Utah declares gay marriage bans unconstitutional

[xj0hnx]

I've personally never understood the need for religion to get involved with issues of the State anyway, and I don't think blatant bigotry is the reason, and I also think its [bigotry] an oversimplification of the issue. Maybe believers and non-believers need to understand each other better instead of tossing around lazy-brained labels. I think people on the left are much more guilty of simply trying to label someone.

I think that religion simply believes it has a personal obligation to legislate its morality....this goes back probably as far as the Roman Empire, in my opinion. This is not about bigotry, or "supporting slavery", as some small-minded intolerant people say -- this is likely about them feeling as if they're ordained and commanded by God to reform society and restore a sense of morality in the world.

Most religious people I've personally talked to feel this way...that they need to put God back into, what they see as a "Godless world". These people are sincere, and honestly think they should use whatever means necessary to restore God into society.

This is an unbalanced view, in my opinion, but its the reason why I think "red states" fight back against "equal rights".

You must mean "personal magic man", and the simple fact that you'd rather criticize the argument instead of addressing the substance of what I wrote lends credence to my point about left-leaning simpletons opting to simply label something, rather than do the real mental work of understanding their opposition.

I am not surprised..

His reply did address the "substance" of your statement. It doesn't matter what religious people want to inject into the world, in the US we have a separation of church and state, expressly so one religion does not get to force their "morality" on those of us that do not want it. It does not matter how sincere they are, bigots are bigots. God doesn't belong in society because society doesn't believe in the same god. I for one am sick of christians thinking they know what's good for me, and trying to legislate their "morality" on me, and everyone else.

 

[Moonbeam]

His reply did address the "substance" of your statement. It doesn't matter what religious people want to inject into the world, in the US we have a separation of church and state, expressly so one religion does not get to force their "morality" on those of us that do not want it. It does not matter how sincere they are, bigots are bigots. God doesn't belong in society because society doesn't believe in the same god. I for one am sick of christians thinking they know what's good for me, and trying to legislate their "morality" on me, and everyone else.

The lions ate the Christians and then the Christians ate the Romans. Now they have an appetite for everybody. If it weren't for the Constitution you'd be on trial for heresy. 'We have this hell to which we have to send somebody.'

Jesus is crucified every day by the people who say they believe in Him. People with the self importance to judge. They carry stones because they are without sin, blinded to it by faith. Sneaky little devils they are.

 

[CanOWorms]

It's been very worrying reading about the Utah county clerks who have resisted the federal judge's decision and rejected marriage licenses to gay couples. These people need to be prosecuted for treason.

 

[Vic]

The lions ate the Christians and then the Christians ate the Romans. Now they have an appetite for everybody. If it weren't for the Constitution you'd be on trial for heresy. 'We have this hell to which we have to send somebody.'

Jesus is crucified every day by the people who say they believe in Him. People with the self importance to judge. They carry stones because they are without sin, blinded to it by faith. Sneaky little devils they are.

They don't mean it really. To use their own vernacular, they have been tricked by false prophets into worshipping Azazel, the scapegoat.

 

[nehalem256]

Still waiting for an answer:

Do you believe that a heterosexual couple who can not have children or who do not want children should be legally allowed to marry?

(1) Your question has no practical applicability. Are you suggesting we require lie-detector tests before marriage?

(2) You are still confusing what the purpose of marriage is. It is not procreation, but CONTROL of procreation. So for a couple that doesn't want children and gets married, presumably that would constitute control of procreation, as opposed to say the man banging random girls every friday and getting one knocked up and then you have a single mother.

For the case of infertility so long as one partner is fertile procreation is being controlled. And most cases of "infertility" or only statistical.

(3) The only real case of guaranteed mutual infertility would be where the man had a vasectomy and the woman had her tubes tied. In such a case I would have no issue with making marriage illegal. But it is not really of much importance to society. Allowing such marriages in no way undermines marriage, because outwardly they look identical to marriages in which both partners are fertile.

Same-sex marriage undermines marriage because it is immediately obvious that it is a very different kind of relationship.

Have to admit, theres a bit of humor in the fact that a state founded on the idea that marriage isnt between one man and one woman has to have a court tell them marriage isnt defined as being one man one woman. Odd that.

Actually I think the real humor is the US government telling Utah that marriage has to be between one man and one woman if it wanted to be a state and then telling it that you know what after all it doesnt 😛

 

[Victorian Gray]

(1) Your question has no practical applicability. Are you suggesting we require lie-detector tests before marriage?

(2) You are still confusing what the purpose of marriage is. It is not procreation, but CONTROL of procreation. So for a couple that doesn't want children and gets married, presumably that would constitute control of procreation, as opposed to say the man banging random girls every friday and getting one knocked up and then you have a single mother.

For the case of infertility so long as one partner is fertile procreation is being controlled. And most cases of "infertility" or only statistical.

(3) The only real case of guaranteed mutual infertility would be where the man had a vasectomy and the woman had her tubes tied. In such a case I would have no issue with making marriage illegal. But it is not really of much importance to society. Allowing such marriages in no way undermines marriage, because outwardly they look identical to marriages in which both partners are fertile.

Same-sex marriage undermines marriage because it is immediately obvious that it is a very different kind of relationship.




Actually I think the real humor is the US government telling Utah that marriage has to be between one man and one woman if it wanted to be a state and then telling it that you know what after all it doesnt 😛

I'm not confusing anything. I understand exactly what's going on thank you. Simply answer the question. Do you believe that a heterosexual couple who can not have children or who do not want children should be legally allowed to marry?

 

[FelixDeCat]

Is it possible for someone with lots of gay pride to publicly beg for the street nomenclature?

 

[Retro Rob]

His reply did address the "substance" of your statement. It doesn't matter what religious people want to inject into the world, in the US we have a separation of church and state, expressly so one religion does not get to force their "morality" on those of us that do not want it. It does not matter how sincere they are, bigots are bigots. God doesn't belong in society because society doesn't believe in the same god. I for one am sick of christians thinking they know what's good for me, and trying to legislate their "morality" on me, and everyone else.

I'm tired of them too...trying to force their morals on the world. What I am simply proposing is understanding your opponent in order to defeat him.

The best thing about Football, for instance, is that coaches spends hours dissecting and understanding their opponent's tendencies, habits, makeup etc...even if they are inferior to his team, he doesn't simply say "they're garbage...we will beat them". He exploits weaknesses.

Show theses Christians and their followers Christ wasn't a social and political reformer, nor did he use government to force his message/morality onto the masses. Even if you fail to convince the political religious "Christian" leaders of this truth, you can often reach their under-educated flock.

Just sayin', there are more effective means than taking the ignorant and childish "bigot" path, which only leads to ear plugging anyway.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not confusing anything. I understand exactly what's going on thank you. Simply answer the question. Do you believe that a heterosexual couple who can not have children or who do not want children should be legally allowed to marry?

He gave you his answer. If the man and woman are both medically sterile by means of operations, he would have no problem denying them the right to marry. He gave you his criterion, his bigotry. If the couple looks normal according to his idea of normal, a bigot's perspective, then he doesn't really care of they can marry, but if from his bigoted perspective, they look different, say they are the same sex, then he cares not a wit that they are fellow human beings with real feelings. He will throw their love in the trash because his bigotry is more important to him than real human beings. He is a worthless swine of a human being and he's telling you so. You just have to listen. He is a worthless bigot who places his pig ignorant opinions about the happiness of others.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm tired of them too...trying to force their morals on the world. What I am simply proposing is understanding your opponent in order to defeat him.

The best thing about Football, for instance, is that coaches spends hours dissecting and understanding their opponent's tendencies, habits, makeup etc...even if they are inferior to his team, he doesn't simply say "they're garbage...we will beat them". He exploits weaknesses.

Show theses Christians and their followers Christ wasn't a social and political reformer, nor did he use government to force his message/morality onto the masses. Even if you fail to convince the political religious "Christian" leaders of this truth, you can often reach their under-educated flock.

Just sayin', there are more effective means than taking the ignorant and childish "bigot" path, which only leads to ear plugging anyway.

And what will you do with those whose ears are already plugged? Are you just going to leave them in the misery of bigotry? Are you going to just let them die and face the Wrath of God's contempt for evil? What if you can pour all the love in the universe into a bigot and it will just disappear? Maybe they can't swallow as much vinegar.

 

[Retro Rob]

And what will you do with those whose ears are already plugged? Are you just going to leave them in the misery of bigotry? Are you going to just let them die and face the Wrath of God's contempt for evil? What if you can pour all the love in the universe into a bigot and it will just disappear? Maybe they can't swallow as much vinegar.

Then leave them be. I never said everyone will listen. Some simply won't...fact of life.

 

[Moonbeam]

Then leave them be. I never said everyone will listen. Some simply won't...fact of life.

You leave them be. And leave me be. 😉

 

[sportage]

Going by the Utah Star newspaper today, now Utah legislators want to pass some new laws so that religious organizations i.e. churches will not have to recognize SS marriage or allow them.
Come-on Utah.
This isn't going to work either.
You can not discriminate. Sorry Charlie.
No doubt some all white churches would love to turn away blacks or mixed marriages.
Pretend the church is above the law and the US constitution as it were.
They are not.
Not if they wish to remain part of American society.

The church is just going to have to bend over and take it, so to speak.
And leave the final judging and judgment up to that big judge in the sky.

American society does not allow pick and choose discrimination by organizations, especially tax exempt organizations. Once the law settles law, all those that live within the borders must comply. And that is called liberty and justice for all, under God.

Someone needs to remind some Americans that America is America because we are different from all non-American societies, and for a damn good reason.
If one chooses to operate within our borders, they are subject to our laws of the land.
And naturally with marriage equality, as with civil rights, women's rights and all minority equality issues, once the law gets around to involvement addressing an exception, the outcome will always be for freedom and justice for all.
And that is simply how it works.
So why should anyone be shocked when they witness justice in America working exactly as intended by the founders of the country?
This is America after all, need you be reminded.......

 

[ThinClient]

Fuck hate-mongering religious bigots.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Im flabbergasted at homosexuals' dissatisfaction with gay unions. :|

 

[Wordplay]

It's amazing to me how much time, energy, and money is wasted on this. Just let gay people get married and be done with it.

 

[Victorian Gray]

(1) Your question has no practical applicability. Are you suggesting we require lie-detector tests before marriage?

(and lots of blah, blah, blah snipped)

Still waiting for you to answer the question.

Do you believe that a heterosexual couple who can not have children or who do not want children should be legally allowed to marry?

It's really, really simple. 1)Read the question. 2)Answer yes or no.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Im flabbergasted at homosexuals' dissatisfaction with gay unions. :|

Yeah because if 'separate but equal' was good enough for African Americans then surely it should be ok for those 'icky' homosexual types.

Oh, wait....

 

[FelixDeCat]

Yeah because if 'separate but equal' was good enough for African Americans then surely it should be ok for those 'icky' homosexual types.

Oh, wait....

Wait...are you trying to be sarcastic or something? 😵

 

[Meghan54]

Im flabbergasted at homosexuals' dissatisfaction with gay unions. :|

Yeah because if 'separate but equal' was good enough for African Americans then surely it should be ok for those 'icky' homosexual types.

Oh, wait....

Wait...are you trying to be sarcastic or something? 😵

No he wasn't and too bad you weren't, either.

What seems to escape most that oppose is that unions would be perfectly fine, if unions gave the couple the same benefits that marriage gives, such as insurance, inheritance, visitation rights (esp. when one is in hospital, etc.), taxes, and on and on.

If unions granted those types of benefits, there'd probably be no outcry at all....but that hasn't happened. So marriage is the only solution as far as that group can see.

And I really fail to see how letting gays marry will destroy the family, as many crow. How? The procreation argument is flimsy at best....since marriage in the U.S. is essentially a gov't. controlled and allowed institution (witness the fact you can be married without any religious anything by going to the court house and having a judge marry you in a civil ceremony--no church required.)

So, allowing gays to marry will make "conventional" marriages crumble? Make them worthless? Make them untenable? Doubt that seriously.

 

[TheSiege]

I can understand not agreeing with it, and even disliking it. People are born and raised a certain way, I just don't understand how someone would want to treat someone different because of it, by limiting their right to marriage. The word "traditional" mean nothings, marriage as it is now, is quite new compared to marriages of the past. You have to have some pretty big insecurities to think that two random happy same sex people in love getting married would have any influence on your life or marriage. People just need to stop hiding behind religion or traditional family values and say it like it is, they are bigots and they heart is filled with hate. At least I could respect them for that.

 

[nehalem256]

I can understand not agreeing with it, and even disliking it. People are born and raised a certain way, I just don't understand how someone would want to treat someone different because of it, by limiting their right to marriage. The word "traditional" mean nothings, marriage as it is now, is quite new compared to marriages of the past. You have to have some pretty big insecurities to think that two random happy same sex people in love getting married would have any influence on your life or marriage. People just need to stop hiding behind religion or traditional family values and say it like it is, they are bigots and they heart is filled with hate. At least I could respect them for that.

Nobody has ever claimed that it would. What it does is have an impact ON SOCIETY by fundamentally altering what marriage is.

Still waiting for you to answer the question.

Do you believe that a heterosexual couple who can not have children or who do not want children should be legally allowed to marry?

It's really, really simple. 1)Read the question. 2)Answer yes or no.

I already explained in detail the answer to it. The answer was

(1) It is essentially impractical to enforce such a law

(2) Essentially irrelevant as the purpose of marriage is CONTROL of reproduction. And control is accomplished even if the couple fails to reproduce.

(3) Doesn't impact society, because for the very small percentage of couples in which both are truly 100% infertile this infertility is not outwardly identifiable. There is no outward difference between an infertile and a fertile heterosexual couple.

 

[nehalem256]

Going by the Utah Star newspaper today, now Utah legislators want to pass some new laws so that religious organizations i.e. churches will not have to recognize SS marriage or allow them.
Come-on Utah.
This isn't going to work either.
You can not discriminate. Sorry Charlie.
No doubt some all white churches would love to turn away blacks or mixed marriages.
Pretend the church is above the law and the US constitution as it were.
They are not.
Not if they wish to remain part of American society.

The church is just going to have to bend over and take it, so to speak.
And leave the final judging and judgment up to that big judge in the sky.

American society does not allow pick and choose discrimination by organizations, especially tax exempt organizations. Once the law settles law, all those that live within the borders must comply. And that is called liberty and justice for all, under God.

Someone needs to remind some Americans that America is America because we are different from all non-American societies, and for a damn good reason.
If one chooses to operate within our borders, they are subject to our laws of the land.
And naturally with marriage equality, as with civil rights, women's rights and all minority equality issues, once the law gets around to involvement addressing an exception, the outcome will always be for freedom and justice for all.
And that is simply how it works.
So why should anyone be shocked when they witness justice in America working exactly as intended by the founders of the country?
This is America after all, need you be reminded.......

Funny it seems that Obama agrees with Utah on that.

President Obama, in his statement hailing the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, promised that he wouldn’t try to force religious institutions to conduct gay marriages.

“On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital,” Obama said. “How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision — which applies only to civil marriages — changes that.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-i-wont-make-churches-conduct-gay-marriages/article/2532418

But its good to see another example of liberal intolerance

 

[TheSiege]

Nobody has ever claimed that it would. What it does is have an impact ON SOCIETY by fundamentally altering what marriage is.



I already explained in detail the answer to it. The answer was

(1) It is essentially impractical to enforce such a law

(2) Essentially irrelevant as the purpose of marriage is CONTROL of reproduction. And control is accomplished even if the couple fails to reproduce.

(3) Doesn't impact society, because for the very small percentage of couples in which both are truly 100% infertile this infertility is not outwardly identifiable. There is no outward difference between an infertile and a fertile heterosexual couple.

Can you explain said impact? What is to say that it doesn't impact society for the better? Its been almost 10 years since Massachusetts allowed it, what affect has it had on them? Last I read, Massachusetts is the most educated state in the nation? Causation or correlation? And lets be honest, heterosexual people haven't been painting marriage in that good of light as it is. And not to argue semantics, but the fundamentals of marriage is the love of two people wanting to share and proclaim their love and express their commitment. I don't think the gender of the people in the marriage are fundamental at all.

 

[TheSiege]

Funny it seems that Obama agrees with Utah on that.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-i-wont-make-churches-conduct-gay-marriages/article/2532418

But its good to see another example of liberal intolerance

I am not sure what your point is here? Outside of a few radicals I don't think anyone gives a shit if these religious cults recognize their marriage. They want the legal rights that heteros have, which is issued and controlled through the government.