• 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

Paleocon said:
For any undecided people reading this, note:

I have made rational arguments, showing why sodomy is wrong.

And those arguing against me have called me a "complete raging hypocrite", a "depraved busybody", and "doomed".

You can see which position is supported by reason, and which one is backwards illogical thinking.
Click to expand...

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

Paleocon said:
The moral difference is that one is willed by a moral agent and the other is not.



Uh huh.
Click to expand...

You claim to speak from a position of logic, so what logical basis makes your arbitrary moral standard superior to mine? I think recreational sex is an integral part to a healthy, loving relationship and therefore to stable, loving families. Prove me wrong. Logically.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Gay marriage is not a "right" yet.
Click to expand...
The right being protected is marriage not gay marriage. The right of a man to marry a man is the same as the right of a man to marry a woman. The issue is whether or not restricting that right to opposite sex couples is constitutionally justified. The courts have consistently been holding no, as exemplified by this case.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lakryte said:
The right being protected is marriage not gay marriage. The right of a man to marry a man is the same as the right of a man to marry a woman. The issue is whether or not restricting that right to opposite sex couples is constitutionally justified. The courts have consistently been holding no, as exemplified by this case.
Click to expand...

Not yet it isn't. The supreme court in the latest two gay marriage cases refused to address the constitutionality of states not allowing state recognition of gay marriage.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
I deny that this is universally the case. Or would you suggest making it illegal for a woman past menopause to have sex with her husband of fifty years?
Click to expand...

Is it ordered by nature to procreation?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Paleocon said:
Is it ordered by nature to procreation?
Click to expand...

Do you or do you not believe it should be illegal for the previously mentioned couple to have sex? Don't cop out with a redirection question. Man up and say what you believe.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Not yet it isn't. The supreme court in the latest two gay marriage cases refused to address the constitutionality of states not allowing state recognition of gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh - no. United States v. Windsor was about the Federal government discriminating. It presented no core question to the Court regarding whether States can or cannot restrict Civil Marriage based on gender.

The Prop 8 Case? Yep the punted using the "standing" issue to dodge the question.

So it's 1 case, not 2.


Now, next year will they be able to dodge an appeal by Utah? Probably not since the Governor & AG will process such an appeal if they lose at the 10th Circuit.


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

scatt said:
Not yet it isn't. The supreme court in the latest two gay marriage cases refused to address the constitutionality of states not allowing state recognition of gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Marriage is a right in all 50 states and the District of Colombia. The question is whether same-sex couples can be excluded from that right. As far as Utah is concerned, the answer was no by the Federal Court. At this moment, it marriage is a right that cannot be denied to same-sex couples in Utah. Thus it is accurate to say voters cannot vote away constitutional rights.

Furthermore, the court does not have to rule on something for the right to be there--it is very possible that the right is simply being violated. In the states without legal same-sex marriage, the rights of same-sex couples are being violated, just as the rights of interracial couples were being violated before the court ruled so.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lakryte said:
Marriage is a right in all 50 states and the District of Colombia. The question is whether same-sex couples can be excluded from that right. As far as Utah is concerned, the answer was no by the Federal Court. At this moment, it marriage is a right that cannot be denied to same-sex couples in Utah. Thus it is accurate to say voters cannot vote away constitutional rights.

Furthermore, the court does not have to rule on something for the right to be there. In the states without legal same-sex marriage, the rights of same-sex couples are being violated, just as the rights of interracial couples were being violated before the court ruled so.
Click to expand...

Loving has not been applied to gay marriage by SCOTUS yet.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
Do you or do you not believe it should be illegal for the previously mentioned couple to have sex? Don't cop out with a redirection question. Man up and say what you believe.
Click to expand...

No. I don't.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Loving has not been applied to gay marriage by SCOTUS yet.
Click to expand...
That doesn't matter. We are talking about Utah. The voters of Utah do not get to vote away a constitutional right. The right existed before the court made a ruling. The court was simply pointing out a violation of that right, not creating a new one that did not previously exist.

Constitutional rights exist regardless of whether or not governments follow them. Before Loving v. Virginia, interracial couples were having their rights violated, even though no court had ruled so yet.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lakryte said:
That doesn't matter. We are talking about Utah. The voters of Utah do not get to vote away a constitutional right. The right existed before the court made a ruling. The court was simply pointing out a violation of that right, not creating a new one that did not previously exist.

Constitutional rights exist regardless of whether or not governments follow them. Before Loving v. Virginia, interracial couples were having their rights violated, even though no court had ruled so yet.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about Utah, nor was I involved in a conversation specifically about Utah, nor do many people claim state laws are what makes "rights" in the US.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
I am not talking about Utah, nor was I involved in a conversation specifically about Utah, nor do many people claim state laws are what makes "rights" in the US.
Click to expand...
This topic is about Utah, which is why I addressed both the argument as applied to Utah and the argument in general. I still addressed the argument in general. To reiterate for the third time: Constitutional rights exist regardless of whether or not governments follow them. Before Loving v. Virginia, interracial couples were having their rights violated, even though no court had ruled so yet.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Paddymcdougall said:
Nature has decided our sex activity is not tied to procreation.
Click to expand...

Paleocon said:
Uh huh.
Click to expand...


Not sure if you were agreeing with me or not?

If nature intended us only to have sex when we can procreate, women would go into heat once a year, she would have sex with one or more men, and then be done with it.

That obviously doesn't happen with the human animal. Nature has said that we can have sex whenever we like. So why shouldn't we? And any way we want it?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lakryte said:
This topic is about Utah, which is why I addressed both the argument as applied to Utah and the argument in general. I still addressed the argument in general. To reiterate for the third time: Constitutional rights exist regardless of whether or not governments follow them. Before Loving v. Virginia, interracial couples were having their rights violated, even though no court had ruled so yet.
Click to expand...

"Rights" must first be acknowledged.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
Not sure if you were agreeing with me or not?

If nature intended us only to have sex when we can procreate, women would go into heat once a year, she would have sex with one or more men, and then be done with it.

That obviously doesn't happen with the human animal. Nature has said that we can have sex whenever we like. So why shouldn't we? And any way we want it?
Click to expand...

I have never argued that it is unnatural for a man and a woman to have natural sex when she isn't having her period.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
"Rights" must first be acknowledged.
Click to expand...
By whom? And why? If Utah passed a law saying all women with blonde hair can be killed, would there be no violation of rights until the courts ruled there was? Of course not. The rights of the women would be violated regardless of the courts remaining silent or passing judgement.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lakryte said:
By whom? And why? If Utah passed a law saying all women with blonde hair can be killed, would there be no violation of rights until the courts ruled there was? Of course not. The rights of the women would be violated regardless of the courts remaining silent or passing judgement.
Click to expand...

Utah doesn't make "rights."

SCOTUS has already addressed life, and the "right" to it.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Paleocon said:
I have never argued that it is unnatural for a man and a woman to have natural sex when she isn't having her period.
Click to expand...


ROFL!! only when she isn't having her period? Paleocon, you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

and you still haven't given a reasonable reason for why sodomy isn't "natural" sex.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
ROFL!! only when she isn't having her period? Paleocon, you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

and you still haven't given a reasonable reason for why sodomy isn't "natural" sex.
Click to expand...

Because it, by it's very nature, is not conducive to the proper end of sex.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
Not sure if you were agreeing with me or not?

If nature intended us only to have sex when we can procreate, women would go into heat once a year, she would have sex with one or more men, and then be done with it.

That obviously doesn't happen with the human animal. Nature has said that we can have sex whenever we like. So why shouldn't we? And any way we want it?
Click to expand...

You're onto it Paddy. Genetically (& thus physically) we are designed to *enjoy* (not just have) sex frequently (not just within a reproductive period or cycle) because humans have young that require a long time to become independent and that intimacy and bond are required to help keep the male involved in the family as a protector and provider. Reader's Digest version of course.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Paleocon said:
Is it ordered by nature to procreation?
Click to expand...

It is ordered by nature to enable & maintain pair bonds...and the extended families which supported the greater survival of the familial and communal group. The more 'related' people involved n the raising and protecting the children, the higher the success rates of juveniles reaching reproductive age. So I suppose we are talking about 'grandparents' here....or older. Their genes were just as invested in the reproduction of other family members as with their own young.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Paleocon said:
No. I don't.
Click to expand...

Ok then. We've successfully established that your procreation argument is bull****.

Paleocon said:
Because it, by it's very nature, is not conducive to the proper end of sex.
Click to expand...

But you've just admitted that the procreation aspect becomes irrelevant under some circumstances. Therefore this isn't a principle you actually believe in. You're just applying this selectively in an attempt to justify your personal disgust of homosexual behavior.
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
You're onto it Paddy. Genetically (& thus physically) we are designed to *enjoy* (not just have) sex frequently (not just within a reproductive period or cycle) because humans have young that require a long time to become independent and that intimacy and bond are required to help keep the male involved in the family as a protector and provider. Reader's Digest version of course.
Click to expand...

Well-said, Lursa!

Sorry, Paleocon, your arguments still aren't rational. Nature built us so that reproduction isn't the only goal of sex. Therefore, doing activities that don't further reproduction aren't "unnatural"
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Utah doesn't make "rights."
Click to expand...
Strawman.

SCOTUS has already addressed life, and the "right" to it.
Click to expand...
And SCOTUS has already addressed marriage, and the right to that as well. However, just as SCOTUS has not addressed whether denying the right to marriage to same-sex couples is constitutional, it has also not addressed whether denying the right to life to women with blonde hair is constitutional. Thus, by your own argument, if such a law were passed women with blonde hair do not have a right to live, and only when the court says the law is unconstitutional do they gain such a right.

Rights exist before SCOTUS affirms their existence. If you deny such, you get absurd results. That is the piece of the puzzle you are missing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom