Judge: Iowa gay marriage ban unconstitutional

[halo]

Who am I discriminating against?

[Zydell]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

So really what you meant to say is:

I once again fail to follow your logic here, you are once again completely misinterpreting and trying to derail what I've said and laying words in my mouth that are not there.


But anyways... gay marriage; I couldn't care less if queers want to get married and I believe they have the total same right as a faithfull muslim man and woman have.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by halo

Who am I discriminating against?

Polygamists.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Zydell

I once again fail to follow your logic here, you are once again completely misinterpreting and trying to derail what I've said and laying words in my mouth that are not there.

I'll help you out and lead you through your own statements one at a time so you can better understand what you said.

#1:

Originally Posted by Zydell

BTW never forget that those damn christians have the monopoly on knowing the truth, and if their book says its not alright then its not alright, end of discussion!!!!

Both Innoc and I read this to mean you applying this to all Christians in the world. You balked at that remark and rebuked us by clarifying:

Originally Posted by Zydell

I am not saying that christians are bad, don't lay those words in my mouth, I am simply describing what I encounter again and again when discussing with christians.

To which I asked if you wanted to amend your original statement to say:

Originally Posted by What Zydell supposedly meant

BTW never forget that only the Christians I have had contact with but not necessarily all Christians in general have the monopoly on knowing the truth, and if their book says its not alright then its not alright, end of discussion!!!!

So, which words did I misinterpret? The ones where you state that Christians refuse to believe anything not in the bible, or the ones where you state that only the Christians you know of refuse to know anything in the bible?

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Zydell

But anyways... gay marriage; I couldn't care less if queers want to get married and I believe they have the total same right as a faithfull muslim man and woman have.

How does being faithful have anything to do with civil marriage?

[halo]

So you agree with polygamy then Scuzzy. Does your wife?

[Zydell]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I'll help you out and lead you through your own statements one at a time so you can better understand what you said.

#1:


Both Innoc and I read this to mean you applying this to all Christians in the world. You balked at that remark and rebuked us by clarifying:



To which I asked if you wanted to amend your original statement to say:



So, which words did I misinterpret? The ones where you state that Christians refuse to believe anything not in the bible, or the ones where you state that only the Christians you know of refuse to know anything in the bible?

Scuzzy

Wow, thanks for enlightening me Scuzzy, I am most thankfull that you will guide me through my most incomprehensable — at least for myself — thoughts.

What I ment is that I frequently notice that christians believe they know the one and only truth, and do not accept another point of view. I also noticed how many feel insulted when I merely give my opinion and counter-attack me personally (see any reflection here?)

But anyways, Innoc all of a sudden implied that I'm saying that all christians are bad, which is something I never said, he did that and you are bringing it in relation with what I said earlier. I simply replied by saying that I do not believe that all christians are bad, but it has nothing to do with my first point.

Oh flashback! you once again misinterpret me, lay words in my mouth, etcetera.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

How does being faithful have anything to do with civil marriage?

Absolutely nothing.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by halo

So you agree with polygamy then Scuzzy. Does your wife?

What makes you think I agree with polygamy?

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Zydell

Wow, thanks for enlightening me Scuzzy, I am most thankfull that you will guide me through my most incomprehensable — at least for myself — thoughts.

Anytime Z, anytime.

[Innoc]

Re-read your statement. "Those Christians" does not equal "Some Christians". It's a blanket statement as you worded it. Perhaps it's an issue of English not being your primary language? You're incorrect in your implication that I twisted your words. I took what you posted as written and at face value. Perhaps your intention was different but what came across was typical for those who have, in the past, exhibited anti-Christian bigotry.

[halo]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

What makes you think I agree with polygamy?

Because you called me on discriminating against it and that point would only stand if you believed that I was morally wrong in doing so. I was just interested in what your wive(s) think about your belief in polygamy?

[FrenchToast]

I'm still not done with you Scuzzy.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

No, you're reading that assumtion into it. I'm well aware of arranged marriages, and even considered mentioning that in the above posts because I was sure someone would try the old "well here's a single exception to the case so you're entire argument must be WRONG!", but I gave ya the benefit of the doubt.

As I said above, my statement was very clear, that civil marriage is not about love at all. That's all. If you want to read other things into that, feel free.

Scuzzy

It's funny that you'd say that, because I remember you saying this:

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.

Which is you getting all high and mighty and saying that religious love is true love etc. etc., is it not? And civil marriage ISN'T solely about that either, it's just as much about love, honor and commitment as well. I'm sorry that you're wrong. Just admit it already.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by halo

Because you called me on discriminating against it and that point would only stand if you believed that I was morally wrong in doing so.

That's an interesting line of logic. In order to recognize discrimination you have to participate in the opposing view? So, in keeping with that line of logic, everyone who accuses someone else of being pro-life that makes them an abortion doctor?

You want to impose your moral values on polygamists because you don't agree with their desire to get the same benefits as other married couples and you don't call that discrimination?

[Scuzzy]

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.

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

Which is you getting all high and mighty and saying that religious love is true love etc. etc., is it not? And civil marriage ISN'T solely about that either, it's just as much about love, honor and commitment as well. I'm sorry that you're wrong. Just admit it already.

No, it was me making a very simple point that the US Government does not require love, which is not me getting all high and mighty. 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."*

I'm willing to examine your argument though, what does the government define as "love"?

Scuzzy

* Please note that the following example involved a man and a women in a civil marriage and in no way supports only heterosexual marriages or implies that non heterosexual marriages or non dual marriages are improper or proper. Please do not read any of 100 million ideas that were not stated specifically in the sentances above because of your personal predjudices.

[FrenchToast]

That's not where my problem with your post lies. My problem is in you thinking that religious marriages carry any of those qualities you mentioned. The only difference between religious marriages and civil ones is the addage of the word religious. These attributes of love, honor commitment etc. etc. can apply to either one, and it's foolhardy to think they're more prevalant in one type than the other.

[halo]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Go go gadget unrelated subject change.

That's an interesting line of logic. In order to recognize discrimination you have to participate in the opposing view? So, in keeping with that line of logic, everyone who accuses someone else of being pro-life that makes them an abortion doctor?

You want to impose your moral values on polygamists because you don't agree with their desire to get the same benefits as other married couples and you don't call that discrimination?

If you believe that I am discriminating against polygamists (never met one though so not sure that I am) while you yourself have decided not to be a polygamist, (meaning you must think it has some downside that outweighs the good) then you are a hypocrite to an extent. You may respect an American's right to cultivate a harem but you have decided not to do it, so you don't agree with the decision. That's a very bland and weak point of view indeed.

I could write essays on how bad that similie is but although you may love quote wars, I think another one might make me fall into a coma and die of boredom.

I don't want to impose my moral views on polygamists, I want to impose them on everyone. This is the nature of moral views. Your moral view includes tolerance towards polygamists so you want everyone to tolerate polygamists. That's just the way moral views are, it's inescapable and, in my moral view, wrong to escape it because it would require the sacrifice of having opinions.

I do discriminate against polygamists because in the west I associate polygamy with Mormonism, a cult I have looked into and decided to be stupid. I also believe the practice of polygamy to have significant downsides for society as a whole and often the individuals involved. You use the words dicrimination as if it's an evil thing to do. Discriminating between things is the art of decision-making. It just means choosing one thing as preferable to another.

In your inevitable response (because you always have to have the last word) please type less crap. Can you do that for my sanity please? Type something nice and bland and peace-making that I can let slide so I don't get annoyed again and feel the need to post. Don't try and follow a logical train. You can't do it, that will just annoy me.

[Backstaber]

Funny, because the same is thought of you halo.

[zSilver_Fox]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

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

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.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by halo

If you believe that I am discriminating against polygamists (never met one though so not sure that I am) while you yourself have decided not to be a polygamist, (meaning you must think it has some downside that outweighs the good) then you are a hypocrite to an extent. You may respect an American's right to cultivate a harem but you have decided not to do it, so you don't agree with the decision. That's a very bland and weak point of view indeed.

??????? Your logic is completely foreign. Let me make sure I'm reading what you're saying above. YOU believe that a person must participate in an action (being a polygamist, gay marriage, what have you) in order to recognize other's discriminating against that group of people without being a hypocrit? That BEGS two questions halo: Are you part of a gay marriage? And if not, wouldn't your statement above make you a hypocrit?

Originally Posted by halo

I don't want to impose my moral views on polygamists, I want to impose them on everyone. This is the nature of moral views. Your moral view includes tolerance towards polygamists so you want everyone to tolerate polygamists.

Ironic isn't it... you want to impose your moral values on the rest of the world, but when the Christians want to impose their moral values on you their ignorant, hypocritical prudes.

Originally Posted by halo

I do discriminate against polygamists because in the west I associate polygamy with Mormonism, a cult I have looked into and decided to be stupid. I also believe the practice of polygamy to have significant downsides for society as a whole and often the individuals involved. You use the words dicrimination as if it's an evil thing to do. Discriminating between things is the art of decision-making. It just means choosing one thing as preferable to another.

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.

Originally Posted by halo

Don't try and follow a logical train. You can't do it, that will just annoy me.

Man I hear ya, you can't follow a logical train of thought. I don't know how you got into that line of thinking, boggles my mind man.

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

That's not where my problem with your post lies. My problem is in you thinking that religious marriages carry any of those qualities you mentioned. The only difference between religious marriages and civil ones is the addage of the word religious. These attributes of love, honor commitment etc. etc. can apply to either one, and it's foolhardy to think they're more prevalant in one type than the other.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. 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. Did Scuzzy say at any time that it couldn't? Nope. Did Frenchtoast assume that? Yep. Why? Not a freaking clue.

My post had to do with CIVIL GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE. That's a piece of paper, a contract. That is what we (myself and someone else) were discussing. Never did I imply that a marriage that does not take place in a church is devoid of love or incapable of it and to read that into my statements is just plan wrong.