Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

[mudslag]

 

 

Source?  In what context? 

 

 

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

[shockz]

W Why marry if you don't plan on reproducing?

I can think of all sorts of reasons... To validate your love. You're more likely to stay in rough times. You feel and act like a team. You're grounded, settled down. It shows how important your partner is. The practical benefits... taxes. re: deathbed stuff,

[DConnell Member]

Nothing about this ruling stops you from doing that.

 

So far - unless someone tries to force a Catholic priest to marry a gay couple. Although considering the Catholic doctrine on it is well-known, that would be a deliberate attack. Hopefully it won't come to that.

[TPreston]

So far - unless someone tries to force a Catholic priest to marry a gay couple. Although considering the Catholic doctrine on it is well-known, that would be a deliberate attack. Hopefully it won't come to that.

Of course it sodding wont that's just silly and would actually violate the first amendment.

[HawkMan]

So far - unless someone tries to force a Catholic priest to marry a gay couple. Although considering the Catholic doctrine on it is well-known, that would be a deliberate attack. Hopefully it won't come to that.

 

Except, as has been stated like a hundred times in this thread, religions are actually allowed to discriminate. 

[Taliseian]

That's the rub, isn't it.

 

In America, it's perfect ok to call foul because your "god" says something wrong...

 

Oh snap, no it isn't.  

 

You have zero rights to discriminate or take away the rights of citizens because of religion.

 

The moment you bring any religious argument into politics or law....you lose.

 

Freedom of Religion does not allow you nor the government to force anyone to follow any religious law.  Several of the state level bans on SSM were written from a religious standpoint and would of failed in time regardless.

 

Also, in order for any marriage to be legally recognized you must get a licence by a governmental body.  By interjecting a religious law or test into that process, there is a tacit approval of the government that there is a specific religion that the government follows.

 

 

T

[Dashel]

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Still reading through but most seem to position the right as not the contract but the assumed relations (and consummation) therein.

 

"In this light, marriage is more than a contract. It is not a mere matter of pecuniary consideration. It is a great public institution, giving character to our whole civil polity"

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.  The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects."

"The right to marry, establish a home and bring up children

[BinaryData]

I think you have it backwards. As someone who is not a Christian, I don't like when Christians try to inject their into beliefs government. Thats where the separation is supposed to come from. Christian politicians can say all they want about their religion being attacked, but in my opinion its partly their fault. You can only force your beliefs onto others so much before those others that don't want it fight back. I am happy to acknowledge others beliefs and love learning about others religions. This country was founded on equality for all not equality for all if you abide by the bible 

I don't agree with how most Christians act these days. Founded on equality? Yes, but it was founded based upon Christian beliefs.

If they start forcing Pastors, Priests, Monks (If we have any, lol), to marry gays, I'll put my shovel down, and pick my pitch fork up, and start the witch hunt.

[TMYW]

Well, since he doesn't conform to your requirement, and based on what you've said in here based on the context of the sentence. You are saying he is currently a "pouting, petulant child". That my friend, is an ad hominem attack. Not to mention you're threatening him by saying, "conform or be thus branded as [ad hominem]". An ultimatum isn't an argument. In fact, it's a fallacy. Just like your ad hominem.

 

"Threatened him"? LMAO! You're really reaching there, buddy.

 

Look, your assertion is that he doesn't have to "modernize" his definition of "marriage" if he doesn't want to.

 

My assertions are:

1. Words are defined by convention.

2. The new definition of "marriage" has already been dictated by convention.

3: Denying that definition of words change over time is ignoring the facts and being unreasonable.

4. Believing that one can change the modern definition of a word by saying that the old definition is the only definition or the "right definition" is an exercise in futility.

5: Being unreasonable about something one has no control over is behavior similar to that of a pouting, petulant children are unreasonable.

6. Appearing like a pouting, petulant child isn't going to convince anybody that one's definition of marriage ought to be the one accepted by convention.

 

Conclusion:

Abandon the "definition of marriage" claim in your case to argument same-sex marriage OR continue using the "definition of marriage" as the basis for your argument at the risk of looking like a pouting, petulant child and lose the argument by default. IOW, the definition of marriage has already been settled, and using that as an argument against same-sex marriage isn't even an argument any more.

 

I'm saying that his argument is weak for many reasons and continuing his tack would only make him looking like a pouting, petulant child.

 

This is not an ad hominem fallacy. It's getting more into the area of "meta-argument", just as you yourself did by saying my argument is weak because I allegedly used an ad hominem.

 

If I were using an ad hominem, I'd be saying his argument is weak BECAUSE he appears to be a pouting, petulant child, and I clearly didn't do that.

[TMYW]

I'm really not.  I quite understand and am sympathetic to your position, particularly on the latter.  My primary secular concern is still why you should get a tax breaks, Social Security, and other financial privileges of marriage that we provide primarily for the potential creation of new families. 

 

What if we instead make marriage 'perks' only given to those with children?  Is that discrimination too?  (Just playing devil's advocate)

 

The method by which one "creates a family" is irrelevant. Gay couples can "create a new family" by adopting children or through in vitro fertilization.

 

As for your second to last question, there already are "perks" for those with children. They're called "TAX EXEMPTIONS".

[TPreston]

I don't agree with how most Christians act these days. Founded on equality? Yes, but it was founded based upon Christian beliefs.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp#art11

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects."

And yet procreation isn't a requirement

[BinaryData]

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp#art11

And yet procreation isn't a requirement

Yeah, I don't believe that. But honestly, I don't give a flying crap anymore. People keep asking me when I'll have kids, my answer is simple: When we remove all the warning labels, and go back to natural selection. I'd rather my kids not be raised in an idiotic world that promotes garbage. I haven't had cable since I was 11 years old, I'm thankful as hell too. 

[Dashel]

And yet procreation isn't a requirement

 

No, but the capacity for it has been, even of the 'sterile'.  And by the time you redefine the terminology so, it no longer fits any prior precedent.

[TMYW]

Why marry if you don't plan on reproducing?

Why not? And why should it matter to you?

[TPreston]

Yeah, I don't believe that.

So you make a claim, I provide you a treaty which explicitly states that claim is false signed by the president of the united states at the time which recived ratification unanimously from the senate and your response is "Yeah, I don't believe that"

That is quite literally denial of reality.

No, but the capacity for it has been, even of the 'sterile'. And by the time you redefine the terminology so, it no longer fits any prior precedent.

Sure and gay people have precisely the same chance as sterile people so there's no problem

[Dashel]

Sure and gay people have precisely the same chance as sterile people so there's no problem

That isn't accurate.  Even sterilized individuals (unless we are talking eunuchs - which historically couldn't marry either) retain a statistical chance that does not exist for same gendered.  I would accept that the chance of them 'cheating' with an unlike gender does even the odds though.

[TPreston]

That isn't accurate.  Even sterilized individuals retain a statistical chance that does not exist same gendered ones.

Really? Explain to me how this works complete with wedding pics

http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/rosesiggins.html

Where babby come from ?

 

This isn't the only  case with nil chance of reproduction that invalidates your above claim too.

 

Oh but we should just ignore these cases because blah blah blah...

[Gone]

they can deny any job they want, but not for discriminatory reasons

It is for RELIGIOUS REASONS NOT DISCRIMINATION!!!! SOMETHING YOU MUST NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!

[Dashel]

Really? Explain to me how this works complete with wedding pics

http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/rosesiggins.html

Where babby come from ?

 

This isn't the only  case with nil chance of reproduction that invalidates your above claim too.

 

Oh but we should just ignore these cases because blah blah blah...

I don't follow, it states that her female organs were intact...and she inserted the complementary genitals to produce that result.

 

TMYW, its not just homosexuals.  I level that charge against everyone in the modern movements that seek to redefine marriage with no reproductive or familial component.  Is it then also discrimination to regulate DNA to a degree?  If not, then there are going to be a lot of happy folk in the Appalachia's.

[TPreston]

It is for RELIGIOUS REASONS NOT DISCRIMINATION!!!! SOMETHING YOU MUST NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!

You don't understand that religion is not an excuse you can excuse you can use to refuse service to someone in a business because of their religion, race, gender, sex, orientation etc etc

[Gone]

You don't understand that religion is not an excuse you can excuse you can use to refuse service to someone in a business because of their religion, race, gender, sex, orientation etc etc

If you own a business you can refuse service to anyone on ground guaranteed through the constitution.  (religious freedom)

[HawkMan]

It is for RELIGIOUS REASONS NOT DISCRIMINATION!!!! SOMETHING YOU MUST NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!

 

without the yelling I'll explain it to you calmly. 

 

they are a business, not a church, they do not have protection from discrimination like churches do. 

 

you can't use religion to cover discrimination in a business like you can in religious ceremony.

If you own a business you can refuse service to anyone on ground guaranteed through the constitution.

 

no you can't. not if the reason is discriminatory. and no being a religious bigot does not allow you to deny service to blacks, gays, muslims, disabled people or any other discriminatory reason. 

 

You can say "leave my store because I don't like you", but not "leave my store because you're black"

[T3X4S]

.. I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the fact that Christianity is the following of the New Testament and doing away with the law of Moses. ....

So, you get to throw away 1/2 of your sacred book because it is outdated ?

How convenient 

[mudslag]

Still reading through but most seem to position the right as not the contract but the assumed relations (and consummation) therein.

 

"In this light, marriage is more than a contract. It is not a mere matter of pecuniary consideration. It is a great public institution, giving character to our whole civil polity"

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.  The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects."

"The right to marry, establish a home and bring up children

[+LightEco Subscriber²]

"Across the country, some conservatives called for