Court rules Kim Davis violated Gay Couples rights

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Any Court that recognized Fag marriage is Contemptible.

Please explain how same sex marriage has negativlly impacted society, the institution of marriage, and/or you personally

 

[Cougarbear]

Yes, religious exemptions are tricky business. However, Davis' case does not involve a religious exemption. I asked you to explain what point you're trying to make about Davis. You have not done that. It appears that you don't really have one.

I don't have a problem with what happened to Davis. It's you that keeps coming up with stuff about her.

 

[Cougarbear]

What is not in the Constitution? Go back and read the first amendment again. It is pretty clear. Not only do people have the right to the free exercise of religion, but religion may not be imposed on anyone either.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So, what does "establishment of religion" mean? Note also that this is specific to "Congress" that shall not make a law respecting and establishment of religion. And, what does "respecting" mean in context? "The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another." Nowhere does it support atheists right to not believe in God or be bothered by anyone preaching the word of God. What it does is give you the right to exercise your belief in God that there is no God. But, it doesn't give atheists the right to make the government favor atheists over any religion or Church. Whether you want to admit it or not, your non-belief is a religious belief because you cannot prove that God does not exist any more than I can give you empirical evidence that he does exist.

 

[Cougarbear]

WHAT!!?? Good grief!

5th Amendment. We have the right to remain silent...

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't have a problem with what happened to Davis. It's you that keeps coming up with stuff about her.

Good to know that you don't have a problem with her punishment. I keep coming up with stuff about her? Don't know what you mean by that

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

5th Amendment. We have the right to remain silent...

I don't know what that has to do with Davis except that she should have just shut up

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So, what does "establishment of religion" mean? Note also that this is specific to "Congress" that shall not make a law respecting and establishment of religion. And, what does "respecting" mean in context? "The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another." Nowhere does it support atheists right to not believe in God or be bothered by anyone preaching the word of God. What it does is give you the right to exercise your belief in God that there is no God. But, it doesn't give atheists the right to make the government favor atheists over any religion or Church. Whether you want to admit it or not, your non-belief is a religious belief because you cannot prove that God does not exist any more than I can give you empirical evidence that he does exist.

Holy shit !What. I do not have the right to not believe in God.??You cannot be fucking serious. ? the government does not regulate beliefs. It cannot dictate what goes on in an individuals head. It is about what you are able to do and the extent to which the government can regulate individual behavior.

And where do you get this crap about the government favoring atheists ? The first amendment is neutral on the question of religion. Under the Constitution everyone has the right to believe or not believe. And Atheism is not a religion. It is the absence of religion. Actually I am more of an Agnostic who accepts the possibility of God. I cannot prove that God does not exist but you cannot prove that there is a God

So what the fuck is going on here anyway? If you are trying to say that I do not have the right to be free of religion, to not believe you have failed miserably. In fact it is the most ridiculous thing that I ever heard.

Now lets get back to Kim Davis and gay marriage, if you dare

 

[Cougarbear]

Holy shit !What. I do not have the right to not believe in God.??You cannot be fucking serious. ? the government does not regulate beliefs. It cannot dictate what goes on in an individuals head. It is about what you are able to do and the extent to which the government can regulate individual behavior.

And where do you get this crap about the government favoring atheists ? The first amendment is neutral on the question of religion. Under the Constitution everyone has the right to believe or not believe. And Atheism is not a religion. It is the absence of religion. Actually I am more of an Agnostic who accepts the possibility of God. I cannot prove that God does not exist but you cannot prove that there is a God

So what the fuck is going on here anyway? If you are trying to say that I do not have the right to be free of religion, to not believe you have failed miserably. In fact it is the most ridiculous thing that I ever heard.

Now lets get back to Kim Davis and gay marriage, if you dare

Once again your ability to comprehend is lacking. I did say you have a right to not believe in God. But only because God give you that right. You should thank Him. We both agree about Ms. Davis. However, being gay is still a sin.

 

[San Souci]

Please explain how same sex marriage has negativlly impacted society, the institution of marriage, and/or you personally

Normalizing perversions will break us. Rome fell for 2 reasons. THEY lost their morality and stopped fighting their own battles. I am not a fan of Islam. But I do respect their law on this subject.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Normalizing perversions will break us. Rome fell for 2 reasons. THEY lost their morality and stopped fighting their own battles. I am not a fan of Islam. But I do respect their law on this subject.

I asked you what the effect of same sex marriage on society HAS BEEN here and now . Not some crap about Rome and perversion or morality. Cut the crap and answer the question

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Not sure why MSN decided to highlite this story?
It is a very simple case. She works for a government department, so she is obligated to follow law. She should not be in a position to marry people if she feels that strongly.

Again... don't know why this is a big story. Other than another attempt to divide people.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Once again your ability to comprehend is lacking. I did say you have a right to not believe in God. But only because God give you that right. You should thank Him. We both agree about Ms. Davis. However, being gay is still a sin.

Your absolutely right! My ability to comprehend this stuff about Gods permission and sin is lacking and I am grateful for it

What I do comprehend is that you made the idiotic assertion that the Constitution does not give me the right to not believe in God! Is your thought processes to narrow and rigid that you think that because the Constitution does not specify that right in so many words -that it does not exist? Do you think that the framers of the Constitution-by ant stretch of the imagination- intended to allow God or religion to be imposed on people?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not sure why MSN decided to highlite this story?
It is a very simple case. She works for a government department, so she is obligated to follow law. She should not be in a position to marry people if she feels that strongly.

Again... don't know why this is a big story. Other than another attempt to divide people.

It is news. It is another chapter in the long running saga of the fight for marriage equality and the push back by bigots that continues until this day. It is not the MSM that is dividing people

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It is news. It is another chapter in the long running saga of the fight for marriage equality and the push back by bigots that continues until this day. It is not the MSM that is dividing people

Yes it is.
25 years ago every elected official, (both parties) still in office today was against gay marriage.
Probably 80% at least of Americans, both parties, were also against it.
Today... a very-very small number of elected officials would actively pursue reversing gay marriage. Almost no one.
And I would say, at the very least, 70% of folks 60 and younger regardless of party affiliation would NOT vote to reverse gay marriage.
So seeking to draw attention to it, is only an attempt to basically try and say "look folks, evil conservatives are so hateful!!... keep voting left!!"

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes it is.
25 years ago every elected official, (both parties) still in office today was against gay marriage.
Probably 80% at least of Americans, both parties, were also against it.
Today... a very-very small number of elected officials would actively pursue reversing gay marriage. Almost no one.
And I would say, at the very least, 70% of folks 60 and younger regardless of party affiliation would NOT vote to reverse gay marriage.
So seeking to draw attention to it, is only an attempt to basically try and say "look folks, evil conservatives are so hateful!!... keep voting left!!"

There is nothing there that proves that anyone was motivated by a desire to divide people. We are no more or less divided than before

Regardless of the dwindling percentages of those opposed to marriage equality, there are still a hell of a lot of people -including those in positions of power-who would like to reverse it.

Then there are these people with deep pockets who won't let up

National Organization for Marriage

nationformarriage.org

The National Organization for Marriage Education Fund was founded in order to respond to the growing need for an organized promotion and defense of marriage in state and federal legislatures, in the courts at all levels, and in the general culture. The NOM Education Fund’s mission is to conduct research, public education, and strategic projects that promote an understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The NOM Education Fund also helps to protect the religious liberty of traditional faith communities. [Read More]

The Kim Davis story is newsworthy!

 

[San Souci]

I asked you what the effect of same sex marriage on society HAS BEEN here and now . Not some crap about Rome and perversion or morality. Cut the crap and answer the question

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS Institution between a MAN and a WOMAN. Not a couple of FAGS. It destroys our morality NOW. There is your fuckin' answer.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS Institution between a MAN and a WOMAN. Not a couple of FAGS. It destroys our morality NOW. There is your fuckin' answer.

I do not relate to religion or your interpretation of morality. I think that we would be far better off without religion, and morality is all about how we treat each other and not about judging each other.

Marriage for me-and most people -is a legal/ civil matter. Do not try to tell others what marriage is

 

[San Souci]

I do not relate to religion or your interpretation of morality. I think that we would be far better off without religion, and morality is all about how we treat each other and not about judging each other.

Marriage for me-and most people -is a legal/ civil matter. Do not try to tell others what marriage is

For 6000 YEARS it has been a bond between a Man and a Woman. What the Hell was wrong with calling it "Domestic Partnership"? I am no fan of Islam , But I support their point of view on this matter.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

For 6000 YEARS it has been a bond between a Man and a Woman. What the Hell was wrong with calling it "Domestic Partnership"? I am no fan of Islam , But I support their point of view on this matter.

Sure. Separate but equal. That worked real well in the Jim Crow south. What is wrong with calling it MARRIAGE. All things evolve or the become extinct. Marriage has evolved and it is a stronger institution as a result

You still can't seem to answer my question: What negative impact has there been on society as the result of same sex marriage?

 

[San Souci]

Sure. Separate but equal. That worked real well in the Jim Crow south. What is wrong with calling it MARRIAGE. All things evolve or the become extinct. Marriage has evolved and it is a stronger institution as a result

You still can't seem to answer my question: What negative impact has there been on society as the result of same sex marriage?

No. What good is a nation of perverted sissies?