• 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

TheNextEra said:
If rights do not exist, than you do not believe in the state AT ALL and as such you are an anarchist.
Click to expand...

Rights existing or not has nothing to do with anarchy or the state.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:

Except I do not support state intervention into marriage.



Yep, voters are also at fault.
Click to expand...

Except when the state bans SSM

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

scatt said:
Rights existing or not has nothing to do with anarchy or the state.
Click to expand...

Sure it does, no rights = anarchy. You are an anarchist and have proven it, thank you.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
The state made it a state issue, and then they stay involved.

Protection from the state by the state is really silly.
Click to expand...

You aren't making any sense here. The state made it an issue because it already was an issue. Governments have recognized spouses for a long time, even if it wasn't always done through paperwork. Many countries in the past had rules governing how many wives or husbands a person could claim legally. The only difference now is that we use a document to prove the relationship rather than taking people's word on it. But we also have a lot more people to deal with now and a lot difference technology than in the past, before written documents were used to verify spousal relationships. It doesn't change the fact that there has always been some sort of legal recognition of such relationships, and therefore some government involvement in them.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
The state made it an issue because it already was an issue. Governments have recognized spouses for a long time, even if it wasn't always done through paperwork. Many countries in the past had rules governing how many wives or husbands a person could claim legally. The only difference now is that we use a document to prove the relationship rather than taking people's word on it. But we also have a lot more people to deal with now and a lot difference technology than in the past, before written documents were used to verify spousal relationships. It doesn't change the fact that there has always been some sort of legal recognition of such relationships, and therefore some government involvement in them.
Click to expand...

They made it a state issue because they wanted the state to be involved.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

sangha said:
Except when you do

So you don't have the right to
Click to expand...

Except I don't.

Rights do not exist.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
They made it a state issue because they wanted the state to be involved.
Click to expand...

The state, government has always been involved. That is why in the past marriages to create alliances between countries worked. That is why in the past there was so much of an issue with divorce. The state was involved, just not in a way that is written down, as we do now.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Of course it applies to the states. But why were the Chicago (democrat) lawmakers unaware of this?
Click to expand...
Differing interpretations of the second amendment.

Birth certificates and adoptions do not require a state.
Click to expand...
They do if you want them to mean anything legally. But you don't want a state, therefore you don't want laws, so that probably doesn't matter to you.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
Differing interpretations of the second amendment.

They do if you want them to mean anything legally. But you don't want a state, therefore you don't want laws, so that probably doesn't matter to you.
Click to expand...

When it comes to guns you mean. Because things they politically like they want applied to the states.

If you want them to mean something to the state, sure. Laws are not tied to states either.

roguenuke said:
The state, government has always been involved. That is why in the past marriages to create alliances between countries worked. That is why in the past there was so much of an issue with divorce. The state was involved, just not in a way that is written down, as we do now.
Click to expand...

Marriage was not state created.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Except I don't.

Rights do not exist.
Click to expand...

Except when you do

And therefore, even you don;t believe you have the right to be free of state intevention
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

sangha said:
Except when you do

And therefore, even you don;t believe you have the right to
Click to expand...

Except I don't.

Rights don't exist.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Marriage was not state created.
Click to expand...

It was society created (in pretty much every society on the planet to have existed). But it was created as a recognized kinship relationship. It has been used by countless civilizations as a way to join people as families and to in fact join families themselves. Some of our modern ideas are much different than those of the past, such as our system of laws and massive bureaucracy, but it doesn't change the fact that marriage has been used by people for a long time to recognize a specific kind of relationship between two people, generally involving intimacy and a longterm commitment as the two main points of that relationship.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
When it comes to guns you mean. Because things they politically like they want applied to the states.

If you want them to mean something to the state, sure. Laws are not tied to states either.
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing the term "state" to mean one of the 50 United States. You don't want a government. Has that been the problem all along? You don't know that the word "state" is also used to reference a nation?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Except I don't.

Rights don't exist.
Click to expand...

Except when you do

And therefore, even you don;t believe you have the right to be free of state intervention
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
It was society created (in pretty much every society on the planet to have existed). But it was created as a recognized kinship relationship. It has been used by countless civilizations as a way to join people as families and to in fact join families themselves. Some of our modern ideas are much different than those of the past, such as our system of laws and massive bureaucracy, but it doesn't change the fact that marriage has been used by people for a long time to recognize a specific kind of relationship between two people, generally involving intimacy and a longterm commitment as the two main points of that relationship.
Click to expand...

Society does not mean state.

Deuce said:
I think you're confusing the term "state" to mean one of the 50 United States. You don't want a government. Has that been the problem all along? You don't know that the word "state" is also used to reference a nation?
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing that. A state refers to the states and the federal state, and all foreign states.

A government can have the consent of all the governed and therefore not be a state.

sangha said:
Except when you do
be free of state intervention
Click to expand...

Except I don't.

Rights don't exist.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
That's interesting. Obviously we wouldn't need that anymore, since we have genetic testing available to us.

Although, there have been some cases where mothers have almost lost their children because genetic testing showed the children were not theirs, but more likely to be a sister's kid or someone else related to them. After months of battling, they proved that these mothers were chimeric, meaning they had at least two different sets of DNA in their body. One woman had to have the social worker inside her delivery room with her to prove that she delivered her child, and then the child was tested, and luckily showed up as having the different DNA, so that she could prove the claim that yes there was something different about her genes going to her children to get back her other children. Even genetics aren't foolproof, despite popular belief. I actually started looking into it after watching an episode of CSI and found it was true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/science/dna-double-take.html?_r=0

Birth certificates, just like marriage licenses, help to simplify establishing legal kinships for us. Sure there are some problems, such as people using them to deny access to that legal kinship for certain groups, but hopefully we can fix that by opening up marriage without any regard to sex/gender and even possibly finding a way to allow at least a recognition of multiple spouses as kin, even if some changes or legal measures need to be made/taken to allow for this.
Click to expand...

Hadn't heard about the cases re mothers almost losing kids due to the chimera thing - thanks for sending the article link!

I had heard of bicyclists CLAIMING they were chimeric and that's why their blood tests looked funny...don't think the cycling authorities ever have bought it though; they went with the "reinjected blood" thing...
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

sangha said:
Except when you do

we have no right to
Click to expand...

Except I don't.

Rights don't exist.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

sangha said:
Except when you do

we have no right to
Click to expand...

Except I don't.

Rights don't exist.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

sangha said:
Except when you do

we have no right to
Click to expand...

Except I don't.

Rights don't exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom