• 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

AGENT J said:
still trying to desperately sell this failed strawman huh, to bad it completely failed and you have no facts to support it and it got destroyed by multiple posters. If you disagree simply back this claim up with any facts you have to support it.
Click to expand...
Proved it with separate videos. You get to own your own words...and the fact that you voted for 'that guy'...twice.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

VanceMack said:
Proved it with separate videos. You get to own your own words...and the fact that you voted for 'that guy'...twice.
Click to expand...

no there was NOTHING in the videos that was being disputed as multiple posters pointed out. This is why your strawman failed, imploded and totally got destroyed lol keep pushing this lie though maybe somebody will buy it but since the thread is still here facts prove otherwise.

If you disagree, simple question, tells us whats in the videos that was factually disputed or factually answered my question? I cant wait to read your answer.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

AGENT J said:
no there was NOTHING in the videos that was being disputed as multiple posters pointed out. This is why your strawman failed, imploded and totally got destroyed lol keep pushing this lie though maybe somebody will buy it but since the thread is still here facts prove otherwise.

If you disagree, simple question, tells us whats in the videos that was factually disputed or factually answered my question? I cant wait to read your answer.
Click to expand...
Even AFTER he decided he needed to go after gay votes and campaign cash, the ****ing retarded moron (and now 'coward') still believes that the gay marriage issue is a states rights issue. And you voted for the man you believe to be a ****ing moron and a retard. But thats OK...others like you just believe he is a coward.

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

VanceMack said:
Even AFTER he decided he needed to go after gay votes and campaign cash, the ****ing retarded moron (and now 'coward') still believes that the gay marriage issue is a states rights issue. And you voted for the man you believe to be a ****ing moron and a retard. But thats OK...others like you just believe he is a coward.
Click to expand...

thats what i thought theres NOTHING in the videos that was being disputed or answers the question asked and multiple poster pointed out and this is why your post got destroyed lol facts defeat your post again
simple question, tells us whats in the videos that was factually disputed or factually answered my question? I cant wait to read your answer.

Who wants to bet the questions are dodged again?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
Gee, the definition was changed in the sixties to allow interracial marriage. So yeah, courts can change the definition of marriage. As can legislators. As can voters.

What voters CAN'T do is take away someone's rights through the voting process.

Look, you've lost. There is no good reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry.
Click to expand...
I am not. There is every reason to preserve states rights though.

Period.
Click to expand...

You are begining to sound like Obama, and that's not a good thing.

And that means, under the federal constitution, it can't be denied. The SCOTUS has declared marriage a right; you can only deny constitutional rights for a very good reason, and no one has one in this case.
Click to expand...
Nothing is being denied at this point. Marriage being a right is not in question.

And why am I even bothering to type this?
Click to expand...

That's the spirit.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
I am not. There is every reason to preserve states rights though.



You are begining to sound like Obama, and that's not a good thing.


Nothing is being denied at this point. Marriage being a right is not in question.



That's the spirit.
Click to expand...

on this topic are there states rights not being preserved?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
I am not. There is every reason to preserve states rights though.
Click to expand...

not at the expense of individual rights
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

winston53660 said:
not at the expense of individual rights
Click to expand...

ding ding ding, correct and by definition that wouldnt be states rights

hence why states rights are 100% intact on this issue and its saying otherwise is a strawman
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

winston53660 said:
not at the expense of individual rights
Click to expand...

Well, that is the ultimate question, is there an individual right to change marriage to include other forms of coupling, and does it trump states rights? And do we want to open that door, because you know there will be others that want modifications to suit their own situation. Where do we stop?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

winston53660 said:
not at the expense of individual rights
Click to expand...

I could say that it should not be at the expense of states rights then.
Civil unions can be made to include all the benifits of marriage, and preserve everyone's rights. But it has already been stated, I believe in this thread, that they don't want just the rights, they must have the definition of marriage changed also. To me, that sounds like a vindictive, anti Christian position, that should not be rewarded. But it probably will, since we know this government is no friend of Christianity.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
1.)Well, that is the ultimate question, is there an individual right to change marriage to include other forms of coupling
2.) and does it trump states rights?
3.) And do we want to open that door, because you know there will be others that want modifications to suit their own situation. Where do we stop?
Click to expand...

1.) thats not the question because thats not what is being fixed or what individual right is being discussed/fixed in court.
WHat is being fixed is eliminating the discrimination and infringement of individual equal/civil rights
2.) no it factually does not because states have no right to infringe on this
3.) no door is being opened, this strawman always fails, the slippery slope argument. Same argument with womens rights and minority rights and interracial marriage etc.

if we consider blacks to be men/person we might as well consider my dogs to be people too, where does it end
if we let women vote we might as well let my horse vote, where does it end

these arguments were illogical and they failed back then and the same remains true today

"others" can want modification all they want unless they can make a case for equal/civil rights they have nothing to work with, theres no legal precedence about illegal discrimination, rights infringment and equal/civil rights about hetero/homosexual marriage that lends usage to others.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

VanceMack said:
Take it up with your homey then. You say he was a coward, he says he was a ****ing moron and a retard. I'm just letting you guys shred him.

Heres the funny thing...your opinions aside...its ironic that on things like abortion and gay marriage, my position pretty much mirrored Obama's...right up until he decided he needed some quick campaign cash and 'evolved' his position. And I'm the 'conservative'.
Click to expand...

That's the part that makes him a coward. He "personally" thought marriage was between a man and a woman when that was the majority opinion. Then he took a more "in the middle" position with this states' rights nonsense exactly when that became the better political choice. Some of your guys are talking about Obama like he's the second coming of Marx when he's barely even a liberal.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Well, that is the ultimate question, is there an individual right to change marriage to include other forms of coupling, and does it trump states rights? And do we want to open that door, because you know there will be others that want modifications to suit their own situation. Where do we stop?
Click to expand...

Oh I guess with people marrying blow up dolls is a good stopping point.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
1.)I could say that it should not be at the expense of states rights then.
2.)Civil unions can be made to include all the benifits of marriage, and preserve everyone's rights.
3.) But it has already been stated, I believe in this thread, that they don't want just the rights, they must have the definition of marriage changed also.
4.) To me, that sounds like a vindictive, anti Christian position, that should not be rewarded.
5.) But it probably will, since we know this government is no friend of Christianity.
Click to expand...

1.) you can and should since states rights are 100% intact because they have no right to infringe on individual rights hence they factually arent losing any states rights
2.) separate but equal is not equal and never will be not to mention this idea as already failed because there is NOTHING legally that is equal to marriage under contract law and by case precedent. Also just an FYI since you seem to not know about this topic many states have banned same sex unions/partnerships also. SO again its the state over stepping its boundaries. SO no everyones rights would not be preserved, theres only one way to do it and thats to grant equal/civil rights to gays.
3.) and anybody stating it that why is factually wrong they want the rights and the only way to get the rights is to be granted marriage, no definition needs changed, marriage is a contract between two people and it sill will be.
4.) as usual since 3 is a strawman and factually wrong what it sounds like to you is asinine not to mention the fact legal marriage has NOTHING to do with religion period, let alone christianity. As a christian myself theres zero logic to support something so dishonesty and or irrational.
5.) another failed strawman lol
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Well, that is the ultimate question, is there an individual right to change marriage to include other forms of coupling, and does it trump states rights? And do we want to open that door, because you know there will be others that want modifications to suit their own situation. Where do we stop?
Click to expand...

We stop when what someone wants is harmful to society.

Prisoners can marry, even if they are in jail for life.

Gays/Lesbians can marry (in SSM) in many states; hopefully soon in all states

If someone else wants to marry, they need to present the case: a) that marriage is a right and that b) allowing their marriage won't be harmful to society.

Granting more rights has usually been good for our country, but it needs to be on a case by case basis. (or group by group basis).
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
That's the part that makes him a coward. He "personally" thought marriage was between a man and a woman when that was the majority opinion. Then he took a more "in the middle" position with this states' rights nonsense exactly when that became the better political choice. Some of your guys are talking about Obama like he's the second coming of Marx when he's barely even a liberal.
Click to expand...


Well, I'm glad you agree that Pres. Obama is barely a liberal; so many people seem to think he's a communist marxist socialist or something. He's a centrist; and yes, his opinion on SSM has evolved over time. I don't think that's unusual; I think for many people in this country, their opinion on SSM has evolved over time from being against it to now being for it.

Would I have wished Pres Obama had campaigned for SSM from day one? Sure. But it wasn't really an issue when he first ran for Senate and then President. And, as he was running for a second term, as it became more of an issue, he came out for SSM (while Romney didn't). His position evolved. I think that's good when people are able to re-think their prior positions and change them based on new information. Why do you think that's bad?

But I agree, he's a centrist, not a liberal; but the candidates I would love to see as president would never win, so I'll take the centrist over people like McCain and Romney any day.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
Some of your guys are talking about Obama like he's the second coming of Marx when he's barely even a liberal.
Click to expand...

He's about as left of a president that we've ever had. I think the far lefties call him "barely a liberal" because he can't get their agenda done. He would love to have gotten a single payer government plan. I hear liberals complain that he didn't get it done, therefore he's not a liberal. Only problem is that there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that he had the votes. If he could nationalize half the industry in this country, he would. Completely rewrite the Constitution; But again, no where near the votes to do it.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
He's about as left of a president that we've ever had. I think the far lefties call him "barely a liberal" because he can't get their agenda done. He would love to have gotten a single payer government plan. I hear liberals complain that he didn't get it done, therefore he's not a liberal. Only problem is that there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that he had the votes. If he could nationalize half the industry in this country, he would. Completely rewrite the Constitution; But again, no where near the votes to do it.
Click to expand...


Seriously? compared to Roosevelt, Truman - heck, I think even Nixon might have been a bit to Obama's left.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
Seriously? compared to Roosevelt, Truman - heck, I think even Nixon might have been a bit to Obama's left.
Click to expand...

Yeah, seriously. Why, do you think he didn't get single payer because he is a middle of the road guy and didn't want it?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
We stop when what someone wants is harmful to society.

Prisoners can marry, even if they are in jail for life.

Gays/Lesbians can marry (in SSM) in many states; hopefully soon in all states

If someone else wants to marry, they need to present the case: a) that marriage is a right and that b) allowing their marriage won't be harmful to society.

Granting more rights has usually been good for our country, but it needs to be on a case by case basis. (or group by group basis).
Click to expand...

Sure, we allow marajuanna to be sold now, so looks like the "won't be harmful to society" bar has just dropped quite a bit. They are going to demand marriage include them just like gays are doing now. No law will stop them, since civil rights trumps everything these days.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Sure, we allow marajuanna to be sold now, so looks like the "won't be harmful to society" bar has just dropped quite a bit. They are going to demand marriage include them just like gays are doing now. No law will stop them, since civil rights trumps everything these days.
Click to expand...

wrong again it has to be a factual equal/civil rights issue

just cant make it up it has to actually apply lol

if you disagree simply provide an example of all these groups you speak of and how they will be able to use the precedent of hetero/homosexual marriage in their cases.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

winston53660 said:
not at the expense of individual rights
Click to expand...

What individual rights are being infringed on? "Expended"?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
I could say that it should not be at the expense of states rights then.
Civil unions can be made to include all the benifits of marriage, and preserve everyone's rights. But it has already been stated, I believe in this thread, that they don't want just the rights, they must have the definition of marriage changed also. To me, that sounds like a vindictive, anti Christian position, that should not be rewarded. But it probably will, since we know this government is no friend of Christianity.
Click to expand...

THey want to be *married*. It means exactly the same thing to them and they want exactly the same traditions and meaning (to them) that they grew up desiring, just like anyone else. And that they will impart to their children.

Many of them are Christians. They believe God loves them just the same and as a Christian, so do I. How can it be vindictive? THat's just pathetic and probably you projecting your (still unexplained) personal resentment over SSM.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
That's the part that makes him a coward. He "personally" thought marriage was between a man and a woman when that was the majority opinion. Then he took a more "in the middle" position with this states' rights nonsense exactly when that became the better political choice. Some of your guys are talking about Obama like he's the second coming of Marx when he's barely even a liberal.
Click to expand...

I dont see how that is cowardly. There are several positions where I 'personally' believe something and would act accordingly personally, but I support a different position politically, like when I vote for an issue or candidate, because I believe it's a) Constitutional and b) better for society overall. (and often both).

For example: abortion, legalizing pot, supporting pharmacists that choose not to sell the morning after pill, legalizing prostitution, etc.

There's nothing wrong with believing that marriage, to YOU, means a man and a woman. What is wrong isattempting to force that belief on others when it is discriminatory.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
There's nothing wrong with believing that marriage, to YOU, means a man and a woman. What is wrong is attempting to FORCE that belief on others when it is DISCRIMINATORY (and violates equal/civil/human rights).
Click to expand...

DING DING DING!!!!
winner winner chicken dinner!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom