CreateDebate


Debate Info

51
56
SCOTUS erred It is a right
Debate Score:107
Arguments:112
Total Votes:116
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 SCOTUS erred (49)
 
 It is a right (46)

Debate Creator

JustTruth(127) pic



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.

SCOTUS erred

Side Score: 51
VS.

It is a right

Side Score: 56
2 points

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

They didn't create any law. Your objection is worthless.

Side: It is a right
JustTruth(127) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
JustTruth(127) Disputed
0 points

They did not great a new definition of marriage and did not change the old. Your objection is also worthless and countless.

Side: SCOTUS erred
1 point

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
Jace(5081) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: It is a right
1 point

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
1 point

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
excon(14666) Disputed
2 points

Hello again, UNTRUTH:

Same sex marriage IS a right and it was forced on the country because of the Constitution and the Supreme Court...

It's true, Trump might be able to overturn it..

One truth outta 3 ain't bad. Bwa, ha ha ha ha ha.

excon

Side: It is a right
outlaw60(15500) Clarified
1 point

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 !

Side: SCOTUS erred
JustTruth(127) Disputed
1 point

Hello again felon Con,

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
JustTruth(127) Disputed
1 point

Really, so same sex marriage is a right in some Constitution.

Is it in the 14th Amendment or the 19th Amendment?

Like I said, SCOTUS will apply the Cosntitution and Seven judges will do that and marriages will be as it has been for 7,000 years.

Don't worry, you gays are designed in labs to lie.

Side: SCOTUS erred
JustTruth(127) Disputed
1 point

Sorry Con,

But the Constitution nor the Supreme Court ever said that SSM was a right.

It is just an error which will be corrected, like when the court declared slavery legal

Side: SCOTUS erred
Jace(5081) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: It is a right
JustTruth(127) Disputed
1 point

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.

Your argument just died.

Surrender.

Side: SCOTUS erred
BigOats(1406) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
1 point

Sodomy is reversal of what is normal, it's a perversion, it's backwards, it is reversed and should be outlawed.

Side: SCOTUS erred
1 point

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
NowASaint(1389) Clarified
1 point

They already changed it, and they are working on outlawing speech against sodomy as "hate speech". Free speech and legalized sodomy cannot co-exist.

Side: SCOTUS erred
NowASaint(1389) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
1 point

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
2 points

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.

Side: It is a right
jeffreyone(1368) Clarified
0 points

I can almost swear you're homosexual. You sound like a criminal defending herself so desperately in a court.

Side: SCOTUS erred
John_C_1812(279) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
2 points

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.

Side: It is a right
Jace(5081) Disputed
1 point

(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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
Grenache(6103) Clarified
2 points

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
JustTruth(127) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
FromWithin(8265) Disputed
0 points

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
Grenache(6103) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: It is a right
mrcatsam(624) Disputed
0 points

And here we have from within whining about fools, oblivious to the fact that he has SAID HE SUPPORTS GAY MARRIAGE!!!!!! That's pretty funny right?

I may be a judgmental fool, but you're a dumb hypocrite.

Side: It is a right
1 point

Hello UNTRUTH:

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."

DUDE!!!

excon

Side: It is a right
John_C_1812(279) Disputed
1 point

Excon

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
outlaw60(15500) Clarified
1 point

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.

Tell me where marriage is referenced

Side: SCOTUS erred
excon(14666) Clarified
1 point

Hello o:

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???

Now, go fetch this bone...

excon

Side: SCOTUS erred
John_C_1812(279) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
JustTruth(127) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
JustTruth(127) Disputed
1 point

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.

I suggest that you study the Constitution.

Side: SCOTUS erred
excon(14666) Disputed
1 point

Hello again, UNTRUTH:

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..

Side: It is a right
John_C_1812(279) Clarified
1 point

My best answer.

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
JustTruth(127) Disputed
1 point

Yeah, it is simple.

The 14th Amendment gave black menthe right to vote but not white women,. The 19th Amendment needed to do that.

That irrelevant passage did not give women the right to vote.

You should punt.

Side: SCOTUS erred

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.

Side: It is a right
JustTruth(127) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
Gypsee(308) Disputed
1 point

You keep linking homosexuality and pedophilia/rapists (?). Could clarify on why you believe they are the same ?

Side: It is a right
John_C_1812(279) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: It is a right
JustTruth(127) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred

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.

Side: It is a right
JustTruth(127) Disputed
1 point

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

Side: SCOTUS erred
1 point

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)

Side: It is a right
JustTruth(127) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred
Somebody(46) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: It is a right
John_C_1812(279) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: SCOTUS erred

It would be unconstitutional to take away their right to marriage. "Liberty and justice for all" is not just a phrase.

Side: It is a right