RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
June 5, 2015 at 12:33 pm
(This post was last modified: June 5, 2015 at 1:52 pm by Ace.
Edit Reason: words
)
Just something to keep in mind and for everyone to cool down because and not get overlay worked-up or upset.
1. When this posting/ chat/ discussion topic, (whatever you wish to call it) was sit up by Anima he /she stated that they would like to argue about the issue of same sex marriage UNDER THE LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT IS BEING PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME COURT. Thus discussion is going to talk about the issue in legal terms and concepts. Upon reading HOW this wanting to be argued, I knew that legal jargon would be used and that the logic/reason of the argument would be law based.
Some have understudied this and have argued under the set statute of the discussion. Others, who forever reason, are not arguing law but personal feeling and views on what they think of the issue. Which is not what was the asked for when engaging this dissection. However, Anima has not complained about it and has even tried to address your comments. Yet, it is because of personal views, ideas and reasons that are not in keeping with the why this argument was to focus on, are being posted that a misunderstanding of the augment of the topic at times occurs. Thus, causing many becoming disrespectful, closed minded, unreasonable, frustrated and so on, which should not really be accruing if you are arguing it legally.
2. Now when arguing law a different way of approaching the topic is done in the court. The petitioners MUST LEGALLY proven the point of argument. This is done by, evidence, testimony and precedence (which are in the cases that judges have ruled on previously and is equal to the case that is currently being argued. The court CAN NOT AND WILL NOT say we will rule in your favor because of what you think and feel. If that were the case the law would be pandemonium, unruly along with many other devastating situations.
Case in point Zimmerman was found not guilty because UNDER THE LAW he was just in his actions. Now many say it was immoral, wrong, and even unjust, but it is the law that he is being tried under and the law said he is legally right. What the people think and feel is not taking to account in the court room.
P.S. writing in English is very difficult for me, hence why I almost never post anything bUT just read the augments. So sorry for any misspellings and bad grammar.
1. When this posting/ chat/ discussion topic, (whatever you wish to call it) was sit up by Anima he /she stated that they would like to argue about the issue of same sex marriage UNDER THE LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT IS BEING PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME COURT. Thus discussion is going to talk about the issue in legal terms and concepts. Upon reading HOW this wanting to be argued, I knew that legal jargon would be used and that the logic/reason of the argument would be law based.
Some have understudied this and have argued under the set statute of the discussion. Others, who forever reason, are not arguing law but personal feeling and views on what they think of the issue. Which is not what was the asked for when engaging this dissection. However, Anima has not complained about it and has even tried to address your comments. Yet, it is because of personal views, ideas and reasons that are not in keeping with the why this argument was to focus on, are being posted that a misunderstanding of the augment of the topic at times occurs. Thus, causing many becoming disrespectful, closed minded, unreasonable, frustrated and so on, which should not really be accruing if you are arguing it legally.
2. Now when arguing law a different way of approaching the topic is done in the court. The petitioners MUST LEGALLY proven the point of argument. This is done by, evidence, testimony and precedence (which are in the cases that judges have ruled on previously and is equal to the case that is currently being argued. The court CAN NOT AND WILL NOT say we will rule in your favor because of what you think and feel. If that were the case the law would be pandemonium, unruly along with many other devastating situations.
Case in point Zimmerman was found not guilty because UNDER THE LAW he was just in his actions. Now many say it was immoral, wrong, and even unjust, but it is the law that he is being tried under and the law said he is legally right. What the people think and feel is not taking to account in the court room.
P.S. writing in English is very difficult for me, hence why I almost never post anything bUT just read the augments. So sorry for any misspellings and bad grammar.
