My personal beliefs are against ssm for both, but in regards to the court ruling, it's strictly legal reasons as to why I oppose changing the law. I'm against stealing, it's against my religious beliefs, but that's not the reason I favor laws against theft. IMO the Constitution is utterly silent on ssm, therefore, it's an issue that should be decided by the states. I'm against abortion, yet I also think the Constitution was silent on that issue, and should have been left up to the states. For abortion to be banned (by the feds) across the country you'd have to pass a constitutional amendment or a define fetuses as persons.I'll admit you're a pretty good debater. You seem to have a handle on material that supports your point.
Here is an honest question for you and then I'll drop the subject (at least for this thread, since this is already too long).
Are you opposed to SCOTUS 'allowing' same-sex marriage due to moral reasons as well as legal reasons, or is it just a legal issue for you? (I know 'allowing' is not the right term, but I think I'm having a sudden episode of aphasia)
Why do continue to ask questions that have been asked and answered.
Fair enough. Thanks, appreciate the comments. I've lost my temper at times in this discussion because it gets frustrating when several people ask me the same question a dozen times and then lie that I didn't answer the question. I understand maybe missing my responses if you are one who is coming late to the party, but when the person asking the question has been in the discussion the entire time (and even asked some of the questions multiple times), there's no excuse. It also gets frustrating when people flat out lie about what you have said. My time is limited, I have more important things to do then retype something that's been answered a couple posts above.Fair enough Phantom. I still disagree with you, but at least I understand from where you arrive at those choices.
I'm sure I'll still give you some zippy responses in the future, just don't take them personally. I know I don't when it's reciprocated.
Do you think ssm should be legal? Not if it is legal, or whether state's should have to recognize marriages from other states, but if assuming the government is going to stay in the marriage business, should ssm be allowed? If not, why? Again, I'm not looking for a legal argument, I'd like to know regardless of the legal mumbo jumbo, what do you think would be the best scenario assuming the government is going to stay in the marriage business?
Why do you continue to ask questions that have already been asked and answered?
I agree. You being unable to answer a simple question is pathetic. It's nice that we finally agree on something. This is progress.
If I'd think you take me up on the bet, I'd be willing to wager (money or you leaving the site for 6 months) my response to the question can be found in this thread. However, you are about as trustworthy as Clinton so you'd either lie, not follow through when you lost, or claim some loophole. You have no scruples. Since you are blind as a bat, I'll give you some help. It's on the first page. Oh, and I expect an apology from you and admission that you were wrong and lied that I hadn't answered the question.
I don't believe the 14th amendment applies (or shouldn't) because I don't believe sexual orientation should be a protected class. The purpose of the 14 amendment was to protect blacks harmed from racial discrimination. They had been denied, life, liberty, property, as a result of slavery and it's historical influence. The Constitution is silent on ssm, therefore, it's an issue that should be left up to the states to decide.
You serious, Skippy?
Skippy, where's the apology you owe me? You've libeled me for days. The decent thing to do would be admit you were wrong and apologize, but that would require a decent person to do this.
So . . . you're saying the 14th amendment doesn't apply to whites?
It doesn't apply to sexual orientation. It's SILENT on ssm. Don't like the law then change it.
I assume you already know that you opinion on the 14th isn't legally supported, so why even advance the argument? The 14th applies to all Americans, just as it says, not just aggrieved former slaves. It's a statement of principle, either you support equality or you don't.
Sure it is. It's not protected at this time. Now, the court may rule it is in the case before the court but it hasn't so far. We are going to have a ruling 4-4 with Kennedy making the tie breaker.
Nothing you wrote in the opening paragraph contradicts a single thing I said. Why was the 14th amendment passed?I assume you already know that you opinion on the 14th isn't legally supported, so why even advance the argument? The 14th applies to all Americans, just as it says, not just aggrieved former slaves. It's a statement of principle, either you support equality or you don't.
Perhaps when the law isn't actually as you like, you should stick to philosophical arguments about what it should be. And when that is the case, it's polite for your opposition to allow you that freedom. Freedom you would be wise to avail yourself of on a number of topics.
Of course it does. You say it only applies to former slaves, the law says it applies to you and me too. Your legal reasoning is empirically without merit.
No it is not. The current law looks between your legs to decide if you deserve a licence.
Exactly, when you mean this, you'll be on my side.
Nope, you be wrong.
