• 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

scatt said:
The federal state.

Unfair? They receive all the same "benefits, privileges, and legal protections" its just the word marriage does not need to be redefined.

Broken is not the same "benefits, privileges, and legal protections."
Click to expand...

The crayons would still work. They would still provide the exact same benefits of the new crayons. There would be no difference in their performance just as you are "offering" when it comes to something like marriage. There would be no difference, yet you seem to be saying that you believe it would be unfair to give one group of children nothing but broken crayons while another got new ones.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
The crayons would still work. They would still provide the exact same benefits of the new crayons. There would be no difference in their performance just as you are "offering" when it comes to something like marriage. There would be no difference, yet you seem to be saying that you believe it would be unfair to give one group of children nothing but broken crayons while another got new ones.
Click to expand...

You specifically said they are broken, that is different. Now if you told me they were call cruyons, it would be closer to what was referenced.

Lursa said:
No idea what that is.
Click to expand...

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

scatt said:
You specifically said they are broken, that is different. Now if you told me they were call cruyons, it would be closer to what was referenced.

Okay.
Click to expand...

"Broken" does not mean unusable for crayons or are you unaware of how crayons and coloring with crayons works? I have used probably thousands of broken crayons in my lifetime to color with.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
"Broken" does not mean unusable for crayons or are you unaware of how crayons and coloring with crayons works? I have used probably thousands of broken crayons in my lifetime to color with.
Click to expand...

The word is different not the "benefits, privileges, and legal protections," or in your scenario malformed, broken, or destroyed crayons.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
The word is different not the "benefits, privileges, and legal protections," or in your scenario malformed, broken, or destroyed crayons.
Click to expand...

I didn't say "destroyed" crayons. I said broken crayons. You are trying to work around the analogy because you know that it isn't fair. The broken crayons are completely usable and absolutely comparable to your suggestion.

But how about this? What if a public school gave out Crayolas to certain kids, based on perhaps skin color or gender or eye color or hair color, and the other kids had to color with offbrand crayons because they didn't have the right skin color, gender, eye color, or hair color? Would it be fair?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
I didn't say "destroyed" crayons. I said broken crayons. You are trying to work around the analogy because you know that it isn't fair. The broken crayons are completely usable and absolutely comparable to your suggestion.

But how about this? What if a public school gave out Crayolas to certain kids, based on perhaps skin color or gender or eye color or hair color, and the other kids had to color with offbrand crayons because they didn't have the right skin color, gender, eye color, or hair color? Would it be fair?
Click to expand...

You didn't need to.

If they simply called them cruyons you would be addressing me, but you are addressing a fictional scenario not brought up by me.

The state already racially discriminates. Best for you to not bring that up.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
Marriage is a federal right (see cases re prisoners who want to marry).

So the question is - is there any compelling interest for the state to keep two particular people from marrying, even if they are of the same gender? If not, then you cannot deny them the right to marry.

Federal constitution overrides states.
Click to expand...

They are not preventing anyone from marrying. You are describing something that is not a marriage.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
Your opinion on what is unconstitutional is duly rejected based on evidence that shows you have nothing to back up the allegation that the federal government is in any way taking any unconstitutional actions in the case of same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Nothing, except for the Constitution that states any powers not given to the federal government rest with the states and the people. Since I have a Constitution and you don't, I duly reject your misguided opinion.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
They are not preventing anyone from marrying. You are describing something that is not a marriage.
Click to expand...

They are preventing two individuals of the same gender from entering a particular type of private legal contract. Under the equal protection clause, a gender-based classification puts a requirement on the state to demonstrate an "important state interest" in that classification, and that the measure taken is "substantially related" to that interest. If they fail this test, the state action fails the test of constitutional scrutiny.

Your arguing over a definition is irrelevant. This is how equal protection works in the United States. This is how the constitution works. You either need to provide that interest or you don't get to keep the law.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
You didn't need to.

If they simply called them cruyons you would be addressing me, but you are addressing a fictional scenario not brought up by me.

The state already racially discriminates. Best for you to not bring that up.
Click to expand...

You began with the fictional scenario of having two different contracts that do the same thing with the exception of having one for opposite sex couples and the other for same sex couples.

The question about the crayons was asked because you claimed "it shouldn't matter" as long as they are the same. The thing is, if they are called something different, then they are not the same. It may be petty, but it is still part of human nature to not feel you are being treated fairly if you are being given something viewed as less or different than someone else because of something like your sex, or race, or hair color, or eye color or any other characteristic. And make no mistake, when it comes to trying to rename marriage for same sex couples, it is a distinction being made based on sexes/genders, the relative sexes/genders of those wanting to enter into the contract.

You have continually sidestepped the question, never answering it because you know I am right. You would view such discriminatory distribution of the crayons in either scenario I mentioned, as wrong and unfair, and if it were your children who were getting the broken or generic crayons because they weren't the right sex/gender or they didn't have the right hair color, eye color, or skin color, or perhaps because they had parents of the opposite sex rather than parents of the same sex, then you would likely be expressing that displeasure to the school, just as I absolutely would be if it were my children. In fact, I would complain if I found out about the unfair separation at all, whether my child was getting the good crayons or the "other" crayons.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Nothing, except for the Constitution that states any powers not given to the federal government rest with the states and the people. Since I have a Constitution and you don't, I duly reject your misguided opinion.
Click to expand...

The Constitution supports me, not you. The SCOTUS supports me. The American majority, in fact, supermajority, supports me. You have nothing to support you except your personal opinion and a few misguided people that believe as you do, wrongly.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
You began with the fictional scenario of having two different contracts that do the same thing with the exception of having one for opposite sex couples and the other for same sex couples.

The question about the crayons was asked because you claimed "it shouldn't matter" as long as they are the same. The thing is, if they are called something different, then they are not the same. It may be petty, but it is still part of human nature to not feel you are being treated fairly if you are being given something viewed as less or different than someone else because of something like your sex, or race, or hair color, or eye color or any other characteristic. And make no mistake, when it comes to trying to rename marriage for same sex couples, it is a distinction being made based on sexes/genders, the relative sexes/genders of those wanting to enter into the contract.

You have continually sidestepped the question, never answering it because you know I am right. You would view such discriminatory distribution of the crayons in either scenario I mentioned, as wrong and unfair, and if it were your children who were getting the broken or generic crayons because they weren't the right sex/gender or they didn't have the right hair color, eye color, or skin color, or perhaps because they had parents of the opposite sex rather than parents of the same sex, then you would likely be expressing that displeasure to the school, just as I absolutely would be if it were my children. In fact, I would complain if I found out about the unfair separation at all, whether my child was getting the good crayons or the "other" crayons.
Click to expand...

Exactly the same, yet one is not called marriage.

It shouldn't matter if they care about the "benefits, privileges, and legal protections" and not the word. But, as you showed, the word is what is important to you and gays.

The distinction is marriage never meant same sex.

You specifically said they are broken, that is different.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Solution:

Let people do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone.



Stop using logic. Stop stop stop. You're making sheeple heads hurt.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

MichaelJR said:
Solution:

Let people do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone.

Stop using logic. Stop stop stop. You're making sheeple heads hurt.
Click to expand...

Removing the state is ideal, yes.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Removing the state is ideal, yes.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't have been a fed or state issue from the get-go.

Freedom to do whatever the hell you want as long as you're not hurting anyone is basically what we stood for (past tense). Freedom to say what you want, freedom to own as many damn guns as you want, freedom to tell the law to get a damn warrant, you're innocent until proven guilty, worship whatever you want, marry whomever you'd like, etc etc etc etc etc. Live and let live. Why is this concept to difficult to grasp? Oh...power. I forgot.

Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government

Logic. It's dangerous. Probably just landed myself on the kill list.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Exactly the same, yet one is not called marriage.

It shouldn't matter if they care about the "benefits, privileges, and legal protections" and not the word. But, as you showed, the word is what is important to you and gays.

The distinction is marriage never meant same sex.

You specifically said they are broken, that is different.
Click to expand...

You don't get to personally decide whether the word "marriage" includes same sex partners or not. You don't own the word, nor its official meaning.

Broken crayons are still completely usable. Only someone who has never used crayons would not know this.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
You don't get to personally decide whether the word "marriage" includes same sex partners or not. You don't own the word, nor its official meaning.

Broken crayons are still completely usable. Only someone who has never used crayons would not know this.
Click to expand...

Actually....with heat you can fix them. Just saying. :2razz:
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
The fact that marriage does not mean same sex, except when politically motivated.
Click to expand...

history and facts disagree with this post and prove it factually wrong
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

MichaelJR said:
Actually....with heat you can fix them. Just saying. :2razz:
Click to expand...

Crayola actually makes a machine to turn broken crayons into full, mixed color crayons.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
The Constitution supports me, not you. The SCOTUS supports me. The American majority, in fact, supermajority, supports me. You have nothing to support you except your personal opinion and a few misguided people that believe as you do, wrongly.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the people of Utah, and other states that have voted against changing the definition of marriage, that they are just a few misguided people. Doesn't say much for the smaller group of people that voted for it. Gee, what happened to that arrogant left wing meme of "we had a vote, and you lost"? You are wrong.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
I asked for clarification twice. Can you not define what the federal state is that you referred to?
Click to expand...

The federal entity in the United states that had a monopoly on legal force.

roguenuke said:
You don't get to personally decide whether the word "marriage" includes same sex partners or not. You don't own the word, nor its official meaning.

Broken crayons are still completely usable. Only someone who has never used crayons would not know this.
Click to expand...

Marriage not meaning same sex has nothing to do with me.

But that is different from the nonbroken ones. Now, if you simply called them cruyons and they were nto broken, that would be the scenario.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Tell that to the people of Utah, and other states that have voted against changing the definition of marriage, that they are just a few misguided people. Doesn't say much for the smaller group of people that voted for it. Gee, what happened to that arrogant left wing meme of "we had a vote, and you lost"? You are wrong.
Click to expand...

Popular majorities do not get to decide constitutional rights. We shall see within the next few years whether or not same sex marriage is a constitutional right. Majorities in states have voted to outlaw interracial marriage. It does not mean they were justified in doing so. This is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Tell that to the people of Utah, and other states that have voted against changing the definition of marriage, that they are just a few misguided people. Doesn't say much for the smaller group of people that voted for it. Gee, what happened to that arrogant left wing meme of "we had a vote, and you lost"? You are wrong.
Click to expand...

A vote that happened almost, if not, a decade ago.

And courts are completely within their duty and right to strike down laws that violate the US Constitution.

I, unlike you, realize that our laws are not just based on votes, but many things.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
The federal entity in the United states that had a monopoly on legal force.

Marriage not meaning same sex has nothing to do with me.

But that is different from the nonbroken ones. Now, if you simply called them cruyons and they were nto broken, that would be the scenario.
Click to expand...

And civil unions are different than marriages, even if they come with all the same things.

Plus, I changed the question just for you and you still failed to answer. Would it be okay for those children with brown eyes to be given Crayola crayons while those with any other eye color got RoseArt crayons? Would it be fair to distinguish between children that way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom