• 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

Strawman. Please reread my last 5 or so posts.

Marriage is two opposite sex people.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Marriage is two opposite sex people.
And it was previously two same-race people. Your argument is as sensible as saying interracial marriage bans did not deny the right of marriage to interracial couples. Clearly such bans did do so, just as same-sex marriage bans deny the right of marriage to same-sex couples. The question is if denying the right to certain groupos is constitutionally justified or not, not whether the right exists.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

And it was previously two same-race people. Your argument is as sensible as saying interracial marriage bans did not deny the right of marriage to interracial couples. Clearly such bans did do so, just as same-sex marriage bans deny the right of marriage to same-sex couples. The question is if denying the right to certain groupos is constitutionally justified or not, not whether the right exists.

It is not my argument, it is the law.

I do not support state intervention into marriage.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

It is not my argument, it is the law.

I do not support state intervention into marriage.
Before the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia, did the law deny the right of marriage to interracial couples?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Before the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia, did the law deny the right of marriage to interracial couples?

In Virginia absolutely.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

In Virginia absolutely.
Ok then. If the law denied the right of marriage to interracial couples even though SCOTUS had not yet ruled on interracial marriage, then the law is currently denying the right of marriage to same-sex couples even though SCOTUS has not yet ruled on same-sex marriage. The logic isn't difficult to follow.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Ok then. If the law denied the right of marriage to interracial couples even though SCOTUS had not yet ruled on interracial marriage, then the law is currently denying the right of marriage to same-sex couples even though SCOTUS has not yet ruled on same-sex marriage. The logic isn't difficult to follow.

Marriage is two opposite sex people.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Marriage is two opposite sex people.

Do you think it should stay that way?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Links to a post you made makes no sense.
Reposting the exact same-post I already quoted and refuted makes no sense. Nor does repeating myself. If you want to argue in circles be my guest--it is clear you do not want an actual discussion.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

It is not my argument, it is the law.

I do not support state intervention into marriage.

scatt said:
Marriage is two opposite sex people.

I don't know why but I'd bet my bottom dollar now that marriage between same sex couples can and is legal... you'd probably support the state dropping in to intervene in same sex marriages to tell them that they cannot be married.

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

I don't know why but I'd bet my bottom dollar now that marriage between same sex couples can and is legal... you'd probably support the state dropping in to intervene in same sex marriages to tell them that they cannot be married.

amirite?

It will be legal soon most likely.

No, I do not support state intervention into any marriage.

Reposting the exact same-post I already quoted and refuted makes no sense. Nor does repeating myself. If you want to argue in circles be my guest--it is clear you do not want an actual discussion.

Same sex marriage is a very new definition, and as such the definition of marriage is two opposite sex people.

Do you think it should stay that way?

I do not support state intervention into any marriage.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I've noticed that the "I don't think the government should be involved in marriage" line of reasoning and the push toward marriage equality seem to have evolved simultaneously and at an almost identical rate. Smacks to me of "If it's not just ours anymore, nobody can have it!"
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I've noticed that the "I don't think the government should be involved in marriage" line of reasoning and the push toward marriage equality seem to have evolved simultaneously. Smacks to me of "If it's not just ours anymore, nobody can have it!"

Everyone can have it once the state is not involved, you silly goose.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Everyone can have it once the state is not involved, you silly goose.

There's no reason everyone can't have it with the state involved.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

There's no reason everyone can't have it with the state involved.

The state is the reason (as you can see).
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Marriage is two opposite sex people.


Not in 18 States and DC.


I do not support state intervention into marriage.


OK, don't get a Civil Marriage license for about $35 dollars and when you find the person you want to spend your life with - just have a religious ceremony. Then spend thousands of dollars on lawyers and estate planners to achieve only a fraction of the things that others have for that simple government recognition.

You are free not to have the state "intervene" in your marriage.


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

Not in 18 States and DC.

OK, don't get a Civil Marriage license for about $35 dollars and when you find the person you want to spend your life with - just have a religious ceremony. Then spend thousands of dollars on lawyers and estate planners to achieve only a fraction of the things that others have for that simple government recognition.

You are free not to have the state "intervene" in your marriage

I know the state intervenes, you just agreed. I do not support that.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I know the state intervenes, you just agreed. I do not support that.

You don't like it, then don't get married. Don't try to dictate the terms for everyone else.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

You don't like it, then don't get married. Don't try to dictate the terms for everyone else.

I'm not sure you are responding to the right person.

I do not support state intervention (which would be "dictating the terms for everyone else").
 
Back
Top Bottom