Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.


Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News


The Supreme Court on Monday put gay marriage on hold in Utah, giving the state time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.

The court issued a brief order Monday blocking any new same-sex unions in the state. The ruling comes after a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights.

Has anyone pointed out that the OP is not true?

The SC did not "stop" gay marriage. The truth was accidentally included in the OP:

The Supreme Court on Monday put gay marriage on hold in Utah, giving the state time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.

Eventually, all Americans will have the rights guaranteed them by the Constitution and that's the way it should be.
 
Oh, I can conjure-up a half-dozen or more fairly solid answers easily enough.

It's just that I've found it most helpful when the opposing faction does their due diligence and does the conjuring

Translation:

You are not capable of meeting your logical burden of proof, and are attempting to escape through the back door by leveraging an expectation for the opposition to conform with an argument to ignorance fallacy.

Your fallacy is noted, as is your inability to support your premises.
 
Having a black skin color is not detrimental to society.

Engaging in perverse and unnatural sexual practices is oftentimes deemed detrimental to society.

Look it up.

Based on what?
That's a very good question.

There is a considerable body of commentary - lay and judicial - spanning several centuries - regarding the detrimental effects and degenerate nature of homosexuality.

You're welcome to cherry-pick some of the more reasonable objections and cautions, in order to gauge value.

Why do people believe that such perverse and unnatural sexual practices are detrimental to society?

Like some of those fun studies I read from the 1800s that "proved" that women were too emotional to think clearly...that women were not adept enough to run things like sewing machines and typewriters?
 
the fact that this comes out of Utah where polygamy was once practiced shows the slippery slope that may develop from this open-ended view of the 14th amendment.

Utah also just had a case that loosened restrictions on polygamist type relationships

The right way to deal with this is to prevent government from giving tax benefits to any couple, which is unfair to single people.

perhaps you could have civil unions for both sexes which would allow divorce etc.
 
Marriage is for the Procreation of life. How does Sodomy and homosexuality claim to want to be included into an institution that is for the promotion of life and family?.

What we have here is an attempt by the homosexual agenda people to corrupt and subvert normal
family values, and to brainwash an entire nation into accepting their perverted lifstyle and ideology.
The homosexuals must be stoped.
Homosexuality must be made to be a criminal offence.

As I said, the institution of marriage is ment for procreation, life, one man one woman=one
or two children.Not for the promotion of Sodomy, or any form of homosexuality,or beastiality,
which is a direct offshot of homosexuality.
Homosexuality must be criminalized now!., as it has been in Uganda and many other God fearing nations. It is a sin in the eyes of God, and abomonation.

Ugly, vile, vicious, gnorant and bigoted OPINIONS you are welcome to hold.

Your god is ashamed of you.
 
the fact that this comes out of Utah where polygamy was once practiced shows the slippery slope that may develop from this open-ended view of the 14th amendment.

Utah also just had a case that loosened restrictions on polygamist type relationships

The right way to deal with this is to prevent government from giving tax benefits to any couple, which is unfair to single people.

perhaps you could have civil unions for both sexes which would allow divorce etc.

We already have "civil unions for both sexes which would allow divorce". We call it marriage and that's all it is.

Yes, some people choose to hold a religious ceremony but marriage is, first and foremost a legally binding civil act.

Edited to change the last line to:

Yes, some people choose to hold a religious ceremony but marriage is, first and foremost a legally binding civil contract.
 
U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.


Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News


The Supreme Court on Monday put gay marriage on hold in Utah, giving the state time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.

The court issued a brief order Monday blocking any new same-sex unions in the state. The ruling comes after a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights.

Has anyone pointed out that the OP is not true?

The SC did not "stop" gay marriage. The truth was accidentally included in the OP:

The Supreme Court on Monday put gay marriage on hold in Utah, giving the state time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.

Eventually, all Americans will have the rights guaranteed them by the Constitution and that's the way it should be.

Potato potAto. The fact is that gay marriages in Utah have CEASED while the case makes its way to SCOTUS.

I'm posting a separate thread about a related matter.
 
refusing the same rights to certain people because of how they are born is a civil rights issue

No one has been denied any rights because of how they were born. So you agree that this isn't a civil rights issue. Atleast if we follow your definition.
 
Marriage is for the Procreation of life. How does Sodomy and homosexuality claim to want to be included into an institution that is for the promotion of life and family?.

What we have here is an attempt by the homosexual agenda people to corrupt and subvert normal
family values, and to brainwash an entire nation into accepting their perverted lifstyle and ideology.
The homosexuals must be stoped.
Homosexuality must be made to be a criminal offence.


Must it? How likely do you think that is, big mouth?
 
"How you were born" has nothing to do with this issue, and I really wish people would stop trying to use that as justification of gay marriage. The truth is that it doesn't matter if people are born gay, or if they choose to be gay, or if they become gay by being exposed to homo-radiation from their television screens while watching Will and Grace. The decision to have sex, engage in a relationship, or commit to a lifelong partnership, with whomever you choose is a personal decision. Two gay people getting married has absolutely zero effect on society at large, and is entirely within the rightful God given personal freedoms of two people.
 
U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah



This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.





Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News





The Supreme Court on Monday put gay marriage on hold in Utah, giving the state time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.



The court issued a brief order Monday blocking any new same-sex unions in the state. The ruling comes after a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights.



Has anyone pointed out that the OP is not true?



The SC did not "stop" gay marriage. The truth was accidentally included in the OP:



The Supreme Court on Monday put gay marriage on hold in Utah, giving the state time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.



Eventually, all Americans will have the rights guaranteed them by the Constitution and that's the way it should be.



Potato potAto. The fact is that gay marriages in Utah have CEASED while the case makes its way to SCOTUS.



I'm posting a separate thread about a related matter.


Wrong. They are suspended until the full 10th rules, not the SCOTUS.
 
refusing the same rights to certain people because of how they are born is a civil rights issue



No one has been denied any rights because of how they were born. So you agree that this isn't a civil rights issue. Atleast if we follow your definition.


Since people do not choose to be gay, only to act upon their inclinations, yes they are being denied because of how they were born.
 
Marriage is for the Procreation of life. How does Sodomy and homosexuality claim to want to be included into an institution that is for the promotion of life and family?.



What we have here is an attempt by the homosexual agenda people to corrupt and subvert normal

family values, and to brainwash an entire nation into accepting their perverted lifstyle and ideology.

The homosexuals must be stoped.

Homosexuality must be made to be a criminal offence.


^^Poe's Law^^
 
Oh, I can conjure-up a half-dozen or more fairly solid answers easily enough.

It's just that I've found it most helpful when the opposing faction does their due diligence and does the conjuring

Translation:

You are not capable of meeting your logical burden of proof, and are attempting to escape through the back door by leveraging an expectation for the opposition to conform with an argument to ignorance fallacy.

Your fallacy is noted, as is your inability to support your premises.
Think what you like.

I know the truth of it.
 
Oh, I can conjure-up a half-dozen or more fairly solid answers easily enough.



It's just that I've found it most helpful when the opposing faction does their due diligence and does the conjuring



Translation:



You are not capable of meeting your logical burden of proof, and are attempting to escape through the back door by leveraging an expectation for the opposition to conform with an argument to ignorance fallacy.



Your fallacy is noted, as is your inability to support your premises.

Think what you like.



I know the truth of it.


The truth of what? There are no studies that show gay people legally marrying is a detriment to society.
 
refusing the same rights to certain people because of how they are born is a civil rights issue



No one has been denied any rights because of how they were born. So you agree that this isn't a civil rights issue. Atleast if we follow your definition.


Since people do not choose to be gay, only to act upon their inclinations, yes they are being denied because of how they were born.

What a liar you are.

"Yes, I chose to be gay." "I could have chosen a different path." "...for people like me, the discussion will no longer be about whether it was a choice or not. It will be about why the choice should not even be a topic of discussion.
"Yes, I chose to be gay. And that should be okay!"
I Chose to Be Gay | Filipino Freethinkers
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqnM30tyGAg]Why I Chose To Be Gay - YouTube[/ame]
 

Forum List

Back
Top