Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Giancarlo]

There's nothing in the clean air act that states anything to do with a constitutional right to water. You have the right to water - if you can pay your bill.



The problem is that you made up an argument out of whole cloth.



Dred Scott was law too. Just because a law is passed doesn't make it constitutional.

And there is nothing about marriage. So you basically destroyed your own argument.

I didn't make up anything. You are an idiot and always have been one on this matter.

You have a religious history degree and you don't know anything about the constitution. Your blabbering proves it.

Oh and Congress does have a right to create laws. This is allowed by the constitution. I never said Congress has a right to do whatever it wants. You two seriously need to restudy what checks and balances are. Immediately!

[Giancarlo]

And you comparing the clean air act to Dred Scott shows how much of a moron you are.

[Ben Kenobi]

And there is nothing about marriage. So you basically destroyed your own argument.

I'm not relying on the US constitution to make my argument. Oberfell, however, does. If the constitution says nothing about marriage (and the 14th does not say anything about marriage), then Oberfell's 'equality' argument falls apart.

My argument is based on the common law, which goes much farther back and includes things like Trial by Jury and Habeaus Corpus. The Constitution isn't the only part of American law, much of American Law relies on older precedents involving the English Common Law, that were passed down to the Colonies from England.

You have a religious history degree and you don't know anything about the constitution. Your blabbering proves it.

How is my degree 'religious'? The university of Northern British Columbia is a secular school.

Oh and Congress does have a right to create laws. This is allowed by the constitution. I never said Congress has a right to do whatever it wants. You two seriously need to restudy what checks and balances are. Immediately!

Checks and balances are why just because a law is signed that the law is not necessarily constitutional.

[Ben Kenobi]

And you comparing the clean air act to Dred Scott shows how much of a moron you are.

Did you expect us to take your argument at face value rather than actually taking the time to read the Clean Air Act? LOL.

You'll have to find another example as to where water is a right guaranteed by the constitution.. (here's a hint, it's not).

[Giancarlo]

I'm not relying on the US constitution to make my argument. Oberfell, however, does. If the constitution says nothing about marriage (and the 14th does not say anything about marriage), then Oberfell's 'equality' argument falls apart.

That would work if marriage wasn't a government/civil institution. Nice try Ben. Oberfell doesn't fall apart at all. You fall apart because of your sheer ignorance.

My argument is based on the common law, which goes much farther back and includes things like Trial by Jury and Habeaus Corpus. The Constitution isn't the only part of American law, much of American Law relies on older precedents involving the English Common Law, that were passed down to the Colonies from England.

I don't really give a **** what your argument is based on. It is 2016. Not 1800.

How is my degree 'religious'? The university of Northern British Columbia is a secular school.

Religious history is taught at secular schools.

Checks and balances are why just because a law is signed that the law is not necessarily constitutional.

Whoosh. You missed the point... Once again.

[Giancarlo]

Did you expect us to take your argument at face value rather than actually taking the time to read the Clean Air Act? LOL.

You'll have to find another example as to where water is a right guaranteed by the constitution.. (here's a hint, it's not).

Your argument is a pile of bull****... So I don't see why I should take anything you say at face value. You are a buffoon.

[Berzerker]

I didn't misinterpret anything and I didn't say Congress can do whatever it wants.

Public education is allowed by the law, which is allowed by the constitution. Check mate!

where are public ed laws allowed by the Constitution?

[Ben Kenobi]

Religious history is taught at secular schools.

Ok, but none of the classes were religious history.

That would work if marriage wasn't a government/civil institution. Nice try Ben. Oberfell doesn't fall apart at all.

Actually... It does since there's nothing saying anything in the 14th that applies to marriage.

[Bespin]

Perhaps...

But opinions are like... Well you know.

My world view is based by evidence. BKs is based on fantasy. That is what my original post was about. BK doesn't even bother looking at science. That is the point Bespin missed.

Okay... I'm really gonna try to make this simple, so that you can take this in.

My first post in this thread was in regards how your opinions, no matter how you formed them, doesn't matter to each other, because you have different world-views from each other. Therefore, no matter how much you claim that your world is built around science and empirical evidence, there is no way for you two to triumph over each other with whatever argument you throw at each other. It's compleatly meaningless as neither of you seem to have any understanding for each others arguments.

Yes, opinions ar just that, individual truths. But those also inform what information you listen to, and how you interpret that information. You are claiming that your truth and world-view is the correct one, and yes, for you it is. But for Ben, it isn't.

[kentonio]

There's nothing in the clean air act that states anything to do with a constitutional right to water. You have the right to water - if you can pay your bill.

You seem to have completely ignored the original declaration of independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You can't have life without water, air and food. To deny anyone access to those things, deprives them of life, thus by definition liberty and certainly any possibility of the pursuit of Happiness.

Your pedantic attempts to read the constitution point by point (the same inane way you read the bible) manages to ignore the very principles it was built upon. You think its more important that someone own a gun than you do that they have access to water. Think about that next time you're praying, it says some very disturbing things about you.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's compleatly meaningless as neither of you seem to have any understanding for each others arguments.

Actually, I was just like Giancarlo. So yes I understand his arguments perfectly well. He's doing a terrible job of defending them.

[Ben Kenobi]

You can't have life without water, air and food. To deny anyone access to those things, deprives them of life, thus by definition liberty and certainly any possibility of the pursuit of Happiness.

How is the state depriving them of water?

Your pedantic attempts to read the constitution point by point (the same inane way you read the bible) manages to ignore the very principles it was built upon.

Self-sufficiency and Liberty?

You think its more important that someone own a gun than you do that they have access to water. Think about that next time you're praying, it says some very disturbing things about you.

What does that say about the writers of the constitution that they believed that the right to bear arms was an enumerated right? To me it states clearly that they believed that the constitution was written to put a check on the powers of the state, not on the powers of the people.

As for water - supplying things to someone can only be paid by taking things from someone else. I do not have a right to demand that my neighbor pay for my water bill. If I don't pay my water bill I get cut off. I suppose in Kentonioland things like water bills do not exist.

[Giancarlo]

Actually, I was just like Giancarlo. So yes I understand his arguments perfectly well. He's doing a terrible job of defending them.

Wow. For one I have done a great job defending my arguments. You don't have a clue about my arguments. You argue like a child.

[Giancarlo]

Actually... It does since there's nothing saying anything in the 14th that applies to marriage.

Wow. Here we go again... Only in Ben land. This idiot actually thinks he is making a strong argument. There is a reason a bigot shouldn't have a say in what rights other citizens should receive.

[Giancarlo]

Okay... I'm really gonna try to make this simple, so that you can take this in.

My first post in this thread was in regards how your opinions, no matter how you formed them, doesn't matter to each other, because you have different world-views from each other. Therefore, no matter how much you claim that your world is built around science and empirical evidence, there is no way for you two to triumph over each other with whatever argument you throw at each other. It's compleatly meaningless as neither of you seem to have any understanding for each others arguments.

Sorry but no. My argument has been well backed and well supported. Ben simply hasn't. Ben is a compulsive liar who has been stuck in religious fanaticism for decades. I have more than a great understanding of his argument. His type is quite common... He lacks critical thinking and that is why he is easily sucked into religious fanaticism and bigotry.

The guy accuses me of doing a terrible job at defending my argument. Look through this thread. Ben has done an awful job at defending anything. It wasn't only me who has noticed this common theme. When he gets cornered, he quickly changes the subject and engages in various lies. He is a **** debater. One of the worst on this site.

Yes, opinions ar just that, individual truths. But those also inform what information you listen to, and how you interpret that information. You are claiming that your truth and world-view is the correct one, and yes, for you it is. But for Ben, it isn't.

Again, a religious fanatic has a distorted view of the world. His world view is completely incorrect if you look at actual evidence. He is in the wrong. And his bigotry has stunk up this thread. And I think he needs a refund on his history degree... His knowledge of the constitution is one of the worst I have ever seen.

A bigot is never right under any circumstances. Ben is a complete hateful bigot and hates those who are different than him. He engages in hateful lies and switches the subject. His defense is garbage. His understanding of the law and constitution isn't even something you would see a college freshman using. I am left to believe this fool has no degree at all and is lying to everyone on here.

Maybe it's time Ming just locks this thread. It is obvious Ben is only here to stroke his own ego.