Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Skylar]

Oh, and another grand passage from Bingham in introducing the 14th to the House for you to straight up ignore and flee, insisting its 'out of context'.

"Sir, it has been the want of the Republican that there was not an express grant of power in the Constitution to enable the whole people of every State, by congressional enactment, to enforce obedience to these requirements of the Constitution. Nothing can be plainer to the thoughtful men than that if the grant of power had been originally conferred upon the Congress of the nation, and legislation had been upon your statute-books to enforce these requirements of the Constitution in every State, that rebellion, which had scarred and blasted the land, would have been an impossibility.....

.....And sire it is equally clear by every construction of the Constitution, its contemporaneous construction, its continued construction, legislative, executive, and judicial, that these great provisions of the Constitution, this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States. The House knows, sir, the country knows, the civilized world knows, that the legislative, executive and judicial officers of Eleven States within the Union within the last five years, in utter disregard of these injunctions of your Constitution, in utter disregard of that official oath which the Constitution required they should severally take and faithfully keep which they entered up the discharge of their respective duties, have violated in every sense the word these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the enforcement of which are absolutely essential to American nationality.
By order, then, of the committee, sir, and for the purpose of giving the whole people care in future of the unity of the Government which constitutions us one people, and without which American nationality would cease to be, I propose the adoption of this amendment to the House, and through the House, I press it upon the consideration of the loyal people of those whole country.

Rep. John Bingham
February 26th, 1866
39th Congress

But Bingham didn't intend to apply the Bill of Rights to the States with the 14th?

And when you offer your inevitably rout of 'out of context', remember of course that you have presented *jack shit* in defense of your argument. Not a single citation of anyone involved. You've merely cited yourself, insisting that you know better than Bingham, Howard, and the Supreme Court.

And of course, you know what you've presented: Jack shit.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

You've presented jack shit to contradict anything I've posted. Your entire argument is literally to ignore John Bingham, Jacob Howard, their statements regarding the intention of the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court's precedent for the last 120 years.

Meanwhile, I've proven, definitely, that you have no idea what you're talking about. I've offered two direct quotes of the Congressional record where it was argued that the 14th amendment would empower congress to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And you either ignorantly or deceptively claimed this:

No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.

You either didn't know what you were talking about, babbling ignorantly. Rendering all of your 'out of context' claims as meaningless gibberish, as you clearly don't know what the context is.

Or you knew that Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the 14th in the Senate and House respectively, had explicitly contradicted you. And lied your ass off.

Pick one.

For the moment, I'm feeling gracious. And am willing to accept that you didn't know what you were talking about. But I'm looking through our previous conversations. And I find even one citation of either Bingham or Howard's above statements.....then its obvious you did know. And lied.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?

It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.

 

[Skylar]

explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?

It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and as yet another blow to Tenny's 'whole-system' approach, Bingham is ludicrously clear as to what he meant when describing what the 14th was intended to do:

"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourtheeth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from the citizen of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as follows.

Article I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. The words of that amendment, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union, which may be enforced under existing laws of Congress, and such other laws for their better enforcement as Congress may make."

-Senator Bingham, March 31th, 1871


For fuck's sake, he literally reads the first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights and explicitly states that it was the intent of the 14th amendment to apply those to the states.

And you *still* insist that it wasn't Bingham's intention to apply the Bill of Rights to the States?

Laughing......wow. Just, wow. The only thing 'whole-system' about your argument is its reliance on desperate, willful ignorance.

Surely you an understand why for the last 120 years, the USSC has not ignored what you do.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?

It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

 

[Tennyson]

Oh, and another grand passage from Bingham in introducing the 14th to the House for you to straight up ignore and flee, insisting its 'out of context'.

"Sir, it has been the want of the Republican that there was not an express grant of power in the Constitution to enable the whole people of every State, by congressional enactment, to enforce obedience to these requirements of the Constitution. Nothing can be plainer to the thoughtful men than that if the grant of power had been originally conferred upon the Congress of the nation, and legislation had been upon your statute-books to enforce these requirements of the Constitution in every State, that rebellion, which had scarred and blasted the land, would have been an impossibility.....

.....And sire it is equally clear by every construction of the Constitution, its contemporaneous construction, its continued construction, legislative, executive, and judicial, that these great provisions of the Constitution, this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States. The House knows, sir, the country knows, the civilized world knows, that the legislative, executive and judicial officers of Eleven States within the Union within the last five years, in utter disregard of these injunctions of your Constitution, in utter disregard of that official oath which the Constitution required they should severally take and faithfully keep which they entered up the discharge of their respective duties, have violated in every sense the word these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the enforcement of which are absolutely essential to American nationality.
By order, then, of the committee, sir, and for the purpose of giving the whole people care in future of the unity of the Government which constitutions us one people, and without which American nationality would cease to be, I propose the adoption of this amendment to the House, and through the House, I press it upon the consideration of the loyal people of those whole country.

Rep. John Bingham
February 26th, 1866
39th Congress

But Bingham didn't intend to apply the Bill of Rights to the States with the 14th?

And when you offer your inevitably rout of 'out of context', remember of course that you have presented *jack shit* in defense of your argument. Not a single citation of anyone involved. You've merely cited yourself, insisting that you know better than Bingham, Howard, and the Supreme Court.

And of course, you know what you've presented: Jack shit.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

You've presented jack shit to contradict anything I've posted. Your entire argument is literally to ignore John Bingham, Jacob Howard, their statements regarding the intention of the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court's precedent for the last 120 years.

Meanwhile, I've proven, definitely, that you have no idea what you're talking about. I've offered two direct quotes of the Congressional record where it was argued that the 14th amendment would empower congress to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And you either ignorantly or deceptively claimed this:

No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.

You either didn't know what you were talking about, babbling ignorantly. Rendering all of your 'out of context' claims as meaningless gibberish, as you clearly don't know what the context is.

Or you knew that Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the 14th in the Senate and House respectively, had explicitly contradicted you. And lied your ass off.

Pick one.

For the moment, I'm feeling gracious. And am willing to accept that you didn't know what you were talking about. But I'm looking through our previous conversations. And I find even one citation of either Bingham or Howard's above statements.....then its obvious you did know. And lied.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

Here are concepts you will not find in your selective google searches and concepts you have to avoid to support your worldview:

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

 

[Skylar]

explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?

It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and another grand passage from Bingham in introducing the 14th to the House for you to straight up ignore and flee, insisting its 'out of context'.

"Sir, it has been the want of the Republican that there was not an express grant of power in the Constitution to enable the whole people of every State, by congressional enactment, to enforce obedience to these requirements of the Constitution. Nothing can be plainer to the thoughtful men than that if the grant of power had been originally conferred upon the Congress of the nation, and legislation had been upon your statute-books to enforce these requirements of the Constitution in every State, that rebellion, which had scarred and blasted the land, would have been an impossibility.....

.....And sire it is equally clear by every construction of the Constitution, its contemporaneous construction, its continued construction, legislative, executive, and judicial, that these great provisions of the Constitution, this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States. The House knows, sir, the country knows, the civilized world knows, that the legislative, executive and judicial officers of Eleven States within the Union within the last five years, in utter disregard of these injunctions of your Constitution, in utter disregard of that official oath which the Constitution required they should severally take and faithfully keep which they entered up the discharge of their respective duties, have violated in every sense the word these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the enforcement of which are absolutely essential to American nationality.
By order, then, of the committee, sir, and for the purpose of giving the whole people care in future of the unity of the Government which constitutions us one people, and without which American nationality would cease to be, I propose the adoption of this amendment to the House, and through the House, I press it upon the consideration of the loyal people of those whole country.

Rep. John Bingham
February 26th, 1866
39th Congress

But Bingham didn't intend to apply the Bill of Rights to the States with the 14th?

And when you offer your inevitably rout of 'out of context', remember of course that you have presented *jack shit* in defense of your argument. Not a single citation of anyone involved. You've merely cited yourself, insisting that you know better than Bingham, Howard, and the Supreme Court.

And of course, you know what you've presented: Jack shit.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

You've presented jack shit to contradict anything I've posted. Your entire argument is literally to ignore John Bingham, Jacob Howard, their statements regarding the intention of the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court's precedent for the last 120 years.

Meanwhile, I've proven, definitely, that you have no idea what you're talking about. I've offered two direct quotes of the Congressional record where it was argued that the 14th amendment would empower congress to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And you either ignorantly or deceptively claimed this:

No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.

You either didn't know what you were talking about, babbling ignorantly. Rendering all of your 'out of context' claims as meaningless gibberish, as you clearly don't know what the context is.

Or you knew that Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the 14th in the Senate and House respectively, had explicitly contradicted you. And lied your ass off.

Pick one.

For the moment, I'm feeling gracious. And am willing to accept that you didn't know what you were talking about. But I'm looking through our previous conversations. And I find even one citation of either Bingham or Howard's above statements.....then its obvious you did know. And lied.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

Here are concepts you will not find in your selective google searches and concepts you have to avoid to support your worldview:

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

And Tenny's runnin'! You claimed that NO ONE in the 39th Congress said that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

I've offered numerous citations from the 39th Congress of members of Congress doing exactly that. Including the man who wrote Article 1 of the 14th amendment, John Bingham.

You either lied. Or you didn't know what you were talking about. Either rendering your 'out of context' nonsense meaningless gibberish. As you clearly don't know what the context is.

You're done, Tenny. All you can do now is run.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?

It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex. You seem unable to grasp the difference. Either your mind is not capable of subtle nuisance or you are just to stubborn to acknowledge it.

You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.

 

[Skylar]

explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?

It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.

I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.

And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. Why not?

You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.

Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.

You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.

You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.

You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.

Which is why you failed.

Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.

I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.

And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. Why not?

You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.

Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.

You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.

You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.

You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.

Which is why you failed.

Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?

Sorry, to bored to respond

 

[Skylar]

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.

I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.

And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. Why not?

You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.

Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.

You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.

You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.

You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.

Which is why you failed.

Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?

Sorry, to bored to respond

I'll simplify this for you so its not 'to' difficult:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? We've already demonstrated that marriage is ludicrously malleable and has been changed repeatedly through history. So an argument that marriage can't change is provably false.

Unless you can provide us with a rational reason for the restriction to exist......then you're just offering us a tired Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.

I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.

And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. Why not?

You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.

Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.

You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.

You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.

You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.

Which is why you failed.

Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?

Sorry, to bored to respond

I'll simplify this for you so its not 'to' difficult:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? We've already demonstrated that marriage is ludicrously malleable and has been changed repeatedly through history. So an argument that marriage can't change is provably false.

Unless you can provide us with a rational reason for the restriction to exist......then you're just offering us a tired Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Sure, whatever. Marriage can be 6 birds walking into a bar and playing darts with hand grenades. Works for me. It's whatever you want it to be.

 

[Tennyson]

Oh, and another grand passage from Bingham in introducing the 14th to the House for you to straight up ignore and flee, insisting its 'out of context'.

"Sir, it has been the want of the Republican that there was not an express grant of power in the Constitution to enable the whole people of every State, by congressional enactment, to enforce obedience to these requirements of the Constitution. Nothing can be plainer to the thoughtful men than that if the grant of power had been originally conferred upon the Congress of the nation, and legislation had been upon your statute-books to enforce these requirements of the Constitution in every State, that rebellion, which had scarred and blasted the land, would have been an impossibility.....

.....And sire it is equally clear by every construction of the Constitution, its contemporaneous construction, its continued construction, legislative, executive, and judicial, that these great provisions of the Constitution, this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States. The House knows, sir, the country knows, the civilized world knows, that the legislative, executive and judicial officers of Eleven States within the Union within the last five years, in utter disregard of these injunctions of your Constitution, in utter disregard of that official oath which the Constitution required they should severally take and faithfully keep which they entered up the discharge of their respective duties, have violated in every sense the word these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the enforcement of which are absolutely essential to American nationality.
By order, then, of the committee, sir, and for the purpose of giving the whole people care in future of the unity of the Government which constitutions us one people, and without which American nationality would cease to be, I propose the adoption of this amendment to the House, and through the House, I press it upon the consideration of the loyal people of those whole country.

Rep. John Bingham
February 26th, 1866
39th Congress

But Bingham didn't intend to apply the Bill of Rights to the States with the 14th?

And when you offer your inevitably rout of 'out of context', remember of course that you have presented *jack shit* in defense of your argument. Not a single citation of anyone involved. You've merely cited yourself, insisting that you know better than Bingham, Howard, and the Supreme Court.

And of course, you know what you've presented: Jack shit.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

You've presented jack shit to contradict anything I've posted. Your entire argument is literally to ignore John Bingham, Jacob Howard, their statements regarding the intention of the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court's precedent for the last 120 years.

Meanwhile, I've proven, definitely, that you have no idea what you're talking about. I've offered two direct quotes of the Congressional record where it was argued that the 14th amendment would empower congress to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And you either ignorantly or deceptively claimed this:

No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.

You either didn't know what you were talking about, babbling ignorantly. Rendering all of your 'out of context' claims as meaningless gibberish, as you clearly don't know what the context is.

Or you knew that Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the 14th in the Senate and House respectively, had explicitly contradicted you. And lied your ass off.

Pick one.

For the moment, I'm feeling gracious. And am willing to accept that you didn't know what you were talking about. But I'm looking through our previous conversations. And I find even one citation of either Bingham or Howard's above statements.....then its obvious you did know. And lied.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

Here are concepts you will not find in your selective google searches and concepts you have to avoid to support your worldview:

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

And Tenny's runnin'! You claimed that NO ONE in the 39th Congress said that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

I've offered numerous citations from the 39th Congress of members of Congress doing exactly that. Including the man who wrote Article 1 of the 14th amendment, John Bingham.

You either lied. Or you didn't know what you were talking about. Either rendering your 'out of context' nonsense meaningless gibberish. As you clearly don't know what the context is.

You're done, Tenny. All you can do now is run.

I said the Bill of Rights was not debated in the 39th Congress. It was not the purpose.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.

I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.

And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. Why not?

You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.

Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.

You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.

You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.

You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.

Which is why you failed.

Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?

Sorry, to bored to respond

I'll simplify this for you so its not 'to' difficult:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? We've already demonstrated that marriage is ludicrously malleable and has been changed repeatedly through history. So an argument that marriage can't change is provably false.

Unless you can provide us with a rational reason for the restriction to exist......then you're just offering us a tired Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Sure, whatever. Marriage can be 6 birds walking into a bar and playing darts with hand grenades. Works for me. It's whatever you want it to be.

That's not an answer to my question:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

Its obvious you have no reason. And that's why you fail.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and another grand passage from Bingham in introducing the 14th to the House for you to straight up ignore and flee, insisting its 'out of context'.

"Sir, it has been the want of the Republican that there was not an express grant of power in the Constitution to enable the whole people of every State, by congressional enactment, to enforce obedience to these requirements of the Constitution. Nothing can be plainer to the thoughtful men than that if the grant of power had been originally conferred upon the Congress of the nation, and legislation had been upon your statute-books to enforce these requirements of the Constitution in every State, that rebellion, which had scarred and blasted the land, would have been an impossibility.....

.....And sire it is equally clear by every construction of the Constitution, its contemporaneous construction, its continued construction, legislative, executive, and judicial, that these great provisions of the Constitution, this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States. The House knows, sir, the country knows, the civilized world knows, that the legislative, executive and judicial officers of Eleven States within the Union within the last five years, in utter disregard of these injunctions of your Constitution, in utter disregard of that official oath which the Constitution required they should severally take and faithfully keep which they entered up the discharge of their respective duties, have violated in every sense the word these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the enforcement of which are absolutely essential to American nationality.
By order, then, of the committee, sir, and for the purpose of giving the whole people care in future of the unity of the Government which constitutions us one people, and without which American nationality would cease to be, I propose the adoption of this amendment to the House, and through the House, I press it upon the consideration of the loyal people of those whole country.

Rep. John Bingham
February 26th, 1866
39th Congress

But Bingham didn't intend to apply the Bill of Rights to the States with the 14th?

And when you offer your inevitably rout of 'out of context', remember of course that you have presented *jack shit* in defense of your argument. Not a single citation of anyone involved. You've merely cited yourself, insisting that you know better than Bingham, Howard, and the Supreme Court.

And of course, you know what you've presented: Jack shit.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

You've presented jack shit to contradict anything I've posted. Your entire argument is literally to ignore John Bingham, Jacob Howard, their statements regarding the intention of the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court's precedent for the last 120 years.

Meanwhile, I've proven, definitely, that you have no idea what you're talking about. I've offered two direct quotes of the Congressional record where it was argued that the 14th amendment would empower congress to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And you either ignorantly or deceptively claimed this:

No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.

You either didn't know what you were talking about, babbling ignorantly. Rendering all of your 'out of context' claims as meaningless gibberish, as you clearly don't know what the context is.

Or you knew that Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the 14th in the Senate and House respectively, had explicitly contradicted you. And lied your ass off.

Pick one.

For the moment, I'm feeling gracious. And am willing to accept that you didn't know what you were talking about. But I'm looking through our previous conversations. And I find even one citation of either Bingham or Howard's above statements.....then its obvious you did know. And lied.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

Here are concepts you will not find in your selective google searches and concepts you have to avoid to support your worldview:

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

And Tenny's runnin'! You claimed that NO ONE in the 39th Congress said that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

I've offered numerous citations from the 39th Congress of members of Congress doing exactly that. Including the man who wrote Article 1 of the 14th amendment, John Bingham.

You either lied. Or you didn't know what you were talking about. Either rendering your 'out of context' nonsense meaningless gibberish. As you clearly don't know what the context is.

You're done, Tenny. All you can do now is run.

I said the Bill of Rights was not debated in the 39th Congress. It was not the purpose.

Nope. You said this:

No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.

You're backpedalling badly, lying and revising your story as it falls apart. Demonstrating that even you have no use for your rhetorical nonsense. As you are ignoring you.

Not only was the issue of the 14th applying the bill of rights discussed in the 39th Congress, it was introduced in the House and Senate as doing exactly that by members of the committee that *wrote* it. Including Howard and Bingham.

All of which you already knew. But *really* hoped we didn't. Or.....you just didn't know what the fuck you were talking about.

Pick one. Dishonest. Or laughably incompetent. There is no third option. And please, don't bother 'revising' your quotes to try and cover your ass again. I've got them right here.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

I've offered Howard's introduction AND Bingham's introduction, AND Bingham's reaffirmation that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States *after* the passage of the amendment.

You've presented jack shit.

Who says he was ignored? You do. You've cited nothing to back that claim up. And I've caught you either lying or wildly ignorant of the 39th congress and the 14th amendment. Rendering you citing you useless noise.

PROVE that Howard was ignored. As I've already demonstrated, unambiguously, that the 14th's purpose as introduced by both Howard and Bingham was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. A fact that Bingham *reaffirmed* after the passage of the 14th amendment, even going so far as to read the first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights, one at a time, to demonstrate what he intended.

Its also the interpretation that the Supreme Court has used for about 120 years. And you laughably ignore the Supreme Court, Bingham, Howard, and 120 years of precedent insisting you know better.

Spoiler Alert: You don't.

Show us the quotes backing your claims. As you have no credibility, being either a liar or an incompetent.

 

[Tennyson]

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

You've presented jack shit to contradict anything I've posted. Your entire argument is literally to ignore John Bingham, Jacob Howard, their statements regarding the intention of the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court's precedent for the last 120 years.

Meanwhile, I've proven, definitely, that you have no idea what you're talking about. I've offered two direct quotes of the Congressional record where it was argued that the 14th amendment would empower congress to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And you either ignorantly or deceptively claimed this:

No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.

You either didn't know what you were talking about, babbling ignorantly. Rendering all of your 'out of context' claims as meaningless gibberish, as you clearly don't know what the context is.

Or you knew that Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the 14th in the Senate and House respectively, had explicitly contradicted you. And lied your ass off.

Pick one.

For the moment, I'm feeling gracious. And am willing to accept that you didn't know what you were talking about. But I'm looking through our previous conversations. And I find even one citation of either Bingham or Howard's above statements.....then its obvious you did know. And lied.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

Here are concepts you will not find in your selective google searches and concepts you have to avoid to support your worldview:

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

And Tenny's runnin'! You claimed that NO ONE in the 39th Congress said that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

I've offered numerous citations from the 39th Congress of members of Congress doing exactly that. Including the man who wrote Article 1 of the 14th amendment, John Bingham.

You either lied. Or you didn't know what you were talking about. Either rendering your 'out of context' nonsense meaningless gibberish. As you clearly don't know what the context is.

You're done, Tenny. All you can do now is run.

I said the Bill of Rights was not debated in the 39th Congress. It was not the purpose.

Nope. You said this:

No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.

You're backpedalling badly, lying and revising your story as it falls apart. Demonstrating that even you have no use for your rhetorical nonsense. As you are ignoring you.

Not only was the issue of the 14th applying the bill of rights discussed in the 39th Congress, it was introduced in the House and Senate as doing exactly that by members of the committee that *wrote* it. Including Howard and Bingham.

All of which you already knew. But *really* hoped we didn't. Or.....you just didn't know what the fuck you were talking about.

Pick one. Dishonest. Or laughably incompetent. There is no third option. And please, don't bother 'revising' your quotes to try and cover your ass again. I've got them right here.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

I've offered Howard's introduction AND Bingham's introduction, AND Bingham's reaffirmation that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States *after* the passage of the amendment.

You've presented jack shit.

Who says he was ignored? You do. You've cited nothing to back that claim up. And I've caught you either lying or wildly ignorant of the 39th congress and the 14th amendment. Rendering you citing you useless noise.

PROVE that Howard was ignored. As I've already demonstrated, unambiguously, that the 14th's purpose as introduced by both Howard and Bingham was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. A fact that Bingham *reaffirmed* after the passage of the 14th amendment, even going so far as to read the first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights, one at a time, to demonstrate what he intended.

Its also the interpretation that the Supreme Court has used for about 120 years. And you laughably ignore the Supreme Court, Bingham, Howard, and 120 years of precedent insisting you know better.

Spoiler Alert: You don't.

Show us the quotes backing your claims. As you have no credibility, being either a liar or an incompetent.

You are not running from my post.



I said the Bill of Rights was not debated in the 39th Congress. It was not the purpose.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview

 

[The Professor]

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?

Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?

If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.

Marriage under state statute is simply the merger to corporate entities with the state being the third party under the UCC. Should I ever get married again? I will not be obtaining a "license" to do something that is a God given right...it's not something I need permission from a benevolent "gubermint" to do. If queers want the state to recognize their unions? Whatever....but a REAL church would never , ever "marry" two people of the same gender in a house of worship and that is a fact.

So..............I guess that Hinduism (which is a religion, as well as has temples which equate to churches) who recognizes homosexuality isn't a "real church"?

Does that mean that Islam (which kills people who are gay) is a "real church"?

If given the choice between Hindu, Islam or Christian, I'd rather be Hindu.

Be "hindu"....knock yourself out..... but Christianity does not condone homosexuality as it is offensive to God, the father and His son Jesus Christ.

Got news for you, but Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality. Matter of fact, when He was asked what the greatest commandment is, He said "Love God above all else, and love one another as you love God".

Gender wasn't specified.

And.....................I also challenge you to show me in the Bible where it says that homosexuality is a sin. Got news for you, you can't.

However....................you CAN find a place in the Bible (namely the Old Testament, which is a Jewish not a Christian book), where it states that if one man lies with another it's an abomination. Got news for you, that is from the book that talks about the rules for JEWISH priests, not anything to do with Christianity. Leviticus is actually a manual for those who are Jewish priests, not Christians.

And by the way.................if a man lies with a woman on the same Naval command, she gets pregnant, and they decide to get married, that is also considered an "abomination" to the U.S. Navy, and one of those who are in the union have to be transferred to another command. You can't have a married couple serving in the same command in the Navy.

The fact that Christ never addressed the subject of homosexuality directly is a moot point. Christians believe the entire Bible is the Word of God, not just the red-letter words attributable to Christ. To Christians the words of Peter, John , Paul and others, including the Biblical Patriarchs, are also sacred. There can be no doubt that the Bible (in both the Old and New Testaments) condemns homosexuality.

First of all, here are verses from the Old Testament which clearly state that homosexuality is an abomination and those who engaged in such activities were to be put to death (all verses are from the KJV):

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13).

The following verses from the New Testament also condemn homosexuality (all verses are from the KJV):

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God . Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God ” (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10).

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them” (Romans 1:26-32).

“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” (1 Timothy 1:8-10, KJV).

Christians believe that ALL sins will be forgiven to those who accept Christ. Whether those who continue their homosexual behavior would retain their salvation is another matter; however, if those who continue to commit other sins (such as fornication, adultery and drunkenness) do not lose their salvation, it would seem illogical to deny homosexuals the same consideration.

One more thing: The Bible claims, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, 'You shall not commit adultery,' also said, 'You shall not murder.' If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker” (James 2:10, 11, NIV). I find it strange that there is so much hatred toward homosexuality while adultery seems to be far more acceptable. In the final analysis, adultery includes an element of betrayal and perhaps that makes it the greater sin. Just thinking.

Bottom line: In the overall scheme of things , I doubt that the Bible considers homosexuality to be a greater sin than adultery. From a Biblical vantage point, homosexuals and adulterers have the same standing in both the Old and New Testaments.

But that's just my own humble opinion.

 

[Skylar]

You are not running from my post.

Your post was already systematically eviscerated. Worse, your post is just you citing you. And you're either a liar or an incompetent. As demonstrated here:

No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.

And you knew damn well that that's not true. Or should have.

Meanwhile, I've shown you three direct citations of the Congressional record demonstrating that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. You've presented jack shit backing your claims.....only citing yourself.

And you citing you is meaningless gibberish. As you're either a liar or an incompetent.

Show us. Don't tell us.

 

[Tennyson]

You are not running from my post.

Your post was already systematically eviscerated. Worse, your post is just you citing you. And you're either a liar or an incompetent. As demonstrated here:

No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.

And you knew damn well that that's not true. Or should have.

Meanwhile, I've shown you three direct citations of the Congressional record demonstrating that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. You've presented jack shit backing your claims.....only citing yourself.

And you citing you is meaningless gibberish. As you're either a liar or an incompetent.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Here you go again. Your out of context quotes are addressed in my post. To understand that, you need to understand a certain clause in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

I said the Bill of Rights was not debated in the 39th Congress. It was not the purpose.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview