Kim Davis Is Winning

[NYcarbineer]

When will the voting age be 4 years old?

Since thats your mental age, it must be now.

That's the best answer you have? Why didn't lowering the voting age to 18 put it on a slippery slope letting 4 year olds vote?

Explain that in the context of your belief that every change in the laws sends us on a slippery slope to the ridiculous.

stupid analogy, thats why I responded as I did.

What is the constitutional argument against a 17 year old's claim of an equal right to vote?

if you want to make the age of majority 17, fine. then 17 year olds can vote. Why do you keep asking stupid questions?

Because you insist that lowering the voting age is a slippery slope to babies voting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Or a religion that continuously tries to take control of the govt.. So they can make sure we are forced to hear about their religion..

Which religion is trying to take control of the government? Islam? Have you seen the list of muslims in the obama administration?

Huckabee is running for president.

and he was never a serious contender. Now take a look at the muslims running our government

Islamist Infiltration of the Obama Administration - Discover the Networks

Oh please.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Homosexuality is a normally occurring condition in a percentage of every human population. Same sex marriage is a human relationship that gays desire in the same way and for the same purposes as heterosexuals.

It goes against the principle of a democratic society to deny same sex marriage to gays.

yes, homosexality occurs in a small % of the human population. Whether its genetic or learned is a topic for another thread.

There are many abnormalities that occur in humans. Why should we declare the abnormality of homosexuality as normal when things like bi-polar disorder and brain aneurysms are considered abnormal?

I do not understand the obsession that liberals have with homosexuality. Are all liberals closet gays?

Should we declare vegetarianism an abnormality and deny vegetarians the right to marry?

only if they have sex with carrots.

So I win another argument.

you have never won one, maybe some day, but not yet.

Gays are getting married and have the constitutional right to do so. Who won what? lol

 

[Redfish]

Since thats your mental age, it must be now.

That's the best answer you have? Why didn't lowering the voting age to 18 put it on a slippery slope letting 4 year olds vote?

Explain that in the context of your belief that every change in the laws sends us on a slippery slope to the ridiculous.

stupid analogy, thats why I responded as I did.

What is the constitutional argument against a 17 year old's claim of an equal right to vote?

if you want to make the age of majority 17, fine. then 17 year olds can vote. Why do you keep asking stupid questions?

Because you insist that lowering the voting age is a slippery slope to babies voting.

you said that, not me. Your attempt to make an analogy between gay marriage and voting age is foolish.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Logically then by your reasoning we should ban homosexuals from holding public office.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Or a religion that continuously tries to take control of the govt.. So they can make sure we are forced to hear about their religion..

Which religion is trying to take control of the government? Islam? Have you seen the list of muslims in the obama administration?

Huckabee is running for president.

and he was never a serious contender. Now take a look at the muslims running our government

Islamist Infiltration of the Obama Administration - Discover the Networks

Oh please.

did you read the cite? are you saying the list of muslims in high positions is wrong? if so, which ones are not muslims?

Lets try again. READ the article.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Logically then by your reasoning we should ban homosexuals from holding public office.

sorry, but thats not logical. why should gays be banned from holding office?

 

[playtime]

She wants that $80K salary & doesn't mind taking tax dollars from the homogays as she's denying their rights under the 14th Amendment after pledging to uphold the Constitution & its laws, while taking oaths is against her religion & respecting the government's authority is what her religion dictates.

She's a wolf in sheep's clothing, plain & simple.

Her issue was that she did not feel right about putting her signature on a gay marriage license. That was not an offence mandating jail and refusing bail.

a compromise was reached and everyone needs to STFU about it. She keeps her job and her clerks will sign the gay licenses that she objects to on religious grounds.

Why have we heard nothing from you libs about the muslim flight attendent who refused to serve alcohol even though it was part of her job when she accepted employment with the airline?

Kim Davis has more issues than her simple signature on those licenses. She instructed her office to not issue any licenses to gays, period. And her lawyer, who is 'defending' her is also trying to say those licenses issued WITHOUT her signature aren't valid... which is bullshit, becauseDavis & her lawyers don't want gays to marry, period. Kim Davis is hiding behind her religion & using it to justify her bigoted views. Her religion strictly adheres to the Bible. Forget about her own divorces, if she was born again after they took place... BUT, not only she has signed off on divorce decrees since finding Jesus... she has issued marriage licenses to previously married couples as well... thus breaking rules she is supposed to live by, & in effect has sanctified adultery in her God's eyes. And as I have said earlier... she took an oath, which according to her religion is also a NO NO.

Kim Davis is a hypocrite. It's that simple.

As far as that Muslim woman...she should be fired for dereliction of duty.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Saint Kimbo Davis is saying she will suffer “injury to her conscience and individual liberties” that can never be repaired......you mean getting married four times and having children out of wedlock did not damage her conscience but doing her job as county clerk will damage her...WTF is that ...its Bull exhaust...

 

[Redfish]

yes, homosexality occurs in a small % of the human population. Whether its genetic or learned is a topic for another thread.

There are many abnormalities that occur in humans. Why should we declare the abnormality of homosexuality as normal when things like bi-polar disorder and brain aneurysms are considered abnormal?

I do not understand the obsession that liberals have with homosexuality. Are all liberals closet gays?

Should we declare vegetarianism an abnormality and deny vegetarians the right to marry?

only if they have sex with carrots.

So I win another argument.

you have never won one, maybe some day, but not yet.

Gays are getting married and have the constitutional right to do so. Who won what? lol

Not you. we allowed 5 judges to change the definition of marriage to appease 3% of the population.

but I guess you support minority rule now.

BTW, 70% of americans disapprove of the Iran nuke deal. But its going through. How is that democracy or the will of the people?

Why do you libs want to live under a minority dictatorship? Are you too incompetent to take responsibility for your own lives?

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's the best answer you have? Why didn't lowering the voting age to 18 put it on a slippery slope letting 4 year olds vote?

Explain that in the context of your belief that every change in the laws sends us on a slippery slope to the ridiculous.

stupid analogy, thats why I responded as I did.

What is the constitutional argument against a 17 year old's claim of an equal right to vote?

if you want to make the age of majority 17, fine. then 17 year olds can vote. Why do you keep asking stupid questions?

Because you insist that lowering the voting age is a slippery slope to babies voting.

you said that, not me. Your attempt to make an analogy between gay marriage and voting age is foolish.

Why? You're the one who introduced the slippery slope argument.

"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."

You believe that the change makes every possible variety of marriage a constitutional right.

So changing the voting age from 21 to 18 must therefore force the court to accept a challenge from a child and then give all children the right to vote. According to YOU.

 

[Redfish]

She wants that $80K salary & doesn't mind taking tax dollars from the homogays as she's denying their rights under the 14th Amendment after pledging to uphold the Constitution & its laws, while taking oaths is against her religion & respecting the government's authority is what her religion dictates.

She's a wolf in sheep's clothing, plain & simple.

Her issue was that she did not feel right about putting her signature on a gay marriage license. That was not an offence mandating jail and refusing bail.

a compromise was reached and everyone needs to STFU about it. She keeps her job and her clerks will sign the gay licenses that she objects to on religious grounds.

Why have we heard nothing from you libs about the muslim flight attendent who refused to serve alcohol even though it was part of her job when she accepted employment with the airline?

Kim Davis has more issues than her simple signature on those licenses. She instructed her office to not issue any, period. And her lawyer, who is 'defending' her is also trying to say those licenses issued WITHOUT her signature aren't valid... which is bullshit, but Davis & her lawyers don't want gays to marry, period. Kim Davis is hiding behind her religion & using it to justify her bigoted views. Her religion strictly adheres to the Bible. Forget about her own divorces, if she was born again after they took place... BUT, not only she has signed off on divorce decrees since finding Jesus... she has issued marriage licenses to previously married couples as well... thus breaking rules she is supposed to live by, & in effect has sanctified adultery in her God's eyes. And as I have said earlier... she took an oath, which according to her religion also a NO NO.

Kim Davis is a hypocrite. It's that simple.

As far as that Muslim woman...she should be fired for dereliction of duty.

Davis should have been fired for refusing to do her job. Not jailed and denied bail.

But she still has the right to speak her mind and express her religious views and beliefs.

We do not jail people in this country for free speech.

 

[NYcarbineer]

She wants that $80K salary & doesn't mind taking tax dollars from the homogays as she's denying their rights under the 14th Amendment after pledging to uphold the Constitution & its laws, while taking oaths is against her religion & respecting the government's authority is what her religion dictates.

She's a wolf in sheep's clothing, plain & simple.

Her issue was that she did not feel right about putting her signature on a gay marriage license. That was not an offence mandating jail and refusing bail.

a compromise was reached and everyone needs to STFU about it. She keeps her job and her clerks will sign the gay licenses that she objects to on religious grounds.

Why have we heard nothing from you libs about the muslim flight attendent who refused to serve alcohol even though it was part of her job when she accepted employment with the airline?

Kim Davis has more issues than her simple signature on those licenses. She instructed her office to not issue any, period. And her lawyer, who is 'defending' her is also trying to say those licenses issued WITHOUT her signature aren't valid... which is bullshit, but Davis & her lawyers don't want gays to marry, period. Kim Davis is hiding behind her religion & using it to justify her bigoted views. Her religion strictly adheres to the Bible. Forget about her own divorces, if she was born again after they took place... BUT, not only she has signed off on divorce decrees since finding Jesus... she has issued marriage licenses to previously married couples as well... thus breaking rules she is supposed to live by, & in effect has sanctified adultery in her God's eyes. And as I have said earlier... she took an oath, which according to her religion also a NO NO.

Kim Davis is a hypocrite. It's that simple.

As far as that Muslim woman...she should be fired for dereliction of duty.

Davis should have been fired for refusing to do her job. Not jailed and denied bail.

But she still has the right to speak her mind and express her religious views and beliefs.

We do not jail people in this country for free speech.

She was not jailed for speech, idiot. Goddam how is it possible at this point in this topic that you don't know that?

 

[Redfish]

stupid analogy, thats why I responded as I did.

What is the constitutional argument against a 17 year old's claim of an equal right to vote?

if you want to make the age of majority 17, fine. then 17 year olds can vote. Why do you keep asking stupid questions?

Because you insist that lowering the voting age is a slippery slope to babies voting.

you said that, not me. Your attempt to make an analogy between gay marriage and voting age is foolish.

Why? You're the one who introduced the slippery slope argument.

"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."

You believe that the change makes every possible variety of marriage a constitutional right.

So changing the voting age from 21 to 18 must therefore force the court to accept a challenge from a child and then give all children the right to vote. According to YOU.

Nice try. but your analogy is still invalid.

Yes, legal precedent of gay marriage will be used in a future court case on polygamy, multiple marriage, sibling marriage, or parent/child marriage. Because its about money and tax breaks.

If a parent and child are "married" the child can avoid paying inheritence taxes. Duh-----did you really think the gay marriage thing was about gay rights?

 

[Redfish]

She wants that $80K salary & doesn't mind taking tax dollars from the homogays as she's denying their rights under the 14th Amendment after pledging to uphold the Constitution & its laws, while taking oaths is against her religion & respecting the government's authority is what her religion dictates.

She's a wolf in sheep's clothing, plain & simple.

Her issue was that she did not feel right about putting her signature on a gay marriage license. That was not an offence mandating jail and refusing bail.

a compromise was reached and everyone needs to STFU about it. She keeps her job and her clerks will sign the gay licenses that she objects to on religious grounds.

Why have we heard nothing from you libs about the muslim flight attendent who refused to serve alcohol even though it was part of her job when she accepted employment with the airline?

Kim Davis has more issues than her simple signature on those licenses. She instructed her office to not issue any, period. And her lawyer, who is 'defending' her is also trying to say those licenses issued WITHOUT her signature aren't valid... which is bullshit, but Davis & her lawyers don't want gays to marry, period. Kim Davis is hiding behind her religion & using it to justify her bigoted views. Her religion strictly adheres to the Bible. Forget about her own divorces, if she was born again after they took place... BUT, not only she has signed off on divorce decrees since finding Jesus... she has issued marriage licenses to previously married couples as well... thus breaking rules she is supposed to live by, & in effect has sanctified adultery in her God's eyes. And as I have said earlier... she took an oath, which according to her religion also a NO NO.

Kim Davis is a hypocrite. It's that simple.

As far as that Muslim woman...she should be fired for dereliction of duty.

Davis should have been fired for refusing to do her job. Not jailed and denied bail.

But she still has the right to speak her mind and express her religious views and beliefs.

We do not jail people in this country for free speech.

She was not jailed for speech, idiot. Goddam how is it possible at this point in this topic that you don't know that?

she was jailed for refusing to do her job. she should have been fired. thats my point.

 

[Redfish]

I am done wasting my time with you nycarbon girl. I could get a better discussion from a turnip.

 

[playtime]

She wants that $80K salary & doesn't mind taking tax dollars from the homogays as she's denying their rights under the 14th Amendment after pledging to uphold the Constitution & its laws, while taking oaths is against her religion & respecting the government's authority is what her religion dictates.

She's a wolf in sheep's clothing, plain & simple.

Her issue was that she did not feel right about putting her signature on a gay marriage license. That was not an offence mandating jail and refusing bail.

a compromise was reached and everyone needs to STFU about it. She keeps her job and her clerks will sign the gay licenses that she objects to on religious grounds.

Why have we heard nothing from you libs about the muslim flight attendent who refused to serve alcohol even though it was part of her job when she accepted employment with the airline?

Kim Davis has more issues than her simple signature on those licenses. She instructed her office to not issue any, period. And her lawyer, who is 'defending' her is also trying to say those licenses issued WITHOUT her signature aren't valid... which is bullshit, but Davis & her lawyers don't want gays to marry, period. Kim Davis is hiding behind her religion & using it to justify her bigoted views. Her religion strictly adheres to the Bible. Forget about her own divorces, if she was born again after they took place... BUT, not only she has signed off on divorce decrees since finding Jesus... she has issued marriage licenses to previously married couples as well... thus breaking rules she is supposed to live by, & in effect has sanctified adultery in her God's eyes. And as I have said earlier... she took an oath, which according to her religion also a NO NO.

Kim Davis is a hypocrite. It's that simple.

As far as that Muslim woman...she should be fired for dereliction of duty.

Davis should have been fired for refusing to do her job. Not jailed and denied bail.

But she still has the right to speak her mind and express her religious views and beliefs.

We do not jail people in this country for free speech.

She was not jailed for speech, idiot. Goddam how is it possible at this point in this topic that you don't know that?

she was jailed for refusing to do her job. she should have been fired. thats my point.

You haven't read how she cannot be fired since she is an elected official? She went to jail for contempt of court. She was found to be in contempt of court for refusing to follow the court order to do the job she swore to do.

It was NEVER a 'free speech' issue... it was always (according to her & her lawyer) a freedom of religion issue, which is a NON issue when it comes to carrying out her duties as a sworn officer & agent representing the US Government... which she is being paid $80K a year to do.

 

[LOki]

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.

This is true.

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

This is not true.

The government is telling all Americans that the institution of marriage is legal and valid with respect to the government.

Every American is still free to believe that gay marriage is lolfritterz.

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

This is not true either.

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

It's true that the government should not be telling us what we must believe, and everyone (but the superstitious retards) pretty much gets that.

What you may be too dense to understand is that for whatever dopey reasons (probably to tell other Americans what to believe, right?) we have (illegitimately) empowered the government to license people to keep pets, own guns, practice dentistry, paint toenails, drive taxis, cut hair, etc., ... When the licensing requirement is premised upon some Biblical bullshit to begin with, the illegitimacy of that licensing bullshit is just exacerbated.

When a government official--acting as an agent of the government--refuses to issue any license (for reasons other than those proscribed by law) they are simply not doing their job, and are in fact denying law abiding folks exercise of their rights and/or legal privileges, and certainly the benefits thereof.

Requiring Kim Davis to do the job she earnestly sought to do and freely chose to accept, is no infringement of her rights, religious or otherwise. She is not personally sanctioning these marriages that she personally finds repugnant... she's certifying that licensees have met the legal requirements (of the government she freely chose to be the agent of) for obtaining said license. Using her office to impose her bullshit religion upon others is illegal--this is not a theocracy--no matter how badly the superstitious retards in this country demand that this is a Christian nation--and Kim Davis is not the Grand Priestess of any religion that this country is allegedly founded upon. When she interposed her bullshit religion into the bullshit state licensing machine, she did not make things better for anyone. Not for herself, and certainly not for her religion.

She made things worse.

She was wrong. On every level.

She is wrong.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Duh-----did you really think the gay marriage thing was about gay rights?

I thought it was about civil rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am done wasting my time with you nycarbon girl. I could get a better discussion from a turnip.

To newbies, this you will learn is RWnut code on USMB for

'****! I've lost another argument to a liberal!'