Kim Davis

#251
#251
Septic said:
Le sigh.

Unequivocally yes. Only with respects to the belief that marriage should be between one women and one man, the religious rationale is that of man and man is wrong - derived from Leviticus.

I'm done addressing this, I feel like I should borrow some crayons from my neighbors kids and start drawing pictures so the explanation could be better digested.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's in Romans as well. But don't let that stop your really bad analogies in reference to Westboro.

And you're done addressing it because you know from the word go it severely weakened your point on the matter. Had you never mentioned it, you likely could have argued your point far better. But even now the way you explain it shows your true thoughts on the matter. That anyone who morally objects to homosexuality equals Westboro in your mind.

What's next? Are you going to say anyone Islamic is a terrorist?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#252
#252
1972 Grad said:
If their "ability to obtain licenses is getting very limited," I certainly haven't heard about it. It is one, supposedly born again, religious freak in Kentucky from what I know.
Click to expand...

Only one now. Set a precedent and watch what happens. Plenty of folks care little for the gays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#259
#259
1972 Grad said:
People like you want no borders. We are all just children of the world, right? So, what difference does it make where you get a stupid marriage license? You are making way too big a deal out of this. Are you taking medicine tonight?
Click to expand...

You talking to me? The guy that gave TRUT a conniption fit last week over my opinion on Mexican immigration to this country.

(Which, by the way, he still hasn't answered adequately. And laughing doesn't count.)

Oh, and...

The way of the future. The way of the future. The way of the future.
 

Attachments

  • MTIwNjA4NjMzODUxMTE5MTE2.jpg
    MTIwNjA4NjMzODUxMTE5MTE2.jpg
    39.8 KB · Views: 0
#262
#262
Septic said:
Le sigh.

Unequivocally yes. Only with respects to the belief that marriage should be between one women and one man, the religious rationale is that of man and man is wrong - derived from Leviticus.

This common belief is shared between Westboro and ANYONE else who uses a religious conviction to discriminate against the gays.

How many more straw men are you guys going to cook up to try to derail this? Davis looks, dresses and in respects to the issue that made her famous, acts like she's a Westboro disciple.

I'm done addressing this, I feel like I should borrow some crayons from my neighbors kids and start drawing pictures so the explanation could be better digested.
Click to expand...

I'll just use your logic and say if we regress your opinion of this woman's motives it clearly stems from religious bigotry.

Hey, weren't the Nazi's religious bigots?

I guess it would be intellectually dishonest of me therefore not to conclude you are in common league with the Nazi's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#266
#266
Just seeing another clip of the rally - the "Eye of the Tiger" music is just too much as is the guy in overalls and the straw hat.
 
#270
#270
hog88 said:
Ok prof, why is it a "stupid analysis"?
Click to expand...

So glad you asked.

Let me help you.

You claim that something like marriage is a state issue.

Defined by whom?

Since each state recognizes the right to be married, it stands to reason that any adult can marry.

The states made it a government issue, so we'll treat it as a government issue, just as the Supreme Court did.

Now, you may or may not currently view marriage as a government-legislated right, and that's fine. I admit. It isn't very clearly mandated. But we know that lots of legal rights and money benefits flow from this relationship, and governments recognize these.

So why shouldn't marriage be treated as a common right, since our governments treat it as a common right?

I ask you, sir, why should it be up to a given state's populace to determine what our nation has held for certain for years?

Do you really want to be a part of the first voting group that determines that the American way of life is erroneous?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#272
#272
The camera outside the jail caught Ted Cruz coming out and the media were calling for him over at the stage. But a Huckabee staffer came over and wouldn't let Cruz come to the stage. Actually physically blocked him three times. And then Huckabee got to do that phony speech and photo op with Davis.

Really pretty funny stuff. Poor Cruz. And what a tool Huckabee is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#273
#273
Team Huckabee did Cruz a favor. Being on that stage or visible at that event won't help in the general (assuming either could make it there).
 
#274
#274
hog88 said:
Well prof, can't come up with anything?
Click to expand...

Oh, boy.

You really showed your hand this time.

I envision you giddy as a damn middle school girl thinking Bretton Woods was going to ask her out on a date at the end of the school day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#275
#275
volprof said:
So glad you asked.

Let me help you.

You claim that something like marriage is a state issue.

Defined by whom?

Since each state recognizes the right to be married, it stands to reason that any adult can marry.

The states made it a government issue, so we'll treat it as a government issue, just as the Supreme Court did.

Now, you may or may not currently view marriage as a government-legislated right, and that's fine. I admit. It isn't very clearly mandated. But we know that lots of legal rights and money benefits flow from this relationship, and governments recognize these.

So why shouldn't marriage be treated as a common right, since our governments treat it as a common right?

I ask you, sir, why should it be up to a given state's populace to determine what our nation has held for certain for years?

Do you really want to be a part of the first voting group that determines that the American way of life is erroneous?
Click to expand...

I understand that you are a Fed Gov guy and all but each state sets their own rules for marriage amongst other things. Different ages, levels of separation between blood relations and even how many times a person can marry.

There is no federal statute mandating a state or county issue marriage licenses, period! So since she was not discrinating by not issuing any licenses just what federal statute was she in violation of? She may have been in violation of state law but then what business is it of the federal government? None!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top