I am starting to see a lack of quality in these debates. I have been gone for three years, and now that I am back--the topics have been dumbed down to half-baked political back and forths.

I searched and I searched and I did not see a single article about this. With that being said, if he did add more camps it would be on top of the ones that have long existed before his presidency. A fact I hear few mention.

Has he in particular spoke out against abortion and sleeping with numerous women? If not you cannot call him a hypocrite for doing things YOU speak out against. Trump is supposed to be a Christian, so it makes sense to call Trump out on unChristian-like behavior.

1. How does gay marriage ignore people's rights?

2. Why should states be allowed to actively deny gay people the right to marry one another?

3. What is case law do you specifically disagree with when it comes to gay marriage?

Please explain what the 14th Amendment is actually saying if it is not granting equal protection for the rights of all people.

Exactly, and if you are going to restrict these rights, you better have a damn good reason.

"The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with marriage!"

The 14th Amendment does have something to do with equal protection under the law...this means that the U.S. government must protect the rights of ALL individuals. And if marriage is to be viewed as a legal right, then it becomes a protected right for all individuals equally.

"Under your distorted logic of the 14th amendment, every State should be forced to allow a man to have 30 wives!"

And...this is a matter of individual freedom and consenting adults being able to enter into whatever sort of contract they wish to enter with as little intervention from the government as possible. If thirty women in their right mind consent to marry one man, why should government be an instrument to stop them?

"According to you, Adults should have the right to marry consenting children. IT'S THEIR 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHT'S TO DO SO!"

This is a strawman argument because at no point do I suggest children can consent. I very clearly state that children cannot legally consent to anything. They cannot legally consent to contracts, so why would this rationale make them allowed to legally consent to marriages? If children are unable to legally consent, how can the Fourteenth Amendment argument grant them the ability to marry adults?

And note that in many states, minors can marry adults with the consent of their parents. Unfortunately, if we were to live in a society with limited government intervention, we would have to reconcile with that fact and just take solace in the fact that if a minor is forced into marriage through the consent of their parents, they can have that marriage annulled when they reach adulthood.

Of course, we could take the stance that marriage implies either a sexual or romantic relationship. And based on laws that children cannot consent to sexual acts--we can nullify any marriage between minors and adults and marriages between two minors. Such unions then would be statutory rape or child abuse.

"We have laws for a reason."

And laws must have a reason to them. The fact that you don't want thirty consenting adults to enter a union is not reason enough to try to block them from forming a marital contract.

"Intelligent people understand the natural order of life"

Marriage is a cultural construct invented by society. It does not exist in or because of nature. Monogamy is within nature and can be viewed as a product of nature, but so is polygamy and other forms of sexuality that many people view as "deviant". However, without a logical reason from restricting individuals from participating in such acts, government has no right to intefere with the private lives of individuals.

"and are capable of making laws that best reflect the natural normal design of our bodies"

I assume this is a dig at homosexuality and same-sex marriage. I assume you believe that because penises fit in vaginas and they make babies, vaginal intercourse is the only natural way to have sex. Here is my counterargument: gay individuals have urges. Sexual urges are not things that one can choose. There are biological origins for these urges just as the urges are part of a biological process. Therefore these urges are totally natural.

These same urges are held by polygamous individuals and all humans. Really any union in nature would reflect our bodies and design because if they were not meant, the urge to do them would not exist. There is a reason for why polygamy has persisted and homosexuality and other forms of deviant sexual acts. Even pedophilia and having sex with children can be viewed as "natural".

So I think when arguing for right or wrong, we need to leave nature out of it because nature by design is harsh, aggressive, disorderly, unfair, and when it comes to things like pedophilia, immoral. If nature compels a grown man to have sex with kids...something is wrong there.

Instead, we should avoid nature and look to reason. Reasoning that children are incapable of consent because they do not understand sex, and their bodies are too undeveloped to engage in sex. Reasoning that people should go about their base desires however they would like so long as no one is getting hurt, people are being safe, and everyone involved is consenting.

"They understand the meaning of the Constitution, and they do not justify ludicrous things based on the Left's twisted definition of equal right's."

Well then can you provide ONE valid justification for preventing certain consenting adults from marrying other consenting adults?

"The Left has even taken a privacy clause in the Constitution, and declared that killing unborn babies is a privacy issue!"

I did not once mention the "privacy clause" or abortion. In fact, I stand against abortion, but that is SO irrelevant.

"GOD HELP THIS NATION!"

That would be nice. I would love to see suffering and violence eliminated.

The number of women he has slept with, his position on abortion, and his political affiliation are all irrelevant to the question at hand.

There is absolutely no evidence that America as a nation is anywhere near its destruction. Nor is there evidence that rejecting "God" leads to the destruction of nations.

The freedom to get married is a right. In fact, it is something the government shouldn't even be involved with. Marriage is merely a contract between two private citizens outlining certain rules and expectations between the two parties. Government's involvement in that union shouldn't extend beyond laws preventing individuals without the ability to consent to marry. So other than laws creating an age restriction and preventing human-animal unions (as each of these groups are incapable of legally consenting when it comes to contracts), the government has no business stating who can and cannot marry. Nor is it reasonable or just that government tax married individuals any different from how it taxes non-married people.