Judge: Iowa gay marriage ban unconstitutional

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

Yeah, I tried saying that about 4 times, but it doesn't register with him. As I said, he doesn't want to acknowledge what he's said. Instead he blames us for 'reading into it', not for what's taking what is blatently said.

I give up, this is a joke.

Prove me wrong French, give me state documents where the requirements for a marriage license outline the definition of love and that it's required for the marriage.

Do immigration officials require a marriage to not be just a contract and have an actual emotional bond? Yes. Does the judge make that call before he performs the ceramony? No.

A civil marriage is nothing more then a regular everyday contract between two people. YES they can love each other. Will the "marriage" (ithe bonding of these two people) be better off with love? Obviously, Duh. Does the civil marriage (a paper contract legally binding two people) require it? No. Again French, prove me wrong.

Scuzzy

[halo]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Obviously. Does the civil marriage (a piece of paper and contract) require it? Nope.

No marriage, civil or otherwise, requires love at any stage. It just helps a lot. Also, if you agree that the point is utterly irrelevant, why keep bringing it up? You're arguing with people about nothing, a pointless side-issue. They think you're implying another point and you aren't. You're just wasting time.

Do you live under a bridge? Still waiting on that acid and fire people.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by halo

No marriage, civil or otherwise, requires love at any stage. It just helps a lot. Also, if you agree that the point is utterly irrelevant, why keep bringing it up? You're arguing with people about nothing, a pointless side-issue. They think you're implying another point and you aren't. You're just wasting time.

Do you live under a bridge? Still waiting on that acid and fire people.

I was talking about government unionizing contracts, period. Someone else tried to say they require love, i corrected them, the debate insued. You're the one that keeps bringing it up, but it's nice to know you finally see my point of view, that it isn't required by government. I'm not arguing a point-less side issue, I'm just correcting someone's incorrect assumtion. A debate would require facts, and as of yet, no one has given me any, much less multiple, facts to support that civil marriages require love.

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by halo

Do you live under a bridge? Still waiting on that acid and fire people.

Why is it whenver someone gets into a discussion with you and logically points out that you're wrong they must be a troll? I point out that you favor discriminating against polygamists all the while hearlding homosexuals getting married and all of a sudden your panties are in a twist.

Scuzzy

[Jifcuits]

I think that the best conclusion to this thread would be for Scuzzy to marry a man he doesn't love

[Zencheetah]

What is love
Oh baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me no more
Oh, baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me no more

What is love
Yeah

Oh, I don't know why you're not there
I give you my love, but you don't care
So what is right and what is wrong
Gimme a sign

What is love
Oh baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me no more
What is love
Oh baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me no more

Whoa whoa whoa, oooh oooh
Whoa whoa whoa, oooh oooh

Oh, I don't know, what can I do
What else can I say, it's up to you
I know we're one, just me and you
I can't go on

What is love
Oh baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me no more
What is love
Oh baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me no more

Whoa whoa whoa, oooh oooh
Whoa whoa whoa, oooh oooh

What is love, oooh, oooh, oooh
What is love, oooh, oooh, oooh

[Innoc]

Scuzzy point is that the Gov't does not ever require the two people to actually love each other to perform a civil marriage. It's merely a "business deal" as far as the Gov't is concerned. So long as the proper paperwork is filled out and the two people qualify AND the fees are paid the marriage license is issued and the Justice of the Peace, Judge or duly authorized Gov't agent can perform the ceremony and the deed is done. Love is neither a prerequisite nor an ongoing component of a civil marriage as far as the Gov't is concerned. It doesn't care.

This is not always true in a marriage performed under the umbrella of religion. It is, however, true for a significant percentage where there must be demonstrable love for an authorized person of that faith to perform the ceremony.

Is this distinction really escaping some of you guys?

[Zencheetah]

He's like arguing with a brick, a brick that signs his name every post because we may not know who posted it.

BTW...

Baby don't hurt me, no more.

WHAT IS LOVE?!

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Zencheetah

WHAT IS LOVE?!

Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

Far to many people mistake infatuation for love, which is why the divorce rate is so damn high.

Scuzzy

[Zencheetah]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

Far to many people mistake infatuation for love, which is why the divorce rate is so damn high.

Baby, don't hurt me no more!

[uBeR]

Cite your sources, dick.

[Jifcuits]

If I was trying to make the point that sex doesn't require love I wouldn't try and make the point by saying 'Sex isn't about love at all, sex is soley about sexual intercourse with another human being'






Originally Posted by Scuzzy
Wrong. Civil marriage isn't about love at all. Religious marriage is about love, honor, commitment. Civil marriage is soley about taxation, asset division, survivorship, and benefit distribution.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Jifcuits

If I was trying to make the point that sex doesn't require love I wouldn't try and make the point by saying 'Sex isn't about love at all, sex is soley about sexual intercourse with another human being'

Context Jifcuits, Context. I was responding to a thread where the original poster and I were discussing about the government legal aspects of civil marriage. The person I was responding to was stating, "Again, I will restate: in my opinion, marriage should be a social contract established between two legal, consenting adults " and "I said it would be legally difficult to work out plural marriage and that the government should not make any attempts to forbid the privatized version of it." We were discussing the LEGAL aspects of marriage. This was not a discussion about love and marriage.

You guys read ONE sentence, without the context, and make judgments or assumptions that I'm discussing something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT (ie love's possibility in a civil marriage). I am not going to quantify the context of every statement because the attention span of the forum members is non-existent.

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Cite your sources, dick.

Not sure who this is for uBeR or what it concerns....

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Not sure who this is for uBeR or what it concerns....

You, half sarcastically though...

[halo]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Why is it whenver someone gets into a discussion with you and logically points out that you're wrong they must be a troll? I point out that you favor discriminating against polygamists all the while hearlding homosexuals getting married and all of a sudden your panties are in a twist.

Scuzzy

As I remember it I've never argued with anyone but you here. Infact you seem to be one half of almost every persistant argument on these boards. Do you really think that comes by chance? That you're a really nice guy doing nothing wrong everyone else just misunderstands?

I'm sure misunderstanding plays a part in it because of the ambiguity of your extremely simplistic writing style. You make statements regarding overwhelmingly obvious tertiary issues and people make the assumption that you're engaging in Socratic style dialetics, using these statements to make a broader point, which you then deny.

Arguing over the fact that love is not a legal requirement of marriage is so far away from the issue of gay marriage as to be in another galaxy. I think people assumed, because of your strong repetition of the phrase 'civil marriage' that you were implying this is not the case in religious (Christian) marriages. Pushing a known hidden agenda.

I think most of it, though, is due to the fact that 'wrong' is not a position you understand in relation to your personal geography. That's where people who take an opposing view are. They've got one foot in wrong and the other in stupid. The only viable approach is to treat them as such, by being extremely patronising and hard-headed. That's not arguing, not in the proper sense. Argument from arguer, meaning to debate / persuade / discuss a proposition using a series of reasons. If you're following reason then you have to have the capacity to admit you weren't quite right or to amend your proposition if that's the path that reasoning points to. You seem to have a mental condition (implications of conditioning) that precludes seeing fault in your arguments. It's a fatal flaw because seeing fault in your arguments, and yourself, is the art of critical reasoning. Seeing them, and then acting to curb/remove them, is my interpretation of a large part of the art of Christianity.

[Jifcuits]

Even in that context what you said doesn't = the state does not require love for marriage. Why not just say that?

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Jifcuits

Even in that context what you said doesn't = the state does not require love for marriage. Why not just say that?

I explained the meaning behind what I said time and time again before this post, did you miss all those? For those of you who didn't like the wording it's been clearly explained again and again. In that particular post and context it makes perfect sense. I should not have to qualify every sentence for those who are not following the entire conversation.

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by halo

As I remember it I've never argued with anyone but you here. Infact you seem to be one half of almost every persistant argument on these boards. Do you really think that comes by chance? That you're a really nice guy doing nothing wrong everyone else just misunderstands?

You're making the assumption (wow, that's new) that I believe people that disagree with me are "bad" and that I'm the "good" guy. I think many people here tend to think the same, which is very very sad. I also think that you (halo) read far to much into things. By your own account you are prejudice to anything I say with the paranoia:

Originally Posted by halo

Pushing a known hidden agenda.

I had no agenda in this thread what so ever, other then to ask a few questions to see if the same discrimination applied to other groups of people asking for the same rights. The hypocrisy was astonishing. Either way you read everything from a jaded "he's pushing a Christian agenda, I must find where he's going and make assumptions to head him off at the pass!" view. Take some time to simply read the messages for their content and discontinue trying to read so much between the lines. If I believe X I'll outright say, "I believe X and here's where your wrong." I've made that perfectly clear in the "ahead of his time" thread, have I not?

Originally Posted by halo

Arguing over the fact that love is not a legal requirement of marriage is so far away from the issue of gay marriage as to be in another galaxy.

Which is a moderation problem, not mine. If these different threads of thought were pulled into separate posts you wouldn't be so confused. I'm able to follow several different conversations within a single thread. *Shrug*

Originally Posted by halo

They've got one foot in wrong and the other in stupid. The only viable approach is to treat them as such, by being extremely patronising and hard-headed.

That may be how you see things, but it isn't how I see things.

Originally Posted by halo

You seem to have a mental condition (implications of conditioning) that precludes seeing fault in your arguments. It's a fatal flaw because seeing fault in your arguments, and yourself, is the art of critical reasoning. Seeing them, and then acting to curb/remove them, is my interpretation of a large part of the art of Christianity.

Halo, I'm perfectly willing to admit when I am wrong. In the case of the state not requiring love for a civil marriage (business contract) I'm right. I've asked several times for proof, but I haven't had anyone provide it. What more do you want me to do? You constantly accuse people of having mental conditions, or weird logic, etc, when you don't agree with their arguments or conclusions. I've just learned to ignore that, because it just doesn't hold any weight.

Scuzzy

[halo]

Well whatever. I'm not getting drawn into quote wars it's tedious for everyone involved.