• 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

Harshaw said:
But go ahead; keep claiming that there are no laws which keep homosexuals from marrying, no matter how many courts say otherwise. Really, g'head.
Click to expand...

I have never once claimed this. You are lying. Why?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
That's because it is not the same thing.
Click to expand...

That directly goes into contradiction with this:

I can no more marry someone of the opposite sex than a gay person can, and gays are permitted to marry the opposite sex just as I can. Same rules for everyone.
Click to expand...

If relationships aren't the same, then the same standards of law can't be applied to all. However, from a legal standpoint the sole difference between straight marriages & gay marriages are the genders involved. In other words, it is a cosmetic difference that separates one from the other. They are no different than heterosexual couples who get married even though they can't procreate. Also, they (homosexual marriages) don't require any additional legal protections or considerations. They don't require any extra judicial infrastructure. So if the rules are meant to apply to all relationships of the same sort, why can't the rules that apply to hetero marriage apply to gay marriage? Both include consenting parties. Both include legal age restrictions. So what is it that is so harmful about their union?

It also discards any Constitutional protections that you are claiming.
Click to expand...

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

Deuce said:
Harshaw said:
But go ahead; keep claiming that there are no laws which keep homosexuals from marrying, no matter how many courts say otherwise. Really, g'head.
Click to expand...
I have never once claimed this. You are lying. Why?
Click to expand...

:roll:

Deuce said:
Post a single state's law or constitutional amendment that says homosexuals aren't allowed to get married.
Click to expand...

You have either deeply, deeply confused yourself or you are one of the most dishonest people on the board. Don't really care which.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:
:roll:



You have either deeply, deeply confused yourself or you are one of the most dishonest people on the board. Don't really care which.
Click to expand...

Lying through omission of context is still a lie.

Interestingly enough, you've failed to provide such a law. See, like I've said several times, the actual writing of the law prevents two people of the same gender from marrying.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
Lying through omission of context is still a lie.
Click to expand...

It's. What. You. Said. I guess you don't even understand your own argument. So that answers that.

Interestingly enough, you've failed to provide such a law. See, like I've said several times, the actual writing of the law prevents two people of the same gender from marrying.
Click to expand...

And now, you want it both ways. You want to have said it but not said it.

The courts reject you. Period. It doesn't matter if you understand that or not; it still is so.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

sangha said:
Bigots are defined by their beliefs, which are bigoted. I won't call you a bigot but I will say that your beliefs are bigoted. This is amply demonstrated by how you believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman when the facts show that it can also be between a man and a a man, or a woman and a woman.

And it's too bad if you don't like that

And as far as states rights goes, it doesn't exist. Governments do not have any rights; only powers. Your belief to the contrary, is contrary to the facts, so this belief of yours is equally bigoted.
Click to expand...

It is but what people who cry bigot of other people don't understand is they are being bigotted themselves. You might disagree with what they have to say but it gives you no right to call them a bigot without subjecting yourself to the same critisism for being intolerant of their idea's and or beliefs. if you call yourself a tolerant person then you must respect their idea's and or beliefs.

bigot has become a useless word with no meaning. it has the same effect as crying nazi or racist. it is just to try and demean another person who's views you don't agree with but can't agrue against. it has basically become an ad hominem.

as far as states rights go states do have rights and the 10th amendment heavily disagree's with you.
marriage was never defined in the constitution because it wasn't an issue back then. They left it up for the states to define if the need arose.

what i am waiting for next are the lawsuits against preachers and churches for not allowing them to be married.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
Lying through omission of context is still a lie.

Interestingly enough, you've failed to provide such a law. See, like I've said several times, the actual writing of the law prevents two people of the same gender from marrying.
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
:roll:

You have either deeply, deeply confused yourself or you are one of the most dishonest people on the board. Don't really care which
Click to expand...

... Deuce, as much as I hate to do it, I'm gonna side with Harshaw on this one. You're splitting hairs. The law bans same-sex marriage. Anybody who has spent 5 mins reading US history can guess these laws targeted homosexuals. They went hand in hand with anti-sodomy laws as well as state protections for companies who discriminate against homosexuals. We can argue about what their text said but we all know what the intended effect was meant to be, their historical context as well as the reasoning behind their creation.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

ludin said:
It is but what people who cry bigot of other people don't understand is they are being bigotted themselves. You might disagree with what they have to say but it gives you no right to call them a bigot without subjecting yourself to the same critisism for being intolerant of their idea's and or beliefs. if you call yourself a tolerant person then you must respect their idea's and or beliefs.

bigot has become a useless word with no meaning. it has the same effect as crying nazi or racist. it is just to try and demean another person who's views you don't agree with but can't agrue against. it has basically become an ad hominem.

as far as states rights go states do have rights and the 10th amendment heavily disagree's with you.
marriage was never defined in the constitution because it wasn't an issue back then. They left it up for the states to define if the need arose.

what i am waiting for next are the lawsuits against preachers and churches for not allowing them to be married.
Click to expand...

That was nonsense. The word bigot has a clear and definite meaning and using the word properly does not make one a bigot.

As far as the Tenth Amendment goes, I suggest you re-read it. It says nothing about states having any rights

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:
It's. What. You. Said. I guess you don't even understand your own argument. So that answers that.



And now, you want it both ways. You want to have said it but not said it.

The courts reject you. Period. It doesn't matter if you understand that or not; it still is so.
Click to expand...

You ignored the conversation prior. Period.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Hatuey said:
... Deuce, as much as I hate to do it, I'm gonna side with Harshaw on this one. You're splitting hairs. The law bans same-sex marriage. Anybody who has spent 5 mins reading US history can guess these laws targeted homosexuals. They went hand in hand with anti-sodomy laws as well as state protections for companies who discriminate against homosexuals. We can argue about what their text said but we all know what the intended effect was meant to be, their historical context as well as the reasoning behind their creation.
Click to expand...
I know, because I've said that. Literally exactly that.

I said the intent was to discriminate against homosexuals, and that the method for that intent was a gender based classification. Get it?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
You ignored the conversation prior. Period.
Click to expand...

No. :lamo

Whatever, though. Obviously, enough people see it for what it is.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:
No. :lamo

Whatever, though. Obviously, enough people see it for what it is.
Click to expand...

Enough people have seen the clarification I've given you in this very thread, yes.

the use of gender based classifications is currently discriminating against homosexuals. Which part of this statement still makes you believe that I think homosexuals aren't being discriminated against?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

sangha said:
That was nonsense. The word bigot has a clear and definite meaning and using the word properly does not make one a bigot.

As far as the Tenth Amendment goes, I suggest you re-read it. It says nothing about states having any rights
Click to expand...

from merriam webster

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

you simply dislike his idea's because it is an expersion of his personal and or religious beliefs that meets the definition above.

yea that is why people talk about the 10th amendment as states rights :doh
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

ludin said:
from merriam webster

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

you simply dislike his idea's because it is an expersion of his personal and or religious beliefs that meets the definition above.
Click to expand...

Yes, I dislike his beliefs but my dislike is not "unfair" which is a requirement in order for my beliefs to be bigoted.

And no, I dislike his beliefs because of the suffering such beliefs have caused.

yea that is why people talk about the 10th amendment as states rights :doh
Click to expand...


And some people talk about the lunar landing as "a scam" :screwy
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
So it doesn't affect you. You're admitting that?
Ok, so tell me again why you think you have the authority to deny this to someone?
Click to expand...

Wait, you agree that same sex couples getting together are different, and doesn't constitute a marriage?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
Enough people have seen the clarification I've given you in this very thread, yes.

the use of gender based classifications is currently discriminating against homosexuals. Which part of this statement still makes you believe that I think homosexuals aren't being discriminated against?
Click to expand...

As a matter of law, which is what this is about, probably because you keep demanding someone show you how marriage laws exclude homosexuals from marrying. :shrug:

After saying things like this:

Deuce said:
No, same-sex marriage bans are a classification of gender, not sexuality. There are no laws regarding sexuality in marriage.
Click to expand...

And continuing to do so after it's shown time after time after time that courts reject your argument and say that yes, marriage laws on their face discriminate against homosexuals, while rejecting "gender classification" as an argument.

I don't know why you insist on sticking your finger into that light socket over and over, but indeed you do.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
No...you STATED it trampled on marriage, you STATED that another view was being "inflicted" on you. I cant care or not care if you dont explain how SSM affects you.

And civil unions for SSM instead of marriage is the unConstitutional 'separate but equal'... It's a specific example just like the ones you used.
Click to expand...

As I showed before, that is false.

Others have quoted where marriage is an enumerated right, here in this thread. *I* have based my argument on what several justices have, discrimination. If the govt is going to accord benefits, privileges, and legal rights to marriage, then it is discriminatory to deny gays those same things. That has been judicial opinion.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll have to look back in the thread to see what quote from the Constitution says what marriage is and why it now includes same sex couples. We've had some pretty horrific SC rulings in the past.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
As I showed before, that is false.


.
Click to expand...

It's false that you are affected by SSM? Well done then. as for 'separate but equal' not being Constitutional, well, that is fact and a matter of record.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

sangha said:
Bigots are defined by their beliefs, which are bigoted. I won't call you a bigot but I will say that your beliefs are bigoted. This is amply demonstrated by how you believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman when the facts show that it can also be between a man and a a man, or a woman and a woman.
Click to expand...

Well, you can call me a bigot if you want, which is wrong, and in my opinion, lacking any intelligence.

And as far as states rights goes, it doesn't exist. Governments do not have any rights; only powers. Your belief to the contrary, is contrary to the facts, so this belief of yours is equally bigoted.
Click to expand...

That's right, it's really powers for the States, not rights. Power for the people too. Mincing words, though. But, go right ahead.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Well, you can call me a bigot if you want, which is wrong, and in my opinion, lacking any intelligence.
Click to expand...

What is lacking in intelligence (and bigoted) is your belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman when there are thousands of marriages between people of the same sex.
 
Re: Gay Marriage Ban Struck in Utah by Federal Judge

brothern said:
That's, wow, out of the blue. The state can appeal the ruling, of course. I haven't been able to figure out if same-sex couples can have a license issued in the state of Utah, or not? Anyone?

Federal judge strikes down Utah



Obama appointment, btw.
Click to expand...

Good stuff. I never would have expected that out of Utah, though.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:
As a matter of law, which is what this is about, probably because you keep demanding someone show you how marriage laws exclude homosexuals from marrying. :shrug:

After saying things like this:



And continuing to do so after it's shown time after time after time that courts reject your argument and say that yes, marriage laws on their face discriminate against homosexuals, while rejecting "gender classification" as an argument.

I don't know why you insist on sticking your finger into that light socket over and over, but indeed you do.
Click to expand...

Which court rejects the gender classification?

i think you are assuming that a court saying "this discriminates against homosexuals" is somehow rejecting the point I'm making. It's not. The two arguments are not mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
Which court rejects the gender classification?
Click to expand...

I already told you all about a specific court rejecting gender classification as an equal protection argument, a couple of different times. You say I "ignored the conversation"? You've obviously simply disregarded everything you didn't want to hear.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:
I already told you all about a specific court rejecting gender classification as an equal protection argument, a couple of different times. You say I "ignored the conversation"? You've obviously simply disregarded everything you didn't want to hear.
Click to expand...

No, you quoted court decisions saying homosexuals are being discriminated against. This is true. It is not a rejection of the idea that that discrimination is being done through the use of a gender-based classification.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
No, you quoted court decisions saying homosexuals are being discriminated against. This is true. It is not a rejection of the idea that that discrimination is being done through the use of a gender-based classification.
Click to expand...

Several times I mentioned the Perry case and what Judge Walker said in it. It does not surprise me that you don't know that, as you appear to ignore that which you don't want to hear.

And no, the courts I quoted are not simply saying homosexuals are being discriminated against. The courts are saying, specifically, contrary to what you said, that the state laws prevent them from marrying. It is you who is being dishonest.

Yeah, there's no further point to this. Believe whatever you want; you'll still be wrong. Why it's so important to you to BE wrong, I will never understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom