Same sex marriage.

I have proved you wrong and have a source to back up my claim." No. You have not proved that anything has been denied. By any-one accept the Gay man or lesbian woman who wishes not to be married to a lesbian woman or a gay man. The same sex couples would in fact be responsible for achieving any right of the any 1,138 possible benefits claimed lost. The fact that a Gay man is not in some way allowed to be married to a lesbian woman has never been actual established, here, in your argument, or in writing by a cited source, in whole this is a failure in fulfillment, the judicial Obligation of marriage is not to blame for the couples inability man or woman. I simply believe, you like many others do not see or understand the simplicity of a Constitutional Social Contract. "This statement is either a non-sequitur and /or a red herring." Liberty and freedom are interchange by word alone and not definition, for by basic principle in anything that is made/set "Free" holds no self-value like the word liberty. A person must hold liberty not just demand it from others. What we will find under Constitutional examination is a possible exploitation of a poor choice of wording, use more than just once in a history of exploitations of people, expression of liberty might be better suited for all forms of slaves or P.O.W. (Prisoners of War) held in/by a State of belief. "Yes, this is true but a red herring." No, not a red herring it is a public admission to the witnessing of self-denial. The importance here is that this action justifies a Title be assigned in common defense of the United States Constitutional separation. As a pattern may be forming. Separation having been provided with the term Binivir in this matter. This fully exposes a possible plagiarism issue which may have legal ramifications. "Another red herring." Not even an effort to establish that a Married couple is in fact providing documentation in advance to the joined State of adding to the population by creating children? A precedent as of yet not followed by the medical field as a common defense. These are not red herring"s, only an "Official Title" which is not asking witnesses or any-one else to openly plagiarize Marriage. A person demanding to be witnessed, to be seen, is describing an expectation publicly which is not necessary. Same Sex. Red Herring - Ignoratio elechi Also known as: beside the point, misdirection [from of] changing the subject, false emphasis. Pro is simply unprepared for this argument and did not understand the nature of Marriage. It is a word that has been adopted, selected by witnesses, and a judicial process. It has precedent. This subject covers a great deal if issue that a Nation faces, immigration in to a Country, The promotion of natural born citizens, judicial paper work, order of efficiency, and even the understanding of public records birth and relatives. ."A burden of Proof will be upon Con." ."My opponent will contend that the United State of America"s Federal Government should not recognize Gay Marriage." A form or type of Witness Statement: ( As example only) Do you( your name) _______, object to a man who wishes to enter into a public binding contract with other. Excluding all others, including both male and female in the binding terms of future agreements of this nature. Binivir? Yes/No? ______ If you, (Full name)_________ do not have any legal reason why this couple can not be held by the term that will be set by this Amendment to Marriage, Titled Binivir, speak now of forever hold your peace. Gay Marriage or Lesbian Marriage is already describe in the judicial system, therefore; it creates a double standard when held. Same Sex Marriage is incriminating the person watching as witness, but also is creating a double standard. Bad luck or strategy? Either way it is addressed by a statement of legal grievance. Offering common defense to the general welfare by separation of choice not guided limitation. First the witness is directed to describe something more than what is needed legally by the use of the word sex, as the witness, this kind of direction might be publicly construed as a form of crime in a legal Court, form many directions, a Court which is also being forced publicly to hold several double standards in legislated law by threat of accusation. Forcing the double standard within the union of non-biased impartiality and judicial separation. The red herring is the debate has now been equipped with a Constitutional Amendment to Marriage, as the Democracy of the United States has accepted many Amendments to Constitution as precedent, so any answer by grievance, disagreement, and legal concern, or any approval can be properly governed. This term Binivir is a self-evident truth used to defend a publicly held accusation against the Legal precedent of Marriage. Pro starts off round three by first openly admitted a Gay man could have been married and received all the right that had been claimed refused by the Constitutional separation Titled Marriage. What is an Ignoratio elechi is the way in which all witnesses are forced to describe what is seen in an official legal Agreement and the plagiarism which is occurring or allowed here. Plagiarism is the kind way to say. What is desired by a group, to obtain a credit earned to a word without fully explaining the responsibility the basic separation has publicly. It is an honor to debate this topic. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... https://www.merriam-webster.com...