• 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

scatt said:
Exactly the same, yet one is not called marriage.

It shouldn't matter if they care about the "benefits, privileges, and legal protections" and not the word. But, as you showed, the word is what is important to you and gays.

The distinction is marriage never meant same sex.

You specifically said they are broken, that is different.
Click to expand...


Believe me - to the people who entered into "civil unions" before they could marry - it is NOT the same thing.


And no civil unions so far defined got them the same benefits, privileges and legal protections.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
Believe me - to the people who entered into "civil unions" before they could marry - it is NOT the same thing.

And no civil unions so far defined got them the same benefits, privileges and legal protections.
Click to expand...

If a civil union is not the same then it is not the same. Can you correlate that to my post?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Not in the slightest.
Click to expand...

Recorded history begs to differ. Same sex marriage was practiced in ancient Rome and in many other parts of the world.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Well, this pretty much ends any reason to debate the topic. This is an ooopsie moment for the left. Like in "A Few Good Men", where the General admitted he ordered the code red. The proverbial cat has just bolted from the bag!

We are debating about gays getting the full rights of marriage, and then, ooops, they admit that they want marriage taken away as it is and their new version of marriage forced down everyone's throat, even if gays get all the benefits of marriage. They want to impose their will on everyone else. That is the leftist agenda. The big, oppressive government that our Constitution was made to prevent.

"YOU'RE GOD D*MN RIGHT I ORDERED THE CODE RED!"
Click to expand...

Wow, hysterical much?

Don't you understand how having same sex couples asking for the right to marry actually STRENGTHENS the whole institution? I mean, that's why some LGBT people - and progressives - didn't understand the fight to marry. Why would people want to enter that traditional institution, based on all those patriarchal assumptions, and buy into the whole 2 person, white picket fence, house in the suburbs thing?

But the urge to marry is very powerful; that same sex couples want it just shows how much they buy into the tradition.

No one is making YOU enter into a same sex marriage. So why is it imposing anyone's will on you? It doesn't cheapen your marriage to have more people join the institution. It actually strengthens the institution.

Did allowing women to get the vote "cheapen" the institution of voting for men? was that redefining the right to vote? was that govt "shoving" something down the men's throats, who already had the right to vote? No - extending the franchise just reinforced its importance.

Sorry you feel so threatened. Most of us don't.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
If a civil union is not the same then it is not the same. Can you correlate that to my post?
Click to expand...

Because it wasn't a marriage. You yourself show how powerful that word is.

Civil unions didn't get them federal benefits, social security survivorship, etc. Can I call my civil union spouse Husband or do I have to come up with a new term?

You want to set up a whole new system called "civil unions" that's parallel to marriage but exactly identical to it. WHY? why would you set up two sets of laws, exactly the same, and just called different things? Why duplicate it? What a waste of time and energy.

We tried "separate but equal" - doesn't work.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
Because it wasn't a marriage. You yourself show how powerful that word is.

Civil unions didn't get them federal benefits, social security survivorship, etc. Can I call my civil union spouse Husband or do I have to come up with a new term?

You want to set up a whole new system called "civil unions" that's parallel to marriage but exactly identical to it. WHY? why would you set up two sets of laws, exactly the same, and just called different things? Why duplicate it? What a waste of time and energy.

We tried "separate but equal" - doesn't work.
Click to expand...

So civil unions are not what I proposed? Why are you telling me about them?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
So civil unions are not what I proposed? Why are you telling me about them?
Click to expand...

Scatt, this whole thread I've had no idea WHAT you've been proposing. You tell me what you propose. Do you propose a whole set of laws parallel but exactly the same as marriage laws that apply to same sex couples?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Yep, but same is "equal."

The state can and does discriminate based upon race.

I am aware they want the word only.
Click to expand...


I didnt say anything about race, I said gender. And same and equal are not 'equal'. For example, men and women are NOT the same, but they are equal. 2+2=4 and 3+1=4.....the equations are not the same, but they are equal.

And they dont only want 'the word.' They want all the same things that straight couples get from the govt when their marriage is recognized.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
I didnt say anything about race, I said gender. And same and equal are not 'equal'. For example, men and women are NOT the same, but they are equal. 2+2=4 and 3+1=4.....the equations are not the same, but they are equal.

And they dont only want 'the word.' They want all the same things that straight couples get from the govt when their marriage is recognized.
Click to expand...

Gender is also used to discriminate by the state.

Equal as in they are both humans?

paddymcdougall said:
Scatt, this whole thread I've had no idea WHAT you've been proposing. You tell me what you propose. Do you propose a whole set of laws parallel but exactly the same as marriage laws that apply to same sex couples?
Click to expand...

Under the premise of the state must exist, then all the same "benefits, privileges, and legal protections," but they do not have to redefine marriage.

If you are not proposing that premise be followed, then I support absolutely no state intervention into any marriage.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Under the premise of the state must exist, then all the same "benefits, privileges, and legal protections," but they do not have to redefine marriage.

If you are not proposing that premise be followed, then I support absolutely no state intervention into any marriage.
Click to expand...

So you are proposing a "separate but equal system"

I can't agree with you.

Marriage has already been redefined; it's much easier to change the state and federal marriage definition to include SSM than to set up a whole system of laws for SSM couples. That last is actually a waste of time and effort and money.

So if someone can get married when you don't like them, you'd rather throw out the whole institution than allow them into your playhouse? funny.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
So you are proposing a "separate but equal system"

I can't agree with you.

Marriage has already been redefined; it's much easier to change the state and federal marriage definition to include SSM than to set up a whole system of laws for SSM couples. That last is actually a waste of time and effort and money.

So if someone can get married when you don't like them, you'd rather throw out the whole institution than allow them into your playhouse? funny.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you do not want anything but the name.

If I am answering your premise that the state must exist then all the same "benefits, privileges, and legal protections," but they do not have to redefine marriage.

If you are asking me without that premise, then I support absolutely no state intervention into any marriage.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Gender is also used to discriminate by the state.

Equal as in they are both humans?
Click to expand...

The federal entity recognizes "all men are created equal" and that applies to women. You know, with the rights that you dont believe exist.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
The federal entity recognizes "all men are created equal" and that applies to women. You know, with the rights that you dont believe exist.
Click to expand...

Rights do not exist.

Does this apply to the arbitrary borders of the US, or are rights universal (real)?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Rights do not exist.

Does this apply to the arbitrary borders of the US, or are rights universal (real)?
Click to expand...

The federal entity.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
This isn't true. The laws do not prevent all homosexuals from marrying. The laws prevent specific homosexual couples from being able to get legally married.
Click to expand...

I quoted again and again and again where the courts said exactly what I say they did.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
The federal entity.
Click to expand...

Not real is how you describe rights then.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Not real is how you describe rights then.
Click to expand...

Please show where I ever said such a thing. Or prove that there are no rights that that federal entity protects and interprets.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
Wow, hysterical much?

No one is making YOU enter into a same sex marriage. So why is it imposing anyone's will on you? It doesn't cheapen your marriage to have more people join the institution. It actually strengthens the institution.

Did allowing women to get the vote "cheapen" the institution of voting for men? was that redefining the right to vote? was that govt "shoving" something down the men's throats, who already had the right to vote? No - extending the franchise just reinforced its importance.

Sorry you feel so threatened. Most of us don't.
Click to expand...

I've posted my response to most of this a few times already, so I'm not doing it again. Some of the comparisons made by the left here are such poor analogies, I wonder if you actually think about what you are saying or just blurt it out. They just don't stand up.

Let's cut to what I am talking about. Yes, I feel threatened by an over stepping federal government that is ignoring the extremely important retraints that we put on it with the Constitution. It is dangerous when people ignore this because it is a means to get votes by ramming through their political objectives. It will come back at you someday. You can't let it pass, because once government takes a power, and usually freedoms with it, it is nearly impossible to reverse it. And people usually die in the process.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
I've posted my response to most of this a few times already, so I'm not doing it again. Some of the comparisons made by the left here are such poor analogies, I wonder if you actually think about what you are saying or just blurt it out. They just don't stand up.

Let's cut to what I am talking about. Yes, I feel threatened by an over stepping federal government that is ignoring the extremely important retraints that we put on it with the Constitution. It is dangerous when people ignore this because it is a means to get votes by ramming through their political objectives. It will come back at you someday. You can't let it pass, because once government takes a power, and usually freedoms with it, it is nearly impossible to reverse it. And people usually die in the process.
Click to expand...

What freedom is being lost?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
I've posted my response to most of this a few times already, so I'm not doing it again. Some of the comparisons made by the left here are such poor analogies, I wonder if you actually think about what you are saying or just blurt it out. They just don't stand up.

Let's cut to what I am talking about. Yes, I feel threatened by an over stepping federal government that is ignoring the extremely important retraints that we put on it with the Constitution. It is dangerous when people ignore this because it is a means to get votes by ramming through their political objectives. It will come back at you someday. You can't let it pass, because once government takes a power, and usually freedoms with it, it is nearly impossible to reverse it. And people usually die in the process.
Click to expand...

where is the factual over stepping you speak of, the fed is actually doing what it is supposed to do protecting peoples rights

nobody is going to die and theres no threat
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
prove that there are no rights that that federal entity protects and interprets.
Click to expand...

If they just protect them does that mean they exist outside of the US?

paddymcdougall said:
Guess you won't be voting.
Click to expand...

Voting is an act of aggression that I have never taken part in.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Tell that to the people of Utah, and other states that have voted against changing the definition of marriage, that they are just a few misguided people. Doesn't say much for the smaller group of people that voted for it. Gee, what happened to that arrogant left wing meme of "we had a vote, and you lost"? You are wrong.
Click to expand...

the left never supported the concept of voting away somebody else's rights, and no real American should.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Well, this pretty much ends any reason to debate the topic. This is an ooopsie moment for the left. Like in "A Few Good Men", where the General admitted he ordered the code red. The proverbial cat has just bolted from the bag!

We are debating about gays getting the full rights of marriage, and then, ooops, they admit that they want marriage taken away as it is and their new version of marriage forced down everyone's throat, even if gays get all the benefits of marriage. They want to impose their will on everyone else. That is the leftist agenda. The big, oppressive government that our Constitution was made to prevent.

"YOU'RE GOD D*MN RIGHT I ORDERED THE CODE RED!"
Click to expand...

Separate but equal is inherently unequal.

Besides, civil unions have never even been close to equal to marriages in practice. There's just too many aspects of law tied into the marriage contract. And you know what? My motivation is just as irrelevant as yours. The burden is on the state to justify the classification. It's not on me to justify why same-sex marriage should be legal. It's up to you to demonstrate why it shouldn't be. The state does not have the authority to make a gender-based classification without an important interest being shown.

Name that interest, or admit that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional and you just don't care.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

winston53660 said:
What freedom is being lost?
Click to expand...

This is a very important question I've never seen a right-winger answer directly and clearly.
What harm is caused to them if two dudes get married? Never a real answer. Just some bull**** about moral fabric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom