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.
Bill of Rights of The United States of America (1791)
The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power. The Founders saw these as natural rights of the people. The first 10 Amendments are linked here for those of you whom might be confused or lack understanding of the Amendments.
Let's remember the Obama led SCOTUS said gay marriage was a right. So where might it state in the first 10 Amendments of 1791 that marriage is a natural right whether it be heterosexual or homosexual marriage ?
Its actually a contract, in contracts, individual rights are given up by choice and agreement.
We have the right of choice for all things, to pursue the life we want and live peaceful tranquil lives including marriage.
But marriage has to follow civil law between 2 people and alsp natural law - heterosexual.
Gays have a right to benefits of partnership, joint ownership and benefis and tax laws.
But they its appropriaye as a private decission, not a public display of conflict of morality against the Neutral morality of society, which should be G Rated, and appropriate for all
Rights given or not given are by agreement of Contract
And rights are subject to agreement of Contract.
So although states defined divisions of assets, they also defined marriage.
If States do not observe contract, due to definition of participants, it has place to be argued, repealed, and overturned.
And then also social impact is the high ground of battle.
The win is considered UN-Constitutional by legal definition as interpreted by many. So all my arguments are still in full force, and as debaters, these will be the debates you will see in opposition to gay marriage.
Those are not rights of marriage, they are perks or benefits of marriage. inheritance laws, tax laws, and joint ownership are all laws that can change by policy, and also vary between states, as well as marriage contract laws like divisions of property custody and other factors that are related to divorce preceding like the impact of infidelity.
Rights, if "Rights" are given and taken only by legal process by Congress and The Supreme Court, or possibly by Executive Order, which still can be contested by Congress and The Supreme Court.
Natural Law, is as real as Natural Rights (Inalienable Rights)
Society Impact and Good of All are Constitutional Precepts and hold a strong opposing argument. Its Rights of all as a whole, when rights of a few are questioned as exception.
When the boundaries are crossed in Education and Businesses, and in Public Visibility regarding acceptable content, gay marriage is very controversial.
Public Decency is based on Morally Neutral Content. Gay Marriage is not morally neutral.
Rights given or not given are by agreement of Contract
Yes, they are called contractual rights.
And then also social impact is the high ground of battle.
It's actually the lowest ground of the battle.
The win is considered UN-Constitutional by legal definition as interpreted by many.
Like the Supreme Court and most of the country.
So all my arguments are still in full force, and as debaters, these will be the debates you will see in opposition to gay marriage.
But that debate will be pointless as there is no legal recourse.
Those are not rights of marriage, they are perks or benefits of marriage.
Certain parts of the marriage contract involves perks, others involve rights, such as visitation rights, spousal privilege, etc.
Rights, if "Rights" are given and taken only by legal process by Congress and The Supreme Court, or possibly by Executive Order, which still can be contested by Congress and The Supreme Court.
You can't really contest a just decided Supreme Court case.
Natural Law, is as real as Natural Rights (Inalienable Rights)
Not only is it not real, but it's legally irrelevant.
Society Impact and Good of All are Constitutional Precepts
No, they are ideas that were considered when forming it, but they are not legally binding or relevant as general concepts.
Its Rights of all as a whole, when rights of a few are questioned as exception.
We do not have rights "as a whole".
When the boundaries are crossed in Education and Businesses, and in Public Visibility regarding acceptable content, gay marriage is very controversial.
Was very controversial.
Public Decency is based on Morally Neutral Content. Gay Marriage is not morally neutral.
How old are you 14? I get the impression there is not an adult on the other end of these conversations!
Because the extent of your arguments, except on occasions are "yes it is" and "no it aint" And "because I said it is, that is why it is so"
The only rights in a contract is the right to enter and even that has requirement in order to be a valid contract!
The rights in contract are according to the terms of the contract.
The contract of marriage is according to the terms of the states, each state.
Prenuptials, if any, are changes to the terms of the marriage contract and supersede terms of the state by written addendum of prenuptial contracts, and ratified by agreement and signatures of both parties.
How old are you 14? I get the impression there is not an adult on the other end of these conversations!
Really? You are the one who just made that statement, after all.
Because the extent of your arguments, except on occasions are "yes it is" and "no it aint" And "because I said it is, that is why it is so"
Well no shit. Every time I have bothered with actually explaining things to you or giving you links, you completely ignore me. Because you struggled with long winded responses, I shortened them.
The only rights in a contract is the right to enter and even that has requirement in order to be a valid contract!
You haven't gone to Law School. You don't know what you are talking about. Many contracts give those who enter into it rights within the context of that contract itself. Those are called contractual rights, and they vary wildly. For example: You know how spouses can see each other in the hospital? That is a spousal right derived from the marriage contract that exists between the parties (the spouses and the state).
The rights in contract are according to the terms of the contract.
You literally just said you don't think there are rights in contracts other than the ability to enter into it. You are being internally inconsistent.
The contract of marriage is according to the terms of the states, each state.
Somewhat, but there is federal regulation as well.
Prenuptials, if any, are changes to the terms of the marriage contract and supersede terms of the state
Not really. Prenups generally address issues that the marriage contract doesn't, such as allocated wealth that can't be addressed if a divorce occurs, marital responsibilities, etc.
IT FOLLOWS CONTRACT LAW
Yes, but that's kind of a "no shit" statement. Everyone recognizes that contracts follow contract law.
Im in a field that understands Contract law and Clauses.
And my age not being 14, or a new college graduate, with life experience and people experience, I have a strong diverse background to view things from many points of view.
And my long winded responses indivate there are more points to process in most of these debates than the shoebox many of you carry your views around in!
The rights in contract do 2 thing obligate the parties to give rites or take away rites.
But rites of the contract only exist according to the terms of the contract
Example - marriage in pa, marriage distribution at divorce splits property, during precedings infidelity according to pa marriage contract terms may split that differently. In court precedings divorce lawyers use those terms to make sure their client gets their fait share according to the terms.
Both parties by entering the marriage contract gave up their rite in pa to buy real estate independently. Even if 1 name is on it. If bought during marriage, it is owned equally by both.
Prenuptials are an addendum to pa contract laws. So if prenuptials are signed, 1 party could give up a rite given by pa marriage terms.
Or can give the other party a rite to hold property without division that is a term of pa marriage terms.
Pa and all states haveaws on who can enter the marriage contract. Not under duress, sound mind, off a certain age, blood test, male female, no close cousins etc. So it isnt a rite, it can be abridged by criteria. So a 30 year old doesnt have the rite to marry a 14 year old.
A man doesn't have the rite to marry 2 women and be in contract with both at the same time.
And marriage itself only falls under a rite of personal choice pursuit of happiness. But not identifiable in itself as a rite.
So the states have terms of contract - obligations of parties in contract, and how to enter - ratification or execution, exceptions by addendum - prenuptial agreements if parties agree - to be used if disolved or breached, the state has guidelines who can enter contract - can be void if challenged and found voidable by invalid terms of entry.
But marriage itself is not a rite, its a contract. Between 2, according to the terms of the state
Why so? Because you disagree, because I have faith or morals or religion, or because you have a list of inaccuracies to give to me as a challenge of facts
No I have been given disputes of opinion, I dont recall challenges of inaccuracy
Although I have challenged many of you also with opinion, generally based on fair data, but also challenged many if you on inaccuracies.
Like its constitutional if a baby is born here to be auto citizen,, well thats is actually defined completely different on the way to citizenship on our official immigration web site.
No I have been given disputes of opinion, I dont recall challenges of inaccuracy
There is an entire wikipedia page devoted to contract rights which you say don't even exist.
You think that something can be unconstitutional even when the Supreme Court decides that it is constitutional. That's their job.
Although I have challenged many of you also with opinion, generally based on fair data, but also challenged many if you on inaccuracies.
I am sorry, but complaining that someone is 14, or that you have life experience, or that they keep saying "Yes it is" or "no it isn't" is not challenging inaccuracies.
Like its constitutional if a baby is born here to be auto citizen,, well thats is actually defined completely different on the way to citizenship on our official immigration web site.
It is fine to say that you think that the wording means something else. But, you make claims that something is or isn't constitutional based on your own opinion. The Supreme Court decides what is or isn't constitutional, not you.
Actually, it is a rite for most religious people. The problem is that you think it isn't a right, and you are wrong.
It can be pursued in the rite to follow your own happiness and freedom.
So, why do you believe gays should not have hapiness and freedom.
So gays dont actually have a rite called marriage, neither do heterosexuals.
So you don't think it is a right for heterosexuals either. That's completely missing the point. Why do you think that gays should be treated differently. You are advocating that gays be treated differently. Regardless of whether or not it fits your idea of a right, you think we should treat gays different. Why?
You have the rite to enter the contra t of marriage, according to the guidlines of the states
Why do you want to take away the right for gays to enter into that contract?
They may add a degtee of balance, and make you less of a troll..
Everything you say is just nitpicking language in a way no one else uses it, including you. You have made it very clear that people have the right to enter into contracts. You also have made it very clear that marriage is entering into a contract. Therefore, marriage is a right because the right to enter into a contract is still a right.
Balance. Justice is the ability to look both ways and be fair.
So, you are admitting you are unable to serve justice.
You aren't looking at the real impact of not allowing gay marriage, and imagining a fake perspective that doesn't exist. Balancing imaginary against real perspectives is imbalance.
Yes, Roman Catholics even refer to the wedding ceremony as "The Rite of marriage". But KNHav is a she, I think. A little piece of me dies every-time I see right and rite used interchangeably.
Its actually a contract, in contracts, individual rights are given up by choice and agreement.
We have the right of choice for all things, to pursue the life we want and live peaceful tranquil lives including marriage.
But marriage has to follow civil law between 2 people and alsp natural law - heterosexual.
Gays have a right to benefits of partnership, joint ownership and benefis and tax laws.
But they its appropriaye as a private decission, not a public display of conflict of morality against the Neutral morality of society, which should be G Rated, and appropriate for all
1 day ago
Edit Support Dispute Clarify Report Jump to Debate→
No one said that gay marriage was written in the 14th amendment you fool. The logical intelligent people in this debate are telling you that the 14th amendment allows gays to enter into the same contract that heterosexuals are allowed to enter into.
Many of yhese people think parents have no rites in contemt at school. And Im sorry but, hell no!
That's completely irrelevant. It hasn't even been discussed.
They think their rites matter and everyone else has to acquiesce.
Marriage isnt a rite. Pursuing an individual life of happiness is.
Marriage is a contract.
The states all have similar but different criteria for validation of Contract. Which States oversee by their guidelines of terms of contract.
Contract rites are terms the state has for contract expectations of both parties. Those terms come into play if a dispute is brought to court. Then the terms of contract matter. And the "rites" of both party are disputed on the grounds of the terms set by the state. Unless released or adjusted by the parties in contract.
So if PA says split real estate in half, 1 party may negootiate their 1/2 for something else, like maybe business assets.
The states also have criteria to enter contract for legal validation.
Thats why states have fought the ruling by the Supreme Court.
The question as disputes arise, is how each State will view the ruling. And thats what Scalia objected to. Marriage is a state run law, that now has a conflicting federal ruling over. And conflicts with the definition and the criteria of parties to enter the contract of marriage, and also conflicts with the will of the people.
And then on top of all that you have the effects as Scalia warned, and by the way I also said before ever reading his statements.
Its an understanding of the aftermath of the ruling.
And we have seen already through several very visible cases EXACTLY what Scalia said would happen.
So we have a Supreme Court Judge, holding a crystal ball, and he foretells the future in detailed accuracy.
And it still isnt eye opening to liberal progressives!
He literally left the ruling saying, religious freedom was a sleeping giant, society has been kicking for years with very little intensity of backlash from the sleeping giant.
But now you idiots kicked the giant in the balls, and it will be a force to be reckoned with!
So then what did we see almost immediately after the ruling?
Law suits against flower shops, cupcake bakers, legal clerks, pastors, and church sites enjoyed by many are now no longer available to any, because morals of people spoke up and said "Id rather do none, then to be forced against conscience!
Then, the rise of "Trump," who probably isn't healthy, but is militant in nature enough to be unreasonable in the face of unreasonable! From the pissed off sleeping giant you kicked in the balls!
Marriage is a rite unless you go down to the courthouse.
Its a contract. Marriage equals contract.
This is a dumb argument. We are talking about whether people have the right to enter into the marriage contract. It is idiotic to continually push the idea that marriage is a contract instead of discussing why you think that we need to stop a group of people from entering into the contract.
The states all have similar but different criteria for validation of Contract. Which State oversees by guidelines of terms of contract.
A marriage contract is upheld federally for heterosexuals, so it is not up to state interpretation of contracts.
Contract rites are terms the state has for contract expectations of both parties.
Are those part of contract law? Are you admitting that there are contract rights now?
The states also have criteria to enter contract. Thats why states have fought the grounds of the Supreme Court ruling.
There are many grounds that states could consider that the Supreme Court can determine is unconstitutional. For instance, race can't be a criteria in marriage contracts. The Supreme Court has the right to prevent states from using criteria that is determined to be unconstitutional. This argument is not a valid argument against gay marriage.
The question as disputes arise, is how each State will view the ruling. And thats what Scalia objected to, its a state run law, that has a conflicting federal ruling over marriage and the definition and the criteria of parties to enter the contract of marriage.
Scalia was wrong since he claimed that the Supreme Court should not be making decisions.
And we have already seen in very visible cases EXACTLY what Scalia said wiuld happen.
What are you talking about?
So we have a Supreme Court Judge, holding a crystal ball, and he foretells the future in detailed accuracy. And it still isnt eye opening to liberal progressives!
What came true?
He literally left the ruling saying, religious freedom was a sleeping giant, society has been kicking for years with very little intensity from the goant. But mow you idiots kicked the giant in the balls, and it will be a force to be reckoned with!
You haven't lost any religious freedom.
Law suits against flower shops, cupcake bakers, legal clerks, pastors, church sites enjoyed by many no longer available to any because morals of people said Id rather do none!
Scalia didn't predict any of that. Discrimination is not a religious right.
Then the rise of Trump, who probably isnt healthy, but is militant in nature enough to be unreasonable in the face of unreasonable!
Congratulations!
At least you are able to admit that Republicans view all of their candidates as threats to the country.
Whats actually amazing about you and others in arguments.
I guess you answer line by line out of context, and actially dont read the argument.
So there are examples that "came true" and the rise of Trump is also significant.
But thats ok
You public school kids dont know how to read nor define by context.
We spent hours diagramming sentences at Catholic school, so context and understanding what is read isnt quite as selective as what I see from most all of the arguments I've seen so far on sites like this and other commentors on social media.
Religious freedom is actually a Constitutional Right
Therefore it will be repealed.
So, regardless of the ruling, my arguent is valid.
And in the current atmosphere politically, everyone just woke up.
And Religious Freedom is going to be a hot topic moving forward.
And it will be a battle for religious freedom that takes front seat, and many other items that have been in the lime light will have a stand it hasn't seen till this coming election.
You can't say it isn't a right until after it is repealed numb nuts. Religious freedom will never be in the front seat because you haven't lost any religious freedom, and the people who keep asking for religious freedom (you) are too fucking dumb.
Until the conclusion of the repeal it is sill a right. People would have to argue that it shouldn't be a right, not that it isn't currently a right. You can't repeal a right that isn't currently a right.
I clearly said gays have a right to be protected, I even said that laws should allow civil union relationships to be honored as to receive benefits similar to benefits of survivorship and ownership etc. But they don't have a right to equal in presence in society, to be acknowledged by society, because that is a force against personal censorship, which is the reason for obscenity laws. Because public exposure to morally objectionable behavior is of legal consequence.
So it matters! And in schools it absolutely is an issue, parents that become aware have every right to control moral content their children are exposed to!!
I clearly said gays have a right to be protected, I even said that laws should allow civil union relationships to be honored as to receive benefits similar to benefits of survivorship and ownership etc.
They can, by entering into the civil union of marriage. Creating a separate institution entirely for the purposes of differentiating a group of Americans is not only unnecessary and illogical, but unconstitutional. "Separate but equal is inherently unequal", after all.
But they don't have a right to equal in presence in society, to be acknowledged by society, because that is a force against personal censorship
This is completely meaningless. This has nothing to do with "equal presence in society", or being "acknowledged by society", and there is no "personal censorship". This is simply about treating everyone equally. That's it.
Because public exposure to morally objectionable behavior is of legal consequence.
Not in a situation like this when "morally objectionable" means "I don't want to have to know it exists".
So it matters! And in schools it absolutely is an issue, parents that become aware have every right to control moral content their children are exposed to!!
For the last fucking time, this has nothing to do with morality. This isn't teachers telling children that this behavior is morally right or whatever. This is about telling them that it exists. That is objective and undeniable.
The word marriage is not originally there nor added
It was sited and interpreted in a decision and it will sited and interpreted in an appeal as well
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Equal Protection goes both ways
And this argument goes both ways so you can say its Bi-Equal
The word marriage is not originally there nor added
Why is there a requirement that gay marriage specifically be part of an amendment when heterosexual marriage is a right without being part of an amendment?
Just pointing put its interpretivr, not witten as diffinitive
Actually the ruling that made it a right was explicit, not interpretive.
And my main point FYI to all including iamsparticus
Is there should be an allowance of exception for civil union with the benefits of heterosexual marriage.
There is no actual reason for that. None. Marriage itself is a civil union, and it has all the benefits, so let them marry. You have presented no legitimate reasons to intentionally create an institution purely for the purposes of separating American citizens from each other, nor have you provided a single justification for its unconstitutional nature (see: Brown v. Board of Education).
But open in society in tv programs and commercials, and other public displays are against the religious rites of others!
No.
And for the good of society as a whole, its a private arrangement not a public one.
Marriage is often quite public.
Boundaries! Not in school against the rites of parents.
Okay, this has been bothering me; they are "rights". Not rites.
If they want a celebration have one
I know you have difficulties paying attention, but everyone has told you that we want education, not celebration or any sort of moral attribution. Just say "Hey kids, you live in the real world, and in the real world, this exists". That's it.
If they want a celebration have one
You are the only one talking about acceptance.
Its EXCEPTION, NOT ACCEPTANCE!
That doesn't make sense.
Its ridiculous the crap everyone tries to shove down everyone elses throat
You are the one trying to shove their beliefs down other's throats here! Letting two homosexuals get married does NOTHING to you.
Its selfish ignorant and an inposition on society and the rites of others!
Letting two homosexuals get married denies you a whopping ZERO of your rights.
Why would it have to be forced on society?
For the same reason the Supreme Court had to force states to let people like my wife and I get married in Loving v. Virginia: Because ignorant bigots feel the need to deny their fellow Americans their civil and Constitutional rights based on idiotic reasons.
Isnt it their own personal pursuit of happiness, why disturb the enjoyment of others, who are living according to concience.
If you are disturbed by two people getting married without involving you in any way, then you have some underlying issues you need to sort out.
Doesnt the other group of people also have a rite.
NO. This isn't a two sided issue! On one hand, you have the 14th Amendment. On the other, you have people who are trying to deny the protection of the 14th Amendment. That's it.
Moral Neutral is the key
Which is why same-sex marriage was legalized.
Licentiousness is a personal choice, not yo be forced on all!!!
So who is forcing you to give up personal or sexual restraint?
What does matter is everyone has the right and freedom to believe what they will. No one should hurt snyone for believing differently, and no one should force anyone to lower their moral standards euther.
Both are a choice. All sexuality is a choice.
It actually doesnt matter what parts I agree or disagree
What mattes is "live and let live"
Why does it matter what we think or believe? Isnt that personal till we decide its safe for us to share with others?
The point is, Gay, Transgender, thats their buisiness to have gender preference.
And its the Christian baker's business to believe or not to believe however she likes!
Whatever happened to live and let live?
These laws LGBT pressures everyone with, arent "live and let live!"
They are 1 group gets to live, and the other doesnt get to live!
Gays were bullied, and so were many people.
But as a whole, society had balance. Live and let live.
The movement mellenials are embracing is Cruel! Heartless! and Selfish! And Christians are being bullied. Individuals bully, so why take it out on Christians?
This generation doesnt understand boundaries of others.
LGBT is intolerant of society, because they want to be moral dictators. No one had rights or freedoms aloud to disagree or have a moral standard that disagrees with them.
But why not? Why by force on everyone, as unconstitutuonal as you can ever get!
What does it have to do with anything?
Isnt it better to let everyone have a right to their own moral standard?
And a freedom to believe how they want to?
Why cant we be individuals respecting each others boundaries?
So if there are 30 specialty bakeries, Why do they have to take the one that disagrees and kill her? Isnt that targeted discrimination?
Are they Terrorists or Islam Radicals, if you dont believe their way, you will loose your head, or your business?
Bow down, and compromise your stand for something you believe in with all your heart, or commit business suicide?
Yes it does you twat. It is fucking ridiculous to claim that there needs to be a constitutional amendment for gay marriage when we didn't even create an amendment for straight marriage.
What does matter is everyone has the right and freedom to believe what they will.
Gay marriage doesn't affect your beliefs.
No one should hurt snyone for believing differently
Then stop asking to hurt others.
and no one should force anyone to lower their moral standards euther.
If you were gay and the only choice you had was to lie to someone of the opposite sex and pretend to be interested in them, you would have to lower your moral standards and lie. If you were straight and gay marriage was legal, you wouldn't have to change your moral standards at all.
What mattes is "live and let live"
You mean like letting gays live their gay life? Because preventing people from getting married is the exact opposite of letting live.
And its the Christian baker's business to believe or not to believe however she likes!
Should she be allowed to poison the cake? Should she be allowed to throw cake at them? At what point do you get it through your head that being forced to do your job is not affecting your beliefs?
They are 1 group gets to live,
The straights.
and the other doesnt get to live!
The gays.
The movement mellenials are embracing is Cruel! Heartless! and Selfish!
Forcing people to not discriminate is cruel, heartless, and selfish. You are out of your fucking mind.
And Christians are being bullied.
No they aren't.
Individuals bully, so why take it out on Christians?
No one is taking it out on Christians. They are taking it out on the individual bullies.
LGBT is intolerant of society, because they want to be moral dictators.
Why is discrimination part of your morality?
No one had rights or freedoms aloud to disagree or have a moral standard that disagrees with them.
Since when is preventing people from getting married a disagreement?
But why not? Why by force on everyone, as unconstitutuonal as you can ever get!
No, forcing the rules on a select few is unconstitutional. Forcing it on everyone is constitutional.
Isnt it better to let everyone have a right to their own moral standard?
And a freedom to believe how they want to?
Why cant we be individuals respecting each others boundaries?
You are trying to force others to give up their morals just to buy cake. You aren't respecting boundaries. Also, gay people have no moral issues with getting married to someone of the same sex and you think your moral standard should have some say in that.
Bow down, and compromise your stand for something you believe in with all your heart, or commit business suicide?
Third option: read the bible and realize it is immoral to pass judgement and not serve sinners.
Talk about tolerance, freedom of speech, and religious freedom. Disagree with their views of same sex marriage and your church will be shut down.
Religious freedom, are you willing to let them take that away from your parents, and grandparents, and from you if ever you chose it matters to you?
The key is, should you ever be left without a choice regarding your American given freedom to exercise ehat you believe?
What if you were an animal activist, and I was a butcher? Should you have a right to not stock meat on the shelves of your store. And shouldnt I have a right to be a butcher and provide people who like and want steak, in other grocery stores?
Or should the animal rights person be able to trample my rights? Or miine theirs?
Wouldnt you want to be remain in full control of your own religious freedom?
Why let them take that?
Arent they taking it from all of us, including all of you, except Muslims?
Gone are the days of pluralism. This is what tyranny looks like.
This should come as no surprise, as it reflects the vile militancy the LGBT movement is known for. Just as they unleashed threats of violence and arson against a tiny pizzeria in Indiana when they dared to express a very mild opinion against gay marriage, so they want to punish Christians who dare to preach, well, Christianity.
Notice who he did not mention: "mosques." Gays never criticize Islam, even though it is only Muslims(not Christians, who are commiting hate crimes against gays. And bullying is not a Christian adgenda against gays, its individuals) Muslims are hanging gays from cranes and throwing them from buildings every single week.
So why attack Christians?
The baker who was respectful to that gay couple, had a religious belief she exercised according to her concience. They destroyed her business! Good? Fair? In the same area, a guy went as a gay and requ Muslim bakers, he went to several Muslim owned bakeries for a wedding cake, each said no!
So, do you think gays, arent aware that many Muslim bakeries would also say no? Or, do you think they are hatefully discriminating against Christians, and targeting specific people and groups?
Wake up they are not giving you anything, tbey are taking everything away from you, on purpose!
You know what is really sad about people like you; if someone answered all of those questions, you still wouldn't know the answers to those questions. You desperately want others to hear you out, but you don't reciprocate.
provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.
Herein The Preamble describes purpose of Constitution and Government
insure domestic Tranquility
promote the general Welfare
This is why it will be repealed.
Gay Marriage will have these 2 precepts to answer to as well as 1st Amendment of Religious Freedom and
and also Bill of Rights Preamble below
"to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers," that further "declaratory and restrictive clauses"
Preamble to Bill of Rights
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
From my experience, the activists and supporters, are the rudest most selfish people I ever heard speak.
Im shocked they cant even see others.
We taught you all the golden rule, Im not sure, how or why your generation is so cruel.
You guys complain about bullying, but you all hide behind keys and bully even your own. As seen on how the internet ruined my life.
The mean things people say to those victims, ruining their lives, are said by millennials,
Not baby boomers!
So listen to a few of those shows, look in the mirror, and realize how selfish and cruel your generation is accurately defined as, and then decide if that is who you are personally!
The baker is your mother, your grandmother, the special Aunt that once made sure you didnt feel left out, or an older neighbor that kept a watchful eye out for you and your friends. Or she is that nice lady at the store that winked at you when caught shoplifting, and said "hey some advise next time you wont be so lucky!"
The problem with your arguments regarding issues of morality is your refusal to strike balance of peace tranquility that results in live and let live tolerance.
And that why you will eventually be confined! Again!
Because taking issues of morality beyond the boundaries of others is a trampling of the rights of others. At the end of disputes, it will come down to others rights, what is of common good, and in public interest, and in regards to freedom of religion and that is also freedom of living according to conscience. This issue has every indication that future debate of law and good of all will challenge the out of control egotistical perception of the left that the public has no valid boundaries.
And to my joy, I will watch the public and be part of activating the public to push back from the boundaries of others you all clearly disrespect!
The problem with your arguments regarding issues of morality is your refusal to strike balance of peace tranquility that results in live and let live tolerance.
Actually, that's what legalizing same-sex marriage did. It lets everyone live and let live. They don't effect you, you don't effect them.
And that why you will eventually be confined! Again!
Not after Windsor they won't be.
Because taking issues of morality beyond the boundaries of others is a trampling of the rights of others.
Which is why you are in the wrong. You are trying to push your morals onto others whilst denying them their 14th Amendment rights. Letting them marry doesn't effect you in any way, so there isn't a Constitutional argument for your side to make.
At the end of disputes, it will come down to others rights, what is of common good, and in public interest, and in regards to freedom of religion and that is also freedom of living according to conscience.
No, it really won't. The dispute has ended, and it only came down to the Constitution.
This issue has every indication that future debate of law and good of all will challenge the out of control egotistical perception of the left that the public has no valid boundaries.
Nothing of the sort is indicated. Not only does the public overwhelmingly support legalized same-sex marriage, but there is no method of making it illegal again short of a Constitutional Amendment which is politically impossible at this point.
And to my joy, I will watch the public and be part of activating the public to push back from the boundaries of others you all clearly disrespect!
So we disrespect people by defending their Constitutional rights? How?
Many who argued against adding the Bill of Rights were concerned that it would be misconstrued as a complete list of rights, thus causing other important rights to be trampled or neglected by statute.
Similarly the Declaration of Independence stated that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are among our inalienable rights. This was carefully worded.
Making an exhaustive list of rights would have been folly. Thinking that this is what we actually did is an error.
I am no fan of Obama but since his field of study in Law School was Constitutional Law, I am pretty sure he knows what is and is not entailed in the Bill of Rights.
And he DID claim that gay ass marriage was a Right.
True.
But he did NOT say it was a Constitutional Right.
I assume, then, he was referring to the Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness clause in the Constitution itself.
I personally am against Gay ass marriage, as I feel it egregiously lessens and undermines the intent and inherent spirit of the original institution.
Yet...I do not feel Obama made an error in his interpretation of the Bill of Rights. I will give him that much.
Talk about tolerance, freedom of speech, and religious freedom. Disagree with their views of same sex marriage and your church will be shut down.
Religious freedom? Are you willing to let them take that away from your parents, and grandparents, and from you if ever you chose it matters to you?
The key is, should you ever be left without a choice regarding your American given freedom to exercise what you believe?
What if you were an animal activist, and I was a butcher? Should you have a right to not stock meat on the shelves of your store. And shouldnt I have a right to be a butcher and provide people who like and want steak, in other grocery stores?
Or should the animal rights person be able to trample my rights? Or miine theirs?
Wouldnt you want to be remain in full control of your own religious freedom?
Why let them take that?
Arent they taking it from all of us, including all of you, except Muslims?
Gone are the days of pluralism. This is what tyranny looks like.
This should come as no surprise, as it reflects the vile militancy the LGBT movement is known for. Just as they unleashed threats of violence and arson against a tiny pizzeria in Indiana when they dared to express a very mild opinion against gay marriage, so they want to punish Christians who dare to preach, well, Christianity.
Notice who he did not mention: "mosques." Gays never criticize Islam, even though it is only Muslims(not Christians, who are commiting hate crimes against gays. And bullying is not a Christian adgenda against gays, its individuals) Muslims are hanging gays from cranes and throwing them from buildings every single week.
So why attack Christians?
The baker who was respectful to that gay couple, had a religious belief she exercised according to her concience. They destroyed her business! Good? Fair? In the same area, a guy went as a gay and requ Muslim bakers, he went to several Muslim owned bakeries for a wedding cake, each said no!
So, do you think gays, arent aware that many Muslim bakeries would also say no? Or, do you think they are hatefully discriminating against Christians, and targeting specific people and groups?
Wake up they are not giving you anythinh, tbey are taking everything away from you, on purpose!