many posts we wrote to each other! ROFLOL
I ban people like you for this very reason. You are mindlessly stupid people and a total waste of time to debate.
So tell me in all your stupidity, why would I want to have alias names to fool people who I BAN? There's a reason why I ban you and it is not because I want to waste time bantering words with you.
The reason people create an alias is to fool people they want to debate.
I have only one name, and need no other names to fool people. I'm not a deceptive person and would be a moron to try to purposely deceive people. I would lose all respect for myself if I lowered myself to such deceptive practices. That is something people on the Left would be more apt to do.
"I'm not a deceptive person and would be a moron to try to purposely deceive people." - Ha ha ha, that's a rich lie right there. An army of people have accused you on this site of banning them for no reason, lieing about why you banned them, and being ridiculously nasty to them in the process. Plus your constant attempts to label me and everyone as supporting the most extreme of abortions - based on that we ever voted for a Democrat - is also pure outrage and deception.
You have a mission on this site to push pro life at any cost, and if multiple avatars and staged debates could help accomplish that you'd do it in a heart beat.
Again you spew deception and what a shock ... no apology for telling people I have aliases.
You ARE responsible for supporting no restriction abortions. Hillary Clinton acknowledge she is a big supporter of no restriction abortions of viable babies for any reason up to birth.
You voted for her to win the election and in doing so would keep the infanticide legal. It is absolutely no different then a person voting for a KKK member and then saying he is not responsible for racist policies in America.
But of course you would never vote for a KKK member because of the one issue of racism, but when it comes to no restriction abortions of viable babies, you are not a one issue voter.
Have you noticed how Progressive fool Democrats like Hillary Clinton call Trump supporters deplorable and irredeemable.
So we people who voted for Trump are responsible for what Trump does since we elected him, but hypocritical deniers like you are not responsible for keeping no restriction abortions legal when voting for Hillary.
Do have any idea how laughable your denial of what you support?
THIS IS WHY YOU GET BANNED! Live with who and what you are.
This is simple... IF there are RIGHTS that go along with marriage, and there IS, the 14th Amendment says EVERYBODY is entitled to those rights.. What's so difficult to understand about that??? I thought right wingers LOVED the Constitution... No, huh??
Look.. I can see that you need a little help.. Here's the relevant passage from the 14th Amendment... PLEASE, tell me it DOESN'T say what it says...
"nor shall any state deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This is not the relevant passage form the Fourteenth Amendment to achieve a permission to perform plagiarism of marriage. There is none.
“ nor shall any state deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”
The only constitutional proved equal protection granted to every-one under law is the right of impartiality. Which has already been broken by governing State legislators and civil Court. As Justice is not an equal right, it is a principle and is granted to one side only, or no-one in a trial, this is through basic principle and legal precedent of judicial separation.
The underlying burden of civil accusation does not justify the violation of the United State of Marriage by Unite States Constitutional separation. The problem is this issue has never made it to the Supreme Court under its criminal charge of Perjury. It has been placed inside the Supreme Court Under a civil accusation charging of discrimination. So this requires representation to the United States Constitution as defense for it is being blamed.
As Gay and Lesbian are both accusation and sexual preference a basic separation needs to take place on both accounts. People have no legal right to force the Court to have people witness sexual acts, as this is perjury as a court is being used to approve sex acts as a public exhibition with no self-value. That is reason enough to legally object too many of the verbal accounts being made to all who are made victim of witness manipulation. A Constitutional common defense for the General Welfare.
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.
Marriage is referenced in the same place Donald Trump is.. What??? He's the president.. You'd think the Constitution would recognize the PRESIDENT.. No???
That is not even a good bad argument. That wpuld mean thst Obama was never really president. Hmmm, he really was not. Just think, you liberals wanted a white female affirmative action Title IX president.
Marriage is judicially set in legal precedent by the declaration of Civil Union. Once a State had opened the door to perform a Civil Union in a Court or City hall. Once a Court had made a declaration of Common law Marriage it placed itself right smack in the middle of a crap storm.
Marriage is best associated to the 14th Amendment along the lines of citizenship as it is a way in which people may be nationalized into the United States.
I see what ylu have dond. You initially disputed an argument, but now you clarify it. If you clarify your dispute then you have to dispute or do the clarifying on the other sids.
The confusion comes because I originally objected some-one on my own side of the debate. A Constitutional Right does not insure legality of the Right in question. So Marriage plagiarized with the use of additional wording can effect the legality. It cannot be reversed it must be disproved or proved as guilt. Constitutional is simply saying that law is looking for a verdict that when tested will not perpetuate crime in the end.
Your argument is a dispute. You are right, the 14th Amendment was part of the 13, 14 and 15th Amendment, because the Bill of Rights was not written for Black people. In fact, the Reynolds vs. US case would have been a good test case if the 14th Amendment were written for marriage. It was never even argued.
Really, the 14th Amendment said that? Be respecfful or you will be banned.
If the 14th Amendments gave all these rights, then how comemjt gave black men the right to vote but not women. The 19th Amendment did that. How come the 14th Amendment did not give the Reynolds the right to a polygamy marriage and that case was beard right after the 14th Amendment?
Sorry, fellow, that passage does not cover polygamy, same as marriage nor women voting. It also does not extend rights to minors or allow adults to have sex with children. It also does not grant a Georgia 19 year OLD the right to drink in California. The passage also does not allow a person in California to have sex witnn a 16 year old, just because they can haves ex with 16 year l,d's in Arkansas.
Look.. I'm used to right wingers banning me, so knock yourself out..
"nor shall any state.... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What I LOVE about the Constitution is that it's SHORT and doesn't use any BIG words.. That way, an ordinary fellow like myself can read it and understand it. And, I do.
There are RIGHTS attached to marriage.. That IS a fact. The 14th Amendment says, if YOU have rights, then I have those SAME rights.
If it hasn't worked out that way YET, it's because we're still working on it..
excon
PS> I suggest you learn to discern a law from a right..
I do not ban people are disagree with. I ban people who name call and display childish instabilities to be civil.
Equal protection for pedophiles, rapists, murderers, terrorists, incest, polygamist, loopholes or jhhst 25th behavior of homosexual orientation?
Sorry, people who chose to behave homosexually have never been denied to marry, defined as one man and one woman, and they always had that protection. In fact, many people have been allowed to marry the opposite sex and have chidren, then destroy their families with homosexual pritstituion like romps.
REALLY, then how come the 14th Amendment did not give women the right to vote.
Also, how come another has the right to marry Angelina Jolie and prevent me from marrying her. No, you do not have thr same rights and homksexuals do nkt have the same rifhts and protections as Blacks, Christians or even women.
I suggest that you stop lying and being exposed as a liar. The 14th amendment did not give women the right to vote, so the Constitution was amended to add the 19th Amendment to give women the right to vote.
You hate the Constitution and you think gays, who are not even a quasi-suspect class, should have rights that women did not even have under the 14th Amendment.
I suggest that you learn to deal with it, because Trump will be appointing two more Traditional marriage only judges and 120 traditional marriages on,y federal judges.
One the 14th Amendment didn’t give black men the right to vote it was used as argument to give an ex-Prisoner of War the right to vote. Which can be proved legally necessary considering unlike in WWII the black man had no other representation of national origin after being taken with other soldiers as a P.O.W.
A woman’s right to vote was and still is jeopardized by her understanding of what makes things Constitutional legal.
1. A woman cannot be legally President. This fact does not mean as a man we are placed with the legal burden of stopping all woman from breaking the law, as well as the voters from breaking the law, by misuse of a power to vote. They may in fact only elect her into the Executive office. As she can lie and say she did not want to break the law and be President, did not believe she was breaking the law to be President, Did not care she was breaking the law to be President.
2. A woman can be Executive officer as this is the start of where any crime of my perjury can take place as burden on a witness, she is now asking all voters, not just the willing to the crime as witness on an official document of governing state. The Title only requires her to take the position of President to a United State which self- incriminates her. She takes oath as representation to all men by precedent before the United States Constitution. The history of separation that forms the appearance of discrimination can be addressed in a fashion that at one timed offered equal protection under order of law.
3. The common defense to men as a voter is to simple publicly objecting to a woman President, a female making this claim is having voters break the law.
Therefore I object. The law is a basic principle of state, as witnessed, my test as witness is a woman of age is becomes Prasedera not President. When asked why, any man can tell any, and all woman the same answer. I as a witness to a possible crime of perjury have a right to seek my own representation, as seen fit to any and all crime to which I may been accused. As you have been capable as with by men sitting as President of the United State. Prasedera is a title for a woman as she now being called by vote to represent all woman, on behalf of all woman, before the United State built by United States Constitution separation only. She herself is in fact a witness to impartial judicial Separation.
I think same sex marriage is different but, aren't we all different in our own way. Me personally am not gay but I do think that it is their own right and deserve their own rights. I don't think that the law should be reversed because it has calmed protest. I think that the protesting is blocking the real problems that need to be addressed. I also think that if you don't like that it is legal that you should get over it because it is not your life and they will end up dating anyway so why the hell not.
Interesting. So, claiming protest is the objective. Sorry, but the protests are on the other side. In fact, go after the SCOTUS SAM decision, support for SAM dropped to 39%. Dating is not the issue. Polygamist can date 20 girls if they want, but they can of marry 20 people.
Just wondering. Do you think 15 year olds should be able to marry? If not, then whhh are they allkkwed to have an abortion without parental consent? Do you think that it is okay to change the definition of gay to include pedophiles and rapists? Why not? Won't it help give pedophiles and rapists dignity?
You see, marriage is by definition man and woman. Anything else is not marriage.
Are you suggesting that pedophiles and rapists shoiild have more rights than homosexuals? I mean, all three are simply behaviors and neither are susl3ct or protected classes. It is you who wish to change the meaning of behavior and exclude homosexuality. By the way, all three are sexual behaviors. All three have been illegal and are illegal in most countries. Your argument becomes your desire to judge what is harm and which are most harmful.
I am not suggesting anything yet. I am just trying to understand how you made the link between the three before I defend my position.
Your link is that they are all sexual behaviors and that they are or have been illegal. Yes?
This is not entirely wrong. It is a bit imprecise but I understood what you meant.
Now do you agree that the law is to protect people's freedoms and rights?
If you do then, making pedophilia illegal makes sense. When there is no mature and conscious consent, sex is rape. Older men sleeping with kids is therefore rape. Rape is stepping onto someone else's freedom. Active pedophiles are rapists and are committing a crime.
Rapists. Again when there is no consent you are stepping onto someone else's freedom.
Homosexuals. As long as it is two consenting adults, their fornication isn't stepping onto someone else's freedom.
So your argument of making any homosexual act illegal because it is an abnormal sexual behavior is invalid. The law isn't there to ban weird sexual things. It is there to protect everyone's rights and freedoms.
A woman or young girl has right to Constitutional protection under order of law, Abortion is a self-incrimination and therefore must be recognized by any woman or girl as such. Constitution by principle suggest a term like Gender Specific Amputation as it holds no self-incrimination to the crime of murder.
I think thst you seek the path of least resistance. Personally no one is gay. It is like being fat, it included by the behavior of over indulging. The law has calmed protest from who? Sorry, support for SAM has did does to a low 30 percents.
Yes, I know what the 14Th Amendment addresses. The Fact remains equal protection under the law is impartiality not civil right, as civil right is civil liberty has no equality. When something is a civil right it does not automatically make that liberty taken by liberty legal, it can be tested. The argument is that the United States Constitution is responsible for breaking the law by discrimination. Constitution when applied impartial does not discriminate, it is a separation process placed by basic principle and legal precedent to present order of law. Order of law, No-one has ever stopped a Lesbian woman from being married to a Gay man. A rule of marriage is not law it is a condition set by the practice or event, not every-one can see the perjury in this crime as obvious, it has been obscured, hidden by points of discrimination. If reasoning had just been the only witness objection the 14Th Amendment might be proved to be applicable.
Like written earlier Constitutional law has been broken, there is no fixing it. It cannot be reversed. The United States Constitution is defended now by declaring two men in a private likelihood titled BiniVir. No witness need to know or confirm the two men are Gay. By precedent a Marriage has legal precedent for divorce when a man is found to be gay, this creates a conflict of interest. This type of confusion can be separated impartially for the witness by judicial process.
To understand the principle behind my argument. Something being a right does not make it legal. When something is illegal it is going to be continual tested by judicial separation. No immunity. This has a cost to the tax payer. That is why we have Constitutional law so it can be legally tested and not become a burden by counsel for a state of perpetual funding.
This is a dispute. Make sure that when you dispute an arguemnt that you mark dispute. It causes those that agree to have to dsilhte you and those who disagree have to agree
Well, we have a solid definition of marriage going on in the US laws which opposes this, but my position is that same-sex couples should be able to form families like straight couples do. That either calls for a re-definition of marriage, or a official government-recognized family of gay/lesbian couples (I don't care about the wording, but I support this)
If same sex couples could form families like straight couples do then you would have apoint. The function of civilised society is mom and dad married and children having a mom and dad. I have 6 siblings, counting me, and all from the same mom and dad. My parents will never die, because I see them in my siblings, in looks and behaviors. The idea of same sex parents is designed upon children. It having their billlogical mom and dad. It is a worse case scenario.
Well, the same-sex couple would be effectively "married" and they can adopt children just like straight couples sometimes do. Same-sex adoption is good, as children need homes and same-sex couples can raise children just as well as their traditional counterparts do. As with remembrance, we have photos to deal with that. Regardless, a truly loving family doesn't need looks to remember the others.
The irony is that children raised in same sex homes say that you are wrong. They will tell you that a child needs both mom and dad. Why should a same sex couple be allowed to adopt any children, unless they can find a child that was procreated by two same sex people. You are saying that heterogeneous children should be forced to be adopted by homosexual parents and be denied one of the sexes.
Okay, you decide, which sex should be forever precluded from same sex adoptions? You are saying that when a same sex couple adopts, a child should be denied one of the sexes, so which one?
Same gender couples can start families like other male female couples. This is a public test of infidelity which becomes perjury when the union is legal witnessed. I see no reason to believe that a married couple could not reach terms of reproduction outside the limit placed by marriage. The debate is about consent isn't it?
The 14th Amendment point is that any and all children are conceived by a citizen of record in the union of Marriage presented by Nation and union of state.