CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:87
Arguments:82
Total Votes:89
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Bill of Rights of The United States of America (1791) (78)

Debate Creator

outlaw60(15368) pic



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 ?  

Add New Argument
1 point

The other amendments that have been added since the bill of rights added more rights. Leave the fucking country. No one wants you here.

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Marriage isnt a "right"

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

Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

Marriage isnt a "right"

The Supreme Court says you are wrong.

Its actually a contract, in contracts, individual rights are given up by choice and agreement.

But, in this contract the government gives benefits, so it becomes a right.

But marriage has to follow civil law between 2 people and alsp natural law - heterosexual.

False, it only had to follow civil law. Natural law isn't real.

Gays have a right to benefits of partnership, joint ownership and benefis and tax laws.

Those are marriage rights. What are you disputing?

1 point

It has already been ruled to be a civil right by the Supreme Court.

You don't really get to just nullify judicial rulings.

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Name the Amendments added that support gay marriage as a Constitutional right

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Name the amendment that made heterosexual marriage a right.

The 14th amendment was added that allows heterosexual marriage to be applied to gays.

1 point

The 14th Amendment and, depending on the argument in question, the 1st.

1 point

The SCOTUS before Obama said that heterosexual marriage was a natural right you dumb fuck. If you don't like rights move to another country.

outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

You can surely show me the Amendment that makes claim to marriage as a natural right from the 1791 document !

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

The United States has added rights since 1791. Leave the country.

outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

When did it become the role of the SCOTUS to write law ? Do you have that information for me ?

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

It isn't a law, it is a right you stupid shit. The SCOTUS has not been writing laws.

outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

Show me where the SCOTUS amended the Constitution to say marriage was a natural right if you can. Back up your words with some sort of proof !

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Show me where the Supreme Court under Obama made marriage a right for heterosexuals if you can. Back up your words with some proof!

1 point

Constitution Preamble

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more

perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,

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

1 point

Herein The Preamble describes purpose of Constitution and Government

insure domestic Tranquility

promote the general Welfare

This is why it will be repealed.

Except that isn't legally binding, at all, and you can't repeal SCOTUS rulings.

Gay Marriage will have these 2 precepts to answer to

The preamble still remains legally irrelevant.

as well as 1st Amendment of Religious Freedom

There isn't a single way in which letting two homosexuals marry impinges upon your religious freedom. Not one single way.

and also Bill of Rights Preamble below

"to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers," that further "declaratory and restrictive clauses"

Which is exactly what those bans on same-sex marriage were.

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

I support a balance of live and let live.

Something millennials seem to know nothing about.

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!"

1 point

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!

1 point

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?

1 point

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.

0 points

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.

Thanks

outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

I can really crank up Cartman and i enjoy it ! Passes the beer drinking time with a huge smile !

Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

You enjoy sounding like a fucking idiot? Why?

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

It was unconstutional!

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!