- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,058
- Reaction score
- 514
- Location
- San Diego
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
No... all are under the same restrictions and therefore all all being treated the same. As such., there is no EP issue.
You'd be correct if that privilege were restricted from a portion of the citizenry entirely. Since it is not, there is no violation.
Show this to be true. Good luck.Sure there's discrimination.
Its a shame that you have chosen to be dishonest, rather than admit someone else was right.
Show this to be true. Good luck.
You're still missing the problem. You are arguing that sexuality somehow, magically, nullifies the 14th Amendment in this argument. When pressed on the issue, you become nebulous. You are clinging to the same debate, even though that debate has been addressed and refuted. Again, I don't mean to belittle you, but i'm not sure how much clearer I can be. What would it take to get you to realize that the argument you're putting forth is inconsistent with your argument against equal protection? There is just a huge disconnect here, and unfortunately you're still clinging to the same defense even though it's been addressed already.
You're not being very academic here. I read what you wrote over and over, but it just doesn't add up.
I have no idea why you keep dismissing the equal protection argument and keep injecting your sexuality defense.
It's like you are stuck on that point despite the fact it's been addressed and refuted. From here, this is where you _should_ read the argument I put forth and say, "you know, Singularity already addressed this, and it's been refuted. Let me try to explain another possible defense against the equal protection clause".
Again, I don't know why you can't seem to get past that.
The only thing I can tell you to do is maybe leave out the term 'sexuality' from your next defense, in the hopes that you eventually understand that we are past that already. I mean it's been addressed an umpteenth amount of times. Is there anything that I can do to help you to move forward here? We just keep going back to you presenting the same argument, me addressing it and refuting it, and you repeating the same argument.
Where did I say anything about the 14th Amendment being "nullified"? Point me to the post. Show me my words where I said anything remotely similar to that. You are continually arguing against something I never said, mostly, I think, because you don't actually understand what I did say.
In fact, my argument rests very squarely on the 14th Amendment AND the jurisprudence which surrounds it, and the tests which have been developed over time to analyze whether or not a law runds afoul of the equal protection clause. If you were familiar with any of that and how to argue equal protection, you might actually know that. (I even explained the entire reasoning process in detail, and in simple, layman's language.)
For your argument that not allwoing same-sex marriages violates the EP clause of the 14th amendment because of discrimination to stand, then you very certainly DO need to show how there is discrimination.There's no need.
For your argument that not allwoing same-sex marriages violates the EP clause of the 14th amendment because of discrimination to stand, then you very certainly DO need to show how there is discrimination.
Good luck.
You're simply appealing to authority here.And that's something i've done throughout this thread. Of course, I simply repeated the argument the lawyers used. And seeing as how they won the case in a court of law, well there you have it.
You're simply appealing to authority here.
If you cannot actually illsutrate and explain the supposed discrimination, just say so - no one will think the lesser of you.
No. You've said "no, it IS discrimination" and you done nothing but ultimately restyour case on 'because a court agrees with me'.I've explained my position throughout the entire thread, and backed it all up with logical reasoning, examples that have withstood scrutiny, and yes, even an appeal to authority.
No. You've said "no, it IS discrimination" and you done nothing but ultimately restyour case on 'because a court agrees with me'.
You have not at ALL shown, in necessary terms, how treating everyone exactly the same discriminates agianst anyone.
When you think you can lay out that argument, let me know; I'll expect your continued attempt to avoid doing so as a concession of the point.
I would, if it addressed the argument I made and shows how a law treating everyone exactly the same dsicriminates against someone. B. Your argument:, noted above, is not -my- argument. As such, nothing you wrote above applies to -my- argument.Post #331, top of the page. Feel free to reply to it at your leisure.
I would, if it addressed the argument I made and shows how a law treating everyone exactly the same dsicriminates against someone. B. Your argument:, noted above, is not -my- argument. As such, nothing you wrote above applies to -my- argument.
I've invited you numerous times throughout this thread to show how a law treating everyone exactly the same dsicriminates against someone; you have, thus far, failed to do so.
There are two possibilities here: either you are unable to do so, or you are unwilling to do so - either way, your continued avoidance is noted and your concession accepted.
This is a lie. You should be ashamed of yourself.Quite the contrary. I've demonstrated many times how the 14th Amendment applies here, and even refuted every one of your examples.
I'm sorry -- if you had been paying any attention at all, this would not be necessary.But, since you claim that my post does not apply to your particular argument, I don't mind inserting or removing any of the above premises to illustrate _your_ argument more accurately. So, list any premises as to why you think the 14th does not apply here, and we can logically construct your argument, then see where it is we disagree.
That's because you apparently don't recognize. mockery.I'll gladly accept your imitation as flattery.
This is a lie. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Disagree? See below.
I'm sorry -- if you had been paying any attention at all, this would not be necessary.
How can you say that you have refuted my argument when you clearly do not know know what my argument is?
That's because you apparently don't recognize. mockery.
Only for the intentionally dishonest.Actually it's the truth.
For that to be the case, you have to know what my argument is. Apparently, since you continue to ask me to lay out my argument, you do not.You seem to misunderstand. Let me spell it out clearly for you. Your argument has been refuted
Only for the intentionally dishonest.
For that to be the case, you have to know what my argument is. Apparently, since you continue to ask me to lay out my argument, you do not.
Since you do not know what my argument is, it is impossible for your statement that my argument has been refuted to be true.
So, whenever you think you can actually refute my argument, man up and do it - your games are tiresome, and you are quickly proving yourself to be a great waste of time.
Prove it. Cite the post.Your argument was refuted a few pages ago.
Prove it. Cite the post.
Fail. These posts don't have anyhting to do with my argument.You mean posts, as it was a progressive affair. #222 and 223your attempted comeback in #229, which was refuted in #296 and 298 respectively.
This has not been refuted.Your posts #300
This is a joke. You're simply saying that I am wrong, without in any way showing how. That's not refutation, that's cowardice.301, and 303 refuted by #319, 311, and 312
Fail. These posts don't have anyhting to do with my argument.
More proof that you dont knwo what my argument is.
This has not been refuted.
This is a joke. You're simply saying that I am wrong, withough in any way showing how. That's not refutating, that's cowardice.
So, we're back to you continuing to claim you have refuted something, a statement made impossible by you not knowing what it is you have supposedly refuted.
You continue to make this claim, with full knowledge that you know you don't know what mny argument is - that is, you are continue to knowingy make false statements.
That is, at this point, its clear that you're simply lying. Given that you obviously have no intention of admitting that, or changing that, there's no need towaste more time on you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?