In fact, my argument rests very squarely on the 14th Amendment AND the jurisprudence which surrounds it, and the tests which have been developed over time to analyze whether or not a law runds afoul of the equal protection clause. If you were familiar with any of that and how to argue equal protection, you might actually know that. (I even explained the entire reasoning process in detail, and in simple, layman's language.)
But you don't get that. Instead, you seem to think I'm arguing that the 14th amendment is somehow "nullified" -- which is asinine, utterly and completely. If you have to make things up, how can you be right?
That's simply because you haven't understood a word I've written.You're not being very academic here. I read what you wrote over and over, but it just doesn't add up.
I made an equal protection argument, and I in no way "injected" any "defense." Nothing I said has anything to do with "defense." I have nothing to "defend." This is only further evidence that you simply don't understand what the conversation is even about.I have no idea why you keep dismissing the equal protection argument and keep injecting your sexuality defense.
Except that you didn't. All you did was say "you think it nullifies the 14th Amendment. It doesn't." Which, of course, is simply stupid because I never said that, and if I had, your declaring it so wouldn't cut it anyway.It's like you are stuck on that point despite the fact it's been addressed and refuted. From here, this is where you _should_ read the argument I put forth and say, "you know, Singularity already addressed this, and it's been refuted. Let me try to explain another possible defense against the equal protection clause".
Because you haven't addressed it effectively yet.Again, I don't know why you can't seem to get past that.
And saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it so.The only thing I can tell you to do is maybe leave out the term 'sexuality' from your next defense, in the hopes that you eventually understand that we are past that already. I mean it's been addressed an umpteenth amount of times. Is there anything that I can do to help you to move forward here? We just keep going back to you presenting the same argument, me addressing it and refuting it, and you repeating the same argument.
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.