• 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:
DING DING DING!!!!
winner winner chicken dinner!
Click to expand...

I am having chicken for dinner....next time tho, you can buy ;)
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

AGENT J said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, no. It's "civil rights". Trumps everything. They have the same rights as gays do. Fact. Destroyed. You!
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Oh, no. It's "civil rights". Trumps everything. They have the same rights as gays do. Fact. Destroyed. You!
Click to expand...

The burden is on the state to justify a gender-based classification when an equal protection challenge arises. Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is a gender-based classification, obviously.

So provide that justification.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Oh, no. It's "civil rights". Trumps everything. They have the same rights as gays do. Fact. Destroyed. You!
Click to expand...

I have no idea who the "them" is you referred to in an earlier post or the "they" in this post, but if some group can prove to the courts that their civil rights are being violated, then the courts need to invalidate the laws that violate those civil rights.

Yes, civil rights really do trump everything in our society. You don't like it, feel free to try to amend the constitution or move to a country without civil rights.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey, if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. And, of course, you mean offspring from a man and a woman. Because they can't do that, though I've been told "gay" marriage is the exact same thing as regular marriage.

Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's something I never said, just a lie that you made up.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
1.)Oh, no. It's "civil rights". Trumps everything.
2.) They have the same rights as gays do.
3.)Fact. Destroyed. You!
Click to expand...

1.) nope it has to actually be equal/civil rights. If thats the case then yes if not then no
2.) who is they
3.) you havent provided any

since you dodged it i will ask again

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.

who bets it gets dodged again
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
1.)Hey, if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. And, of course, you mean offspring from a man and a woman. Because they can't do that,
2.) though I've been told "gay" marriage is the exact same thing as regular marriage.

.
Click to expand...

1.) off spring has nothgin to do with legal marriage, another failed straman.
2.) no marriages are "exact" but the legal marriage contract and what will be granted and legally protected will be exactly the same thing
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Hey, if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. And, of course, you mean offspring from a man and a woman. Because they can't do that, though I've been told "gay" marriage is the exact same thing as regular marriage.



That's something I never said, just a lie that you made up.
Click to expand...

An elderly couple can't make children either. Is this an argument for annulling marriages beyond a certain age?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
An elderly couple can't make children either. Is this an argument for annulling marriages beyond a certain age?
Click to expand...

Why would it be? A gay marriage can NEVER have offspring, EVER. That kind of makes it different.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Why would it be? A gay marriage can NEVER have offspring, EVER. That kind of makes it different.
Click to expand...

nope has no impact on legal marriage because legal marriage has nothing to do with that.

the rights granted/protected are the same

can you point out where having off spring is required in legal marriage?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

And, no you're not. Looks like you are saying that because... You. Got. Destroyed. Again!
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

AGENT J said:
1.) nope it has to actually be equal/civil rights. If thats the case then yes if not then no
343.) you havent provided any

who bets it gets dodged again
Click to expand...

No dodging, just logic. It is clear that it is futile to provide you with facts, because you do not deal with them or use them. Explained. Destroyed!!!
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
1.)No dodging, just logic.
2.)It is clear that it is futile to provide you with facts, because you do not deal with them or use them.
3.)Explained. Destroyed!!!
Click to expand...

1.) yes you are factually dodging them
2.) i did and they are what proved your post wrong
3.) nope just another dodge because you can accuratly defend your failed post

ill ask again 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.

who bets it gets dodged again
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Hey, if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. And, of course, you mean offspring from a man and a woman. Because they can't do that, though I've been told "gay" marriage is the exact same thing as regular marriage.

That's something I never said, just a lie that you made up.
Click to expand...

That's right...families are families and straight couples with kids from previously married parents or adopted kids are just as much families as gay families with the same.

And LMAO, yup...you walk like a duck, you talk like a duck...so I'mma say you're a duck on the projecting issue.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Why would it be? A gay marriage can NEVER have offspring, EVER. That kind of makes it different.
Click to expand...

Sure it can, again: just like an family with step children. Those are still their natural children that THEY produced. And they are just as much a family.

Or arent they? Not a real family? Or is it not a real straight marriage? Is it 'different?'
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
Sure it can, again: just like an family with step children. Those are still their natural children that THEY produced. And they are just as much a family.

Or arent they? Not a real family? Or is it not a real straight marriage? Is it 'different?'
Click to expand...

Now you've ventured into fantasy land with that one.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Why would it be? A gay marriage can NEVER have offspring, EVER. That kind of makes it different.
Click to expand...

Neither can an elderly couple.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Why would it be? A gay marriage can NEVER have offspring, EVER. That kind of makes it different.
Click to expand...

Not quite right...you have surrogates and in vitro fertilization. There are plenty of infertile heterosexual couples who also use those technologies to have children and they are allowed to marry so your procreation point is completely moot in the modern world.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Why would it be? A gay marriage can NEVER have offspring, EVER. That kind of makes it different.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
Sure it can, again: just like an family with step children. Those are still their natural children that THEY produced. And they are just as much a family.

Or arent they? Not a real family? Or is it not a real straight marriage? Is it 'different?'
Click to expand...


Anthony60 said:
Now you've ventured into fantasy land with that one.
Click to expand...

Please point out a single thing that was not a fact in my response.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

CriticalThought said:
Not quite right...you have surrogates and in vitro fertilization. There are plenty of infertile heterosexual couples who also use those technologies to have children and they are allowed to marry so your procreation point is completely moot in the modern world.
Click to expand...

See, this kind of a response just indicates you are willfully misunderstanding. I pointed out, as a difference, that a gay couple can not have offspring, while the majority of opposite sex couples can. As in, if we had to depend on gay couples to repopulate the species with same sex relationships, the human race would die out in one genderation.

You people know what I mean about offspring from two specific people, don't you? Yet you respond as if you have no idea what it means. You point out offspring that are a result of opposite sex couples as examples of gay couples having children. But, I'm in no way surprised, since this is the norm on the left.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
See, this kind of a response just indicates you are willfully misunderstanding. I pointed out, as a difference, that a gay couple can not have offspring, while the majority of opposite sex couples can. As in, if we had to depend on gay couples to repopulate the species with same sex relationships, the human race would die out in one genderation.

You people know what I mean about offspring from two specific people, don't you? Yet you respond as if you have no idea what it means. You point out offspring that are a result of opposite sex couples as examples of gay couples having children. But, I'm in no way surprised, since this is the norm on the left.
Click to expand...

Since offspring is not a requirement for marriage in the first place, your point is irrelevant.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
1.)See, this kind of a response just indicates you are willfully misunderstanding. I pointed out, as a difference, that a gay couple can not have offspring, while the majority of opposite sex couples can. As in, if we had to depend on gay couples to repopulate the species with same sex relationships, the human race would die out in one genderation.

2.) You people know what I mean about offspring from two specific people, don't you? Yet you respond as if you have no idea what it means. You point out offspring that are a result of opposite sex couples as examples of gay couples having children.
3.)But, I'm in no way surprised, since this is the norm on the left.
Click to expand...

1.) which is meaningless to legal marriage and this topic
2.) yep we understand its meaningless to the topic and a failed strawman by you
3.) we arent surprised either since many people on the right and left support equal rights and those that argue against it never have any valid point.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

AGENT J said:
1.) which is meaningless to legal marriage and this topic
2.) yep we understand its meaningless to the topic and a failed strawman by you
3.) we arent surprised either since many people on the right and left support equal rights and those that argue against it never have any valid point.
Click to expand...

The entire thing is meaningless, I'm just pointing out a big difference. I'm arguing a states rights issue and unconstitutional federal intervention, so this is just a distraction, I don't care all that much about it and I am not using it. So you've been destroyed again. What else is new?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
The entire thing is meaningless
2.) I'm just pointing out a big difference.
3.) I'm arguing a states rights issue and unconstitutional federal intervention
4.), so this is just a distraction
5.), I don't care all that much about it and I am not using it.
6.) So you've been destroyed again. What else is new?
Click to expand...

1.) no equal/civil/human rights are never meaningless
2.) you mean a meaningless one
3.) and this argument fails as proven by facts, laws, rights, court cases and court precedence. There is no unconstitutional federal intervention, the intervention is DRIVEN by the constitution and individual rights. No amount of your OPINION will change this. Its the same reasons the fed was driven to step in for womens rights, minority rights and interracial marriage. All civil/equal rights issues just like SSM.
4.) yes your strawmen are distractions
5.) then feel free to stop saying it like it matters lol
6.) posting this lie will never make it true, it only adds to the humor of your posts failing.
muiltiple posters have proved you wrong again, with FACTS, and you are right, this isnt new

as always if you disagree, stay on topic and civil and bring ANY fact to the table that supports your proven wrong claim
heck just bring ONE FACT to the table that supports your proven wrong claim .. . one

we have facts, rights, laws, court cases and court precedent that supports us, what do you have again besides saying "nuh-huh"

my guess is you will dodge this question, AGAIN
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom