Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages


 Share

Recommended Posts

Then why act as if it's a good deity?

 

Because that's what my reading has led me to understand. Along with that is the understanding that *Good* as you're using it cannot be qualified by my own bias.

 

 

It's amusing, since you are doing the very same thing. You have an odd sense of what an "internet tough guy" is.... you mean someone who disagrees with your points? Then yes, and this is me in real life as well. Don't like it? Too bad. Your beliefs are open to be challenged. If they were perfect beliefs, what would be to challenge? Says a lot right there doesn't it?

 

I have zero issues with people challenging my beliefs until they try to intentionally put me on the defensive and antagonize, and we both know that's exactly what you were attempting. I've seen it far too many times on too many forums. Move past that and chats will be much more productive, if not satisfying. And yes, that does say a lot.

 

If you ask anyone around me, I am the happiest, most feel good person they know. To a christian person who is for the oppression of the rights of others, I can see how they might see it as angry, but its not, its a passion to treat people good and fair.

 

How happy you are is as anecdotal as the fact that two of my very best friends are gay. It might be fact, but we'll just have to take each others word for it. And coming right out and stating I am for the oppression of the rights of others? Care to show me where I said that? Anything even remotely close?

 

I don't engage you for you, I engage you for the benefit of others who may be reading/will read this chat now and/or in the future and can see the flaws of your arguments. If no one argued your points, we would be in a society that would still be similar to the ancient middle east. You should be happy that "my diaper is full and I'm angry" people exist. Without us, society is stuck.

 

I haven't even made any real points to argue other than a simple observation to another poster which you jumped on. And if implying that I believe in magic is pointing out a flaw, simply because you said so, then that's a pretty weak argument. You've done nothing but basically rant about the God I believe in.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may respectfully ask, what years are you referring to when you say 10-15 years?

Also, (you don't have to answer, of course), are you of the Catholic or Protestant persuasion? I ask because I"m Protestant and don't know the Catholic beliefs well.

 

Well i just meant it seemed like in terms of the more general public that it's been roughly the last 10-15 years or so (i.e. about 2000-2005+) that the whole gay thing has been shoved in everyone's face (like on TV etc) on a mainstream level from my perception here in the USA as back in the 1990's (on back) the public was clearly against it on the whole from what i could tell. then *BAM* it suddenly got accepted very fast by many.

 

p.s. i am Catholic. so that whole gay agenda is against the Catholic religion as it's pretty clear cut on that since it's a sinful lifestyle and always will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well i just meant it seemed like in terms of the more general public that it's been roughly the last 10-15 years or so (i.e. about 2000-2005+) that the whole gay thing has been shoved in everyone's face (like on TV etc) on a mainstream level from my perception here in the USA as back in the 1990's (on back) the public was clearly against it on the whole from what i could tell. then *BAM* it suddenly got accepted very fast by many.

 

p.s. i am Catholic. so that whole gay agenda is against the Catholic religion as it's pretty clear cut on that since it's a sinful lifestyle and always will be.

 

Gay people have rights just like anyone else. They weren't being afforded those rights, so in a parallel with the black people in America, it has become necessary to ram those rights down people's throats.  If they'd been afforded those rights to start with, as they should have been, there'd be no gay rights movement.

 

The world keeps on repeating the same mistakes, again and again and again. :no:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just embarrassing now :rofl:

 

Unfortunately social conservatism keeps on living because young people cannot be bothered to turn out to vote in the congressional and senate elections resulting in candidates pandering to an increasingly smaller minority of the population not to mention the lack of young people, minorities and mainstream people joining up to political parties to ensure that when there are primary races that the moderate mainstream candidate holds onto the seat rather than being pushed to the extremes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Because that's what my reading has led me to understand. Along with that is the understanding that *Good* as you're using it cannot be qualified by my own bias.

 

To muslims, in their eyes,  the quran is perfection also, which lead them understanding the same thing you claim.

 

 

I have zero issues with people challenging my beliefs until they try to intentionally put me on the defensive and antagonize, and we both know that's exactly what you were attempting.

 

What would you have to be on the defense about?

 

 

How happy you are is as anecdotal as the fact that two of my very best friends are gay. It might be fact, but we'll just have to take each others word for it. And coming right out and stating I am for the oppression of the rights of others? Care to show me where I said that? Anything even remotely close?

 

Is the obvious incorrect? Then simply answer this and maybe i was wrong... Are you for gay rights/marriage or against? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never accept -anything- on face value UNLESS the person doing the telling has excellent credentials in the field they're talking about

 

Then visiting online communities/ forums/ blogs is a total waste for you. Oh wait! you have 17k posts on Neowin (mostly replies to other people :laugh: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then visiting online communities/ forums/ blogs is a total waste for you. Oh wait! you have 17k posts on Neowin (mostly replies to other people :laugh: )

 

It's precisely -because- I don't take things at face value that I come to places like Neowin. Claims must be examined, questioned, researched, discussed, argued about. Only after a thing as withstood the entire process of scientific inquiry should it be accepted as true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's precisely -because- I don't take things at face value that I come to places like Neowin. Claims must be examined, questioned, researched, discussed, argued about. Only after a thing as withstood the entire process of scientific inquiry should it be accepted as true.

 

Well, not everything is scientific. Morals, religious views all cannot be scientifically examined. Just logically and within reason, which is open to a lot of interpretation. There's many topics that can be discussed that can't be scientifically measured. And there's also a lot of arguments that cannot be proven, disproven, or aren't so binary as right or wrong.

 

It should be a matter of if an argument is reational and/or reasonable. Does it have valid logic behind it? And if two opposing views are both reasonable, and valid then the discussion should shift from "right or wrong" to "what's the compromise". I think a lot of people enter discussions expecting to find a right or wrong view, but it's very often the case that there is no such thing. There's just different ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, not everything is scientific. Morals, religious views all cannot be scientifically examined. Just logically and within reason, which is open to a lot of interpretation. There's many topics that can be discussed that can't be scientifically measured. And there's also a lot of arguments that cannot be proven, disproven, or aren't so binary as right or wrong.

 

It should be a matter of if an argument is reational and/or reasonable. Does it have valid logic behind it? And if two opposing views are both reasonable, and valid then the discussion should shift from "right or wrong" to "what's the compromise". I think a lot of people enter discussions expecting to find a right or wrong view, but it's very often the case that there is no such thing. There's just different ones.

I dont think Floating meant he wants to apply the scientific method, or tries to apply to everything.  He is simply stating that sometimes, opinions are given as fact, and should be corrected. Also, sometimes people simply hear something, dont question it, but then pass it off as factual - all the while it was wrong - and it is for the betterment of that person and future persons to have the correct info - the "correct info" is not always done through the steps of the scientific method.. at least thats what I think he was saying - I cant reliably test my hypothesis without further information..  :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think Floating meant he wants to apply the scientific method, or tries to apply to everything.  He is simply stating that sometimes, opinions are given as fact, and should be corrected. Also, sometimes people simply hear something, dont question it, but then pass it off as factual - all the while it was wrong - and it is for the betterment of that person and future persons to have the correct info - the "correct info" is not always done through the steps of the scientific method.. at least thats what I think he was saying - I cant reliably test my hypothesis without further information..  :D

 

Essentially, T3x4s is correct in his hypothesis.  Of course not everything is testable but many things are, and when a positive assertion is made of something it should be subjected to analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially, T3x4s is correct in his hypothesis.  Of course not everything is testable but many things are, and when a positive assertion is made of something it should be subjected to analysis.

I think part of the reason why we have to keep learning the same things "over and over" is because there is a loss of "generational memory". Everyone always has to start at the "first grade", as it were, so just about the time we gain a lot of knowledge and wisdom, we die. 

 

If we think about a child starting first grade, they will learn a tremendous amount in 12 short years. Assuming they applied themselves to their studies I would not even try to quantify the difference in knowledge between a first grader and a high school graduate.

But because they have learned so much in such a short amount of time, it often seems to them that they know more than they actually do. A 40 year old, who once thought the same thing, could tell the graduate that he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does but the graduate would likely ignore it. The graduate would usually say something like "he doesn't know what he's talking about". In other word, the graduate will have to go through the same process that the 40 year old did to realize it. 

 

This is the same thing that happens generationally. Each generation seems to have to learn some of the same type lessons over and over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Christianity is a TERRIBLE moral guide. It advocates sexism, homophobia, murder, violence and slavery. It is one of the reasons there is so much intolerance in the world,...

Therefore these two people are immoral according to atheists on this forum.

According to many of you, Christians are no different than ISIS.

Many of you voted for the first Christian and will vote for the second.

To you, Christians are mouth breathers and knuckle draggers and also according to your liberal heroes Bill Maher and Jon Stewart.

According to you they are delusional and believe in fairy tales.

... and the majority of atheists here will vote Clinton.  Hypocrites.

 

 

Barack Obama - Christian against gay marriage.

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton - Christian against gay marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So?

 

This doesn't address what I said. Take responsibility for your own tone.

 

 

The obvious? Look, I already know where you're coming from. Attack and pigeonhole people into a corner. You may as well knock it off.

 

To answer your question - No, a simple yes or no does not suffice, although anything more than that might require you to confront your own issues with pre- conceived notions.

 

I believe homosexuality is a sinful life style. I do not support gay rights or marriage. Neither do I actively work or speak against them. Gays are simply people who have put up with their share of discrimination. Some of them are great folks, and some are flaming idiots. They are people and I treat them as such. No special passes because of their sexual preference and no denigration because of their sexual preference.

 

If you can't process that, then you aren't as sharp or complex as you think you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore these two people are immoral according to atheists on this forum.

According to many of you, Christians are no different than ISIS.

Many of you voted for the first Christian and will vote for the second.

To you, Christians are mouth breathers and knuckle draggers and also according to your liberal heroes Bill Maher and Jon Stewart.

According to you they are delusional and believe in fairy tales.

... and the majority of atheists here will vote Clinton.  Hypocrites.

 

 

Barack Obama - Christian against gay marriage.

youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton - Christian against gay marriage.

youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9

 

 

 

That would be lumping all Christians into one basket and it's my opinion most of us don't think like that. Any Christians that are on what could be argued same level as ISIS is an extreme minority, maybe 1% of 1% of Christians. Hell I wouldn't even say Westboro Baptist fall into that category. Generalizing doesn't add any value to your argument, it takes away from it. 

 

And yes, Id still vote for a Christian, Catholic or any other religious presidential candidate that share my political views. It's not that they are religious, as long as they understand that religion shouldn't determine how they run the office. 

 

I also don't view Maher or Stewart as liberal heroes, they are just people who happen to share like minded views and have a voice that others don't have. Sort of like Hannity, Rush and others who share the Right's views. It's really no different. 

 

Yes many atheists do think it's delusional for believing in fairy tales. That's no more out of place then religious people thinking hell is real, the magical story of Jesus and anything else you believe. You believe what you believe and we believe what we believe. Shocking how that works. 

 

If Clinton gets the nomination, Ill prob end up voting for her. There is nothing hypocritical about it, when it comes to the POTUS, people tend to vote along with their political view. Again another shocking realization on how the world works. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not support gay rights or marriage.

 

My responses are my objection to your beliefs. This is an open forum to do such that. I am not sure why you do not think I should not be able to do that. Not surprisingly, you hate to be challenged on your beliefs, but too bad.

 

 

so if you ever decide to drop the "my diaper is full and I'm angry" crap and chat, let me know.

 

My responses are my objection lead with examples that counter/clarify a position relative to your beliefs.

 

Attack and pigeonhole people into a corner.

 

This, by far,  is the most common reply when talking to a theist about their beliefs. If logical and critical thinking that counter illogical rationalizations is attacking, then yes, I guess I am attacking. 

 

 

I believe homosexuality is a sinful life style. I do not support gay rights or marriage. Neither do I actively work or speak against them.

 

You are supporting a belief system that actively does, even if you are not a "foot soldier" the support is still there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what is sad?

 

That it is 2015 and we are even having this discussion. I am sure Europeans and Australians are thinking oh this user must be an American which doubly hurts for those of us who want to be viewed as modern.

 

No I am not intending to break the rules here to promote racism, but outside of the US no one thinks this way or is this backward except for some countries in the middle east. 

 

To me it only reconfirms brainwashing.

 

No one in 2015 in the rest of the world thinks this way and calls a person a lifestyle. I can say the female lifestyle is devistating too. Look most like men and it promotes weakness. Again this is not to promote sexism either but to make a point a person is not a lifestyle nor assuming what people do in the bedroom is who they are. Says the anti gays who probably have no problem using the backdoor privately with their wives then go on and say how harmful and gross it is.

 

I suppose 50 years ago in 1965 this discussion would be about interacial marriage and rights for minorities ... again only in the US where in Europe people did not blink. Sigh grow up people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what is sad?

 

That it is 2015 and we are even having this discussion. I am sure Europeans and Australians are thinking oh this user must be an American which doubly hurts for those of us who want to be viewed as modern.

 

No I am not intending to break the rules here to promote racism, but outside of the US no one thinks this way or is this backward except for some countries in the middle east. 

 

 

I am reminded that I believe there are 50 countries that make up Europe, and at this time, only 24 of them recognize some type Same Sex Union, be it Marriage, Civil Unions, or Cohabitation laws. 

If that is accurate, that would mean that more of Europe have not recognized them than the US before the SCOUTS decision.

And currently, there is a debate on having members recognize each others same sex marriage and civil unions.

 

Even Europe has this issue. So I see we have brainwashing going on there as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reminded that I believe there are 50 countries that make up Europe, and at this time, only 24 of them recognize some type Same Sex Union, be it Marriage, Civil Unions, or Cohabitation laws. 

If that is accurate, that would mean that more of Europe have not recognized them than the US before the SCOUTS decision.

And currently, there is a debate on having members recognize each others same sex marriage and civil unions.

 

Even Europe has this issue. So I see we have brainwashing going on there as well.

Hardly a fair comparison. The US has been a unified country for nearly quarter of a century, whereas the EU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe homosexuality is a sinful life style. I do not support gay rights or marriage. Neither do I actively work or speak against them. Gays are simply people who have put up with their share of discrimination. Some of them are great folks, and some are flaming idiots. They are people and I treat them as such. No special passes because of their sexual preference and no denigration because of their sexual preference.

Marriage is for legal and financial benefits. It has nothing to do with religion. If a pastor doesn't want to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple, then that's up to him. Most gay couples don't even care and just want the legal benefits of marriage such as taxes, insurance, etc. Saying you don't support gay rights is like saying you don't support women rights, or minority rights, or things like interracial marriages, etc. Also, ever hear about the constitution? The first amendment describes separation of church and state. Just because your religion says being gay is a sin and you don't support gay "marriage", and i'm quoting marriage as the legal and religious meanings are completely different, doesn't mean your religious rights have been violated and your religious views should not be forced upon everyone else. Everyone should be afforded legal equality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are still countries in Europe, even in the UK, that have not achieved marriage equality and that is shameful - it's embarrassing how repressive and intolerant Northern Ireland is, unsurprisingly because of religion. Even the rest of the UK was very late to the game, with countries like the Netherlands, South Africa, Canada and Argentina being much more progressive.

 

Uh, yes we have.  Yes we were late to the game, but it HAS been fixed as of a few years ago, we have full marriage equality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, yes we have.  Yes we were late to the game, but it HAS been fixed as of a few years ago, we have full marriage equality.

No, you are wrong. Northern Ireland is part of the UK and has NOT legalised same-sex marriage. Marriages from other parts of the UK are treated as civil partnerships, not marriages.

 

The UK still does not have marriage equality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a sad state of affairs that in 2015 America we have a religion that is still trying to force people to live by its code, even though it has been said time and time again that we are not and never have been a Christian Nation.

 

I don't know how many time I keep hearing and seeing this.  

 

Anytime you force people to follow religious beliefs in America, you are wrong.

 

While your religion does not allow or accept SSM, that does NOT give you the right to force an entire country to follow your religion.

 

America is not a Theocracy - for those of you who do not know what that term means, it is a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

 

If you use religious arguments for the purpose of imposing laws, you are going against many areas of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

I've seen several Neowin posters in this thread and several others drum up religion as a reason to oppose SSM.  While I'm glad you have a religion that brings your comfort and salvation, that does not give you the right to impose your will upon everyone.  

 

Being honest, every religious argument against SSM makes me want to beat people over the head with a sledgehammer.  

 

I keep hearing time and time again that allowing SSM in America is a forcing of the "gay agenda" down people's throats -- which in all honesty is far from the truth.  You see, by using religious arguments and spouting superstition in the face of law, it is the "christians" that are shoving their superstitious nonsense down the throats of Americans.

 

Every time you spout how America is a "christian nation" and that we have to live by "the bible" you make a mockery of our Constitution and our Freedom.

 

 

T

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time you spout how America is a "christian nation" and that we have to live by "the bible" you make a mockery of our Constitution and our Freedom.

 

 

In 1954 President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge.

 

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

 

So, while originally it was not planned like that, it absolutely have being like that for last 60 years.

 

In God we trust is written on every 1 dollar bill, no? What God do you think they are referring to?  Vishnu? Maybe Thor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep hearing time and time again that allowing SSM in America is a forcing of the "gay agenda" down people's throats -- which in all honesty is far from the truth.  You see, by using religious arguments and spouting superstition in the face of law, it is the "christians" that are shoving their superstitious nonsense down the throats of Americans.

 

Both sides are guilty of it, the supreme court decision was on a case that wasn't really about same sex marriage at all (imo a scapegoat to push the agenda onto the remaining states). What qualifies as "imposing"? Both parties are guilty of pushing their ideals on others, so don't treat them unfairly. The SCOTUS ruling has put a lot of the religious community on edge in a way they weren't expecting nor should they be necessarily okay with. As far as I'm concerned, we should have left it to legislation and voting. There'd be a lot less controversy over something the majority decided, rather than something decided by a small group. Ireland should serve as an example here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you use religious arguments for the purpose of imposing laws, you are going against many areas of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

And if you legislate from the bench, establishing new laws out of thin air purely through mandate, thereby stripping states of their rights, then you are going against many areas of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

Last time I checked, anything not specifically listed in the Constitution or its Amendments is supposed to be handled by the States and given credit by Full Faith and Credit. Don't hear me wrong, I'm not saying that there are grounds to fight back against SSM, but that should have been done through the Full Faith and Credit clause, with respect to the rights of the States.

 

I'm just waiting now for the first openly LGBT person who applies for a job at a religiously affiliated institution file a discrimination lawsuit when they don't get hired. Poop, meet fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.