View Single Post
      02-24-2013, 11:11 AM   #101
DieselDiner
Lieutenant Colonel
 
DieselDiner's Avatar
 
Drives: 335d
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Home

Posts: 1,513
iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff4598 View Post
I think post#96 involves a bit of misdirection- The 15th and 19th amendments- as I read them give general rights to specific groups of people they do not give "racial" or "gender" rights to all people. So to imply that there is no "homosexual right" is misleading. When people of all races and both genders are given equal rights in these amendments they are presumed to be granted all rights as a citizen. To argue that homosexuals need a specific amendment to be assured they have the rights of other citizens raises the question of where the parsing stops- Is it OK to deny the short, stout or stuttering their general rights until the constitution specifies that they have them?
The amendments are very explicit about who and what they address - no parsing needed. People who try to infer more to those amendments than is contained are wrong. It's that simple.

Nowhere have I written that "homosexuals need a specific amendment".

What I have written is that the 14th amendment appears to most directly address the issue in existing law.

And with that, I'm done.
__________________

Last edited by DieselDiner; 02-24-2013 at 11:27 AM.
DieselDiner is online now  
0
Reply With Quote