Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
This is why I'm done with this discussion. You are either incapable of understanding legalese, or you are being deliberately obtuse.

No, I'm just trying to find out the truth in this matter, and I don't think it's right to swallow unsubstantiated claims. Why do you abuse me over this? I don't understand. You've made claims about things being law or opinion of Supreme Court justices, and when I ask for details, your claims peter out - they are only opinions of parties that support your side, not official rulings on homosexual marriage.

All you needed to do was to dig a little. Instead you decided it would be easier to say I was wrong or lying. That's another reason why I'm done.

Again, what is your problem here? If I made a claim that the Supremes said the sky is orange, wouldn't you ask me for a reference? It would be the logical thing to do, wouldn't it? I really don't understand your problem about my asking you to support a claim. Why should you have a problem with it?

In the decision handed down the justices state that the original position held by the court in Bowers v. Hardwick was “deficient� and that furthermore: ...

Please recall that the case involved PRIVATE conduct, not the legal definition of marriage ...

“Where a case’s foundations ...

OK, no reference to homosexual marriage ...

“The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.�

OK, no reference to homosexual marriage ...

“Bowers’ rationale ...

OK, no reference to homosexual marriage ...

If you do not understand that this is a major reversal from previous legal opinions, and that it is a major change in the way the court identifies homosexual people, then perhaps you should consider the Plaintiffs first statement:

My goodness, Blackheart, why do you do this? Of course I understand this! When have I denied those things? (that it's a major reversal, and that it's a major change in the way the court identifies homosexual people). When?? Never! My only claim is that the Supremes have not supported homosexual marriage! Are you trying to confuse the issue? Why do you change the topic?

“1. Whether Petitioners’ criminal convictions under the Texas “Homosexual Conduct� law—which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples—violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws?�

OK, no reference to homosexual marriage ...

(in) “Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed ... "
You will note the reference to MARRIAGE in the above opinion.

Yes, and I found it pretty funny that you've suddenly stopped complaining about my using the term "marriage"! But still, no reference to homosexual marriage, is there? And further down, the ruling specifically says:

The present case ... does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.

The Supremes are ruling on PRIVATE, consensual conduct. Again, they are NOT ruling on the formal recognition of homosexual marriage!

If you want it any clearer than that, you’re going to have to ask someone else.

I don't need to; you've made it abundantly clear that there is no formal opinion by the Supreme Court that homosexual marriage should be allowed. And if you're honest, you'll admit that. There IS, however, a formal opinion that PRIVATE homosexual conduct should not be illegal. That's very clear.

But you really should do some research before you go arguing that someone is being purposefully misleading, and issuing fiats that such a thing doesn’t exist.

Again, the person making the claim is typically the one to back it up. Don't you agree?

If you want to read the entire opinion it is posted here:

Thanks, I printed it out