Do you support the actions of Kim Davis and think they were right?

[Josie]

I was just kidding around Didn't mean to offend you I'm sorry teach.

You didn't offend me -- just seems like something that might be done elsewhere on this forum. No harm.

 

[Henrin]

2 problems here.
1 diffrerent denominations have different takes on the Bible and not everyone follows the bible for their interpreatation of God.
So no I am still right as it is HER interpreation of God`s intentions.
For it to actually be Gods intentions she would have to prove God (an imposibility) then prove that her interpretation is the correct one (double impossiility).

Come on now, there is six verses in the bible about the subject. Unless you're going to say that the bible only condemns male on male sex then there isn't much of an argument you can make here.

 

[Quag]

Come on now, there is six verses in the bible about the subject. Unless you're going to say that the bible only condemns male on male sex then there isn't much of an argument you can make here.

Not all denominations think it is a sin and not everyone follows the bible.
But if you think you have the definitive interpretation of the bible that is your perogative.

 

[Henrin]

Not all denominations think it is a sin and not everyone follows the bible.
But if you think you have the definitive interpretation of the bible that is your perogative.

We aren't talking about people that don't follow the bible. Again, unless you want to claim that the bible doesn't say homosexuality is not a sin, but only says male on male sex is a sin then you have no argument. I can easily quote the six verses that makes it very clear that male on male sex is a sin from the bible. It would be one thing if the bible said it once and contradicted itself somewhere else, but on this subject it says it over and over again pounding the point home. There is no way you can walk away from reading the bible and not understand that sex relations between men is a sin. You can say you don't believe in it personally, but you can't say the bible agrees with you.

 

[Quag]

We aren't talking about people that don't follow the bible. Again, unless you want to claim that the bible doesn't say homosexuality is not a sin, but only says male on male sex is a sin then you have no argument. I can easily quote the six verses that makes it very clear that male on male sex is a sin from the bible. It would be one thing if the bible said it once and contradicted itself somewhere else, but on this subject it says it over and over again pounding the point home. There is no way you can walk away from reading the bible and not understand that sex relations between men is a sin. You can say you don't believe in it personally, but you can't say the bible agrees with you.

There are Chrisitans that dont think homosexuality is a sin.
You can deny that all you want but it doesnt change the fact.

 

[Cephus]

Not all denominations think it is a sin and not everyone follows the bible.
But if you think you have the definitive interpretation of the bible that is your perogative.

It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what anyone thinks about the Bible, we have a Constitutionally-guaranteed secular government, where the Bible has absolutely no influence.

 

[LaylaWindu]

Nope.

I do think she can request a reasonable accommodation, e.g. allowing someone else in the office to sign off on marriage certificates to which she objects on a religious basis. It's still a bit insulting and humiliating, and unpleasant for everyone, but as long as everyone is following the law and the office is providing the service, everyone's civil rights are maintained.

The problem is that Ms Davis won't be satisfied with that option. She's not merely trying to avoid personally processing the paperwork, she is trying to prevent her entire office from following the law, even trying to insist from a jail cell that her office's processing of the marriage certificates is invalid. (It seems unlikely, that the office has a legal requirement to shut down, and refuse to process any and all paperwork, because the clerk is indisposed.) Her resistance is compounded by her lawyers, who are using her case and martyrdom to try and strike down Obergefell. From what I can gather, the lawyers are not making any real legal case, they're just blasting the SCOTUS decision in their filings.

I don't think this indicates a weaker commitment to religion on her part, rather it indicates that her intransigence is the point. She's not interested in an accommodation or a compromise. She just wants her way, and doesn't want gay people to get married at all.

Well I agree her own words and actions tell us she has not interest in a reasonable accommodation or the rights of others.

 

[betuadollar]

It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what anyone thinks about the Bible, we have a Constitutionally-guaranteed secular government, where the Bible has absolutely no influence.

A government devoid of all belief is a machine. And that's fine, in the interests of equality law should be dispassionate. Who then are the law givers? And are those who create law devoid of all belief, or are they creating law because they believe?

We appoint our representatives to create law right? We empower them to create law that serves our interests. Are not the people then the ultimate arbiters of law?

If the people are the true arbiters of law then what interest does the federal government have in marriage? And why is a supposedly secular body, devoid of all belief, as a supposed machine, so passionately interjecting to not only chill but actually deny the people the right, the power, of the people to determine law?

This a coup, the machine has been commandeered; they have recalled rights formerly negotiated, supplanted by personal belief. Why? Because their belief is not commonly shared by the people. This coup, this usurpation, is wholly un-American.

I'm not overly religious; I'm very casual in belief. Born in America, I consider myself a a Christian by default: all of our ideals, all of the main tenets of belief, were born of a particular religious community and are so intimately intertwined so as to be indiscernible and inseparable. Strip away the religious, strip away the body, the skeletal still remains.

But even as non-religious there is no way I would ever attend a gay wedding. There's no crying baseball; gays can't get married. It's laughable, almost sickeningly humorous; it offends my sensibilities.

There is a way to resolves this: Type the Constitution and all past precedent into a computer and let it dispassionately decide the validity of law. Had we done that we would not have gay marriage; we would not have the ACA; yes, we would have Citizens Untied, albeit with sufficient limitation to ensure the superpac could not occur.

In the future we can further refine this; we will genetically evaluate people for sexual preference and let the computer resolve the issue. Who programs the computer? Who will be the giver of law? Well on our present path it's pretty clear it won't be the people. It amazes me how much faith, how much trust, others place in the benevolence of the totalitarian.

 

[betuadollar]

That could definitely use an edit but the point is, I think the people will always win.

 

[Bodi]

She is a hateful bigot and a disgusting person...

 

[scatt]

It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what anyone thinks about the Bible, we have a Constitutionally-guaranteed secular government, where the Bible has absolutely no influence.

No, she is a democrat statist.

 

[Cephus]

No, she is a democrat statist.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Are you unable to read?

 

[scatt]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Are you unable to read?

You: "Do you support the actions of Kim davis and think they were right?"

Me: No, she is a democrat statist.

As someone said earlier:

Are you unable to read?

 

[Bodi]

You: "Do you support the actions of Kim davis and think they were right?"

Me: No, she is a democrat statist.

As someone said earlier:

So you answered a question completely out of context and then claim the educated high ground? :lol:

 

[scatt]

completely out of context

The title of the thread is not in context with the thread?

 

[Bodi]

The title of the thread is not in context with the thread?

:lol: That is not the context that matters in this case...

 

[Cephus]

You: "Do you support the actions of Kim davis and think they were right?"

Me: No, she is a democrat statist.

As someone said earlier:

You quoted me and what you said had nothing at all to do with what you quoted. Do you not know how this works? Do try again.

 

[Bodi]

You quoted me and what you said had nothing at all to do with what you quoted. Do you not know how this works? Do try again.

Apparently she quotes whomever she wants and responds to whatever she thinks is relevant and that alone makes it relevant to whatever she wants it to be...

 

[notquiteright]

No, she is a democrat statist.

No she is a SoCON 'statist'. Huckabee isn't a democrat, he is a SoCON, he and the other GOP SoCONs are rushing to defend her, can't think of any Dems doing the same... can you?

The party of the SoCONs is the GOP one, not the Dem one. She is just the sad tired residue of a past age when it comes to the party she identifies with, bet you a shiny nickel after this she will be a GOP proud and true... eace

 

[AGENT J]

She is a hateful bigot and a disgusting person...

thats a title that seems to fit, some of it is factually accurate.