Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unfortunately for the left, a right cannot be created by a court case. That doesn't prove that marriage is a right, it proves that the Supreme Court is created of a number of people who don't actually know much about law.
Unfortunately for the left, a right cannot be created by a court case. That doesn't prove that marriage is a right, it proves that the Supreme Court is created of a number of people who don't actually know much about law.
This makes no sense.
Your strategy of debate is simply to state the opposite view of those that disagree and stretch logic to the point that it is unreasonable and illogical. The Supreme Court doesn't know much about the law? Really? It is borderline trolling.
Your strategy of debate is simply to state the opposite view of those that disagree and stretch logic to the point that it is unreasonable and illogical. The Supreme Court doesn't know much about the law? Really? It is borderline trolling.
Absolutely, the Supreme Court knows very little about the law. In fact, the liberal justices on the court actively ignore the law, and have no problem announcing that they do. It is rather amusing that you find them infallible, however, as if they are not simply political appointees. You must actually believe that they are the greatest legal minds in the entire country. That's fascinating to me.
Absolutely, the Supreme Court knows very little about the law. In fact, the liberal justices on the court actively ignore the law, and have no problem announcing that they do. It is rather amusing that you find them infallible, however, as if they are not simply political appointees. You must actually believe that they are the greatest legal minds in the entire country. That's fascinating to me.
No. No legal benefits without legal commitment. It's that simple. Anyone can get married if they choose. Allowing anyone who claims to be a boyfriend or girlfriend to have all of the legal benefits of marriage is not only absurd but would be unworkable in practice.
Sure thing. The liberals on the court have a particular methodology of ignoring the Constitution and simply ruling based on their own personal preferences. That's illegal. In fact, they first come up with their ruling and then openly admit that they search for documents to support it, even documents that originate from outside the country. That's also illegal. In fact, that's essentially the opposite of what a judge is supposed to do. Therefore, they are essentially the worst judges in America. Does that help?
Absolutely, the Supreme Court knows very little about the law. In fact, the liberal justices on the court actively ignore the law, and have no problem announcing that they do. It is rather amusing that you find them infallible, however, as if they are not simply political appointees. You must actually believe that they are the greatest legal minds in the entire country. That's fascinating to me.
Same strategy in debate.
State the opposite.
Stretch to make the case even to being unreasonable. Marginalize things that don't fit your stance.
Hint. I never said that the Supreme court is infallible. The concept of Wrong or Right is not the same as being compliant or violating the law.
Marriage is for religious purposes,not govermental purposes.
No. In your religion, marriage may be a sacred oath before God but according to the law, marriage is a civil union (contract.) It has nothing to do with religion. How you undertake your oath is up to you and thanks to the First Amendment we have the freedom of religion guaranteeing you the right to swear before what ever divine being you wish that your oath is sacred.
Kids can have both parents without marriage! To suggest otherwise is lunacy. So its better to date for a month, then marry, then have children and divorce after a year than to live together for a decade and then deciding to have children and live happily together for the rest of their life without marrying? The latter is "bastardy" while the former is "responsible" because the child was born in wedlock after the parents had known each other for a few months?
Sure thing. The liberals on the court have a particular methodology of ignoring the Constitution and simply ruling based on their own personal preferences. That's illegal. In fact, they first come up with their ruling and then openly admit that they search for documents to support it, even documents that originate from outside the country. That's also illegal. In fact, that's essentially the opposite of what a judge is supposed to do. Therefore, they are essentially the worst judges in America. Does that help?
None of that is illegal. And Scalia relied on documents from out of the country. In fact, Scalia was known for having his mind made up then bending things around it in a way that sounded like "original intent."
If what you're referring to is realism, it was actually popularized by "Conservative" judges. This formalism that Thomas and Scalia claim to be a part of derives out of recent events and in reality is just a way to explain around an answer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
