Louisiana now an Offical Gay Hating State - Approve Same-Sex Marriage Ban 9-18-04

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: yELLOthar
I WOULD vote for Bush because:

a. He is a christian
b. I agree with most of his ideas/points/views (w/e you want to call them)
c. I don't get why you people keep saying about the Iraq soldier crap. I know people in the Army that are in Iraq. Apparently, his troop, and most of the others he has met up with, LIKE BUSH. Oh wow, the SLODIERS, the one's who are dying out there, LIKE BUSH, while you people who sit here safely, and comfortably hate on him for sending soldiers to Iraq.
d. (well, continuation from c)
Yes, I know it was Osama that did 9/11, blah blah blah. We can't pull our troops out pal. When we do, they will see us as weak. If they see us as just letting them come kill us, they will just come kill us. I will probably be in the Army, I'm not sure yet.
e. I don't feel like arguing about this anymore. I have stated why I am against gay marriage, I'm not here to talk about Bush.

I'm done here people, I am sick of arguing on the internet. It feels like a waste of time to me, and after reviewing everything that has happend, or has come from it, there is no reason to continue. IDC if you think I'm "running", I'm out. Adios, and

God bless you all, even if you don't believe in him...

Wow...what a moron...he goes on his generic Bush rant...doesnt read the thread, doesn't read the comments on his posts. Totally ignorant to everything around him.

Have a nice life buddy...

Just take this with you...If you vote incumbant on social views...look at what the incumbant has implemented...If he has done nothing for your beliefs, does he really represent you?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: yELLOthar
I don't think gay people should be married because it's:

1. Against my religion (main reason, I am christian, if you don't like it, I don't care...)

Not a big fan of separation of church and state then, I take it. Who cares about the Constitution anyway?
Your religion does not belong in other people's houses. It belongs in yours.

2. You are not "born gay"...

You know this because?

3. It disgusts me, greatly
4. I find it morrally wrong, not only religously, but just because I find it wrong

These are most likely just the result of your upbringing and environment. Here's hoping you manage to open your mind and be tolerant before you reach voting age. Remember, love the sinner, hate the sin.

Reasons to support gay marriage?
Well, it doesn't affect me if two guys or two girls want to get married. It doesn't affect you either.
NOT allowing it is discriminatory. No different than not allowing blacks and whites to marry.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well you, my friend, have a lot in common with CycloWizard only he's too chickensh!t to just come out and admit it. I wonder though, do you have a rational reason for denying gays the same status in our society as the rest of us? Or do you only have your religion? Or is it just a feeling?

You can beat the strawman til the cows come home, but until you can provide a counterpoint to my point, then you're just beating around the bush. 16 pages of this thread and you've yet to make a comment actually regarding why homosexual marriage should be supported by the government.

I've given plenty of reasons why -- but the only one you need to know is that the U.S. Constitution requires equal protection under the law for ALL PEOPLE. Got that? Which trumps your "well, I defer to my church because they don't like gays either" response. Or your equally lame response that gay marriages don't produce new taxpayers. Pffft, oh yeah there's some critical thinking for you.

I believe we've articulated it pretty well in this thread already (scroll up and read)

Yes, 'anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is a bigot.' That's your articulation. Give me something based on logic, as I have done. I'm the one supposedly blinded by religion, yet I'm the one who is supplying reasoning based on logic rather than yelling louder than my opposition.

Wrong again! Don't you learn anything? BEING a bigot is what gets you labeled a bigot. Reading comprehension. Learn it. Live it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Here's a t-shirt that you supporters of gay marriage will appreciate.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Stunt
I have a different view...but...please inform me what Bush has done with regards to abortion that has stopped this?...does he plan anything?...or is he fooling Christians into voting for him?....

He has done nothing for your cause in 4 years...why ask for another 4 years of passiveness?
Abortion is here to stay...even your own candidate won't touch it...

As I've stated time and again, the only way the president influences abortion legality is by appointing USSC justices. Short of assassinating them, there's nothing he could do. The next four years, however, are a different story, as at least one will retire.

Wow...that is almost nutty. Vote on religeous priniciples for potential one judge of 9 where potentially abortion could be kicked out?

Do you know how many years away that is...by that time you will be dealing with a nasty mob...all first world nations have adopted abortions, with the decline of religion in the US this trend will continue.

It is a lost cause.

Why waste your vote and make consessions on all the other social aspects of the country for this one lost cause. I'm sure God will praise you for your tax cut

Why make so many consessions outlined in the bible with respect to helping/donating to others, being a good person...for a judge...how abstract.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Stunt
I have a different view...but...please inform me what Bush has done with regards to abortion that has stopped this?...does he plan anything?...or is he fooling Christians into voting for him?....

He has done nothing for your cause in 4 years...why ask for another 4 years of passiveness?
Abortion is here to stay...even your own candidate won't touch it...

As I've stated time and again, the only way the president influences abortion legality is by appointing USSC justices. Short of assassinating them, there's nothing he could do. The next four years, however, are a different story, as at least one will retire.

Well, like Pat Robertson, you can always pray for one of the justices to die:

"One justice is 83-years-old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?"

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
I see Germany is in dire need of a "No Child Left Behind" act to improve educational standards.

At least we can read, which is more than you can.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Stunt
I have a different view...but...please inform me what Bush has done with regards to abortion that has stopped this?...does he plan anything?...or is he fooling Christians into voting for him?....

He has done nothing for your cause in 4 years...why ask for another 4 years of passiveness?
Abortion is here to stay...even your own candidate won't touch it...

As I've stated time and again, the only way the president influences abortion legality is by appointing USSC justices. Short of assassinating them, there's nothing he could do. The next four years, however, are a different story, as at least one will retire.

they could push for an amendment

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: yELLOthar
I don't think gay people should be married because it's:

1. Against my religion (main reason, I am christian, if you don't like it, I don't care...)
2. You are not "born gay"...

Since sexual orientation is a decision, have you decided on what your sexual orientation is? What was your decision, if you don't mind me asking, and why did you make that choice?

4. I find it morrally wrong, not only religously, but just because I find it wrong

Why?

I find that to be incredibly stupid. The Bible is talking about MANKIND in general.

You're right to emphasize mankind, as the Torah (the OT as you Christians call it) focuses strongly on rules for men. Women are rarely worth considering in the OT.

Of course, all of the mitzvoh (commandments) are equal, all 613 of them, so be sure that you also don't wear clothes of two fabrics (no cotton-nylon blends), avoid eating shellfish, and following many, many other rules.

 

[Cyborg Munky]

I believe gays should be able to get married if they choose. They don't bother me with their sexual preferences as long as they don't try any advances on me. Then again, I'm all for gay marriages because my Uncle happens to be gay, and lives in Oregon and was one of those who got married.

Oh, and to make it perfectly clear, I don't care if people are against gay marriages. They have the right to be against it, just like I have the right to be for it. I'm for it because of my family. Even if someone in my family wasn't gay, I'd still be for it.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: yELLOthar
I don't think gay people should be married because it's:

1. Against my religion (main reason, I am christian, if you don't like it, I don't care...)
2. You are not "born gay"...

Since sexual orientation is a decision, have you decided on what your sexual orientation is? What was your decision, if you don't mind me asking, and why did you make that choice?

4. I find it morrally wrong, not only religously, but just because I find it wrong

Why?

I find that to be incredibly stupid. The Bible is talking about MANKIND in general.

You're right to emphasize mankind, as the Torah (the OT as you Christians call it) focuses strongly on rules for men. Women are rarely worth considering in the OT.

Of course, all of the mitzvoh (commandments) are equal, all 613 of them, so be sure that you also don't wear clothes of two fabrics (no cotton-nylon blends), avoid eating shellfish, and following many, many other rules.

Such as, if your wife ever menstruates you can not be near her, not touch anything she touches, she is unclean.

It is stupid and those who pretend to follow it do so by interpreting it their way and yell at others that interpret it their way.

I have my own faith, it goes for nobody else than me, i will NOT tell anyone else how to live their life.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Cyborg Munky
I believe gays should be able to get married if they choose. They don't bother me with their sexual preferences as long as they don't try any advances on me. Then again, I'm all for gay marriages because my Uncle happens to be gay, and lives in Oregon and was one of those who got married.

Oh, and to make it perfectly clear, I don't care if people are against gay marriages. They have the right to be against it, just like I have the right to be for it. I'm for it because of my family. Even if someone in my family wasn't gay, I'd still be for it.

No, it is anti choice vs pro choice, nobody in the pro choice group wants to force anyone to marry anyone but the anti-choice group wants to forbid them to marry their lover.

It works the same in all pro-choice anti-choice issues, one wants people to have a choice, the other group wants them to do as they say.

Ridiculous, that we are even having this conversation in the 21 century.

 

[ijester]

I personally find the idea of homosexuality repugnant FOR ME. But I also have gay friends and their beliefs are their own. So co-existence of different belief systems is quite possible.

I believe that our constitution was meant to guarantee the freedom to 'practice' your own religious/sexual/personal ideals without persecution from the government, not necessarily to guarantee that you could make everyone else recognize that your form of beliefs is valid. It is a subtle point, but valid for me, nonetheless.

Democracy does mean rule by majority opinion. So getting mad at other people, flaming, sarcasm, etc. is pretty much a worthless way to try and change the rules. The only valid way in a true democracy to make anything different is by being capable of changing peoples beliefs - eg: supplying compelling and convincing arguments that the majority of people would agree with.

So for myself, like it or not, I will accept it. What is the alternative? Rule by minority? Anarchy? Try to please everyone all the time? Those do not seem like welcome alternatives.

Signed:

A christian that does not believe in religion.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: ijester

I personally find the idea of homosexuality repugnant FOR ME. But I also have gay friends and their beliefs are their own. So co-existence of different belief systems is quite possible.

I believe that our constitution was meant to guarantee the freedom to 'practice' your own religious/sexual/personal ideals without persecution from the government, not necessarily to guarantee that you could make everyone else recognize that your form of beliefs is valid. It is a subtle point, but valid for me, nonetheless.

Democracy does mean rule by majority opinion. So getting mad at other people, flaming, sarcasm, etc. is pretty much a worthless way to try and change the rules. The only valid way in a true democracy to make anything different is by being capable of changing peoples beliefs - eg: supplying compelling and convincing arguments that the majority of people would agree with.

So for myself, like it or not, I will accept it. What is the alternative? Rule by minority? Anarchy? Try to please everyone all the time? Those do not seem like welcome alternatives.

Signed:

A christian that does not believe in religion.

Democracy does not mean mob rule, discrimination is just discrimination even if 99.9% of all people are for it and should be prevented, i am surprised that not more people see that, this discussion is not far away from the interracial marriage discussion not so long ago.

The alternative is a country with democracy and without discrimination based on race, gender, sexual preference or religion, does that really sound so horrible to you?

Signed:

A Jew that does not believe in religion.

 

[ijester]

Well.

The reality of the situation is that morals and ethics do tend to flow historically based on what the majority of people believe at that time. And confusing majority rule with mob rule is really simpleminded thinking at best.

Should we force private companies to pay benefits to a gay couple if the owner is strongly against homosexuality? Isn't that then discriminating against that person? In essence you are then forcing them to support gay rights and maybe they don't want to.

And the worse discrimination I ever faced was when I tried to date a Jewish girl in college. Her parents could not stand the idea and essentially ended our relationship.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Here's a t-shirt that you supporters of gay marriage will appreciate.

Hahaha, that is great.

 

[oslama]

Louisiana is a great state, atleast they did not elect that religious traitor Bobby Jindal to office

this gay ban is not so kosher.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Wow...that is almost nutty. Vote on religeous priniciples for potential one judge of 9 where potentially abortion could be kicked out?

Do you know how many years away that is...by that time you will be dealing with a nasty mob...all first world nations have adopted abortions, with the decline of religion in the US this trend will continue.

It is a lost cause.

Why waste your vote and make consessions on all the other social aspects of the country for this one lost cause. I'm sure God will praise you for your tax cut

Why make so many consessions outlined in the bible with respect to helping/donating to others, being a good person...for a judge...how abstract.

If judicial activism resulted in 1.33 million capital punishments every year, would you consider it a major issue if a USSC justice appointment could do away with it? You probably already do, and it's only 60 per year nationwide. My bad for having convictions.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
they could push for an amendment

They could, but there isn't sufficient backing for an amendment on any issue given the polarization of society.

Originally posted by: ijester
I believe that our constitution was meant to guarantee the freedom to 'practice' your own religious/sexual/personal ideals without persecution from the government, not necessarily to guarantee that you could make everyone else recognize that your form of beliefs is valid. It is a subtle point, but valid for me, nonetheless.

Should we force private companies to pay benefits to a gay couple if the owner is strongly against homosexuality? Isn't that then discriminating against that person? In essence you are then forcing them to support gay rights and maybe they don't want to.

:thumbsup:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
...

Originally posted by: ijester
I believe that our constitution was meant to guarantee the freedom to 'practice' your own religious/sexual/personal ideals without persecution from the government, not necessarily to guarantee that you could make everyone else recognize that your form of beliefs is valid. It is a subtle point, but valid for me, nonetheless.

Should we force private companies to pay benefits to a gay couple if the owner is strongly against homosexuality? Isn't that then discriminating against that person? In essence you are then forcing them to support gay rights and maybe they don't want to.

:thumbsup:

Interesting points, actually.

Regarding the first paragraph, I think a valid point is being missed. You are correct, there is nothing in the constitution that requires everyone else to recognize your beliefs as valid...HOWEVER, if the government is going to accept one set of religious/sexual/personal ideals as deserving of certain benefits, it needs to do so for all religious/sexual/personal ideals that don't interefere with the rights of others. Otherwise the government is supporting a specific set of personal choices over other sets of personal choices, and I can't imagine that's what the founding fathers had in mind. To use an analogy, it's like the government recognizing Christianity as an official religion that doesn't have to pay taxes, and deserves special legal protection without extending those same benefits to Buddhism simply because Buddhism isn't very popular.

As for the second paragraph, it's not discrimination to prevent someone from acting on a personal belief in a way that interferes with the rights and freedoms of other people. Private companies are regulated by many laws, the owner isn't allowed to do whatever the hell he wants simply because it fits with his beliefs. Maybe I don't like women, but does that mean I should legally be allowed to pay them less?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Interesting points, actually.

Regarding the first paragraph, I think a valid point is being missed. You are correct, there is nothing in the constitution that requires everyone else to recognize your beliefs as valid...HOWEVER, if the government is going to accept one set of religious/sexual/personal ideals as deserving of certain benefits, it needs to do so for all religious/sexual/personal ideals that don't interefere with the rights of others. Otherwise the government is supporting a specific set of personal choices over other sets of personal choices, and I can't imagine that's what the founding fathers had in mind. To use an analogy, it's like the government recognizing Christianity as an official religion that doesn't have to pay taxes, and deserves special legal protection without extending those same benefits to Buddhism simply because Buddhism isn't very popular.

The government is required to give equal protection under the law to all groups, not to actively support all groups. Homosexuals are protected under law. Further, the government must choose which beliefs to allow - that's what they do. Otherwise we would have anarchy. For example, if they were forced to allow all sexual 'beliefs,' then incest, bestiality, and worse things must be legal.

As for the second paragraph, it's not discrimination to prevent someone from acting on a personal belief in a way that interferes with the rights and freedoms of other people. Private companies are regulated by many laws, the owner isn't allowed to do whatever the hell he wants simply because it fits with his beliefs. Maybe I don't like women, but does that mean I should legally be allowed to pay them less?

This argument runs counter to your first. As you say here, the government regulates things based on what the majority of society deems allowable - whether it be private companies or homosexual marriage.

 

[Moonbeam]

People like yELLOthar are immensely instructive. In their unsophisticated purity we see the real truth about so many so called sophisticated thinkers. Rationalization is the elaborate intellectual adornment of our first primitive grunts. Is it any wonder we don't see ourselves.

 

[GMElias]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Marriage is a religious institution and therefore the Government should stay out of the issue...

actually, not entirely. It is a legal issue as well. In addition, married couples get tax benefits and other governmental benefits. Therefore, it should be a governmental issue as well. That doesn't mean we need ridiculous close-minded neocons making rules

-Elias

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: oslama
Louisiana is a great state, atleast they did not elect that religious traitor Bobby Jindal to office

this gay ban is not so kosher.

Jindal is now going for either Senator or Congress in Washington DC now.

Last I saw he was leading in the Polls.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: ijester
Well.

The reality of the situation is that morals and ethics do tend to flow historically based on what the majority of people believe at that time. And confusing majority rule with mob rule is really simpleminded thinking at best.

Should we force private companies to pay benefits to a gay couple if the owner is strongly against homosexuality? Isn't that then discriminating against that person? In essence you are then forcing them to support gay rights and maybe they don't want to.

And the worse discrimination I ever faced was when I tried to date a Jewish girl in college. Her parents could not stand the idea and essentially ended our relationship.

Should companies be forced to pay benefits to an interracial married couple if the owner is a proud member of the KKK?

Isn't that discriminating against that person?

See how that works?

The answer is of course, no, in both cases.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
...

Originally posted by: ijester
I believe that our constitution was meant to guarantee the freedom to 'practice' your own religious/sexual/personal ideals without persecution from the government, not necessarily to guarantee that you could make everyone else recognize that your form of beliefs is valid. It is a subtle point, but valid for me, nonetheless.

Should we force private companies to pay benefits to a gay couple if the owner is strongly against homosexuality? Isn't that then discriminating against that person? In essence you are then forcing them to support gay rights and maybe they don't want to.

:thumbsup:

Interesting points, actually.

Regarding the first paragraph, I think a valid point is being missed. You are correct, there is nothing in the constitution that requires everyone else to recognize your beliefs as valid...HOWEVER, if the government is going to accept one set of religious/sexual/personal ideals as deserving of certain benefits, it needs to do so for all religious/sexual/personal ideals that don't interefere with the rights of others. Otherwise the government is supporting a specific set of personal choices over other sets of personal choices, and I can't imagine that's what the founding fathers had in mind. To use an analogy, it's like the government recognizing Christianity as an official religion that doesn't have to pay taxes, and deserves special legal protection without extending those same benefits to Buddhism simply because Buddhism isn't very popular.

As for the second paragraph, it's not discrimination to prevent someone from acting on a personal belief in a way that interferes with the rights and freedoms of other people. Private companies are regulated by many laws, the owner isn't allowed to do whatever the hell he wants simply because it fits with his beliefs. Maybe I don't like women, but does that mean I should legally be allowed to pay them less?

Excellent post.

Now, what if the store owner was gay.

The variations to show the holes in his reasoning are endless.