• 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

OOPS!! Massive fail on my part. Apologies! I never noticed that.

Whoosh. Plus side, means Scatt is probably not a teacher.

(hanging head in forum shame)

Out of curiosity, were you wondering if I was a firetruck?

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

Out of curiosity, were you wondering if I was a firetruck?

I kid, I kid.

Hey, wealthy ninja firetruck sounded like a cool thing to be!!! I'm imagining a bright red firetruck roaming the world, fighting for truth and justice everywhere!!!

you mean you aren't???? (grin)
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Voting, but the varying amount is not what I am referencing.

Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Voting, but the varying amount is not what I am referencing.

And with great yawns and stretchings.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Voting, but the varying amount is not what I am referencing.

"'Tis the voice of the Jubjub!" he suddenly cried.
(This man, that they used to call "Dunce.")
"As the Bellman would tell you," he added with pride,
"I have uttered that sentiment once.

"'Tis the note of the Jubjub! Keep count, I entreat;
You will find I have told it you twice.
Tis the song of the Jubjub! The proof is complete,
If only I've stated it thrice."
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Yeah, I did a big fail on that... DUH!!! so much for my power of observation...

I just thought it was funny because when you first said it, I thought you were going off a previous post and it concerned me a bit, but I felt relief when you said why you thought what you did. It was entertaining.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

You brought up the race factor and are using it as a basis to redefine marriage to include, not a race component, but a gender component. Namely, to expand it to include same sex. Race has nothing to do with it, yet you feel it does. The correlation is weak, at best.

And I'll say again, I don't think that our federal government has the power to intervene here, it is a state issue.

It didnt include, specifically, a 'race component' either until it was challenged and found unConstitutional. It was another 'redefinition,' at least for some state.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I suspect you may be new to debate, at least on a public forum, so let me give you a helpful tip: when someone asks you a question and you go out of your way to avoid answering it, what you're effectively announcing is that you don't have an answer. So would you like to answer how you expect a government to operate without taxes or do you intend to quibble on what taxes are called forever? Or maybe you'd like to choose door #3: you hadn't really thought that through and you'd like to drop it.

No, he's not and this is not a new technique for him. It's his schtick....his way of avoiding taking a position AND generating attention.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

How are you even supposed to reply to that?


You're not. And he'll go on to tell you that his version of 'consensual' is not legally-based. lol
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Under her name it says "educator". I hope I'm wrong.

It says that under your name too, lol.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Come up with something new, factual, or interesting please. You are beginning to bore the hell out of me.

your boredom is of no concern of ours and facts have already been presented by me and multiple posters that destroyed your post, now your job is to admit you were factually wrong, provide any facts that support your defeated post or let the destruction continue.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

It says that under your name too, lol.


Yeah, I had a massive failure there.... what can I say? OOPS!!! (grin)
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

You brought up the race factor and are using it as a basis to redefine marriage to include, not a race component, but a gender component. Namely, to expand it to include same sex. Race has nothing to do with it, yet you feel it does. The correlation is weak, at best.

And I'll say again, I don't think that our federal government has the power to intervene here, it is a state issue.

You don't think the federal government has the power to block unconstitutional laws? Why not?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Out of curiosity, were you wondering if I was a firetruck?

I kid, I kid.

Prove it, show me your bells.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Prove it, show me your bells.

Well, I think that's an extremely inappropriate question and tha--

Oh...bells! Bells! Right, never mind.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

This looks like as good a place as any to put my soapbox.

I am a registered libertarian and self described atheist constitutional conservative. I am confident that I can articulate conservative principles and refute leftist fascism(modern western liberalism) as well or better than anyone you know. My point. The opinion stated below is that of a conservative. I am not a conservative who is liberal on this subject or conservative fiscally but liberal socially. I am a conservative and my position regarding this issue is based on conservative principles and i can defend it from a conservative stance.

The "equal protection under the law" interpretation of the 14th ammendment has long been considered, by conservatives, to be a valid originalist interpretation of the constitution. As it should be. It is not another progressive pimple full of make-it-up-as-you-go puss their imaginary friend, the living breathing constitution of convenience. FYI; it means basically that all people are to be treated the same in the eyes of the law(I.e.courts,the IRS,law enforcement,etc...the government). That sounds good right? That's because it is. It is a solid principle,one that strengthens individual liberty and supports justice. It is a principle that should be defended. Unfortunately, much like freedom of speech,religion, and expression, it is when this principle is guards sentiments and/or behavior that we find objectionable that defending it is most important. In turn we can only hope that when it is we who are being denied equal protection under the law, those who find our ideas or behaviors objectionable will stand up and support this important constitutional principle on our behalf.
Does that not have the truthful ring of the kind of real, solid, principled conservatism we all (conservatives) believe can turn this mess of a nation around and away from the cliff? The kind of conservatism we all wish we could convey to the close-minded liberals in our lives, so they can see what we see? The conservatism that, for my money, looks and feels like classical liberalism and enlightenment era idealism? It does.

Well, then...I'm sure you have figured it out for yourself by now. We must support same sex marriage. We, the right. We, the conservatives. You conservatives who inexplicably are still registered members of the republican party. lol. Regardless of your personal beliefs and feelings,(personally i support gay marriage from a moral standpoint anyway-but that is irrelivant. If you want to debate/discuss that aspect,just ask me. happy to)it is a matter of constitutional principle. If the government is going to be in the marriage business, so to speak,the 14th ammendment insists they must marry same-sex couples as well. Same liscense,same terminology. (remember:seperate but equal is never equal)

*If you are thinking slippery slope...polygamy,beastiality, incest,etc., stop. it doesnt apply. trust me. i will give one example. Polygamy; allowing gay marriage doesn't mean the govt must sanction multiple marriages." How is that Jayar?" Because....{drum roll}...telling someone you cannot have a liscense to marry so and so because they are already married to someone else does not violate their constitutionally protected civil rights under the 14th ammendment(or any other). They are not being denied based on gender,race,religion,sexuality,etc. they cannot marry that person simply because someone already is. 1 spouse only. thank you. it would be like telling someone they cant assemble on a given street corner at a given time on a given day. why? because someone else is already there on that spot at that time on that day. you haven't been denied your right to assemble. someone has had their right to not be used as a footstool affirmed. Get it? (i dont have a moral prob w/polygamy either,btw. just sayin)

lets not be hypocrites. the left uses the constitution when it suits them and ignores it when it stands in their way. Keep your religion in your heart and your home and among those who share your faith. Help re-affirm the rule of law under the Bill of Rights, even when it rubs you the wrong way.


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

This looks like as good a place as any to put my soapbox.

I am a registered libertarian and self described atheist constitutional conservative. I am confident that I can articulate conservative principles and refute leftist fascism(modern western liberalism) as well or better than anyone you know. My point. The opinion stated below is that of a conservative. I am not a conservative who is liberal on this subject or conservative fiscally but liberal socially. I am a conservative and my position regarding this issue is based on conservative principles and i can defend it from a conservative stance.

The "equal protection under the law" interpretation of the 14th ammendment has long been considered, by conservatives, to be a valid originalist interpretation of the constitution. As it should be. It is not another progressive pimple full of make-it-up-as-you-go puss their imaginary friend, the living breathing constitution of convenience. FYI; it means basically that all people are to be treated the same in the eyes of the law(I.e.courts,the IRS,law enforcement,etc...the government). That sounds good right? That's because it is. It is a solid principle,one that strengthens individual liberty and supports justice. It is a principle that should be defended. Unfortunately, much like freedom of speech,religion, and expression, it is when this principle is guards sentiments and/or behavior that we find objectionable that defending it is most important. In turn we can only hope that when it is we who are being denied equal protection under the law, those who find our ideas or behaviors objectionable will stand up and support this important constitutional principle on our behalf.
Does that not have the truthful ring of the kind of real, solid, principled conservatism we all (conservatives) believe can turn this mess of a nation around and away from the cliff? The kind of conservatism we all wish we could convey to the close-minded liberals in our lives, so they can see what we see? The conservatism that, for my money, looks and feels like classical liberalism and enlightenment era idealism? It does.

Well, then...I'm sure you have figured it out for yourself by now. We must support same sex marriage. We, the right. We, the conservatives. You conservatives who inexplicably are still registered members of the republican party. lol. Regardless of your personal beliefs and feelings,(personally i support gay marriage from a moral standpoint anyway-but that is irrelivant. If you want to debate/discuss that aspect,just ask me. happy to)it is a matter of constitutional principle. If the government is going to be in the marriage business, so to speak,the 14th ammendment insists they must marry same-sex couples as well. Same liscense,same terminology. (remember:seperate but equal is never equal)

*If you are thinking slippery slope...polygamy,beastiality, incest,etc., stop. it doesnt apply. trust me. i will give one example. Polygamy; allowing gay marriage doesn't mean the govt must sanction multiple marriages." How is that Jayar?" Because....{drum roll}...telling someone you cannot have a liscense to marry so and so because they are already married to someone else does not violate their constitutionally protected civil rights under the 14th ammendment(or any other). They are not being denied based on gender,race,religion,sexuality,etc. they cannot marry that person simply because someone already is. 1 spouse only. thank you. it would be like telling someone they cant assemble on a given street corner at a given time on a given day. why? because someone else is already there on that spot at that time on that day. you haven't been denied your right to assemble. someone has had their right to not be used as a footstool affirmed. Get it? (i dont have a moral prob w/polygamy either,btw. just sayin)

lets not be hypocrites. the left uses the constitution when it suits them and ignores it when it stands in their way. Keep your religion in your heart and your home and among those who share your faith. Help re-affirm the rule of law under the Bill of Rights, even when it rubs you the wrong way.


Jayar

good post but unfortunately the FACTS and common sense you posted will still be ignored and or denied buy some who arent interested in facts.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

It didnt include, specifically, a 'race component' either until it was challenged and found unConstitutional. It was another 'redefinition,' at least for some state.

Never the less, it's apples and oranges. Doesn't correlate very well.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

your boredom is of no concern of ours and facts have already been presented by me and multiple posters that destroyed your post, now your job is to admit you were factually wrong, provide any facts that support your defeated post or let the destruction continue.

lol!!!, Bob.
Hey, I just "destroyed" your post! You have been defeated. Hey, I'm getting the hang of this. Just because I say so, and it is true. I have discovered your secret, you are destroyed again.
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

lol!!!, Bob.
Hey, I just "destroyed" your post! You have been defeated. Hey, I'm getting the hang of this. Just because I say so, and it is true. I have discovered your secret, you are destroyed again.
my name isnt bob, use my real name, your deflection fails again
translation: you still have ZERO facts to support your proven wrong claim while other posters used facts to defeat yours.

Let us know when you have ANY facts to support your failed claim, any.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

This looks like as good a place as any to put my soapbox.

I am a registered libertarian and self described atheist constitutional conservative. I am confident that I can articulate conservative principles and refute leftist fascism(modern western liberalism) as well or better than anyone you know. My point. The opinion stated below is that of a conservative. I am not a conservative who is liberal on this subject or conservative fiscally but liberal socially. I am a conservative and my position regarding this issue is based on conservative principles and i can defend it from a conservative stance.

The "equal protection under the law" interpretation of the 14th ammendment has long been considered, by conservatives, to be a valid originalist interpretation of the constitution. As it should be. It is not another progressive pimple full of make-it-up-as-you-go puss their imaginary friend, the living breathing constitution of convenience. FYI; it means basically that all people are to be treated the same in the eyes of the law(I.e.courts,the IRS,law enforcement,etc...the government). That sounds good right? That's because it is. It is a solid principle,one that strengthens individual liberty and supports justice. It is a principle that should be defended. Unfortunately, much like freedom of speech,religion, and expression, it is when this principle is guards sentiments and/or behavior that we find objectionable that defending it is most important. In turn we can only hope that when it is we who are being denied equal protection under the law, those who find our ideas or behaviors objectionable will stand up and support this important constitutional principle on our behalf.
Does that not have the truthful ring of the kind of real, solid, principled conservatism we all (conservatives) believe can turn this mess of a nation around and away from the cliff? The kind of conservatism we all wish we could convey to the close-minded liberals in our lives, so they can see what we see? The conservatism that, for my money, looks and feels like classical liberalism and enlightenment era idealism? It does.

Well, then...I'm sure you have figured it out for yourself by now. We must support same sex marriage. We, the right. We, the conservatives. You conservatives who inexplicably are still registered members of the republican party. lol. Regardless of your personal beliefs and feelings,(personally i support gay marriage from a moral standpoint anyway-but that is irrelivant. If you want to debate/discuss that aspect,just ask me. happy to)it is a matter of constitutional principle. If the government is going to be in the marriage business, so to speak,the 14th ammendment insists they must marry same-sex couples as well. Same liscense,same terminology. (remember:seperate but equal is never equal)

*If you are thinking slippery slope...polygamy,beastiality, incest,etc., stop. it doesnt apply. trust me. i will give one example. Polygamy; allowing gay marriage doesn't mean the govt must sanction multiple marriages." How is that Jayar?" Because....{drum roll}...telling someone you cannot have a liscense to marry so and so because they are already married to someone else does not violate their constitutionally protected civil rights under the 14th ammendment(or any other). They are not being denied based on gender,race,religion,sexuality,etc. they cannot marry that person simply because someone already is. 1 spouse only. thank you. it would be like telling someone they cant assemble on a given street corner at a given time on a given day. why? because someone else is already there on that spot at that time on that day. you haven't been denied your right to assemble. someone has had their right to not be used as a footstool affirmed. Get it? (i dont have a moral prob w/polygamy either,btw. just sayin)

lets not be hypocrites. the left uses the constitution when it suits them and ignores it when it stands in their way. Keep your religion in your heart and your home and among those who share your faith. Help re-affirm the rule of law under the Bill of Rights, even when it rubs you the wrong way.


Jayar

I'm sure this will resonate will self-identified conservatives, but did you have to go out of your way to bash "liberal fascists," most of whom agree with you on this?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I'm sure this will resonate will self-identified conservatives, but did you have to go out of your way to bash "liberal fascists," most of whom agree with you on this?

No. I didn't have to



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

Never the less, it's apples and oranges. Doesn't correlate very well.

No, what I posted was evidence that they are the same.

Only YOU do not recognize that, because you do not want to.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

This looks like as good a place as any to put my soapbox.

I am a registered libertarian and self described atheist constitutional conservative. I am confident that I can articulate conservative principles and refute leftist fascism(modern western liberalism) as well or better than anyone you know. My point. The opinion stated below is that of a conservative. I am not a conservative who is liberal on this subject or conservative fiscally but liberal socially. I am a conservative and my position regarding this issue is based on conservative principles and i can defend it from a conservative stance.

The "equal protection under the law" interpretation of the 14th ammendment has long been considered, by conservatives, to be a valid originalist interpretation of the constitution. As it should be. It is not another progressive pimple full of make-it-up-as-you-go puss their imaginary friend, the living breathing constitution of convenience. FYI; it means basically that all people are to be treated the same in the eyes of the law(I.e.courts,the IRS,law enforcement,etc...the government). That sounds good right? That's because it is. It is a solid principle,one that strengthens individual liberty and supports justice. It is a principle that should be defended. Unfortunately, much like freedom of speech,religion, and expression, it is when this principle is guards sentiments and/or behavior that we find objectionable that defending it is most important. In turn we can only hope that when it is we who are being denied equal protection under the law, those who find our ideas or behaviors objectionable will stand up and support this important constitutional principle on our behalf.
Does that not have the truthful ring of the kind of real, solid, principled conservatism we all (conservatives) believe can turn this mess of a nation around and away from the cliff? The kind of conservatism we all wish we could convey to the close-minded liberals in our lives, so they can see what we see? The conservatism that, for my money, looks and feels like classical liberalism and enlightenment era idealism? It does.

Well, then...I'm sure you have figured it out for yourself by now. We must support same sex marriage. We, the right. We, the conservatives. You conservatives who inexplicably are still registered members of the republican party. lol. Regardless of your personal beliefs and feelings,(personally i support gay marriage from a moral standpoint anyway-but that is irrelivant. If you want to debate/discuss that aspect,just ask me. happy to)it is a matter of constitutional principle. If the government is going to be in the marriage business, so to speak,the 14th ammendment insists they must marry same-sex couples as well. Same liscense,same terminology. (remember:seperate but equal is never equal)

*If you are thinking slippery slope...polygamy,beastiality, incest,etc., stop. it doesnt apply. trust me. i will give one example. Polygamy; allowing gay marriage doesn't mean the govt must sanction multiple marriages." How is that Jayar?" Because....{drum roll}...telling someone you cannot have a liscense to marry so and so because they are already married to someone else does not violate their constitutionally protected civil rights under the 14th ammendment(or any other). They are not being denied based on gender,race,religion,sexuality,etc. they cannot marry that person simply because someone already is. 1 spouse only. thank you. it would be like telling someone they cant assemble on a given street corner at a given time on a given day. why? because someone else is already there on that spot at that time on that day. you haven't been denied your right to assemble. someone has had their right to not be used as a footstool affirmed. Get it? (i dont have a moral prob w/polygamy either,btw. just sayin)

lets not be hypocrites. the left uses the constitution when it suits them and ignores it when it stands in their way. Keep your religion in your heart and your home and among those who share your faith. Help re-affirm the rule of law under the Bill of Rights, even when it rubs you the wrong way.


Jayar

Wow. i should definitely proof-read my rants when my brain is, uh, compromised. I apologize for the incoherent lapses and missing or extra words. hehe I know, i know, the brilliance of the message makes it worth it.
maybe?


Jayar
 
Back
Top Bottom