Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeannyM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dawnia said:
I said:

ReConverted said:
Click to expand...
I think a reasonable person could infer that he was referring to consenting adults. But now I understand what you were getting at. I was quite confused for a minute.
 
ReConverted said:
Your analogies don’t hold up. STRAW MAN. No one said you had to be made (by any individual or entity) to exercise your rights. The point is, you should not be hindered in exercising any right you wish to. Rights aren’t up for a vote. They rights, not privileges.
Click to expand...
What’s hindering them other than their own choice?

I might be attracted to Christina Hendricks, but she is ineligible as an option under every state’s laws because she’s already married (sorry, Christina). Should I be filing papers in federal court because these laws are preventing me from exercising my right to marriage?
 
Dawnia, my apologies, but I’m not clear on your latest post. Would you mind rephrasing it?
 
ReConverted said:
Your analogies don’t hold up. STRAW MAN. No one said you had to be made (by any individual or entity) to exercise your rights. The point is, you should not be hindered in exercising any right you wish to. Rights aren’t up for a vote. They rights, not privileges.
Click to expand...
This make zero sense. Rights ARE and HAVE been up for a vote. As Catholics we believe in intrinsic rights granted by God and no, they are not up to a vote. But the rights we have in this country are generally those voted upon by some body or the citizenry. As to not being hindered in “any right you wish to exercise…” are you kidding? I have the right to do whatever I want? Not a very credible argument. I want to marry my 6 year old great nephew. He’s a cute little tyke and I’ve always had a thing for blonde hair…do I have the right to do this just because I want to?

Lisa
 
Monkey1976 said:
What’s hindering them other than their own choice?

I might be attracted to Christina Hendricks, but she is ineligible as an option under every state’s laws because she’s already married (sorry, Christina). Should I be filing papers in federal court because these laws are preventing me from exercising my right to marriage?
Click to expand...
I hereby give up on my hope that you’d actually speak to my question. Such is life.
 
SeannyM said:
I’m not aware of a huge group of siblings attempting to marry each other… Are you?
Click to expand...
So it boils down to the numbers that wish it? If enough people want something then they are entitled to it?
 
Monkey1976 said:
What’s hindering them other than their own choice?

I might be attracted to Christina Hendricks, but she is ineligible as an option under every state’s laws because she’s already married (sorry, Christina). Should I be filing papers in federal court because these laws are preventing me from exercising my right to marriage?
Click to expand...
No, she is not a consenting adult… If she decides to consent, then you may have a case. But in order to restrict a right you have to show that the restriction furthers a legitimate state interest… The state of Utah failed to show a legitimate state interest, so they must allow the right to apply to gay people. It’s not a difficult concept.
 
LisaA said:
This make zero sense. Rights ARE and HAVE been up for a vote. As Catholics we believe in intrinsic rights granted by God and no, they are not up to a vote. But the rights we have in this country are generally those voted upon by some body or the citizenry. As to not being hindered in “any right you wish to exercise…” are you kidding? I have the right to do whatever I want? Not a very credible argument. I want to marry my 6 year old great nephew. He’s a cute little tyke and I’ve always had a thing for blonde hair…do I have the right to do this just because I want to?

Lisa
Click to expand...
You know, Lisa, if you’d actually reply with some real points, instead of ridiculous hypotheticals, then I’d love to discuss them with you. Instead, I’m getting nothing but parroting of talking points from you. Come on, you’re sharper than that!
 
Brendan_64 said:
So it boils down to the numbers that wish it? If enough people want something then they are entitled to it?
Click to expand...
Yes… It does. It also boils down to the fact that the state has a legitimate interest in banning sibling marriage. But you can’t argue class discrimination for one person, that is not a class, it is an individual.

Still, I’ll play. Can you please point me to one case of a brother/sister couple that is using for the right to marry each other?
 
SeannyM said:
I think a reasonable person could infer that he was referring to consenting adults. But now I understand what you were getting at. I was quite confused for a minute.
Click to expand...
If he was referring to consenting adults, then he should have said so. Instead he said all Americans. 5 year olds are Americans who are born with the same rights that everyone else has. They are just barred from exercising some of those rights, such as voting until they are older.

Just because something is a right, does not mean you have the freedom to do anything you want. There are restrictions to all rights.
 
SeannyM said:
It’s hard to argue that an entire CLASS of people is being denied a right when it’s only one. Also, wouldn’t it take at least 2? 😉

Don’t worry though, there is a clear state interest that is furthered by banning sibling marriage.
Click to expand...
This is so silly…a “CLASS” of people? Defined how…at that moment in time they are attracted to those of the same sex? Can you not see how weak this argument is? Homosexuality is a continuum both over the life of certain individuals and the extent to which it’s taken hold of the person. So we are depending on your definition of what makes a person who likes sex a certain way during a certain time in their life as being a specific and special class? Oh PUH-LEASE…What qualifies one person with SSA to marry and another not be eligible? You obviously self define as gay and maybe you believe you were born gay despite zero evidence to back up this theory. But if you are gay, have always been sexually attracted to men, never attracted or able to have sexual relations with a woman, you are a rare bird. Many if not most gays and Lesbians have been in and out of that lifestyle during their lives. Many who have SSA at some point, lose it, outgrow it or have the strength to fight the compulsion.

However the Loving case you trot out as your one and only analogy, was with respect to two people…one born a man, the other born a woman. That didn’t change, nor did their skin tone. Thus the characteristics making them eligible for marriage as it’s traditionally defined, are intrinsic, permanent and unchangeable.

Yours are not

Lisa
 
ReConverted said:
Aaaaamen to that, as well. 🙂
Click to expand...
Reconverted, you do know that as a Catholic you are obliged to submit to the teachings of the Church on all issues of faith and morals? The Church is very clear in its opposition to gay ‘marriage’ and as Catholics we are absolutely bound to support the teaching of our Church on this.
 
ReConverted said:
You know, Lisa, if you’d actually reply with some real points, instead of ridiculous hypotheticals, then I’d love to discuss them with you. Instead, I’m getting nothing but parroting of talking points from you. Come on, you’re sharper than that!
Click to expand...
Not a particularly good dodge. Do you believe you can “exercise any right you want?” Do you think that rights are not subject to a vote?

The reason for the ridiculous example was the ridiculous premise you proclaimed.

Lisa
 
Dawnia said:
If he was referring to consenting adults, then he should have said so. Instead he said all Americans. 5 year olds are Americans who are born with the same rights that everyone else has. They are just barred from exercising some of those rights, such as voting until they are older.

Just because something is a right, does not mean you have the freedom to do anything you want. There are restrictions to all rights.
Click to expand...
I agree with your first point. To be clear, I do not claim that having a right means you can do anything you want to.
 
LisaA said:
This is so silly…a “CLASS” of people? Defined how…at that moment in time they are attracted to those of the same sex? Can you not see how weak this argument is? Homosexuality is a continuum both over the life of certain individuals and the extent to which it’s taken hold of the person. So we are depending on your definition of what makes a person who likes sex a certain way during a certain time in their life as being a specific and special class? Oh PUH-LEASE…What qualifies one person with SSA to marry and another not be eligible? You obviously self define as gay and maybe you believe you were born gay despite zero evidence to back up this theory. But if you are gay, have always been sexually attracted to men, never attracted or able to have sexual relations with a woman, you are a rare bird. Many if not most gays and Lesbians have been in and out of that lifestyle during their lives. Many who have SSA at some point, lose it, outgrow it or have the strength to fight the compulsion.

However the Loving case you trot out as your one and only analogy, was with respect to two people…one born a man, the other born a woman. That didn’t change, nor did their skin tone. Thus the characteristics making them eligible for marriage as it’s traditionally defined, are intrinsic, permanent and unchangeable.

Yours are not

Lisa
Click to expand...
How do you have any knowledge of my characteristics? How people become gay is of no consequence to the discussion. When I use the word class, I’m referring to a legal term that is defined in multiple court cases. By the way, there are several other cases that we quote as well, Loving is just the most prominent. If you’re interested in the other cases, feel free to read the opinion, they’re all in there.
 
LisaA said:
Not a particularly good dodge. Do you believe you can “exercise any right you want?” Do you think that rights are not subject to a vote?

The reason for the ridiculous example was the ridiculous premise you proclaimed.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Basic human rights are not up for a vote. Rights EXIST. It is those who thwart those rights that are in error. As far as I can tell, your argument is based on a “Slippery slope” scenario. Am I correct in thinking this? I’m serious. I want to make sure I understand you correctly. PS: I hope you had a GREAT Christmas.

Nothing in my post here is meant to be sarcastic.
 
LisaA said:
Not a particularly good dodge. Do you believe you can “exercise any right you want?” Do you think that rights are not subject to a vote?

The reason for the ridiculous example was the ridiculous premise you proclaimed.

Lisa
Click to expand...
The court has defined several “fundamental rights.” These rights are commonly referred to as civil rights. Multiple examples of case law find that the voters may not restrict these rights either through legislative means of voter referendum. This is a simple legal fact. You are misinterpreting the definition of rights… We are referring to the very clearly defined fundamental rights as determined through legal precedent. Marriage happens to be one of those fundamental rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top