Kim Davis Is Winning

[g5000]

What I said is that IMO, sanctioning gay marriage will lead to sanctioning other forms of marriage like multiples, polygamy, sibling, parent/child etc--------------because its about money.

I have debunked this slippery slope fallacy so many times it isn't even funny.

I can show how allowing adult/child sexual relationships cause harm. No one has ever shown how adult/adult relationships cause harm.

Apples and oranges. Slippery slope. Et cetera, et cetera.

And the bigotry is once again exposed without the bigot even realizing it, by equating gays with pedophiles.

The bigots do this EVERY time. Without fail.

no you haven't. To debunked means prove it wrong. You thrown stuff out there but it doesn't prove it wrong.

Actually, it does. Sorry about that!

 

[g5000]

I'm getting some serious belly laughs now.

I would like to thank the bigots in this topic for once again providing rich evidence to support my frequent statements about why minorities don't vote Republican.

 

[Slyhunter]

Um muslims are pedophiles.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Um muslims are pedophiles.

Yes, the Um Muslims were always the black sheep of Islam.

 

[g5000]

Um muslims are pedophiles.

Thank you so much for this.

No, really. Thank you. Awesome.

 

[g5000]

Um muslims are pedophiles.

Yes, the Um Muslims were always the black sheep of Islam.

NYcarbineer wins

 

[Debra K]

Nothing about just some deviant sex behaviors in the 14th. Neither is there anything about "everyone in the US has the right to marry anyone they want without consent of the governed."

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state from depriving ANY PERSON of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or equal protection under the law. Due process means that states may not arbitrarily deprive people of their liberty interests. The Constitution doesn't mention hats or bedtimes, but the government doesn't have the power to arbitrarily deprive people of the right to wear a hat or the right to decide for themselves what time to go to bed. Insisting that the entire universe of rights must be listed in a constitution before it can be protected against government deprivations is foolish. We are not a pure democracy. A group of people cannot abuse the power of the state to impose their morals on the rest of society. No one cares that you personally think the private sexual practices of two consenting adults is deviant. We are not ruled by missionaries who command the natives engage only in missionary style sex.

You make some valid points. But on counter point. Society as a whole should decide what is to be considered right and wrong and moral and immoral. Those decisions should be made by everyone based on votes, not by 5 unelected old farts in black robes.

the SC decision on gay marriage WILL be used as a valid precedent for multiple marriage, polygamy, sibling marriage, and all other forms of human grouping.

Moral disapproval alone is not a legitimate government basis for restricting rights or doling them out to special groups while denying those same rights to others. The people don't want the morality police nosing about in every intimate corner of their lives.

Talk about hypocrisy. you say that but support mandating that people accept gay marriage as normal. YOU are the ones intruding on people's lives.

I agree, I don't give a shit what you and your partner or partners do in private. But I don't want the government telling me that I must condone it.

You don't have to "accept" anything. You can believe other people's sex lives are perverted. They might believe your sex life is perverted. All of you can just keep your noses out of other people's bedrooms. Minding your own private business isn't the same thing as condoning someone else's private business. If you're a government official standing behind a counter serving the public, do your job. Hand out the marriage licenses, the driver licenses, the fishing licenses, etc., to people who are entitled to them in accordance with the law.

 

[Debra K]

Talk about hypocrisy. you say that but support mandating that people accept gay marriage as normal. YOU are the ones intruding on people's lives.

Please explain how two guys filing a joint tax return is intruding on your life.

"I suddenly have an inexplicable desire to smoke poles."

I didn't say it was intruding on MY life. I said I don't give a shit what two fags or lesbians do to each other in private.

What I said is that IMO, sanctioning gay marriage will lead to sanctioning other forms of marriage like multiples, polygamy, sibling, parent/child etc--------------because its about money.

We are willing to sacrifice our culture so that a minority can get a larger tax refund.

The slippery slope argument is not legitimate.

Our society sanctions monogamy. Sanctioning monogamy does not slide our society into polygamy and incest. If that were true, it would have happened already.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Talk about hypocrisy. you say that but support mandating that people accept gay marriage as normal. YOU are the ones intruding on people's lives.

Please explain how two guys filing a joint tax return is intruding on your life.

"I suddenly have an inexplicable desire to smoke poles."

I didn't say it was intruding on MY life. I said I don't give a shit what two fags or lesbians do to each other in private.

What I said is that IMO, sanctioning gay marriage will lead to sanctioning other forms of marriage like multiples, polygamy, sibling, parent/child etc--------------because its about money.

We are willing to sacrifice our culture so that a minority can get a larger tax refund.

When will the voting age be 4 years old?

 

[ElmerMudd]

Now you're defending her breaking the law.

You Communists are such hypocrites.

Civil disobedience has a long tradition on the left. Are you suddenly outraged by it, because the hated enemy of the party engages in it.

BTW, Davis is a party member. What will you do? Will you hold a public purge to oust her from the GLORIOUS peoples party?

She lost because gays are getting married.

many say that society lost because gays are getting married.

So back to my basic question. Should american citizens be punished because they believe that gay marriage is wrong? .

If they consider it punishment to be required by law to recognize gay marriage as a right and act accordingly,

then yes, they must be punished.

Glad you feel that away because the lefts new leaders coming forth agree with you on that being forced into believing in something that you don't.

Kim does not have to believe anything different than she does today, she just has to do her job.

Does the muslim flight attendent who refused to serve alcohol also "just have to do her job" ?
I feel she could lose her job but she made arrangement to have her co-workers serve the alcohol. The righteous Mrs, Davis refused to allow her co-workers to issue the marriage license even though they were willing to. That is where she really crossed the line.

Does a muslim woman have the right to have her drivers license picture taken with her face covered?

This shit has to go both ways.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Now you're defending her breaking the law.

You Communists are such hypocrites.

Civil disobedience has a long tradition on the left. Are you suddenly outraged by it, because the hated enemy of the party engages in it.

BTW, Davis is a party member. What will you do? Will you hold a public purge to oust her from the GLORIOUS peoples party?

She lost because gays are getting married.

many say that society lost because gays are getting married.

So back to my basic question. Should american citizens be punished because they believe that gay marriage is wrong? .

If they consider it punishment to be required by law to recognize gay marriage as a right and act accordingly,

then yes, they must be punished.

Glad you feel that away because the lefts new leaders coming forth agree with you on that being forced into believing in something that you don't.

Kim does not have to believe anything different than she does today, she just has to do her job.

Does the muslim flight attendent who refused to serve alcohol also "just have to do her job" ?

Does a muslim woman have the right to have her drivers license picture taken with her face covered?

This shit has to go both ways.

I feel the Muslim flight attendant could lose her job but she made arrangement to have her co-workers serve the alcohol. The righteous Mrs, Davis refused to allow her co-workers to issue the marriage license even though they were willing to. That is where she really crossed the line.

 

[Syriusly]

Talk about hypocrisy. you say that but support mandating that people accept gay marriage as normal. YOU are the ones intruding on people's lives.

Please explain how two guys filing a joint tax return is intruding on your life.

"I suddenly have an inexplicable desire to smoke poles."

I didn't say it was intruding on MY life. I said I don't give a shit what two fags or lesbians do to each other in private.

What I said is that IMO, sanctioning gay marriage will lead to sanctioning other forms of marriage like multiples, polygamy, sibling, parent/child etc--------------because its about money.

We are willing to sacrifice our culture so that a minority can get a larger tax refund.

Why do you think that marriage is about money- and only about money?

How very sad for you.

 

[Syriusly]

Um muslims are pedophiles.

Yep- and the Um Christians are pedophiles too.

 

[Syriusly]

What I said is that IMO, sanctioning gay marriage will lead to sanctioning other forms of marriage like multiples, polygamy, sibling, parent/child etc--------------because its about money.

I have debunked this slippery slope fallacy so many times it isn't even funny.

I can show how allowing adult/child sexual relationships cause harm. No one has ever shown how adult gay relationships cause harm.

Apples and oranges. Slippery slope. Et cetera, et cetera.

And the bigotry is once again exposed without the bigot even realizing it, by equating gays with pedophiles.

The bigots do this EVERY time. Without fail.

And they actually have the audacity to get all upset when I say minorities won't vote for a party which so clearly HATES them. Can you believe that?

OK, great. so you support all forms of marriage including child/adult. Are you a nambla member or a muslim?

Ok great so you support all forms of murder, including that of children. Are you a Nazi or a Communist?

 

[Syriusly]

Talk about hypocrisy. you say that but support mandating that people accept gay marriage as normal. YOU are the ones intruding on people's lives.

Please explain how two guys filing a joint tax return is intruding on your life.

"I suddenly have an inexplicable desire to smoke poles."

I didn't say it was intruding on MY life.

Evasion.

What I said is that IMO, sanctioning gay marriage will lead to sanctioning other forms of marriage like multiples, polygamy, sibling, parent/child etc--------------because its about money.

No, you quite plainly said they were intruding on other people's lives.

Explain how two people filing a joint tax return are intruding on other people's lives.

And by the way, you just added a slippery slope fallacy to your argument. Bogus.

We are willing to sacrifice our culture so that a minority can get a larger tax refund.

Our "culture" of oppression of minorities is being sacrificed. You say that as though it was a bad thing.

This is how you bigots reveal your bigotry without realizing it.

"We've always oppressed these people" is neither a legal nor a moral argument.

if homosexuality is to be equated to race in terms on minority status, then males should also be given minority status since females outnumber them..

And of course the only one equating homosexuality to race is once again- Redfish.

 

[Syriusly]

Talk about hypocrisy. you say that but support mandating that people accept gay marriage as normal. YOU are the ones intruding on people's lives.

Please explain how two guys filing a joint tax return is intruding on your life.

"I suddenly have an inexplicable desire to smoke poles."

I didn't say it was intruding on MY life.

Evasion.

What I said is that IMO, sanctioning gay marriage will lead to sanctioning other forms of marriage like multiples, polygamy, sibling, parent/child etc--------------because its about money.

No, you quite plainly said they were intruding on other people's lives.

Explain how two people filing a joint tax return are intruding on other people's lives.

And by the way, you just added a slippery slope fallacy to your argument. Bogus.

We are willing to sacrifice our culture so that a minority can get a larger tax refund.

Our "culture" of oppression of minorities is being sacrificed. You say that as though it was a bad thing.

This is how you bigots reveal your bigotry without realizing it.

"We've always oppressed these people" is neither a legal nor a moral argument.

Homosexuality is NOT anywhere near the most important issue facing this country, but yous libs are obsessed with it because you think it helps you politically..

Yet here you are- once again- obsessing over homosexuality.

You really can't stop yourself- you even have posted on how you were going to stop writing about homosexuality- but you just can't resist coming back to whine about gay marriage.....over and over and over.....talk about sick.

 

[bodecea]

Talk about hypocrisy. you say that but support mandating that people accept gay marriage as normal. YOU are the ones intruding on people's lives.

Please explain how two guys filing a joint tax return is intruding on your life.

"I suddenly have an inexplicable desire to smoke poles."

I didn't say it was intruding on MY life.

Evasion.

What I said is that IMO, sanctioning gay marriage will lead to sanctioning other forms of marriage like multiples, polygamy, sibling, parent/child etc--------------because its about money.

No, you quite plainly said they were intruding on other people's lives.

Explain how two people filing a joint tax return are intruding on other people's lives.

And by the way, you just added a slippery slope fallacy to your argument. Bogus.

We are willing to sacrifice our culture so that a minority can get a larger tax refund.

Our "culture" of oppression of minorities is being sacrificed. You say that as though it was a bad thing.

This is how you bigots reveal your bigotry without realizing it.

"We've always oppressed these people" is neither a legal nor a moral argument.

Homosexuality is NOT anywhere near the most important issue facing this country, but yous libs are obsessed with it because you think it helps you politically..

Yet here you are- once again- obsessing over homosexuality.

You really can't stop yourself- you even have posted on how you were going to stop writing about homosexuality- but you just can't resist coming back to whine about gay marriage.....over and over and over.....talk about sick.

Or a pretty big lack of personal control.

 

[Syriusly]

Please explain how two guys filing a joint tax return is intruding on your life.

"I suddenly have an inexplicable desire to smoke poles."

I didn't say it was intruding on MY life.

Evasion.

What I said is that IMO, sanctioning gay marriage will lead to sanctioning other forms of marriage like multiples, polygamy, sibling, parent/child etc--------------because its about money.

No, you quite plainly said they were intruding on other people's lives.

Explain how two people filing a joint tax return are intruding on other people's lives.

And by the way, you just added a slippery slope fallacy to your argument. Bogus.

We are willing to sacrifice our culture so that a minority can get a larger tax refund.

Our "culture" of oppression of minorities is being sacrificed. You say that as though it was a bad thing.

This is how you bigots reveal your bigotry without realizing it.

"We've always oppressed these people" is neither a legal nor a moral argument.

Homosexuality is NOT anywhere near the most important issue facing this country, but yous libs are obsessed with it because you think it helps you politically..

Yet here you are- once again- obsessing over homosexuality.

You really can't stop yourself- you even have posted on how you were going to stop writing about homosexuality- but you just can't resist coming back to whine about gay marriage.....over and over and over.....talk about sick.

Or a pretty big lack of personal control.

Maybe he will ask the Mods to shut down his threads again to prevent his posting.....

 

[Redfish]

Nothing about just some deviant sex behaviors in the 14th. Neither is there anything about "everyone in the US has the right to marry anyone they want without consent of the governed."

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state from depriving ANY PERSON of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or equal protection under the law. Due process means that states may not arbitrarily deprive people of their liberty interests. The Constitution doesn't mention hats or bedtimes, but the government doesn't have the power to arbitrarily deprive people of the right to wear a hat or the right to decide for themselves what time to go to bed. Insisting that the entire universe of rights must be listed in a constitution before it can be protected against government deprivations is foolish. We are not a pure democracy. A group of people cannot abuse the power of the state to impose their morals on the rest of society. No one cares that you personally think the private sexual practices of two consenting adults is deviant. We are not ruled by missionaries who command the natives engage only in missionary style sex.

You make some valid points. But on counter point. Society as a whole should decide what is to be considered right and wrong and moral and immoral. Those decisions should be made by everyone based on votes, not by 5 unelected old farts in black robes.

the SC decision on gay marriage WILL be used as a valid precedent for multiple marriage, polygamy, sibling marriage, and all other forms of human grouping.

Moral disapproval alone is not a legitimate government basis for restricting rights or doling them out to special groups while denying those same rights to others. The people don't want the morality police nosing about in every intimate corner of their lives.

Talk about hypocrisy. you say that but support mandating that people accept gay marriage as normal. YOU are the ones intruding on people's lives.

I agree, I don't give a shit what you and your partner or partners do in private. But I don't want the government telling me that I must condone it.

You don't have to "accept" anything. You can believe other people's sex lives are perverted. They might believe your sex life is perverted. All of you can just keep your noses out of other people's bedrooms. Minding your own private business isn't the same thing as condoning someone else's private business. If you're a government official standing behind a counter serving the public, do your job. Hand out the marriage licenses, the driver licenses, the fishing licenses, etc., to people who are entitled to them in accordance with the law.

bedroom privacy and government sanctionin gay marriage are two totally different things.

The government is telling all americans that the MUST accept gay marriage as a normal human activity.

That is no different than the government telling all americans that they MUST accept that homosexuality is a mental disease.

The point, which you seem to dense to get, is that the government should not be telling us what we must believe.

 

[Redfish]

Talk about hypocrisy. you say that but support mandating that people accept gay marriage as normal. YOU are the ones intruding on people's lives.

Please explain how two guys filing a joint tax return is intruding on your life.

"I suddenly have an inexplicable desire to smoke poles."

I didn't say it was intruding on MY life. I said I don't give a shit what two fags or lesbians do to each other in private.

What I said is that IMO, sanctioning gay marriage will lead to sanctioning other forms of marriage like multiples, polygamy, sibling, parent/child etc--------------because its about money.

We are willing to sacrifice our culture so that a minority can get a larger tax refund.

The slippery slope argument is not legitimate.

Our society sanctions monogamy. Sanctioning monogamy does not slide our society into polygamy and incest. If that were true, it would have happened already.

Of course it does. For thousands of years marriage has been defined by human beings as the union of one man and one woman (with a few exceptions where polygamy was accepted).

When the government via the supreme court changed the definition to include same sex partners it set a valid legal precedent that marriage can be whatever the government declares it to be. The next logical step will be a case on polygamy or multiple marriage being brought to the court. The plaintiffs will use exactly the same arguments that the gays used-------discrimination, equallity under the law, etc.

What arguments will you bring against the ACLU when it brings a polygamy case to the SC?