• 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

You are referring to 1967 right? Loving v. Virginia where the SCOTUS found Civil Marriage was subject to Constitutional guarantees?

States had laws against interracial marriage, they were ruled unconstitutional.>>>>

Nope, not referring to that, it's a completely different issue. Those state laws said only some people can marry others of the opposite sex. Now, anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex. No discrimination at all.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

In this instance, the federal government is taking away a state's right to decide how they are going to treat marriage.

false the state doesn't have the right to violate individual rights and the fed is fixing it
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Nope, not referring to that, it's a completely different issue. Those state laws said only some people can marry others of the opposite sex. Now, anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex. No discrimination at all.

facts prove you wrong it not a different issue by any means its a equal/civil/human rights issue just like interracial marriage
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

OK, then why did you address me? You argued with me about what the courts have said. However, here, you agree with me that the courts didn't see it your way.

I didn't say anything about the courts. I said the laws said that.

The courts did not actually address it. They merely mention that there is a group of people who are being targeted by the discrimination, gays. It is still discrimination based on sex/gender, not sexuality.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Nope, not referring to that, it's a completely different issue. Those state laws said only some people can marry others of the opposite sex. Now, anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex. No discrimination at all.

Funny thing is that the Commonwealth of Virginia (to paraphrase) called it "No discrimination at all" also because coloreds could marry and whites could marry. Just not someone of a different race.


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

Nope, not referring to that, it's a completely different issue. Those state laws said only some people can marry others of the opposite sex. Now, anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex. No discrimination at all.

That exact logic was explicitly rejected in the Loving case. "Everyone can marry someone of the same race. No discrimination at all!"

So what makes you think this logic is valid now when it wasn't then? You must think there's some distinctive difference here that makes such logic acceptable now.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage


There was no answer, hence my question.

A 5 year old or 10 year old cannot sign their own contracts, no matter how much freedom or independence a parent may wish to give them. In fact, the same is true for even older children for the most part. A parent cannot decide that their child should be allowed to work at the age of 15 for 40 hours a week in most states, even if their child is capable of doing so. By law, they are not of legal age to take care of themself, even if they have the physical capability to do so. So, no it is not about parenting but forced discrimination based on age.

Unless they are on a farm.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

There was no answer, hence my question.

Unless they are on a farm.

They still can't choose to do whatever they want to do. They are not free to make the same legal decisions that adults can make due solely to their age under the law.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Nope, not referring to that, it's a completely different issue. Those state laws said only some people can marry others of the opposite sex. Now, anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex. No discrimination at all.

That's pretty tortured. Your attempt to make them dissimilar is making your argument scream in pain.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Unless they are on a farm.

Scatt - I asked for an answer to a simple question: Are you ok with 5 yr olds driving, or are you ok with state discriminating against younger drivers based on age?

Simple question. I didn't ask for an opinion of parenting, I didn't ask about farm chores, and Yes, I'm talking about driving on public roads, not driving a toy car around the house.

You have said you don't want the state discriminating, period (although you seem to be ok with them discriminating by not allowing SSM). So I'm just asking how far you would go with that.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Scatt - I asked for an answer to a simple question: Are you ok with 5 yr olds driving, or are you ok with state discriminating against younger drivers based on age?

Simple question. I didn't ask for an opinion of parenting, I didn't ask about farm chores, and Yes, I'm talking about driving on public roads, not driving a toy car around the house.

You have said you don't want the state discriminating, period. So I'm just asking how far you would go with that.

I do not support state discrimination of any kind (for the umpteenth time). And this sounds like a bad parenting issue.

They still can't choose to do whatever they want to do. They are not free to make the same legal decisions that adults can make due solely to their age under the law.

That is what the state does, remove freedoms or "rights."
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I do not support state discrimination of any kind (for the umpteenth time). And this sounds like a bad parenting issue.S

That is what the state does, remove freedoms or "rights."

So then you feel that if a 5 year old wishes to get a job as a cook then they should be allowed? Or perhaps join the Army? Or maybe sign a contract that says they will work for someone paying them pittance? Or what about working 80 hours a week? If their parents, assuming they have some, don't object, then who else will protect them? Some parents would welcome the extra money from having their young children work, some even forcing their children to do it.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I do not support state discrimination of any kind (for the umpteenth time). And this sounds like a bad parenting issue.



That is what the state does, remove freedoms or "rights."



Ok! so kids can drive, drink, smoke, get jobs. Let's forget about school - making it mandatory for kids is discrimination by the state, after all! Let's put those kids to work like they do in 3rd world countries.

I'm really glad you aren't in charge, Scatt.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

So then you feel that if a 5 year old wishes to get a job as a cook then they should be allowed? Or perhaps join the Army? Or maybe sign a contract that says they will work for someone paying them pittance? Or what about working 80 hours a week? If their parents, assuming they have some, don't object, then who else will protect them? Some parents would welcome the extra money from having their young children work, some even forcing their children to do it.

Let's have a children's army! send our kids into battle to fight and be killed!

Sigh. I hope Scatt sees that's the problem with absolute ideologies; sometimes the outcomes they lead to are NOT very good.

balance in everything, including ideology...
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I didn't say anything about the courts. I said the laws said that.

The courts did not actually address it. They merely mention that there is a group of people who are being targeted by the discrimination, gays. It is still discrimination based on sex/gender, not sexuality.

And you were arguing with what I said about the courts.

If your point is that you disagree with the courts, then so be it; it doesn't really matter.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Ok! so kids can drive, drink, smoke, get jobs. Let's forget about school - making it mandatory for kids is discrimination by the state, after all! Let's put those kids to work like they do in 3rd world countries.

You are telling me their parents would decide the need these things, I didn't say they will do these things at all. Wait, do you really think a law banning something means it doesn't happen? Haha, is this grade school?

So then you feel that if a 5 year old wishes to get a job as a cook then they should be allowed? Or perhaps join the Army? Or maybe sign a contract that says they will work for someone paying them pittance? Or what about working 80 hours a week? If their parents, assuming they have some, don't object, then who else will protect them? Some parents would welcome the extra money from having their young children work, some even forcing their children to do it.

Sounds like a bad parenting issue.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

And you were arguing with what I said about the courts.

If your point is that you disagree with the courts, then so be it; it doesn't really matter.

I don't disagree with the courts, only you. You have failed to show specifically where any court has actually specifically rejected my claim, that the discrimination is based on sex/gender, not sexuality but that it does target homosexuals, because homosexuals are most likely to want to enter into a marriage with someone of the same sex.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Sounds like a bad parenting issue.

And there are a lot of bad parents out there. You keep repeating yourself because you know there are major issues with just sitting back and allowing parents to make such decisions.

But the very fact that parents have such power to make such decisions for their children under the law is in fact discrimination based on age or mental capacity, because a person cannot legally have that power over mentally capable adults.

I asked you, is it okay to allow a 5, 10, or even 15 year old to join the Army? We allow 17 year olds to join with parents' permission, so why not younger?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

And there are a lot of bad parents out there. You keep repeating yourself because you know there are major issues with just sitting back and allowing parents to make such decisions.

I asked you, is it okay to allow a 5, 10, or even 15 year old to join the Army? We allow 17 year olds to join with parents' permission, so why not younger?

Yes, the state promotes this by giving money for breeding.

That is a bad parenting issue.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Yes, the state promotes this by giving money for breeding.

That is a bad parenting issue.

You are not making any sense. I didn't ask anything about "breeding" or making more children. We could be talking about a well-to-do family that simply wants their child to get a headstart in making it up through the ranks. No government "breeding money" involved.

As I said, plenty of bad parents out there, many of which have plenty of their own money. Who decides for those children who either have bad parents or no parents? Afterall, some children have no parents due not to the fault of the parents. Can orphans get jobs? What about joining the Army, Navy, or Marines?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I don't disagree with the courts, only you. You have failed to show specifically where any court has actually specifically rejected my claim, that the discrimination is based on sex/gender, not sexuality but that it does target homosexuals, because homosexuals are most likely to want to enter into a marriage with someone of the same sex.

Now, wait. Previously, you said that courts didn't say what you were saying.

I've had this conversation with you before. You insisted Judge Walker based his ruling in Perry based on sex discrimination and not sexuality, but that's simply untrue. He rejected sex discrimination as the basis, and specifically based his ruling on discrimination against homosexuals.

On the basis of what you're saying about homosexuality, there is no sex discrimination in "traditional marriage laws," either. Both sexes are affected in exactly the same way. If you think that it's sex-based discrimination because someone can't choose the sex to marry, then you don't really understand what sex-based discrimination is -- favoring one sex over the other, or discriminating against one sex over the other. Men cannot do something women can't do, and women can't do something men can't do. Just like you say heterosexuals can't so something homosexuals can't do. It's exactly the same dichotomy, or lack of one, depending on how you want to phrase it.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I didn't ask anything about "breeding" or making more children. We could be talking about a well-to-do family that simply wants their child to get a headstart in making it up through the ranks.

As I said, plenty of bad parents out there, many of which have plenty of their own money. Who decides for those children who either have bad parents or no parents? Afterall, some children have no parents due not to the fault of the parents. Can orphans get jobs? What about joining the Army, Navy, or Marines?

The business owners would know they do not have much value, and not hire them.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Now, wait. Previously, you said that courts didn't say what you were saying.

I've had this conversation with you before. You insisted Judge Walker based his ruling in Perry based on sex discrimination and not sexuality, but that's simply untrue. He rejected sex discrimination as the basis, and specifically based his ruling on discrimination against homosexuals.

On the basis of what you're saying about homosexuality, there is no sex discrimination in "traditional marriage laws," either. Both sexes are affected in exactly the same way. If you think that it's sex-based discrimination because someone can't choose the sex to marry, then you don't really understand what sex-based discrimination is -- favoring one sex over the other, or discriminating against one sex over the other. Men cannot do something women can't do, and women can't do something men can't do. Just like you say heterosexuals can't so something homosexuals can't do. It's exactly the same dichotomy, or lack of one, depending on how you want to phrase it.

First of all, I have never said that the courts said what I was saying about the laws discriminating based on sex/gender, only that the courts do not contradict me.

Second, that wasn't me you had the conversation with, but rather another poster.

There is sex discrimination within the laws that same people of the same sex cannot marry, just as there was discrimination in the laws saying that two people of different races could not marry. Sure, either sex can get married, just as any race could get married, however each sex is limited in who they can marry based solely on their sex, just as races were limited in who they could marry based solely on their race. A woman can only marry a man because she is a woman, just as a white person could only marry a white person because they are white. That means a woman cannot marry a woman, but a man can. Sex discrimination. Just like if a white person cannot marry a black person but a black person can marry a black person, that is race discrimination.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

The business owners would know they do not have much value, and not hire them.

Because that worked so well in the past. Business owners would never take advantage of children. <sarcasm> It isn't like the government had to make child labor laws or anything because in the past both businesses and parents put their young children to work, in pretty horrible conditions, doing pretty dangerous jobs, right?

And the Army is part of the government.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

First of all, I have never said that the courts said what I was saying about the laws discriminating based on sex/gender, only that the courts do not contradict me.

They do when they reject sex-based discrimination as a basis for their rulings.

Second, that wasn't me you had the conversation with, but rather another poster.

You're right. That was rivrrat. My mistake.

There is sex discrimination within the laws that same people of the same sex cannot marry, just as there was discrimination in the laws saying that two people of different races could not marry. Sure, either sex can get married, just as any race could get married, however each sex is limited in who they can marry based solely on their sex, just as races were limited in who they could marry based solely on their race. A woman can only marry a man because she is a woman, just as a white person could only marry a white person because they are white. That means a woman cannot marry a woman, but a man can. Sex discrimination. Just like if a white person cannot marry a black person but a black person can marry a black person, that is race discrimination.

And that argument applies just as much to discrimination against homosexuality, which is the overall crux of what the courts have said.
 
Back
Top Bottom