Mike Pence's new neighbors put up LGBT pride flags in protest

The 14th amendment talks about citizens and privileges. Not specific citizens or specific privileges.

So if homosexuals are citizens and marriage is a privilege, it can't be denied to them.

Giving the people a choice in which sex they can marry is more liberty not less.

Having that liberty does not infringe on anyone else's freedom. So I can't see how you would argue against it

 

You didn't. It diesnt matter.

There are only two sexes. So your preference for sex is limited. You can only perfer male, female, both, or neither.

Well the only other sex you can prefer is the opposite sex, they have been able to get married.

 

The problem with your analogy being, of course, that it's the rules that ended up being in Trump's favor, not any referee.

 

It was written to free the slaves by giving them citizenship. Do you deny this? There is never any mention of sexual preference or marriage anywhere in it.

I asked for the specific quote that proves homosexuality is covered by this amendment. The very fact you couldn't provide it makes my case. You know if you had tried I would have easily destroyed your claim.

 

Actually it does if you premise your argument on the claim that homosexuality can be equated with race and sex.

I didn't ask about sex. Try being honest about the question asked. . Why is homosexuality singled out for these new "rights" over all other sexual preferences? Can you answer the question?

Stop being deceptive. I never asked about sex. I asked about sexual preferences to which there is far more than homosexuality but of course you know that and that's why you are avoiding the question because it will expose the hypocrisy in your logic.

 

No.

There was mention of citizens. There was also mention of privileges.

Are homosexuals citizens? Is marriage a privilege?

Homosexuality? Well no trait is covered. It isn't about traits.

The case that the 14th amendment doesn't protect traits? That's a pointless case.
It doesn't disprove mine and frankly isn't an argument against it.

What by arguing against a point I never made?

Fact is you haven't come close to even touching my point on it.

 

I don't. The premise of my argument is that homosexual people are citizens. The 14th amendment doesn't mention race.

Yes you did. The word "sexual" in the phrase "sexual preference" means sex.

Try using proper terms. Sex refers to male or female. Sexual preference referes to which sex you prefer.

Because hetersexuals were never denied rights for being hetersexual. There isn't any other orientation.

I did. If you want to ask why polygamy or child molestation doesn't get covered, ask that. But children aren't a sex, so it wouldn't be a sexual preference. Polygamy isn't a sex so it wouldn't be a sexual preference.

I'll talk about that if you want. But I'm adressing sexual preference because that is what you asked about.

I don't know what you are talking about than.

Okay, homosexual means attracted to the same sex, the only other thing you can be attracted to is the opposite sex, and that is heterosexuality. Now a person can be bisexual. That's it there are no others in that catagory.

You can only be attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex.

When you mention everything else it includes heterosexuality and bisexuality.

If you want to ask about things other than homosexuality and heterosexuality, you need to give examples.

I can't read your mind.

 

This seems to apply to homosexuality as well seeing as it has been found since the earliest writings and in most species. You can't say - that's just the way it is as a valid source - well I guess you can, doesn't provide a source though.

They need to point to a study to prove gay people are deserving of being treated equally? Ok... I'd like to see the one on religion please.

A marriage creates a legal kinship where none previously existed, as long as this is held and the union consists of consenting adults why should you care? It's a legal document. As for military service, being kicked out of homes, being assaulted - no other group has this advocated for.

Appeals to tradition have been struck by just about every court in this nation. Do you feel the argument of "Slaves should be legal because that's the way it always has been" is valid legal reasoning? If not why do you feel it works against homosexuals?

Which creates biologic connection - which was what I was addressing. When you prove that heterosexuality is genetic (genetic markers or DNA analysis) and not just replicated due to learned traits then I will expect the same from the pro-gay camp. But you can't, so you won't, and you will still demand it from others.

Like I said, I don't care about your arguments based on how you feel and what seems right to you or the morals you made up during your response. Homosexuals have demonstrated that they are capable of informed consent and thus able to sign a legal contract. They have proven they are capable of raising a family in a healthy environment thus they are able to do so. Until you prove this is false - well, you will continue have rulings against your personal beliefs.

 

I never indicated otherwise

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The question was mainly for yguy or anyone willing to answer. So far no one has.

If we send same sex marriage back to the states, which isn't going to happen, a state refusing to acknowledge a marriage certificate issued by another and confirmed by the feeeral government would cause issue.

Sorry, yalls arguments are so similar I have trouble distinguishing between them, feel free to ignore the question, seems to be the tactic.

 

Then why are you pretending it covers something that is never mentioned either in language or in history?

By your own logic pedophile marriage is now legal. Are children not citizens? Is there any age limitation mentioned? You are digging your own grave here.

Just admit Homosexuality is not covered at all in the14th amendment.

Where are traits mentioned in it? Nowhere. You are once again fabricating wording that doesn't exist.

What point? You can't even prove what you claim exists in the 14th amendment that covers marriage or homosexuality.

 

So once again we are back to the original question. If homosexuality is covered by the 14th amendment what sexual preference is not?

Wrong again. Sexual preference does not mean sex. Sex is an absolute trait in humans. Sexual preference is not unless you are going to claim sexual preferences like pedophile sexual preference is covered by sex.

I did but you haven't answered it.

I never said they are.

Pedophlia is a sexual prefeence for children. Polygamy is a sexual preference for multiple partners. I know you are desperate to confuse the issue but its not going to work. Sex is not sexual preference.

A sexual preference.

Why are you denying homosexuality is a sexual preference? Please, read the definition.

sexual preference n.
The preference one shows by having a sexual interest in members of the same, opposite, or either sex.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sexual-preference

 

Wrong again. Homosexual sex does not lead to reproduction.

So you are demanding a source that states heterosexuality is genetic despite the reality that procreation requires hetersoexual sex. Do you even hear how ridiculous that sounds?

Religion once again is specifically covered by the first amendment. Why does this continue to have to be explained to you?

Nice attempt at spin. They need to prove it is not a psychological condition since all their research up to that point made that case. And you still can't face the reality they had no studies to prove otherwise.

You didn't answer the question, again. I asked you what makes it special? And you claim it can be limited to what you refer to as consenting adults. How did you come up with that requirement? Are you relying on your own morality to judge someone else's sexual preference? You can't have it both ways. Either its a new right for all or it isn't.

Slavery is wrong because it is the ownership of a human being and most importantly, it was removed by an amendment. Something homosexuality has no claim to. . Its not an ambiguous state of mind like homosexuality is. And the very fact you would try to equate slavery to homosexuality proves you have no concept of reality.

For parenting not the state of being a hgomosexual. Try again.

I already have proven its genetic. The fact you can't explain how humans or most species on earth learned how to procreate without a manual proves you aren't serious about addressing the subject.

Which I have never made on feelings. That would be your department.

Once again, that's your argument based on emotion. Not my own.

Can you name a single sexual preference on this planet that cannot attest to the exact same accomplishments? I'd love to hear one. Your premise means nothing because it does not address the fundamental reality that homosexuality is a psychological state of mind not a genetic condition.

 

No I'm not. It covers citizens and privileges. It isn't exclusive to race.

I have to say it's kind of funny that you're telling me all about what this amendment says and means and you haven't even read it.

It mentions age twice in section 2.

You haven't even read the amendment. You don't know what it says.

What is the matter with you? I just stated no trait was covered by the amendment. It only covers people.

See above.

The point you are missing.

First, you wouldn't know you haven't even read the amendment. You stupidly goop on about age, and that is mentioned twice in section 2 of the amendment. A fact you would have known had you taken 3 (*)(*)(*)(*)ing minuets to read it.

Further it was never my claim that homosexuality was mentioned in it.

 

I don't know why this doesn't sink in. The amendment talks about citizens and privileges.

Pedophlia is not a sexual preference it is a paraphilia.

No you didn't. You asked about sexual preferences. Polygamy isn't a sexual preference is a marriage arrangement. See above regarding pedophlia.

Incorrect, see above.

Why don't you just ask the question directly? I have answers for them, and they ate Rock solid. Perhaps it frightens you.

I didn't deny sexual orientation is a sexual preference.

I stated that marriage arrangements and paraphilias are not sexual preferences.

 

By that I mean they won the election. You don't try to claim you won something after the fact, just because you don't like the rules of the game.....

 

You do realize you just legalized pedophile marriage.

Section 2 is about the right to vote.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Good Lord you missed that?

And unlike you I have actually read it and its clear you didn't read the sentence most quoted in these court decisions to legalize gay marriage which is of course section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You really should be more careful and actually read the section that is quoted for gay marriage.

I've already proven I have and unlike you can tell the difference between a section on voting age and the section used to justify gay marriage.

Thanks for once again confirming you can't limit your new bastardization of the 14th amendment to only one sexual preference.

Far closer than you did my friend.

You really shouldn't embarrass yourself like this. Section 2 is quite clear its discussing age for voting not the section used to justify gay marriage.

No one quoted section 2. Its amazing you would put yourself out there like this without actually reading the sections themselves. Its probably why you didn't quote it either.

 

And never specifies sex or gay marriage. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Do you really think it was written so any moron could interpret it for any pet cause? If that were true why have so many specific amendment?

Wrong again. It is a sexual preference according to the definition which once again you obviously haven't read.

And wrong again. Polyugamy is a sexual preference when you take the time to actually read the definition of sexual preference I provided. Why do you hate the dictionary so much?

Incorrect again. Read the defintion of sexual preference provided to you.

What are you talking about? You can't even admit what the definition of sexual preference is.

This is like talking to a wall. The definition The preference one shows by having a sexual interest in members of the same, opposite, or either sex.

What do you think the identifying terms of homosexuality, pedophilia, heterosexuality and polygamy cover? The sexual interest of the person in another person(s). For God's sake you really are embarrassing yourself here.

 

No i haven't.

You didn't even read it.

They did so effecively.

That is an ironic statement.

You flunk at understanding. This is why you're having difficulty with the oberfel decision. It wasn't about sexual preference.

A strawman broken record, wow.

It wasn't about sexual preference.

 

No, it mentions citizens and privileges.

Since you are interested in making the semantic argument and not asking the proper questions. I'll answer them anyway.

Polygamy very well could be the next step and I think it should. The only objection is that people don't like it and many of those people want to make things they don't like illegal.

I don't think the states should involve themselves with marriage.

The reason why marriage to a child bride wouldn't fly is because children aren't able to enter contracts like marriage

Good, get nice and frustrated. I'm glad.

Funny, it doesn't mention people of a young age or multiple spouses.

You are rejecting your own definition. See above.

 

Actually you did since there is no age limit to the new rights you listed in section 1.

Denying reality isn't helping you.

With section 1. Not 2 as you incorrectly pointed out.

The very fact that you can't defend your claims now that they've been exposed makes my point for me.

The "nuh uh" retort of yours is quite telling.

You can't claim its about rights then pretend you can limit that new right when the very words in section 1 offer no such limitation. You simply got caught not actually reading what you are defending and now have nowhere to go.

Running once again from the argument. How predictable. Is this how you handle getting caught not being able to defend yourself?

Then its a right for all that you cannot limit. You simply don't want to admit the truth.

But go ahead, show us where in section 1 any limitation is put forth in the wording you are citing. Love to see it.

 

Exactly. Then using that wording you cannot limit that right to sexual preferences only you like. Game. Set. Match.

The very fact you can't offer any more retort than a single sentence says it all.

You really should try reading what the definition of sexual preference is as I've provided it twice and you still can't argue against it.

Too late. You have claimed its a right citing the very wording that offers no limitations. What you don't get is that it doesn't matter what you think about any sexual preference. The door is now open for all and you have failed to provide any argument to counter that reality.

Why? Because you don't have the votes?

Sorry sport. You nullified every single law against any marriage just as you removed gay marriage exclusions when you cited section 1 of the 14th amendment that offers no such limitations for age or number. You simply lack the courage to admit it.

I understand that's your goal since you have no argument to fall back on.

lol Exactly! It applies to all sexual preferences just as I said. My God, you just proved my point again and still missed it. Wow.

 

There are absolutely no traits listed in the amendment. Not age sex race anything. I never made an argument that there was.

Yes.

Well there is more to law than just the 14th amendment.

See above.

 

That is correct. Hence the limits to preference for the same sex was eliminated.

You are the one arguing against it.

Too late for what?

Well, not all.

Votes? Didn't need any votes. I think the government having such control strips liberty from the individual.

Lol, go tell the courts, I wish you luck.

An argument you don't like our that you don't understand doesn't equate to no argument.

This argument won in the Supreme Court. If it didn't exist it wouldn't have.

Of which there are only two, three of you count bisexuals.

 

Never said it did

No, I said if you demand homosexuals provide evidence that orientation is genetic to not be discriminated against then why shouldn't heterosexuals be able to prove it? You want to deny two adults from signing a legal document, the burden of proof is on you.

Yes, the freedom to choose religion or be free from it. Not the freedom to force everyone around you to conform to your made up beliefs of the month.

False on both counts. Homosexuality has never fit the modern classification of a mental disorder, or the ones when it was originally classified as such.

Homosexuals don't need to prove anything, you are the advocate for removing their freedoms, you prove it.

I am going by the legal regulations of a contract; you know, the basis for the foundation of our society - what are you relying on besides fantasy or "beliefs". It isn't medical legal understanding.

It was to show that appeals to tradition fail each and every time they are sourced, usually because they are not based on justifiable evidence. Sorry that escaped your understanding.

Feel free to prove homosexuality does not have genetic links.

No, you haven't. How do monkeys learn to use tools or dolphins to swim, btw both of these species have members that have exclusive homosexual relations. It has been proven to have links to hormones and pheromones - which effect both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Further disproving your remarks.

Legal theory and court rulings are not feelings. Sorry

I disagree, you are demanding that a group prove something that you cannot prove the opposite of while justifying your own views by saying "it's just the way it is". It falls apart on numerous levels.

Here are several; ****philia, ephebophilia, pedophilia or paedophilia, zoophilia, biastophilia... I can continue if needed, each of these parties lack the ability to make informed consent and present inhospitable environments for nurturing children.

Prove it then.

 

All of [MENTION=72287]guavaball[/MENTION]'s antics are for nothing. The reality is that same-sex marriage is the law now. It will be exceedingly difficult to over turn. Nobody should lose their liberties unless the exercise there of impeads the liberty of others.

Nobody should care if people like him think it's a mental disorder or whatever. It's just an opinion, one that isn't supported with any more than "it useta be."

I wouldn't worry with it. As far as mike pence is concerned, I wouldn't think he'd care much.