Page 8 of 152 FirstFirst ... 6789101858108 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 1516

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

  1. #71
    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 Anthony60 View Post
    All well and good, but I don't like being called a bigot because I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    And on a different level, it is an atrocious abuse of states rights when a federal judge's single opinion overturns the decision made by the people of that state. It's not slavery, no one is being forced to hand their life over to someone else.
    You may believe that marriage is between a man and a woman; but there are now what - 17 states? - that disagree with you. Not to mention various countries around the world also disagree with you.

    You may believe in Santa Claus. That doesn't mean others need to go along with your beliefs.

    If the voters of a state banned marriage between left-handed people, would you say the vote should stand?

    In the 60s, states had voted to ban inter-racial marriage. The court overturned those rules.

    Voters cannot take away a federal constitutional right. For example, voters could not vote that redheads weren't allowed to vote.

    I have no idea what you mean by your "it's not slavery" ... you are right in one way, but I can't imagine this is what you meant. With the court decision, NO ONE is forcing YOU to marry someone of the same gender. It's not slavery. You are not being forced to marry someone you don't want to marry.

  2. #72
    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 Harshaw View Post
    Look, you said multiple times that marriage laws don't prevent homosexuals from marrying.
    There are some people who claim that because a gay/lesbian can marry someone of the opposite gender, they are not prevented from marrying.

    So they would rather marriages be built on lies and shams than allow two people who actually love each other to marry, even if they are of the same gender.

    Never understood that myself. What good is having the right to marry if you can only marry someone you are not sexually attracted to? Now - you of course have the right to marry someone you find sexually unattractive; that happens, and there are lots of reasons for it, and I'm not judging. But if the only way to get married is to marry someone you are not attracted to - that just seems warped to me.

    To clarify: this battle is about allowing people to marry someone of the same gender - even if they are straight. Is that clear enough?

  3. #73
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,564

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

    Quote Originally Posted by paddymcdougall View Post
    You may believe that marriage is between a man and a woman; but there are now what - 17 states? - that disagree with you. Not to mention various countries around the world also disagree with you.

    You may believe in Santa Claus. That doesn't mean others need to go along with your beliefs.

    If the voters of a state banned marriage between left-handed people, would you say the vote should stand?

    In the 60s, states had voted to ban inter-racial marriage. The court overturned those rules.

    Voters cannot take away a federal constitutional right. For example, voters could not vote that redheads weren't allowed to vote.

    I have no idea what you mean by your "it's not slavery" ... you are right in one way, but I can't imagine this is what you meant. With the court decision, NO ONE is forcing YOU to marry someone of the same gender. It's not slavery. You are not being forced to marry someone you don't want to marry.
    None of those examples are relevant, they are not a good comparison at all. Slavery was legal in some states, but it was clearly prohibited by the Constitution, Not so here.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  4. #74
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,558

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    What I've actually said is that it's a gender-based classification. Because the distinction the states are making is one of gender, not sexuality.
    Yes, you have. And many courts disagree with you. I've pointed them out many, many times. To the extent that they mention "gender classification" at all, they reject it as a basis of equal protection. Why? Because both sexes are treated equally under the law. In fact, in Perry, what you are arguing HERE is exactly what the proponents of Proposition 8's SSM ban argued, and Judge Walker rejected it as poppycock, because, as he said, let's face it -- no one but homosexual couples have a stake in it.

    Instead, their rulings are on the basis of equal protection as to homosexuality. Get it? Not gender, homosexuality.


    See, homosexuals can get married: to someone of the opposite gender. The same way heterosexuals can get married: to someone of the opposite gender. Neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals are allowed to marry someone of the same gender. Feel free to disprove this.

    They don't disagree with me. They disagree with your incorrect interpretation of what I've said.

    Again: The intent is discrimination against homosexuals. The method is a gender-based distinction regarding a legal contract. I've clarified this for you, there's no reason to continue lying about what I'm arguing. Given your perceptions and beliefs, the mistake is understandable. Not sure what benefit you think there is in continuing to be stubborn about it.
    No, they DO disagree with you, and I'm not at all misinterpreting what you said. What you said is just plain wrong. Why you continue to cling to it, I have no idea. Honestly, what does it gain 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

  5. #75
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,558

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

    Quote Originally Posted by paddymcdougall View Post
    There are some people who claim that because a gay/lesbian can marry someone of the opposite gender, they are not prevented from marrying.

    So they would rather marriages be built on lies and shams than allow two people who actually love each other to marry, even if they are of the same gender.

    Never understood that myself. What good is having the right to marry if you can only marry someone you are not sexually attracted to? Now - you of course have the right to marry someone you find sexually unattractive; that happens, and there are lots of reasons for it, and I'm not judging. But if the only way to get married is to marry someone you are not attracted to - that just seems warped to me.
    Tell it to Deuce -- he's the one making that argument, not me.
    “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. #76
    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 Anthony60 View Post
    None of those examples are relevant, they are not a good comparison at all. Slavery was legal in some states, but it was clearly prohibited by the Constitution, Not so here.
    Seriously? The inter-racial marriage laws 'aren't relevant'? huh

    You do know that the SC has declared marriage a constitutional right, don't you? even people in prison can get married - even if they are in there for life.

    Slavery was totally allowed in the constitution as originally drafted.

  7. #77
    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 Harshaw View Post
    Tell it to Deuce -- he's the one making that argument, not me.
    Sorry, did not mean to imply YOU were making the argument; just continuing on with your questions about his stand

  8. #78
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    I find your name calling a bit offensive. People in this country are allowed to have religious beliefs and faiths, not to be diminished by the ignorant, intolerant views of the leftist that feel a need to dump their hate on us.
    LOL.....sure...people are entitled to have whatever beliefs they like. They can believe that blacks are inferior to whites, that Mexicans are dirty, that women should be subservient to men...that gays are immoral. Except it doesn't make any of the above true....they are still entitled to their views. However, what the bigots of the world are not entitled to do is to inflict those views when it directly effects another human being. Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, but bigotry in the name of religion is still bigotry.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  9. #79
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,854

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    All well and good, but I don't like being called a bigot because I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    And on a different level, it is an atrocious abuse of states rights when a federal judge's single opinion overturns the decision made by the people of that state. It's not slavery, no one is being forced to hand their life over to someone else.
    It is discrimination and that is what all the judicial opinions that I've seen have been based on.

    It's not really up to you to decide how important this is to other people...how would you feel if you were not allowed to marry? As a matter of fact, I have seen marriage described exactly like that....'handing your life over to someone else.' It's that important....to many people their love being legally recognized in front of God and/family etc is the most important thing to them.

    And as has been discussed in this thread, the states' will does not over rule the Constitution and the majority may not vote on the rights of the minority.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  10. #80
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,785

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Yes, you have. And many courts disagree with you. I've pointed them out many, many times. To the extent that they mention "gender classification" at all, they reject it as a basis of equal protection. Why? Because both sexes are treated equally under the law. In fact, in Perry, what you are arguing HERE is exactly what the proponents of Proposition 8's SSM ban argued, and Judge Walker rejected it as poppycock, because, as he said, let's face it -- no one but homosexual couples have a stake in it.

    Instead, their rulings are on the basis of equal protection as to homosexuality. Get it? Not gender, homosexuality.




    No, they DO disagree with you, and I'm not at all misinterpreting what you said. What you said is just plain wrong. Why you continue to cling to it, I have no idea. Honestly, what does it gain you?
    So what you're telling me is that you think homosexuals can't marry someone of the opposite gender. Got it.

    The laws do discriminate against homosexuals - by making a gender-based classification. How is this so hard for you to understand? I asked you before to show me a single law or constitutional amendment that referenced sexuality instead of gender. You never did. Instead, you went to court decisions. Why? Is it because the laws and amendments look like this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Texas Constitution
    Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
    One man and one woman. Exactly what I said. Nothing in there mentions sexual attraction. Get it now? Is this still something that eludes you?

    The method chosen to discriminate against homosexuals was a gender-based classification. The courts haven't contradicted what I've said. Because I agree with them. Homosexuals are being discriminated against. Through the use of a gender-based classification.

    You're confusing the offense and the tool used to perform it.
    Last edited by Deuce; 12-21-13 at 02:51 PM.
    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 8 of 152 FirstFirst ... 6789101858108 ... 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
  •