Page 11 of 152 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161111 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 1516

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

  1. #101
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,709

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    But go ahead; keep claiming that there are no laws which keep homosexuals from marrying, no matter how many courts say otherwise. Really, g'head.
    I have never once claimed this. You are lying. Why?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #102
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    That's because it is not the same thing.
    That directly goes into contradiction with this:

    I can no more marry someone of the opposite sex than a gay person can, and gays are permitted to marry the opposite sex just as I can. Same rules for everyone.
    If relationships aren't the same, then the same standards of law can't be applied to all. However, from a legal standpoint the sole difference between straight marriages & gay marriages are the genders involved. In other words, it is a cosmetic difference that separates one from the other. They are no different than heterosexual couples who get married even though they can't procreate. Also, they (homosexual marriages) don't require any additional legal protections or considerations. They don't require any extra judicial infrastructure. So if the rules are meant to apply to all relationships of the same sort, why can't the rules that apply to hetero marriage apply to gay marriage? Both include consenting parties. Both include legal age restrictions. So what is it that is so harmful about their union?

    It also discards any Constitutional protections that you are claiming.
    Please elaborate.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  3. #103
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:30 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,499

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    But go ahead; keep claiming that there are no laws which keep homosexuals from marrying, no matter how many courts say otherwise. Really, g'head.
    I have never once claimed this. You are lying. Why?


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Post a single state's law or constitutional amendment that says homosexuals aren't allowed to get married.
    You have either deeply, deeply confused yourself or you are one of the most dishonest people on the board. Don't really care which.
    “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. #104
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,709

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post




    You have either deeply, deeply confused yourself or you are one of the most dishonest people on the board. Don't really care which.
    Lying through omission of context is still a lie.

    Interestingly enough, you've failed to provide such a law. See, like I've said several times, the actual writing of the law prevents two people of the same gender from marrying.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  5. #105
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:30 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,499

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Lying through omission of context is still a lie.
    It's. What. You. Said. I guess you don't even understand your own argument. So that answers that.

    Interestingly enough, you've failed to provide such a law. See, like I've said several times, the actual writing of the law prevents two people of the same gender from marrying.
    And now, you want it both ways. You want to have said it but not said it.

    The courts reject you. Period. It doesn't matter if you understand that or not; it still is so.
    “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. #106
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:21 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Bigots are defined by their beliefs, which are bigoted. I won't call you a bigot but I will say that your beliefs are bigoted. This is amply demonstrated by how you believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman when the facts show that it can also be between a man and a a man, or a woman and a woman.

    And it's too bad if you don't like that

    And as far as states rights goes, it doesn't exist. Governments do not have any rights; only powers. Your belief to the contrary, is contrary to the facts, so this belief of yours is equally bigoted.
    It is but what people who cry bigot of other people don't understand is they are being bigotted themselves. You might disagree with what they have to say but it gives you no right to call them a bigot without subjecting yourself to the same critisism for being intolerant of their idea's and or beliefs. if you call yourself a tolerant person then you must respect their idea's and or beliefs.

    bigot has become a useless word with no meaning. it has the same effect as crying nazi or racist. it is just to try and demean another person who's views you don't agree with but can't agrue against. it has basically become an ad hominem.

    as far as states rights go states do have rights and the 10th amendment heavily disagree's with you.
    marriage was never defined in the constitution because it wasn't an issue back then. They left it up for the states to define if the need arose.

    what i am waiting for next are the lawsuits against preachers and churches for not allowing them to be married.

  7. #107
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Lying through omission of context is still a lie.

    Interestingly enough, you've failed to provide such a law. See, like I've said several times, the actual writing of the law prevents two people of the same gender from marrying.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post


    You have either deeply, deeply confused yourself or you are one of the most dishonest people on the board. Don't really care which
    ... Deuce, as much as I hate to do it, I'm gonna side with Harshaw on this one. You're splitting hairs. The law bans same-sex marriage. Anybody who has spent 5 mins reading US history can guess these laws targeted homosexuals. They went hand in hand with anti-sodomy laws as well as state protections for companies who discriminate against homosexuals. We can argue about what their text said but we all know what the intended effect was meant to be, their historical context as well as the reasoning behind their creation.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  8. #108
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    It is but what people who cry bigot of other people don't understand is they are being bigotted themselves. You might disagree with what they have to say but it gives you no right to call them a bigot without subjecting yourself to the same critisism for being intolerant of their idea's and or beliefs. if you call yourself a tolerant person then you must respect their idea's and or beliefs.

    bigot has become a useless word with no meaning. it has the same effect as crying nazi or racist. it is just to try and demean another person who's views you don't agree with but can't agrue against. it has basically become an ad hominem.

    as far as states rights go states do have rights and the 10th amendment heavily disagree's with you.
    marriage was never defined in the constitution because it wasn't an issue back then. They left it up for the states to define if the need arose.

    what i am waiting for next are the lawsuits against preachers and churches for not allowing them to be married.
    That was nonsense. The word bigot has a clear and definite meaning and using the word properly does not make one a bigot.

    As far as the Tenth Amendment goes, I suggest you re-read it. It says nothing about states having any rights

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  9. #109
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,709

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    It's. What. You. Said. I guess you don't even understand your own argument. So that answers that.



    And now, you want it both ways. You want to have said it but not said it.

    The courts reject you. Period. It doesn't matter if you understand that or not; it still is so.
    You ignored the conversation prior. Period.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #110
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,709

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    ... Deuce, as much as I hate to do it, I'm gonna side with Harshaw on this one. You're splitting hairs. The law bans same-sex marriage. Anybody who has spent 5 mins reading US history can guess these laws targeted homosexuals. They went hand in hand with anti-sodomy laws as well as state protections for companies who discriminate against homosexuals. We can argue about what their text said but we all know what the intended effect was meant to be, their historical context as well as the reasoning behind their creation.
    I know, because I've said that. Literally exactly that.

    I said the intent was to discriminate against homosexuals, and that the method for that intent was a gender based classification. Get it?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 11 of 152 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161111 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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