Page 106 of 152 FirstFirst ... 65696104105106107108116 ... LastLast
Results 1,051 to 1,060 of 1516

Thread: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage[W:780]

  1. #1051
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    They do when they reject sex-based discrimination as a basis for their rulings.

    You're right. That was rivrrat. My mistake.

    And that argument applies just as much to discrimination against homosexuality, which is the overall crux of what the courts have said.
    Most haven't outright rejected it, except those who reject any argument and rule in favor of the laws. The majority just either a) don't address it or b) simply find it at the lower level because it doesn't even pass the lowest level. In fact, the arguments from the pro-ssm side in a courtroom generally don't touch on that fact to begin with, which is another reason it is not addressed. The discrimination is still based on sex/gender, not sexuality, even if the effect is to discriminate mainly against gays.

    The argument I made does not apply to discrimination against homosexuality because in all cases where there are laws restricting two people of the same sex from marrying, no one, no matter their sexuality can marry a person of the same sex, while when it comes to sexuality, any combination of sexualities can get married, two homosexuals, two bisexuals, two heterosexuals, two asexuals even, or any combination of these sexualities so long as they are opposite sex paired.
    Last edited by roguenuke; 01-03-14 at 12:31 PM.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #1052
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    You are not making any sense. I didn't ask anything about "breeding" or making more children. We could be talking about a well-to-do family that simply wants their child to get a headstart in making it up through the ranks. No government "breeding money" involved.

    As I said, plenty of bad parents out there, many of which have plenty of their own money. Who decides for those children who either have bad parents or no parents? Afterall, some children have no parents due not to the fault of the parents. Can orphans get jobs? What about joining the Army, Navy, or Marines?
    No, Scatt isn't making any sense. Not that I expected him/her to make any sense, based on their posts in this thread.

    But based on Scatt saying "no discrimination" that means she/he is ok with child labor, child drinking, child driving, children in the army, children voting, etc etc etc. And no matter how often she/he says "bad parenting", that doesn't deny what they think.

  3. #1053
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:43 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,562

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Most haven't outright rejected it, except those who reject any argument and rule in favor of the laws. The majority just either a) don't address it or b) simply find it at the lower level because it doesn't even pass the lowest level. The discrimination is still based on sex/gender, not sexuality, even if the effect is to discriminate mainly against gays.
    If they don't even mention it, then it's not the basis of their ruling. It's not enough that they "don't disagree" with you. If your theory is the underlying, prevailing one, then they have to go with it. That is, if you want to prove me wrong.


    The argument I made does not apply to discrimination against homosexuality because in all cases where there are laws restricting two people of the same sex from marrying, no one, no matter their sexuality can marry, while when it comes to sexuality, any combination of sexualities can get married, two homosexuals, two bisexuals, two heterosexuals, two asexuals even, or any combination of these sexualities so long as they are opposite sex paired.
    They can't marry the person of their choice, which is what your argument boils down to. Whether it's about race, gender, or sexuality, everyone is treated the same under the law on its face, but some people are denied the choice they want to make. It's exactly the same argument in all three cases.

    Honestly, I don't even know why you're arguing with me, or why you want to deny the argument that homosexuals are discriminated against. You have a legal theory you want to push, that much is clear, but it's simply not the one the courts have used. But the result is the same either way, so I don't even know what you think you gain by arguing.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #1054
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    If they don't even mention it, then it's not the basis of their ruling. It's not enough that they "don't disagree" with you. If your theory is the underlying, prevailing one, then they have to go with it. That is, if you want to prove me wrong.

    They can't marry the person of their choice, which is what your argument boils down to. Whether it's about race, gender, or sexuality, everyone is treated the same under the law on its face, but some people are denied the choice they want to make. It's exactly the same argument in all three cases.

    Honestly, I don't even know why you're arguing with me, or why you want to deny the argument that homosexuals are discriminated against. You have a legal theory you want to push, that much is clear, but it's simply not the one the courts have used. But the result is the same either way, so I don't even know what you think you gain by arguing.
    First, just because the court doesn't address it, doesn't mean it isn't true. If the ruling is available at a lower level, as it is, then it is better if the court rules at that lower level because it keeps their rulings more conservative and shows how truly stupid the arguments for the same sex marriage restrictions are.

    Second, the marrying someone of their choice argument falls short anyway since people are restricted in other ways from marrying someone of their choice. You cannot marry someone who is too young (too young in some cases being as old as 18 even, since at least one state sets marriage at 19). You cannot marry someone who is too closely related to you in most states. You cannot marry more than one person. These are all restrictions on marriage based on certain characteristics, age, legal kinship, or amount, just as same sex marriage bans are restrictions based on sex/gender (it is in fact right there in the "same sex" part).

    Plus, it really isn't just homosexuals that are denied the choice of taking a same sex spouse. There are almost certainly some heterosexuals who would prefer to take a same sex spouse, such as their best friend or a friend/roommate, for the same reasons that they would take an opposite sex spouse that they are not having sex with. There is no requirement in any marriage in the US to be "in love" or even in an intimate relationship (with the possible exception of marriages that gain a person a green card or citizenship). So, in effect, my mother could not marry her best friend if she wanted to, not because of their sexualities (they are both straight) or their relationship with each other really (because two friends of the opposite sex could get married), but only because she is a woman wanting to marry a woman.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #1055
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:43 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,562

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    First, just because the court doesn't address it, doesn't mean it isn't true. If the ruling is available at a lower level, as it is, then it is better if the court rules at that lower level because it keeps their rulings more conservative and shows how truly stupid the arguments for the same sex marriage restrictions are.
    Doesn't matter; you told me I was wrong about what the courts said. If I am, they have to agree with you, not just NOT disagree.


    Second, the marrying someone of their choice argument falls short anyway since people are restricted in other ways from marrying someone of their choice. You cannot marry someone who is too young (too young in some cases being as old as 18 even, since at least one state sets marriage at 19). You cannot marry someone who is too closely related to you in most states. You cannot marry more than one person. These are all restrictions on marriage based on certain characteristics, age, legal kinship, or amount, just as same sex marriage bans are restrictions based on sex/gender (it is in fact right there in the "same sex" part).

    Plus, it really isn't just homosexuals that are denied the choice of taking a same sex spouse. There are almost certainly some heterosexuals who would prefer to take a same sex spouse, such as their best friend or a friend/roommate, for the same reasons that they would take an opposite sex spouse that they are not having sex with. There is no requirement in any marriage in the US to be "in love" or even in an intimate relationship (with the possible exception of marriages that gain a person a green card or citizenship). So, in effect, my mother could not marry her best friend if she wanted to, not because of their sexualities (they are both straight) or their relationship with each other really (because two friends of the opposite sex could get married), but only because she is a woman wanting to marry a woman.
    This is just repeating what you said, and I still don't know why you're even arguing with me. Do YOU?
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  6. #1056
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Doesn't matter; you told me I was wrong about what the courts said. If I am, they have to agree with you, not just NOT disagree.

    This is just repeating what you said, and I still don't know why you're even arguing with me. Do YOU?
    You are wrong that the courts (at least the ones that ruled to strike down same sex marriage bans) contradict the reasoning that the laws are gender-based discrimination. The courts simply have not ruled on that, because in general, it is never argued that way. Their rulings do not however conflict with the reasoning that it is gender-based discrimination, because it is. The courts focus on the groups being discriminated by the discrimination. In this case though, the group discriminated against the most by the laws are homosexuals, but the discrimination itself is based on gender, not sexuality. Just because a court has not made such a ruling, does not make the statement false or wrong.

    And I continue to argue with you because you continue to either make claims that are incorrect or appear to not understand parts of my arguments, so I am going to correct you or clarify for you.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #1057
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:43 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,562

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    You are wrong that the courts (at least the ones that ruled to strike down same sex marriage bans) contradict the reasoning that the laws are gender-based discrimination.
    Those who have addressed it have.

    The courts simply have not ruled on that, because in general, it is never argued that way,

    Their rulings do not however conflict with the reasoning that it is gender-based discrimination, because it is. The courts focus on the groups being discriminated by the discrimination. In this case though, the group discriminated against the most by the laws are homosexuals, but the discrimination itself is based on gender, not sexuality. Just because a court has not made such a ruling, does not make the statement false or wrong.

    And I continue to argue with you because you continue to either make claims that are incorrect or appear to not understand parts of my arguments, so I am going to correct you or clarify for you.
    I have not misunderstood anything you said. Everything I've said has been correct (except that I misremembered the person involved in an earlier exchange). And again I have to ask -- why are you trying so hard to push an argument that the courts haven't used to come to their decisions, when the result is the same? Why is demanding the discrimination isn't based on sexuality, but on sex, so important to you?
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #1058
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    02-09-17 @ 10:57 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,721

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Because that worked so well in the past. Business owners would never take advantage of children. It isn't like the government had to make child labor laws or anything because in the past both businesses and parents put their young children to work, in pretty horrible conditions, doing pretty dangerous jobs, right?

    And the Army is part of the government.
    The parents got them the jobs, not the other way around.

    Child labor laws were enacted to help eliminate the massive state of socialism.

  9. #1059
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    The parents got them the jobs, not the other way around.

    Child labor laws were enacted to help eliminate the massive state of socialism.
    Where do you come up with these things?

  10. #1060
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    The parents got them the jobs, not the other way around.

    Child labor laws were enacted to help eliminate the massive state of socialism.
    Wrong. Sometimes it was the parents, sometimes it was the business owners taking in orphans to work for them. Either way, it was still wrong. And either way, it was still more than just "poor parenting", much more.

    And you still have not addressed the restriction on age for joining the military or holding any other government job.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •