The Instigator
holla1755
Pro (for)
The Contender
Flameshot
Con (against)

The Decision of Lawrence v. Texas Is Incorrect

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Flameshot has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 249 times Debate No: 103168
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

holla1755

Pro

The Supreme Court of the United States's decision of Lawrence v. Texas (2003) is incorrect.

Neither the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a valid justification for the case's decision. The Due Process Clause guarantees procedural due process of law, not substantive due process of law, and the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the equal enforcement of the laws, not the equal content of the laws. "Increase Sexual Liberty" Facebook post, https://www.facebook.com..., posted Mar. 27, 2017, visited Jul. 11, 2017.

Furthermore, if the decision was correct, then at least one valid argument in support of the decision would have been provided in the case's opinion. No valid argument in support of the decision, however, was provided in the opinion. Id. Therefore by modus tollens, the decision is not correct.
Flameshot

Con

Who Cares? So what if some horrible, discriminatory law got nullified. If it means equality for homosexuals than honestly, why bother fighting a 14 year old case?
Debate Round No. 1
holla1755

Pro

I care, and I'm not a heterosexual. I am not concerned the "horrible, discriminatory" law got nullified; I am concerned about how it got nullified. There is no genuine legal avenue through which the law could have been nullified. The Supreme Court cheated. The Supreme Court itself broke the law.

I agree the law was discriminatory. But that alone is not sufficient legal justification to nullify the law. As I previously mentioned, the Equal Protection Clause, which was wrongly used as legal justification to nullify the law, guarantees the equal enforcement of the laws and does not guarantee the equal content of the laws.

This paragraph gives an example of the Equal Protection Clause. If a state had a law that prohibited all black people from attending college, that state may not violate the Equal Protection Clause. But if the state had the law and only enforced it upon all black people 35 years old or older, that state would violate the Equal Protection Clause.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.