Judge: Iowa gay marriage ban unconstitutional - Page 9

Scuzzy · 09-06-2007, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zSilver_Fox

Have you even taken a look at your local church lately? If you have the money to perform a marriage, they'll do it for you. Hell, look at our country's divorce rate. I'd expect a better argument coming from you.

Um, my argument had absolutely nothing to do with churches or divorce rates. But thanks for playing!

Scuzzy

halo · 09-06-2007, 12:42 AM

Quote:

If that is true and state governments are deciding that gay marriage should be banned, will you accept it as the morally right law of the land? It sounds like that's what you are arguing for above.

Well in theory law should be a reflection of the views of society but this is difficult to work under many circumstances, particularly those of no clear consensus. Homosexuality was illegal in Britain for a long time because most people thought that it was wrong. Then came the revolution of 60s and a lot of minds were opened. Consensus changed and the law changed to reflect that. In my opinion and, I believe, the opinion of the overwhelming majority of people now, this change made society more equitable. It was an advance, another stepforward in the 10,000+ year evolution of British society. However the real advance was not the change in the law (it was rarely prosecuted anyway.) The change in the law was a biproduct of the shift in people's opinions and that was the real step forward. It's consensus that brings about real equality, not the law, though the law plays a part in influencing that.

To try and answer your question I suppose it depends on your definition of morality. By today's standards the law was unjust, but you can't judge the past by the standards of the present because people and circumstances were different. It is possible for law to be unjust though. It doesn't always reflect consensus and it isn't always written adequately to cover all scenarios. Law is, by its nature, an imperfect institution.

FrenchToast · 09-06-2007, 02:01 AM

YOU'RE COMPLETELY FUCKING MISSING THE POINT

Jesus christ, you have this ability to read something that clearly states one thing, and it goes through your mind and ends up some jumbled mess. At least when I argue with Innoc or other people, they're coherent and address your issues. This is just retarded.

Scuzzy · 09-06-2007, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

YOU'RE COMPLETELY FUCKING MISSING THE POINT

Jesus christ, you have this ability to read something that clearly states one thing, and it goes through your mind and ends up some jumbled mess. At least when I argue with Innoc or other people, they're coherent and address your issues. This is just retarded.

You're arguing against a point that I never made, so yeah I'm gonna miss that. Why should I have to defend against assumtions you are making that have no basis in fact? If you want to argue with someone else that civil marriages can be done to two people in love, feel free, but I'm not going to argue that point because it isn't something I disagree with!

Scuzzy

zSilver_Fox · 09-06-2007, 03:49 AM

Then would you mind explaining your argument? You're making little sense.

FrenchToast · 09-06-2007, 04:20 AM

As far as I can tell, his argument is that he can only be held responsible for what he says when he wants to acknowledge he said it.

Scuzzy · 09-06-2007, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zSilver_Fox

Then would you mind explaining your argument? You're making little sense.

Sure thing Fox...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Civil marriage is soley about taxation, asset division, survivorship, and benefit distribution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I was just pointing out that the state does not care about, nor require, "love" to unionize individuals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

No, it was me making a very simple point that the US Government does not require love

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

A civil marriage in most cases is about a blood test, a fee, and a piece of paper legally binding them, and therefore their assets. The ceramony could be "Do you want to marry her? Yep. Do you want to marry him? Yep. I now pronounce you man and wife."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Does a civil marriage require love? No. Does the government require love? No. Can a marriage that only consists of a civil marriage contain love? OBVIOUSLY, DUH.

Now... there's a common theme in the above quotes. What part of the above is difficult for you to understand and makes little sense to you?

Scuzzy

Scuzzy · 09-06-2007, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

As far as I can tell, his argument is that he can only be held responsible for what he says when he wants to acknowledge he said it.

I quoted out my argument Toast, but it doesn't include any of the made-up assumtions and beliefs that you just decide to inject into a conversation, so you may have trouble following it.

Scuzzy

Iggy · 09-06-2007, 04:35 AM

Quote:

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

Wrong. Civil marriage is as much about love, honour and commitment as religious ones. Apparently you are not married.
Marriage is marriage, recognized throughout the world regardless of religeon or lack thereof. The reasons behind it may include taxation, asset division, survivorship, and benefit distribution....but are certainly not limited to them.

Given your stated point of view, even if 2 people of the same gender are allowed to "marry"(get a civil union, what the fuck ever)...they will STILL be criminals because a> Sodomy is illegal, b> Oral sex is (in many places) illegal, AND, on top of that...any such "union" could be negated simply on the grounds that ANY marriage(that's right, including religious) can be "nullified" if the parties in question have not had sex. It would then be up to the couple to either admit to a criminal sex act, or have their union negated. In other words, they can choose prison, or back to being single. In the former, it would probably mean both.

Someone(not calling you out on this one) brought up the multi-marriage. We are not discussing that, no matter HOW many times someone tries to interject it. So let's leave it out, because it has no bearing on this. Unless you want to argue the possibility of multi-marriages being cross-sectioned to include 2 couples marrying each other, in a 4-way version....where each husband not only marries a second wife, but her husband as well.

Never argue with a stoned sub-genious.

Scuzzy · 09-06-2007, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iggy

Wrong. Civil marriage is as much about love, honour and commitment as religious ones. Apparently you are not married.

THE STATE DOES NOT DEFINE OR REQUIRE LOVE TO MARRY PEOPLE. IT IS NEVER A REQUIREMENT.

I've made that perfectly clear, it's a fact. Find me a couple current requirements for a Marriage License in the United States that defines love and how it must be fulfilled within a marriage contract.

Can civil marriages have love? YES, DUH. Do most of them occur because two people are in love? OBVIOUSLY, DUH. That isn't what I was arguing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iggy

Given your stated point of view, even if 2 people of the same gender are allowed to "marry"(get a civil union, what the fuck ever)...they will STILL be criminals because a> Sodomy is illegal, b> Oral sex is (in many places) illegal, AND, on top of that...any such "union" could be negated simply on the grounds that ANY marriage(that's right, including religious) can be "nullified" if the parties in question have not had sex. It would then be up to the couple to either admit to a criminal sex act, or have their union negated. In other words, they can choose prison, or back to being single. In the former, it would probably mean both.

Which state requires sex in marriage? Nothing, absolutely NOTHING I have said pertains to sex and marriage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iggy

Someone(not calling you out on this one) brought up the multi-marriage. We are not discussing that, no matter HOW many times someone tries to interject it. So let's leave it out, because it has no bearing on this. Unless you want to argue the possibility of multi-marriages being cross-sectioned to include 2 couples marrying each other, in a 4-way version....where each husband not only marries a second wife, but her husband as well.

Read the entire thread iggy, page 2, post #27. I have also stated that people against polygamy are exactly like people against homosexual marriage, are they not both discrimination and forcing a persons morals upon others?

Scuzzy

zSilver_Fox · 09-06-2007, 05:00 AM

Thanks, that explained it all

. My view on that is that many churches these days don't require love either.

FrenchToast · 09-06-2007, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iggy

Wrong. Civil marriage is as much about love, honour and commitment as religious ones.

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.

zSilver_Fox · 09-06-2007, 05:05 AM

If by now you havn't realized...

Innoc · 09-06-2007, 05:07 AM

Correct me if I am wrong...doesn't Immigration and Naturalization require that love component? Not trying to weigh in on either side of this but it occurs to me that granting citizenship from marrying a citizen requires substantial evidence that the marriage is real....some evaluation of love shown at that level?

**squeek.** · 09-06-2007, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

I give up, this is a joke.

This thread is still causing eyes to bleed.

Marshmallow Noob · 09-06-2007, 06:11 AM

lock.

Jifcuits · 09-06-2007, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innoc

Correct me if I am wrong...doesn't Immigration and Naturalization require that love component? Not trying to weigh in on either side of this but it occurs to me that granting citizenship from marrying a citizen requires substantial evidence that the marriage is real....some evaluation of love shown at that level?

I think this is true. I think but I'm not sure that in civil marriages you make vows to your partner and love is in there so I guess civil marriages do require love.

there's nothing here · 09-06-2007, 08:43 AM

So, it can be about love, or it doesn't have to be about love.

Meh.

If there is a love component required then it can be (if someone really intended to, for whatever reason.. (not that that is the point of the argument here, or is it?)) faked. I mean, who's cheated on a test before?

..not me, of course not.

For srsly, mans.

forums.fortress-forever.com - It's the place to argue!

halo · 09-06-2007, 11:42 AM

So Scuzzy's point is that marriages don't require love. It's not a prerequisite because it's impossible to measure. And? How is that relevant in any way?

Now what was it to deal with trolls? Anyone got some acid and fire?

Scuzzy · 09-06-2007, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halo

So Scuzzy's point is that marriages don't require love.

Ahhhh, not quite. Would a marriage (the bonding between two people) be better and more successful with an emotional connection? Obviously. Does the civil marriage (a piece of paper and contract) require it? Nope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by halo

It's not a prerequisite because it's impossible to measure. And?

DING DING DING - We have a winner!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halo

How is that relevant in any way?

It isn't in my opinion.

Scuzzy

09-06-2007, 02:01 AM	#163
FrenchToast The 1337est D&A Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Omagosh Canada. Posts Rated Helpful 9 Times	YOU'RE COMPLETELY FUCKING MISSING THE POINT Jesus christ, you have this ability to read something that clearly states one thing, and it goes through your mind and ends up some jumbled mess. At least when I argue with Innoc or other people, they're coherent and address your issues. This is just retarded. __________________ James, while John had had 'had', had had 'had had' ; 'had had' had had a better effect on the teacher.

09-06-2007, 03:49 AM	#165
zSilver_Fox IRL Combat Medic Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Ethanol Land Class/Position: D Medic Gametype: Conca Jumping Affiliations: ^iv Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Then would you mind explaining your argument? You're making little sense. __________________ I have a nasopharyngeal and webcam... First infraction! Flaming!

09-06-2007, 04:20 AM	#166
FrenchToast The 1337est D&A Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Omagosh Canada. Posts Rated Helpful 9 Times	As far as I can tell, his argument is that he can only be held responsible for what he says when he wants to acknowledge he said it. __________________ James, while John had had 'had', had had 'had had' ; 'had had' had had a better effect on the teacher.

09-06-2007, 05:00 AM	#171
zSilver_Fox IRL Combat Medic Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Ethanol Land Class/Position: D Medic Gametype: Conca Jumping Affiliations: ^iv Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Thanks, that explained it all . My view on that is that many churches these days don't require love either. __________________ I have a nasopharyngeal and webcam... First infraction! Flaming!

09-06-2007, 05:05 AM	#173
zSilver_Fox IRL Combat Medic Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Ethanol Land Class/Position: D Medic Gametype: Conca Jumping Affiliations: ^iv Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	If by now you havn't realized... __________________ I have a nasopharyngeal and webcam... First infraction! Flaming!

09-06-2007, 05:07 AM	#174
Innoc Hitman 2 1 Actual Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: "Oscar Mike" Gametype: FPS or RTS (just say NO to MMO) Affiliations: Your Mom Posts Rated Helpful 8 Times	Correct me if I am wrong...doesn't Immigration and Naturalization require that love component? Not trying to weigh in on either side of this but it occurs to me that granting citizenship from marrying a citizen requires substantial evidence that the marriage is real....some evaluation of love shown at that level? __________________ Mooga on Obama: He can cut taxes. Actually do something useful. Punch Nancy Pelosi in the face. Just to name a few. You eventually run out of other people's money to spend.

09-06-2007, 06:11 AM	#176
Marshmallow Noob D&A Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	lock.

09-06-2007, 08:43 AM	#178
there's nothing here lol Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Halfway sprawled out of a cardboard box at the bottom of a flight of stairs. Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times	So, it can be about love, or it doesn't have to be about love. Meh. If there is a love component required then it can be (if someone really intended to, for whatever reason.. (not that that is the point of the argument here, or is it?)) faked. I mean, who's cheated on a test before? ..not me, of course not. For srsly, mans. forums.fortress-forever.com - It's the place to argue!

09-06-2007, 11:42 AM	#179
halo Join Date: May 2007 Location: Barnsley, UK Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	So Scuzzy's point is that marriages don't require love. It's not a prerequisite because it's impossible to measure. And? How is that relevant in any way? Now what was it to deal with trolls? Anyone got some acid and fire?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)