From Tupac to Rosa Parks: KY county clerk Kim Davis says "Only God can judge me now"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Marriage is not a Christian concept. Marriage in the eyes of the state is not equivalent to any sort of religious marriage. These people want a certificate to prove they are together, what the fuck does that have to do with religion?

I respect people of faith but if you are going to have separation of religion and state, you can't be conflate the two. A marriage in the eyes of the stateis not a religious marriage.
 
Game Analyst said:
Regardless if what a person believes, history bares the scares of what happens when a society declares one side to be morally incorrect and at some point does everything in its power to eliminate those that hold to a contrary point of view. There is just no way this is going to be avoided.
Click to expand...

Yeah like that time when all the racists were rounded up and executed during the civil rights era.
 
aeolist said:
i just don't get why this is suddenly the breaking point when atheists, agnostics, and people of non-christian religions have been getting married in this country for decades with no attempt being made to stop them

divorce should also be illegal if we're going by the bible, and tons of other weird shit like marrying your brother's widow would be mandatory
Click to expand...

opponents of gay marriage don't actually care about the sanctity of marriage, they just don't like gay people and wish to have some legal authority to their desire to treat them as second hand citizens.

It's nothing more than good old fashioned bigotry.

Which is obvious, of course.
 
ReAxion said:
professional concern trolls.

Like, somebody capitalized jackboot for effect, and said the words "Gay Gestapo" I assume without irony, and that's presented as a rational argument.
Click to expand...

Brietbart and Fox News adore Tammy Bruce. I love that Game Analyst points out she's a lesbian, because that's like quoting Don Lemon on race relations 'look it's one of them aligned with my inflexible, provincial thoughts codified thousands of years ago! You'll take my side of things seriously now right?'
 
Gotdatmoney said:
Marriage is not a Christian concept. Marriage in the eyes of the state is not equivalent to any sort of religious marriage. These people want a certificate to prove they are together, what the fuck does that have to do with religion?

I respect people of faith but if you are going to have separation of religion and state, you can't be conflate the two. A marriage in the eyes of the stateis not a religious marriage.
Click to expand...

That's the biggest problem here. Most of the people supporting Davis either think there shouldn't be, don't think there really IS one, or both.

This is the scariest part of this whole conversation.
 
Game Analyst said:
Well, the worldview that is coming into power is a worldview centered on moral relativism. This is exactly the world others are going to be forced to live in. Those that oppose this worldview will be forced to suffer the consequences by the hands of those that believe in tolerating others only when they tolerate whatever they believe. There will be horrible consequences for taking this route that history bares witness to.
Click to expand...

I tolerate religious people all the time. But if the state and federal government has told you to give me a marriage license, either give it to me or get out of my way. Don't try to stop me because just as you think you'll use your "force", I'm going to use mine to get what I'm lawfully entitled to. I don't give a good god damn about your conscience, just like you (she) couldn't give two shits about mine.

"Oh it's my book that says it's wrong!" Good for your book. Your book isn't the law of the land. While you're in our world, you'll abide by our rules or you'll get punished the same as anyone else not obeying one of the laws.

BertramCooper said:
Holocaust 2.0 on its way, all thanks to the gays.

Thanks, gays.
Click to expand...

Watch out, I'm a member of the Pink Gestapo and I'm ready to take you in. WIth trailing glitter and rainbows.
 
Game Analyst said:
I am not going to respond to everyone. What I will say is that this clerk is entitled to believe what she wants and so are those that believe she is wrong. Each person is a moral being created with intrinsic value and worth. People are free to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, or they are free to redefine marriage to mean whatever they want it to mean (like what happened this year). Both views take a moral stand and make an absolute claim for their beliefs: each side believes that their belief is right. It would be ludicrous to believe, as moral beings, that everyone is going to agree with everyone else, or that everyone should be forced to believe what the other believes.

My person complaint is that I see (as do others) history about to repeat itself. I think Herbert Butterfield's (Regius Professor of History and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge) analysis on human nature in the aftermath of World War 2 explains the clash of worldviews that this thread and many in the United States espouse and ultimately where it will lead:



Regardless if what a person believes, history bares the scares of what happens when a society declares one side to be morally incorrect and at some point does everything in its power to eliminate those that hold to a contrary point of view. There is just no way this is going to be avoided.
Click to expand...
She is free to believe whatever should would like to, and she is free to express those beliefs, and debate them with other people. But she is not always free to act on them.

No one is trying to eliminate her. They're just trying to protect the rights of other citizens who might be harmed by her stupidity.
 
Faiz said:
That's the biggest problem here. Most of the people supporting Davis either think there shouldn't be, don't think there really IS one, or both.

This is the scariest part of this whole conversation.
Click to expand...

That's not totally accurate. Most of them would happily ascribe to a separation of church and state, but only when it comes to the state telling them the limits of their religious freedom. The state's perfectly within its right to set limits on how other people can live based on Christian values.
 
Krejlooc said:
opponents of gay marriage don't actually care about the sanctity of marriage, they just don't like gay people and wish to have some legal authority to their desire to treat them as second hand citizens.

It's nothing more than good old fashioned bigotry.

Which is obvious, of course.
Click to expand...

Yep, they like to thump their bibles LOUDLY, but it's much more about ignorance, being insecure and apparently being completely unable to keep their minds off of gay sex. It's icky to them, and that's all that matters. Also, please think of the children.
 
Game Analyst said:
A world where moral absolutes are hated by those that believe that there are no moral absolutes (a contradiction since this is an absolute claim). Your creed is only a subjective opinion that is neither right or wrong if moral relativism is true. It is just a taste that varies from person to person. You are not wrong or right, and neither is the person who views it differently.
Click to expand...

If anything, modern secular morality is based on consequentialism. Gay marriage does obvious harm to nobody. Which is why it is permissible, but murder or theft are not. There are still moral absolutes, just not ones based on a potentially phony religious text.
 
Pretty sure we didn't go around killing all of the slave owners after the end of the Civil War. I must have missed all the masters getting round up in internment camps and systematically murdered.
 
Man God said:
Pretty sure we didn't go around killing all of the slave owners after the end of the Civil War. I must have missed all the masters getting round up in internment camps and systematically murdered.
Click to expand...


We should have. We are still facing the consequences of not doing so to this day.
 
A side note to those who are defending her because "this wasn't what she signed up for".

If I'm working a job and the boss tells me he'll be expanding my duties to encompass more than I was initially hired to do, I have two options.

1. Do my job

2. Quit

I'm not sure why her religion entitles her to special rights in her job that I don't have.
 
Citadelofmythoughts said:
A side note to those who are defending her because "this wasn't what she signed up for".

If I'm working a job and the boss tells me he'll be expanding my duties to encompass more than I was initially hired to do, I have two options.

1. Do my job

2. Quit

I'm not sure why her religion entitles her to special rights in her job that I don't have.
Click to expand...

Because gggaaaaawwwwdddddd
 
Gentleman Jack said:
Brietbart and Fox News adore Tammy Bruce. I love that Game Analyst points out she's a lesbian, because that's like quoting Don Lemon on race relations 'look it's one of them aligned with my inflexible, provincial thoughts codified thousands of years ago! You'll take my side of things seriously now right?'
Click to expand...

lol @ bolded

And there's this:

In a 2006 interview with C-SPAN, Bruce stated she was technically bisexual, and that for her identifying as lesbian was a choice.
Click to expand...

Tiptoeing right up to the line of saying being homosexual is a choice.
 
Citadelofmythoughts said:
A side note to those who are defending her because "this wasn't what she signed up for".

If I'm working a job and the boss tells me he'll be expanding my duties to encompass more than I was initially hired to do, I have two options.

1. Do my job

2. Quit

I'm not sure why her religion entitles her to special rights in her job that I don't have.
Click to expand...

I'll defend her to the extent that your line thinking is not one for the masses. Leaving out the fact that this was an elected position, more people than not have a sense of having created some sort of bunker at the workplace, be it union, experience, tenure.

That being said, in most of those cases that person is going to be sought for removal.
 
Trump--Goddamn Donald Trump--Is the only GOP candidate to go out and say something reasonable about this with the correct answer of "it's the law, sorry". On one hand, I'm not surprised. At the same time it's deathly depressing. One of these people is eventually going to become the nominee and they're going to have to justify this crap to the general public. Have to explain why the government should allow elected people to discriminate against whoever they personally don't like a citizen. Good luck. And the term "war against Christianity" isn't going to resonate with anyone other than the base voting in the primaries. It will be mocked.

Her lawyer was on a bit ago affirming she has no intention to resign. So, yup, she's really going to sit in there indefinitely. All of her appeals were already exhausted before being jailed, all the way up through SCOTUS. But, good news! Huckabee is gonna come visit her next week! And, in what is -totally- unrelated and not at all abusing the situation for his own gain, hold a campaign rally outside!

Edit: It's been mentioned that Florina and Graham said similar, so I'll give credit where credit is due. Blame their lack of popularity as to why they didn't even make it into mashups of responses.
 
Citadelofmythoughts said:
A side note to those who are defending her because "this wasn't what she signed up for".

If I'm working a job and the boss tells me he'll be expanding my duties to encompass more than I was initially hired to do, I have two options.

1. Do my job

2. Quit

I'm not sure why her religion entitles her to special rights in her job that I don't have.
Click to expand...


I know what you're saying but in this case she didn't have a boss (unless you count the Supreme Court)
 
aspiegamer said:
Trump--Goddamn Donald Trump--Is the only GOP candidate to go out and say something reasonable about this with the correct answer of "it's the law, sorry". On one hand, I'm not surprised. At the same time it's deathly depressing. One of these people is eventually going to become the nominee and they're going to have to justify this crap to the general public. Have to explain why the government should allow elected people to discriminate against whoever they personally don't like a citizen. Good luck. And the term "war against Christianity" isn't going to resonate with anyone other than the base voting in the primaries. It will be mocked.
Click to expand...

Carly Fiorina and Lindsey Graham pretty much said the same thing as Trump.
 
Jail seems like overkill, if she can't do her job in 2015 America due to beliefs than maybe she doesn't have the right career anymore, but jail just seems to be a bit much here, a firing I understand.
 
I do love how because her reasoning is religious in nature, most people against her actions are only against her actions because her job requires her to sign marriage licenses for gay couples. As if the only immoral action here was her not doing her job properly.

Not following the law and refusing to do certain jobs can be moral in many cases.
 
paragonpro said:
Jail seems like overkill, if she can't do her job in 2015 America due to beliefs than maybe she doesn't have the right career anymore, but jail just seems to be a bit much here, a firing I understand.
Click to expand...

Everybody Drink!
giphy.gif
 
Jail seems a bit much for breaking the law. I mean she broke the law because she was religious, instead of being driven to desperation due to poverty or something.
 
CornBurrito said:
I do love how because her reasoning is religious in nature, most people against her actions are only against her actions because her job requires her to sign marriage licenses for gay couples. As if the only immoral action here was her not doing her job properly.

Not following the law and refusing to do certain jobs can be moral in many cases.
Click to expand...

I think it has more to do with the law in question(long time coming, hard fought, very moral), and the job she won't do(be a decent human being), over it being a black and white issue of doing the job no matter what.
 
CornBurrito said:
I do love how because her reasoning is religious in nature, most people against her actions are only against her actions because her job requires her to sign marriage licenses for gay couples. As if the only immoral action here was her not doing her job properly.

Not following the law and refusing to do certain jobs can be moral in many cases.
Click to expand...

Not all civil disobedience is created equal.
 
Has anyone contacted Rob Halford via social media or other means and have him record a version of Breakin' the Law to Follow the Law? Because that would be so sweet.
 
BamfMeat said:
I tolerate religious people all the time. But if the state and federal government has told you to give me a marriage license, either give it to me or get out of my way. Don't try to stop me because just as you think you'll use your "force", I'm going to use mine to get what I'm lawfully entitled to. I don't give a good god damn about your conscience, just like you (she) couldn't give two shits about mine.

"Oh it's my book that says it's wrong!" Good for your book. Your book isn't the law of the land. While you're in our world, you'll abide by our rules or you'll get punished the same as anyone else not obeying one of the laws.



Watch out, I'm a member of the Pink Gestapo and I'm ready to take you in. WIth trailing glitter and rainbows.
Click to expand...

I might have to start a sexual orientation war. I like rainbows too, you damn gays. Just because I like pretty, pretty rainbows does not mean I want some sexy glistening bear from Apple Valley, Minnesota spreading glitter down my chest with his index finger while whisper-singing Karma Chameleon in my ear...

...what were we talking about, again? Oh yeah. Yay for justice!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Now You See Me: Now You Don’t (2025) Official Trailer
32
461
Come On Tars replied
Kim Kardashian Christmas Special
2
54
3K
Futaleufu replied
Google has removed Ublock from Chome now
Drama 
42
3K
Soodanim replied
A disabled South Park character from 24 years ago is getting me harassed today
42
4K
Avid Reading Horse replied
Everything including preorders is 30% off from Criterion Collection now through 5/26
5
183
SpiceRacz replied
Top Bottom