• 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:
I quoted again and again and again where the courts said exactly what I say they did.
Click to expand...

The courts have not said anything about what I said. The laws are what we are talking about. The laws prevent two people of the same sex from getting married, no matter their sexuality. There is no sexuality question or test when it comes to marriage. Two homosexuals can get married, as long as they are of the opposite sex.

The reason the law discriminates mainly against homosexuals is because homosexuals are the main group that would want to marry someone of the same sex. However, that does not change the fact that the laws discriminate against everyone, not just homosexuals. I, as a heterosexual, am being discriminated against with the laws restricting marriage to only opposite sex couples because should I ever be in the position to choose to remarry in the future (for whatever reason), as of right now, I can only choose to marry a man because I am a woman. My gender, not my sexuality is restricting who I can marry.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:
I quoted again and again and again where the courts said exactly what I say they did.
Click to expand...

And I've explained to you again and again that the courts have said that the discrimination is against homosexuals. This is true.

However, the tool used for that discrimination is a gender-based classification, not one of sexuality. It's really not that difficult. Defining a marriage as between one man and one woman is a gender-based classification, not a sexuality-based classification. The effect and intent of this, obviously, is discriminating against homosexuals.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
And I've explained to you again and again that the courts have said that the discrimination is against homosexuals. This is true.

However, the tool used for that discrimination is a gender-based classification, not one of sexuality. It's really not that difficult. Defining a marriage as between one man and one woman is a gender-based classification, not a sexuality-based classification. The effect and intent of this, obviously, is discriminating against homosexuals.
Click to expand...

State discrimination is legal.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
This is a very important question I've never seen a right-winger answer directly and clearly.
What harm is caused to them if two dudes get married? Never a real answer. Just some bull**** about moral fabric.
Click to expand...

The answer is there is no personal harm. It's the question though that's the problem. If your next door neighbor (we'll call him Jimmy) gets his brains blown out during a drug deal 30 miles away - what harm is caused to you? That would assume then that people killing other people, as long as it's not you, is fine. The assumption that two dudes getting married causes harm is the fallacy.... does something have to cause personal harm for someone to be against it? One would think so given the question. (That may be why you don't get a straight answer).
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
State discrimination is legal.
Click to expand...

not when it violates individual civil/equal rights, this is way the court cases that have made it to SSCs have been ruled on based on equality and the discrimination was found to be illegal
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
State discrimination is legal.
Click to expand...

Only if the state is able to show that some sort of legitimate state interest is furthered by that discrimination. When it comes to discrimination within marriage based on sex/gender, there is no state interest furthered.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
Only if the state is able to show that some sort of legitimate state interest is furthered by that discrimination. When it comes to discrimination within marriage based on sex/gender, there is no state interest furthered.
Click to expand...

And you approve of state discrimination?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
And you approve of state discrimination?
Click to expand...

I approve of certain state discrimination. For instance, I believe age discrimination is completely fine when it comes to certain issues (voting age, driving age). I believe in discrimination when it comes to kinship, as in, if a person holds a certain legal kinship to another, then they should be considered the ones to make decisions for that person if necessary and/or heirs to that person, above complete strangers. These are both forms of discrimination that serve a purpose and further a state interest.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
I approve of certain state discrimination. For instance, I believe age discrimination is completely fine when it comes to certain issues (voting age, driving age). I believe in discrimination when it comes to kinship, as in, if a person holds a certain legal kinship to another, then they should be considered the ones to make decisions for that person if necessary and/or heirs to that person, above complete strangers. These are both forms of discrimination that serve a purpose and further a state interest.
Click to expand...

Okay, well I do not support state discrimination for any reason, and most certainly not the state racial and gender discrimination that occurs.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Not real is how you describe rights then.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
Please show where I ever said such a thing. Or prove that there are no rights that that federal entity protects and interprets.
Click to expand...

scatt said:
If they just protect them does that mean they exist outside of the US?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I dont understand how your question answers my question.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
I'm sorry, I dont understand how your question answers my question.
Click to expand...

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

Ockham said:
The answer is there is no personal harm. It's the question though that's the problem. If your next door neighbor (we'll call him Jimmy) gets his brains blown out during a drug deal 30 miles away - what harm is caused to you? That would assume then that people killing other people, as long as it's not you, is fine. The assumption that two dudes getting married causes harm is the fallacy.... does something have to cause personal harm for someone to be against it? One would think so given the question. (That may be why you don't get a straight answer).
Click to expand...

But this isn't just about "being against it." There's "being against it" and there's actively working to make it illegal for somebody else. Nobody cares what you or I think of their marriage. I didn't get to vote my approval or disapproval of Britney Spears marrying some dude for 12 hours or whatever. If asked beforehand, I'd say I'd be "against" such a frivolous action, but I'd also say that it's none of my ****ing business. Jimmy getting shot quite clearly causes harm to Jimmy. While it doesn't directly affect me, that doesn't make it "just fine." It affects Jimmy and I'm pretty sure he'd argue for that being illegal.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Are rights universal?
Click to expand...

Among humans I'd say that there is a construct in every group of any size that recognizes something(s) that enables those humans to live together and optimize reproduction.

Are the same constructs universal? No.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
Among humans I'd say that there is a construct in every group of any size that recognizes something(s) that enables those humans to live together and optimize reproduction.

Are the same constructs universal? No.
Click to expand...

So "rights" apply to only some people?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
But this isn't just about "being against it." There's "being against it" and there's actively working to make it illegal for somebody else.
Click to expand...
There are degrees of disagreement. Why do some athiests spend tens of thousands of dollars to remove a cross that also is hurting no one? :shrug: But it gets removed.

Deuce said:
Nobody cares what you or I think of their marriage. I didn't get to vote my approval or disapproval of Britney Spears marrying some dude for 12 hours or whatever. If asked beforehand, I'd say I'd be "against" such a frivolous action, but I'd also say that it's none of my ****ing business. Jimmy getting shot quite clearly causes harm to Jimmy.
Click to expand...
And those sanctimonious moral outraged bible thumpers who have a high degree of disagreement with these acts might argue the dude marrying a dude hurts them and they don't even know it.

Deuce said:
While it doesn't directly affect me, that doesn't make it "just fine." It affects Jimmy and I'm pretty sure he'd argue for that being illegal.
Click to expand...
And it may be that these people who disagree with SSM feel it's hurting society, hurting the people involved because again, some believe it's an un-natural act and therefore hurts everyone. If they disagree enough, they will attempt to take action against it - same as the atheist removing the cross which hurts no one. I'm with you on this one, I don't care what people do in their bedrooms as long as it's legal, they're all of age, and it's consensual. Yes Jimmy would argue for that illegality. Not my best analogy ever.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
So "rights" apply to only some people?
Click to expand...

In this country, people can lose their rights as decided by the courts, so I guess that can be true.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Ockham said:
There are degrees of disagreement. Why do some athiests spend tens of thousands of dollars to remove a cross that also is hurting no one? :shrug: But it gets removed.
Click to expand...
According to some, unconstitutional is unconstitutional. :shrug:

And those sanctimonious moral outraged bible thumpers who have a high degree of disagreement with these acts might argue the dude marrying a dude hurts them and they don't even know it.
Click to expand...
And they're free to attempt to make that argument, but they tend not to. Even the dip****s "defending" Prop 8 in CA weren't dumb enough to try to raise that one. (and they were so bad I swear they were liberal plants)

And it may be that these people who disagree with SSM feel it's hurting society, hurting the people involved because again, some believe it's an un-natural act and therefore hurts everyone. If they disagree enough, they will attempt to take action against it - same as the atheist removing the cross which hurts no one. I'm with you on this one, I don't care what people do in their bedrooms as long as it's legal, they're all of age, and it's consensual. Yes Jimmy would argue for that illegality. Not my best analogy ever.
Click to expand...
And my point, essentially, is that they can never actually specify how SSM is hurting society. It's always "it hurts society by eroding our moral fabric" or something equally vague. Prop 8's legal team failed spectacularly to actually demonstrate any specific harm it causes. People are free to hold these beliefs, but "It's bad because I say it's bad" is not something that tends to sway a court in an equal protection challenge.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Okay, well I do not support state discrimination for any reason, and most certainly not the state racial and gender discrimination that occurs.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I'm pretty sure you do. Otherwise you believe that the state should allow children to drive or to purchase alcohol, cigarettes. Or perhaps to have complete freedom from their parents. Or you think the military should really have very few rules, particularly about the conduct of military personnel (since that would be discrimination, unless you would prefer the UCMJ apply to all citizens). Maybe you feel that prisoners and non-prisoners should be treated the exact same, since incarcerating people is a form of discrimination against those who have committed "crimes". Now it is possible that you are completely for anarchy, but not likely. If you are though, then it is pointless to discuss this with you anyway because you are not really for having a government and this is a discussion about the government and their job.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Are rights universal?
Click to expand...

No. We give as many people as we can rights, but they really are not universal. A person can have their rights restricted for what is viewed as the good of the rest of society, based on many things.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
No. We give as many people as we can rights, but they really are not universal. A person can have their rights restricted for what is viewed as the good of the rest of society, based on many things.
Click to expand...

Sounds arbitrary and subjective.

roguenuke said:
On the contrary, I'm pretty sure you do. Otherwise you believe that the state should allow children to drive or to purchase alcohol, cigarettes. Or perhaps to have complete freedom from their parents. Or you think the military should really have very few rules, particularly about the conduct of military personnel (since that would be discrimination, unless you would prefer the UCMJ apply to all citizens). Maybe you feel that prisoners and non-prisoners should be treated the exact same, since incarcerating people is a form of discrimination against those who have committed "crimes". Now it is possible that you are completely for anarchy, but not likely. If you are though, then it is pointless to discuss this with you anyway because you are not really for having a government and this is a discussion about the government and their job.
Click to expand...

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

scatt said:
Sounds arbitrary and subjective.

I do not support any state discrimination.
Click to expand...

Then you support anarchy because there is always going to be some sort of discrimination in any civilization.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
there is always going to be some sort of discrimination in any civilization
Click to expand...

I have no problems with private discrimination, everyone does it daily. I do have a problem with the state discriminating.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

AGENT J said:
where is the factual over stepping you speak of,
Click to expand...

HLS, TSA, NSA, perpetual war, aggressive domestic spying, jailing a higher percentage of our population than anyone else in the world, etc.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
I have no problems with private discrimination, everyone does it daily. I do have a problem with the state discriminating.
Click to expand...

Right, and in this case the State's ability to discriminate contract on the basis of sexual orientation has been stripped. So you should be fine with it.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Ikari said:
Right, and in this case the State's ability to discriminate contract on the basis of sexual orientation has been stripped. So you should be fine with it.
Click to expand...

The state discriminates, I am not fine with state discrimination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom