• 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

Anthony60 said:
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?
Click to expand...

But it's your distraction. Your side is the one that keeps bringing up "gay people can't have kids with eachother!" Ok. So what? Neither can an elderly couple, so that "point" is entirely irrelevant.

You still haven't provided the state interest that justifies the gender-based classification that currently exists.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
But it's your distraction. Your side is the one that keeps bringing up "gay people can't have kids with eachother!" Ok. So what? Neither can an elderly couple, so that "point" is entirely irrelevant.

You still haven't provided the state interest that justifies the gender-based classification that currently exists.
Click to expand...

It's just me here, no side or anything. Can gay people have kids with each other? I guess a gay man can with a lesbian. I'm surprised no one has put that one forth yet.

I really don't care about your state interest B.S. It has nothing to do with the argument that I have made, over and over, so I need not state it again.

But hey, this is pretty low on the scale of problems that our country is suffering under this administration. The fundamental destruction promised by Obama deserves more attention, though this issue is part of it.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
It's just me here, no side or anything. Can gay people have kids with each other? I guess a gay man can with a lesbian. I'm surprised no one has put that one forth yet.

I really don't care about your state interest B.S. It has nothing to do with the argument that I have made, over and over, so I need not state it again.

But hey, this is pretty low on the scale of problems that our country is suffering under this administration. The fundamental destruction promised by Obama deserves more attention, though this issue is part of it.
Click to expand...

The fundamental destruction caused by the Obama administration is that it's just carried on the fundamental destruction of the Bush administration. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it. Gay marriage is a deflectionary tactic so that we DON'T pay attention to the real issues.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
It's just me here, no side or anything. Can gay people have kids with each other? I guess a gay man can with a lesbian. I'm surprised no one has put that one forth yet.

I really don't care about your state interest B.S. It has nothing to do with the argument that I have made, over and over, so I need not state it again.

But hey, this is pretty low on the scale of problems that our country is suffering under this administration. The fundamental destruction promised by Obama deserves more attention, though this issue is part of it.
Click to expand...

you havent posted any solid argument, not one. If you think you have simply present any facts that support them.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

AGENT J said:
you havent posted any solid argument, not one. If you think you have simply present any facts that support them.
Click to expand...

I'm going to require proper English from you to get a decent idea of what you've been saying this whole time. For all I know, you're on my side!
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
I'm going to require proper English from you to get a decent idea of what you've been saying this whole time. For all I know, you're on my side!
Click to expand...

translation: you still have ZERO facts to support your failed claims, let us know when you do.
 
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...

Factual in your use meaning whatever follows your opinion. You wouldn't know factual if it bit you in the ass.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

AGENT J said:
translation: you still have ZERO facts to support your failed claims, let us know when you do.
Click to expand...

Nor do you have any to support yours. Just your failed opinions based upon nothing.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Ditto...
Click to expand...

So you couldnt. You then DO recognize that a family thru gay marriage is no different than a straight family that used IVF, has biological step children, adopted, etc?

Good. See...facts are your friends!
 
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...


We do not have to depend on ANY *MARRIED* couples to repopulate the species.

a) married couples do not HAVE to have children. It is not a requirement of ANY marriage or license.

b) hundreds of thousands of people have kids and NEVER marry. Gay and straight. Marriage has NOTHING to do with reproduction.

People reproduce ALL THE TIME. Marriage licenses have nothing to do with it. Reproduction is the strongest of all human instincts...it's not going anywhere.

So that argument of yours completely falls apart.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

clownboy said:
Factual in your use meaning whatever follows your opinion. You wouldn't know factual if it bit you in the ass.
Click to expand...

except all i cal facts can be backed up by actual facts, links and definitions etc :shrug:

if you disagree by all means simply prove otherwise, id love to read any facts you can present to the contrary, any. Please do so in your next post.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

clownboy said:
Nor do you have any to support yours. Just your failed opinions based upon nothing.
Click to expand...

actually we have facts, rights, laws, court cases and court precedent that make it so, remind us what you have again besides "nu-huh"
facts destroy your post again
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

AGENT J said:
except all i cal facts can be backed up by actual facts, links and definitions etc :shrug:

if you disagree by all means simply prove otherwise, id love to read any facts you can present to the contrary, any. Please do so in your next post.
Click to expand...

No, and they never have been with you. And also no, I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you again. Good day.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

AGENT J said:
actually we have facts, rights, laws, court cases and court precedent that make it so, remind us what you have again besides "nu-huh"
facts destroy your post again
Click to expand...

No, you don't. And facts may address my case but you'll never know, you have absolutely no familiarity with anything factual. Your opinions, for the millionth time, are not facts.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

clownboy said:
No, and they never have been with you. And also no, I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you again. Good day.
Click to expand...
thats what i thought, you got nothing and your post loses to facts again.

let us know when you have any facts on your side that trump all the facts, laws, rights, court cases and court precedent that we have.

Fact remains this is an equal/civil rights issue.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

clownboy said:
No, you don't. And facts may address my case but you'll never know, you have absolutely no familiarity with anything factual. Your opinions, for the millionth time, are not facts.
Click to expand...

once again facts, laws, rights, court cases and court precedent all prove you factually wrong.
my opinions havent been mentioned, only facts, your post loses to them again.

if you disagree simply provide any facts that prove otherwise . . . just one will do
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

AGENT J said:
thats what i thought, you got nothing and your post loses to facts again.

let us know when you have any facts on your side that trump all the facts, laws, rights, court cases and court precedent that we have.

Fact remains this is an equal/civil rights issue.
Click to expand...

No, that is what we know, all of us who read your posts. Your claims are unsubstantiated and you like to call your rank opinions fact. You lose due to your absolute unfamiliarity with what a fact is.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

AGENT J said:
once again facts, laws, rights, court cases and court precedent all prove you factually wrong.
my opinions havent been mentioned, only facts, your post loses to them again.

if you disagree simply provide any facts that prove otherwise . . . just one will do
Click to expand...

You can keep restating it as long as you wish, it's your posting technique to begin with - doesn't make it true and it doesn't mean your opinions are facts. Never has, no matter how many times your repeat it or munge the posts of others.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

clownboy said:
1.)No, that is what we know, all of us who read your posts.
2.) Your claims are unsubstantiated and you like to call your rank opinions fact.
3.)You lose due to your absolute unfamiliarity with what a fact is.
Click to expand...
still got nothing i see, let us know when this fact changes

1.) except the majority here have proved you wrong with the same facts, so who is we?
2.) you can post this lie 100 TIMES but until you can make the facts, laws, rights, court cases and court precedent disappear that all prove you wrong you got nothing
3.) nope facts defeat your post again

AGAIN if you disagree simply post one fact that supports you, why do you keep dodging this?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

clownboy said:
1.)You can keep restating it as long as you wish
2.) , it's your posting technique to begin with - doesn't make it true and it doesn't mean your opinions are facts. Never has, no matter how many times your repeat it or munge the posts of others.
Click to expand...

another post by you and you have zero facts to support you while we can all support ours, let us know when this changes
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

AGENT J said:
still got nothing i see, let us know when this fact changes

1.) except the majority here have proved you wrong with the same facts, so who is we?
2.) you can post this lie 100 TIMES but until you can make the facts, laws, rights, court cases and court precedent disappear that all prove you wrong you got nothing
3.) nope facts defeat your post again

AGAIN if you disagree simply post one fact that supports you, why do you keep dodging this?
Click to expand...

Right on schedule. No, your posts contain only your opinions and no facts. You'll keep repeating the same old busted **** until you have the last word. Other posters recognise the tactic for what it is.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

SSM is an equal rights issue this fact will never change and laws, rights court cases and court precedent all prove this fact :shrug:

if anybody disagrees with this fact simply provide anything factual that makes all that stuff disappear.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

clownboy said:
Right on schedule. No, your posts contain only your opinions and no facts. You'll keep repeating the same old busted **** until you have the last word. Other posters recognise the tactic for what it is.
Click to expand...

facts, laws, rights, court cases and court precedent> your proven wrong opinion

FACT: SSM is an equal rights issues :shrug:

do you have any facts to prove otherwise? please present them
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
So you couldnt. You then DO recognize that a family thru gay marriage is no different than a straight family that used IVF, has biological step children, adopted, etc?

Good. See...facts are your friends!
Click to expand...

Just keep pumping out those lies...
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
I really don't care about your state interest B.S. It has nothing to do with the argument that I have made, over and over, so I need not state it again.
Click to expand...

But it does have to do with how our constitution works, and how equal protection works. There's a century's worth of constitutional law based on this. The burden is on the state to justify a gender-based classification, it doesn't matter whether it's a state's right to define marriage or not. Federal or state, either has to justify it under equal protection. They have failed. Therefore defining marriage as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional.

Before someone mentions polygamy again, gender is a protected classification, hence the requirement for a state interest. "Number of persons" is not a protected classification.

But hey, this is pretty low on the scale of problems that our country is suffering under this administration. The fundamental destruction promised by Obama deserves more attention, though this issue is part of it.
Click to expand...

There are children literally starving to death in Africa, therefore you don't get to whine about communism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom