• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

Even THEY don't define it solely as opposite sex couples.

check that same dictionary 10-20 years ago definition 2 won't be there.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

check that same dictionary 10-20 years ago definition 2 won't be there.

Go back to ancient Rome and you have two different emperors who were married to men. What is your point?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

check that same dictionary 10-20 years ago definition 2 won't be there.

So? how is that relevant?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

You said "marriage is between opposite sex people". That's not true. Even the federal govt now recognizes it's not true (with the striking down of part of DOMA). You are the only one thinking the definition of marriage is still "opposite sex". You need to qualify it. In some states it is; in most religions it is; but in many states and many countries, it isn't.

You seem to be really stubborn about that definition. Here you go -from Merriam Webster:
Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Even THEY don't define it solely as opposite sex couples.

But it is. The federal government only ended the lack of benefits for gay marriage if a state says they recognize the marriage, it in no way defines marriage as also gay marriage.

When did they change it?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

But it is. The federal government only ended the lack of benefits for gay marriage if a state says they recognize the marriage, it in no way defines marriage as also gay marriage.

When did they change it?

United States versus Windsor.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

So? how is that relevant?

went back to my 1983 Webster dictionary - 30 years ago. Won't do the whole thing - this is the full, 2,000+ page dictionary, unabridged, so it's a long definition. But some parts of it:

Marriage:
1. The state of being married; relation between husband and wife; married life; wedlock; matrimony
2. the act of marrying; wedding
3. the rite or form used in marrying
4. any close or intimate union.

Even back then, they don't specify opposite genders. "any close or intimate union".

Now of course you'll say they didn't think they had to back then... but yes, definitions change over time, and using the most recent one is most relevant to this discussion.

Just out of curiosity, I looked up "Troll" and there is NO reference to the internet; there are references to move in a circular direction; to sing rounds; to fish; and of course to supernatural beings. But nothing about internet behavior. AND in fact, there STILL is nothing about internet behaviour in the current definition -
Troll - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So we know internet trolls exist, even though the definition doesn't include them.

Marriage between same sex IS part of the definition; why does anyone deny it?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

went back to my 1983 Webster dictionary - 30 years ago. Won't do the whole thing - this is the full, 2,000+ page dictionary, unabridged, so it's a long definition. But some parts of it:

Marriage:
1. The state of being married; relation between husband and wife; married life; wedlock; matrimony
2. the act of marrying; wedding
3. the rite or form used in marrying
4. any close or intimate union.

Even back then, they don't specify opposite genders. "any close or intimate union".

Now of course you'll say they didn't think they had to back then... but yes, definitions change over time, and using the most recent one is most relevant to this discussion.

Just out of curiosity, I looked up "Troll" and there is NO reference to the internet; there are references to move in a circular direction; to sing rounds; to fish; and of course to supernatural beings. But nothing about internet behavior. AND in fact, there STILL is nothing about internet behaviour in the current definition -
Troll - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So we know internet trolls exist, even though the definition doesn't include them.

Marriage between same sex IS part of the definition; why does anyone deny it?

They didn't specify because it never meant gay marriage. Again, gay marriage is a very new definition.

It will probably soon be, but right now it isn't.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

They didn't specify because it never meant gay marriage. Again, gay marriage is a very new definition.

It will probably soon be, but right now it isn't.

Once again, go back several centuries and you have two different Roman emperors who married men. The first same sex marriage ban was created in Rome. Not exactly new when same sex marriage existed a millennium before our country even did.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Go back to ancient Rome and you have two different emperors who were married to men. What is your point?

Roman law did not recognize a marriage between two men. so why do you even bring it up when it technically doesn't help you in any way.

So? how is that relevant?

history has never recognized homosexual relationships. doesn't mean they didn't happen but no law ever recognized the marriage. it was consistantly recognized as a man and a women.

The federal government only ended the lack of benefits for gay marriage if a state says they recognize the marriage, it in no way defines marriage as also gay marriage.

When did they change it?

they didn't but activist judges are taking a very narrow ruling of the SC and making it a broad general ruling. The SC ruled that the federal government cannot define marriage it never said anything about the states that it technically was a state rights issue.

activist judges are now taking a broad stroke and changing laws without cause simply because they don't like the laws.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

They didn't specify because it never meant gay marriage. Again, gay marriage is a very new definition.

It will probably soon be, but right now it isn't.


we've shown you the dictionary definition

We've said that many states and countries don't define it as opposite sex only

we've pointed out the federal govt now accepts marriage as between same sex couples

That it is recent (2009 for Merriam Webster according to another poster) is irrelevant

So therefore, there is nothing more to say to you. You refuse to accept evidence presented and documented, you refuse to qualify your statement.

So - have a nice day. Your contribution to this forum has been unuseful.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

activist judges are now taking a broad stroke and changing laws without cause simply because they don't like the laws.

Or possibly because they realize there is no overriding reason to remove this right from same sex couples? That you don't deny a constitutional right to a group of people without a very good reason?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

we've shown you the dictionary definition

We've said that many states and countries don't define it as opposite sex only

we've pointed out the federal govt now accepts marriage as between same sex couples

That it is recent (2009 for Merriam Webster according to another poster) is irrelevant

When was it changed?

Many do.

No, they just stopped denying benefits.

Feel free to leave the discussion.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

We've said that many states and countries don't define it as opposite sex only

yet ignoring the fact that many of them do.

we've pointed out the federal govt now accepts marriage as between same sex couples

no it doesn't it says that the federal government cannot define what marriage is.

Your contribution to this forum has been unuseful.
about as useful as ignoring opinions you don't agree with.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Roman law did not recognize a marriage between two men. so why do you even bring it up when it technically doesn't help you in any way.

It did at one point, hence the first same sex marriage ban So same sex marriage is not exactly new.



history has never recognized homosexual relationships. doesn't mean they didn't happen but no law ever recognized the marriage. it was consistantly recognized as a man and a women.

It was law at one point in history, otherwise they would not have had to ban it.

Trying to reinvision history does not change what happened. Same sex marriage has existed as long as opposite sex marriage and in many parts of the world.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

When was it changed?

Many do.

No, they just stopped denying benefits.

Feel free to leave the discussion.

Marriage was between a man and a woman.
Before that it was between a man and a woman of the same race.
Before that it was between a man and his property. (aka the wife)
Before that it was between a man and his property. (aka any number of wives)

Do you have something to say other than "gay marriage wasn't marriage before?" Because we already know that. Thank you.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Marriage was between a man and a woman.
Before that it was between a man and a woman of the same race.
Before that it was between a man and his property. (aka the wife)
Before that it was between a man and his property. (aka any number of wives)

And it will soon most likely be two same sex people. But it isn't yet.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

And it will soon most likely be two same sex people. But it isn't yet.

You could have just said "No, I don't have anything more to say."

Have a nice day.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Have a nice day.

Feel free to leave the discussion.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Feel free to leave the discussion.

Feel free to contribute to it instead of spamming the same thing over and over.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I am currently in it, unlike you.



You are indeed doing this.

I've contributed plenty. For example, I notice you never actually responded to my points about an "important state interest"
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

yet ignoring the fact that many of them do.



no it doesn't it says that the federal government cannot define what marriage is.


about as useful as ignoring opinions you don't agree with.

Ludin, I tried very hard not to ignore Scatt. But she just keeps repeating the same thing "Marriage is between opposite sex people" with no qualifiers. We pointed out the many places it ISN'T just between opposite sex people; we pointed out how the definition includes same sex people; and she .....JUST .....KEPT.... REPEATING.... HER....INCORRECT.... STATEMENT

She didn't say "I think it should be between opposite sex couples". She didn't say "In some states it's only between opposite sex people" even when encouraged to do so.

She just kept saying a statement that was obviously wrong. (I have lots of friends who are married to someone of the same sex. Her statement is wrong.)

But I did try to not ignore her, probably longer than any one on this thread cared to read.
 
Back
Top Bottom