Supreme Court Puts Gay Marriage On Hold In Utah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sombeech

Who said anything about my marriage failing if Gay Marriage becomes legal?

---

Because it has always been a widely held belief by Mormons (and I've heard this preached over the pulpit) that gay marriage threatens the sanctity of traditional marriage. There is this irrational mindset that marriage should only be an institution reserved for heterosexuals...like homosexuals are incapable of having emotions of love and affection. That somehow love amongst homosexuals isn't valid because it doesn't conform to the traditional definition set forth by society.

Remember Prop 8? The Mormon church threw thousands of dollars at that -- in an effort to "protect the sanctity of marriage" in California. Unbelievable....:roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockgremlin

Because it has always been a widely held belief by Mormons (and I've heard this preached over the pulpit)

---

Then go talk to those who have said it. Don't link me in with all this bullshit just because you guys can't find anybody else to talk to. :cool2:

Why does accadacca keep starting these threads? The conversation is always the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott P

Why does accadacca keep starting these threads? The conversation is always the same.

---

Cuz Acca's trollin'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sombeech

Who said anything about my marriage failing if Gay Marriage becomes legal? I've said nothing of the sort. If that civics class you're raving about teaches how to blindly stereotype, we must have had different instructors.


Open your mind a little and quit assuming anybody who is on the other side of this political issue is a bigot fearing for his family's unity.

I'm merely debating your philosophy that Utah's religious majority is the main culprit, by pointing out all of the other states in direct contrast to Utah's demographic. Debunking this concept belongs on either side of the political debate, but understandably can lead to personal accusations and name calling when you get flustered. Religion has not been a part of this topic until you've brought it up.

Maybe it's time we have an adult conversation exploring all sides of the issue, even if we don't agree with them. Let's not accuse the other side of hate just because we disagree with their point of view.

---

The civics class I am talking about would help you understand how our political system works and how to actually read and respond to direct questions
The problem is that you are not arguing anything.. only putting out strawman arguments to change the direction.. how about giving some backing to why you think that it was not Judge Shelby's job to make a ruling? you have stated a number of times that it was a bad thing for him to do his job I would like to know why you think that he should not have actually made a ruling on a case brought to him?

You have also not debated my philosophy that Utah's religious majority is the main culprit to anything.. only pointed out that other states are full of people who fear homosexuality and use religion as an argument.

In the end answer only one question.. how without using your religion or God (since the laws of our land are supposed to be secular) with proofs does homosexual marriage cause you to fear for your familys unity. How can a man and a man getting married damage your family specifically?

Attachment 71437

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sombeech

Then go talk to those who have said it. Don't link me in with all this bullshit just because you guys can't find anybody else to talk to. :cool2:

---

When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DOSS

When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck.........

---

And by the way, I HAVE confronted those types on several occasions and it always ends the same way. I ask them how gay marriage threatens traditional marriage, and I get a lot of stuttering and backpedaling, and then a lot about how tolerant they are, and how they love the person, not the "sin" blah blah blah. Uh huh, right. They'll claim that openly, and then turn around and out of the other side of their mouth whisper about how they can't understand how a man would choose another man's bum over a woman. And some don't even whisper <cough, cough, duck dynasty, cough cough>
Some folks have even gone so far as to say this nonsense: "Well if everyone was gay, then the human race would die out because then nobody would procreate." :roflol:Seriously?

It's tough defending discrimination. You have to really scrape the bottom of the barrel. My hat's off to whomever is defending the current discriminatory laws as they stand, because I can't see where they have a leg to stand on.

Here's the statement issued by the Attorney General.

Attachment 71450

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

This is the confusion and emotional roller coaster I'm talking about. It's hard to deny that the procedure and rollout in the last month has caused uncertainty for a lot of people.

On one hand you have nut jobs going on a hunger strike, to massive debates amongst people who should be friends.

Just a little more order and planned out procedure, that would have helped everybody on either side of the political (not religious!) debate. We all know that this will eventually happen for the Gay community, but this was the wrong wrong wrong way to do it. You can talk about how some people were just doing their job and following law, but with discussion that those @1000 marriages might not be legit anymore??? What a mess.

Patience and proper procedure.

Beech, why don't you show what is the proper procedure for allowing a person to have equal rights.... Mind to post some legal backing showing the need to slowly give people their rights just so that other people might not feel poorly about it?

Did you know that Utah is not required to take this to the Supreme Court and could have just accepted the ruling and then allowed all of the people who were married to just be married and to have not been placed into this legal limbo? Yeah it didn't have to continue this way


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DOSS

Did you know that Utah is not required to take this to the Supreme Court and could have just accepted the ruling and then allowed all of the people who were married to just be married and to have not been placed into this legal limbo? Yeah it didn't have to continue this way


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Sotomayor responsible for taking this to the Court that ultimately denied the overturn in the end?

Whatever it is, however you feel, and whatever you want to incorrectly label people that disagree with you politically, just admit there is a better way to get this law overturned. It was done poorly and now those 1000 couples who were so happy last week are now hearing the shattering news that they've got to fight that battle again. Calling people bigots won't make this fight any easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sombeech

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Sotomayor responsible for taking this to the Court that ultimately denied the overturn in the end?

Whatever it is, however you feel, and whatever you want to incorrectly label people that disagree with you politically, just admit there is a better way to get this law overturned. It was done poorly and now those 1000 couples who were so happy last week are now hearing the shattering news that they've got to fight that battle again. Calling people bigots won't make this fight any easier.

---

Actually Utah's attorney generals office filed to have this ruling stayed so no it wasn't Sotomayor who was responsible for continuing to argue this battle. Again this is how the court system works... Judges like Sotomayor rule on cases brought before them based on their informed interpretation of the laws of the land. Judges do not go out and create cases just to rule on them... that would be silly

I just asked you to show me how there was a better way to get this law overturned. Why would I admit that there is a better way when I don't believe there is one.. I don't see a better way than to follow the legal structure that our nation has so I was hoping you would provide this better method that you continue to say exists that I just do not know about.

Please enlighten me with the "better way to get this law overturned" actually works?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DOSS

I just asked you to show me how there was a better way to get this law overturned.

---

You're not even making any legal suggestions about how this could have gone better, so if you think this process was the best way while everybody else thinks it turned into a clusterf&%k then let's agree to disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sombeech

You're not even making any legal suggestions about how this could have gone better, so if you think this process was the best way while everybody else thinks it turned into a clusterf&%k then let's agree to disagree.

---

No, lets not agree to disagree.. I don't think it needed to have gone any better.. I have no issues with how the legal system has worked here. and can you prove that "EVERYONE" else thinks that the legal system or the system created a clusterfork or that "EVERYONE" even thinks it is a clusterfork? I know of at least 1 other person who doesn't think so so I can PROVE that your assertions that EVERYONE thinks it is a clusterfork is inaccurate........ you are the one that has repeatedly stated that there is a better way.. PROVE IT..

agree to disagree

I'm certain that all LDS folks are now gonna refer back to this incident as a classic example of how fasting really works. Bwahahahaha!!! :roflol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockgremlin

I'm certain that all LDS folks are now gonna refer back to this incident as a classic example of how fasting really works. Bwahahahaha!!! :roflol:

---

Nah, hardly any of them. But NONE of the people who thought he was an idiot can even crack a smile at how funny this coincidence was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sombeech

Nah, hardly any of them. But NONE of the people who thought he was an idiot can even crack a smile at how funny this coincidence was.

---

I cracked one out...that dude is the spitting image of my brother-in-law. I had to do a double-take.