Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages


Recommended Posts

Kinda tired of seeing rainbow crap all over the net... can't wait for it to die down and people stop pushing their beliefs onto others.

Images push their beliefs onto you?

 

Wow, you are one impressionable fellow.

 

I'd recommend you steer clear of movies involving mass murder.

I'm impressed at the level of back patting going on in this thread, as well as the sheer intolerance of certain groups of people. Just goes to show even a good cause can have its fair share of bigotry when everyone here resorts to calling people who disagree with them names and inferring they are somehow superior to them.

 

Complete disrespect for differing opinions, but hey I suppose that's the internet for you.

 

Imagine if the supreme court ruled in the opposite direction and banned same sex marriage. I'm sure statements like "This day was our 9/11" would be uttered by the LGBT community just as easily and not so heavily criticized. It's funny the double standards people have.

If your opinion involves mixing church and state, it doesn't deserve to be respected.

 

This is my opinion., I bet you don't respect it, and that makes your statement rather hypocritical.

  • Like 3

Justice Moore made the unprecedented claim that he was not bound by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that conflict with his view of the U.S. Constitution.  Indeed, he stated that it would violate his

  • Like 2

That's not how things work. :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:

I am on another (non-technical) site where there are people from around the world. I'm sure it is often easy to misinterpret things on our news. (Even our own people do that continually). 

Justice Moore would never be allowed to do that.

If he said that, it's just for show. Probably playing up to his own political backers. 

 

The President could send C-130's full of Abrams tanks down there to prevent anything like that. 

let me google that for you

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/judge-grants-gay-divorce-florida-article-1.2049363

 

its not rocket science is it?

It's rocket surgery!

 

I love how these anti-same-sex marriage guys keep pulling out all of these contrived scenarios from their nether regions as if we painted ourselves into a corner by legalizing it.

There are more important things in the world to fight about anyway, such as ISIS, AIDS and cancer, ebola,and more violence. I'd say gay marriage is the very last thing to waste our government's time with.

That's why the SCOTUS ruling is welcomed. States can stop wasting their time trying to implement laws banning same-sex marriage.

  • Like 2

I still haven't heard a valid reason to be against same sex marriage from anybody.

Wonder why everybody is up in arms about this.

Letting other people get married has no effect on you personally what so ever.

So what is it then?

  • Like 2

I'm impressed at the level of back patting going on in this thread, as well as the sheer intolerance of certain groups of people. Just goes to show even a good cause can have its fair share of bigotry when everyone here resorts to calling people who disagree with them names and inferring they are somehow superior to them.

 

Complete disrespect for differing opinions, but hey I suppose that's the internet for you.

 

Imagine if the supreme court ruled in the opposite direction and banned same sex marriage. I'm sure statements like "This day was our 9/11" would be uttered by the LGBT community just as easily and not so heavily criticized. It's funny the double standards people have.

 

LOL! Another "Christian persecution" whine post. It's not intolerance for "certain groups of people". It's intolerance of intolerance. Have all the Christianity you want. Just stop being intolerant of others.

 

And don't confuse respecting one's right to have an opinion with respecting what that opinion is. You're obliged to do the former, but you are NOT obliged to do the latter. What's the point of free speech if you have to just respect whatever anybody says? Free speech is all about criticizing what you believe are BAD IDEAS. I find that ideas requiring religion dogma to back them up are almost universally bad ideas, and I'll freely use my right to free speech to share that opinion.

I still haven't heard a valid reason to be against same sex marriage from anybody.

Wonder why everybody is up in arms about this.

Letting other people get married has no effect on you personally what so ever.

So what is it then?

When you're left with characterizing proponents of the legalization of same-sex marriage as being "intolerant", you're completely out of reasons that even remotely resemble "valid".

If your opinion involves mixing church and state, it doesn't deserve to be respected.

 

This is my opinion., I bet you don't respect it, and that makes your statement rather hypocritical.

 

First of all, this is a great example of what's going on here. Both of the people quoting me have assumed my position about all this and immediately placed me opposed to their views. How can you possible jump to that conclusion when all I've remarked on is the fact that everyone in here is effectively circle-jerking about this issue and putting others down because apparently they're just "stupid rednecks" that don't deserve an opinion.

 

Does this at all seem like a civilized way to handle the issue? To slander and bully people who don't conform to your own world views because you can?

 

My opinion is that the states should grant marriage at all, but civil unions. Marriage is that of the church and is nothing but symbolic while a union granted by the state has nothing to do with marriage. It's just a legal contract to share assets and responsibilities under the law. If that was the way it was from the start this wouldn't even be an issue.

 

LOL! Another "Christian persecution" whine post. It's not intolerance for "certain groups of people". It's intolerance of intolerance. Have all the Christianity you want. Just stop being intolerant of others.

 

And don't confuse respecting one's right to have an opinion with respecting what that opinion is. You're obliged to do the former, but you are NOT obliged to do the latter. What's the point of free speech if you have to just respect whatever anybody says? Free speech is all about criticizing what you believe are BAD IDEAS. I find that ideas requiring religion dogma to back them up are almost universally bad ideas, and I'll freely use my right to free speech to share that opinion.

 

I don't really call statements like these being "intolerant of intolerance". The seem quite obvious what their intentions were. You may not be obliged to respect an opinion, but it's not an excuse to behave like five year olds.

 

Damn rednecks. 

 

Attorney General James D.

  • Like 2

 

My opinion is that the states should grant marriage at all, but civil unions. Marriage is that of the church and is nothing but symbolic while a union granted by the state has nothing to do with marriage. It's just a legal contract to share assets and responsibilities under the law. If that was the way it was from the start this wouldn't even be an issue.

 

 

But this is exactly what is going on, except for the naming.

I don't think gay people were fighting for the right to be married at a church. They just want to have the same legal rights as hetero couples.

I don't really call statements like these being "intolerant of intolerance". The seem quite obvious what their intentions were. You may not be obliged to respect an opinion, but it's not an excuse to behave like five year olds.

 

They're examples of ridiculing people for their ignorance and intolerance. If you see calls for having separate drinking fountains, lunch counters, and schools for "rednecks", let me know.

 

 

Yes, cause it's as simple as boiling down the entire South as a bunch of idiot rednecks. Totally reasonable.

And this is an example of a straw man. Try being a little less hyperbolic with your claims, and maybe you'll have even an inch of ground to stand on.

That's why the SCOTUS ruling is welcomed. States can stop wasting their time trying to implement laws banning same-sex marriage.

For the record I do NOT support gay marriage, but it doesn't affect me much anyway though I know it will affect freedom of religion in the future when churches are forced to marry homosexuals against their doctrine (pretty much every religion out there). 

 

Don't screw with society and use your freedom without oppressing others views and you are good. Don't make a big deal because somebody thinks what you do is immoral (note: I am not referring to you TMYW, but to the homosexuals). I don't expect the gays to force their views on me, nor do I expect the churches to force their views on me either.

 

Jehovah Witnesses are a different story though.....

First and foremost, I am not a Christian, and for me growing up in the south its always been amusing to see the conservative christians push their beliefs on others and even into government. When I bring up the fact that these very same people always are the ones that argue we have to stick to the constitution, I bring up we have separation of church and state for a reason in the constitution. They then refute. Now I saw this in a facebook comment earlier this weekend from one of the local papers

 

I get sick and tired of folks using the Bible to say "The Bible says" and beat up people! I love the Bible, I do believe it is the inspired word of God. BUT The Bible tells me how to treat my slaves, how to treat my multiple wives and how to sacrifice my lambs and doves. It forbids eating catfish, shrimp and crab. It forbids me wearing a polyester suit and a cottom shirt. It says growing a garden of more than one crop is a sin, like having parsley and sage in a herbal garden. It forbids women speaking in church and being ministers. It says I can not get divorced. Why don't people quote those parts?

 

Gay marriage is highly offensive to the Islamic religion. In fact, the act of sodomy in an Islamic country results in harsh jail time. Let's face it, marriage was never designed nor worded for the joining of two same sex couples. They can have a civil union but the word marriage cannot be used.

Gay marriage is highly offensive to the Islamic religion. In fact, the act of sodomy in an Islamic country results in harsh jail time. Let's face it, marriage was never designed nor worded for the joining of two same sex couples. They can have a civil union but the word marriage cannot be used.

heterosexuals engage in sodomy every day. To pretend that it's only a homosexual act would be disingenuous and you know it.

For the record I do NOT support gay marriage, but it doesn't affect me much anyway though I know it will affect freedom of religion in the future when churches are forced to marry homosexuals against their doctrine (pretty much every religion out there). 

 

 

Priests aren't going to be forced to marry homosexuals, just like they're not forced to marry heterosexual couples. They choose to do so everyday.

Gay marriage is highly offensive to the Islamic religion. In fact, the act of sodomy in an Islamic country results in harsh jail time. Let's face it, marriage was never designed nor worded for the joining of two same sex couples. They can have a civil union but the word marriage cannot be used.

 

 

Why should anyone care if anyone else is offended? Being offended is personal and in all fairness nothing happens when you're offended. It's not like you wake up the next day with ebola because you got offended. Given that this isn't a Islamic country, it's meaningless, so they can deal with it. 

  • Like 2

First and foremost, I am not a Christian, and for me growing up in the south its always been amusing to see the conservative christians push their beliefs on others and even into government. When I bring up the fact that these very same people always are the ones that argue we have to stick to the constitution, I bring up we have separation of church and state for a reason in the constitution. They then refute. Now I saw this in a facebook comment earlier this weekend from one of the local papers

He forgot the most laughable - its OK to rape a woman, as long as you marry her, and giver her dad 50 pieces of silver.

Or, if an angry mob is at your house and they want someone who is a guest in your house - you can offer your daughter for them to do as they wish....

Yeah, it says that - and they claim its the "divine word of god" - funny how he hates the things they hated back then, and loved the things they loved back then - so lucky for them the way that worked out :rolleyes:

Gay marriage is highly offensive to the Islamic religion. In fact, the act of sodomy in an Islamic country results in harsh jail time. Let's face it, marriage was never designed nor worded for the joining of two same sex couples. They can have a civil union but the word marriage cannot be used.

USA is not an Islamic theocracy.

Jindal: Louisiana Will 'Comply' With Same-Sex Marriage Ruling:

 

Presidential candidate Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La., said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that while he disagrees with the Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states, his state will abide by the Court's decision.

"We don't have a choice," Jindal said Sunday. "Our agencies will comply with the court order."

 

Jindal said the Court ignored the Tenth Amendment when it issued its ruling Friday that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. He said the fight will now focus on maintaining religious freedom.

"I think it is wrong for the federal government to force Christian individuals, businesses, pastors, churches to participate in wedding ceremonies that violate our sincerely held religious beliefs. We have to stand up and fight for religious liberty. That's where this fight is going," he told Chuck Todd. "The left wants to silence us. Hillary Clinton wants to silence us. We're not going away."

 

- http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/jindal-louisiana-will-comply-same-sex-marriage-ruling-n383381?cid=sm_tw&hootPostID=507ece0bea5d429d1674c7a2a3ebe383

 

 

Why are these people making everything about them and their religion? How selfish. Friday's ruling has no effect on you if you do not wish to marry into the same sex. No one is forcing these pastors to do anything. If you don't want to officiate a wedding, fine, the engaged couple can go elsewhere. I hear having ordained friends is quite popular today.   

  • Like 3

I am on another (non-technical) site where there are people from around the world. I'm sure it is often easy to misinterpret things on our news. (Even our own people do that continually). 

Justice Moore would never be allowed to do that.

If he said that, it's just for show. Probably playing up to his own political backers. 

 

The President could send C-130's full of Abrams tanks down there to prevent anything like that. 

 

Uhm, no. That would be illegal.

Let's face it, marriage was never designed nor worded for the joining of two same sex couples. They can have a civil union but the word marriage cannot be used.

Actually the word marriage CAN be used. The SCOTUS just said so. That's how we roll here in the USA, so you are the one who needs to face it. 

 

And so you know, I couldn't care less about the Islamic or any other religion. Religion is simply a tool used to control the weak-minded among us.   :p

But this is exactly what is going on, except for the naming.

I don't think gay people were fighting for the right to be married at a church. They just want to have the same legal rights as hetero couples.

I disagree. I think the name is at the core of this whole issue.

 

True, I don't think most care about churches. But if the right to be civilly joined was the only thing they asked for, I doubt many would have been opposed. I believe two (or more) people should be free to enter into whatever legal agreement they want. The real question is whether such unions should be afforded special privileges under the law.

 

In the case of marriage, there are certain legal privileges -- particularly involving taxes, power of attorney powers, and other benefits. I believe gay couples should have complete access to all of these so long as their unions are as legally binding as those of non-gay couples.

 

But I don't think it should be called marriage. That word already has a definition. And I believe the activists want that definition changed not only to grant themselves access to the aforementioned privileges (which they do deserve), but also to weaken the influence and the mindshare of religion and other so-called "traditional values". I see a systematic and sometime concerted effort in this country and others to undermine and deconstruct traditional values and religion -- in particular, Christian religion.  Islam, for the moment, seems to be off-limits. But Christianity is under assault on multiple fronts.

 

If you don't believe, then don't -- it is your right. But we who do believe are also exercising a protected right -- at least until that right is taken away (which I believe is the goal of many). By the language of many of the posters in this thread (and the replies that are sure to follow this post), I'm sure many of you would support the removal of that right. But I caution you not to pledge your support to quickly. A government that can take away such a right can take away almost anything. Today you might be on the benefitting side of such a government. Tomorrow you might not be so lucky.

 

-Forjo

  • Like 3

Marriage isn't a religious construct, it's a legal one. It's also a federally protected right under US law, so you can't restrict it to people just because a religion disagrees (Especially because the US isn't a "religious country")

Uhm, no. That would be illegal.

Yeah, it'd be the national guard, not the army.

  • Like 4
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
    • Did you see their FAQ, its quite good. Have a look in the Advanced section. https://delta.chat/en/help
    • Just install Linux Mint that is a real blessing and many times cheaper because you can continue using your old Windows computer/laptop with the latest Linux updates.
    • Interesting share -- however it does not make sense: Email messages get stored somewhere, so how is Delta Chat "based on email" and decentralized without actually storing anything? By Web3 standard practices, the various Relays would require dedicated storage to make messages available to the recipients (like a large series of message queue channels, akin to racks of traditional post office boxes)... and Contacts must be two-way confirmed in order for encryption keys to be exchanged (ostensibly every key-pair is uniquely bound between sender and recipient) and the Relays would preserve the public keys in order to facilitate message carriage... or every device stores all sorts of keys and contact info. All of this to say, decentralized messaging is like running Bluesky nodes except instead of discovering/browsing public feeds by various posters (at the given node) these Delta Chats would be relaying encrypted messages (via Relays) that only trusted recipients would have the appropriate decryption key (their own private key) to read it. But this doesn't solve the "it's like email" sales pitch. The only way it's like email is that there's encrypted binary stuff being transported from your app into the federated ether of Delta Chat Relays for others to decrypt (hopefully only the intended recipient)... but outside of this federated relays framework, it is absolutely nothing like email.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      160
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!