Ky. County clerk makes a stand against feds

[Sonny Tufts]

The real impetus behind the push to have the government redefine marriage to include same-sex couples is so as to grant gay people a sense of legitimacy, as if to say, "Even the state says that there's nothing wrong with us. So there must not be." It's not really about equal rights, and has nothing at all to do with liberty.

It has everything to do with equal rights. It just doesn't appear that way to those whose religious beliefs characterize gays as illegitimate, less-than-human, perverted sinners, or some other pejorative label. It's reminiscent of the time blacks were viewed in the same way.

 

[erowe1]

It has everything to do with equal rights. It just doesn't appear that way to those whose religious beliefs characterize gays as illegitimate, less-than-human, perverted sinners, or some other pejorative label. It's reminiscent of the time blacks were viewed in the same way.

Can you find a quote of anyone characterizing gays as illegitimate or less than human?

 

[Ender]

Can you find a quote of anyone characterizing gays as illegitimate or less than human?

This?

It's not so much a visceral dislike of gays as it is a visceral dislike of their actions. This is a perfectly healthy attitude, and it is a discredit to our culture that more people don't have it. One of the reasons homosexuality is becoming more and more common is because of the prevailing acceptance and even promotion of it, and the shunning of those who won't go along with this trend.

The real impetus behind the push to have the government redefine marriage to include same-sex couples is so as to grant gay people a sense of legitimacy, as if to say, "Even the state says that there's nothing wrong with us. So there must not be." It's not really about equal rights, and has nothing at all to do with liberty.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Can you find a quote of anyone characterizing gays as illegitimate or less than human?

What Ender said. But if you really want to knock yourself out with anti-gay screeds, try the folks at the Westboro Baptist Church:

Sodomites are wicked & sinners before the Lord exceedingly (Gen.13:13), are violent & doom nations (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19), are abominable to God (Lev. 18:22), are worthy of death for their vile sex practices (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32), are called dogs as filthy, impudent & libidinous (Deut. 23:17,18; Mat. 7:6;Phil. 3:2), produce in society mass intoxication from their wine made from grapes of gall from the vine of Sodom & fields of Gomorrah, poisoning society's mores with the poison of dragons & the cruel venom of asps (Deut. 32:32,33), show their sin & shame on their countenance (Isa. 3:9), are shameless & unable to blush (Jer. 6:15), workers of iniquity (Psa. 5:5), liars & murderers (Jn. 8:44), filthy & lawless (2 Pet. 2:7,8), natural brute beasts (2 Pet. 2:12), are likened unto dogs eating their own vomit, sows wallowing in their own feces (2 Pet. 2:22), will proliferate at the end of the world bringing final judgment on mankind (Lk. 17:28-30), have been finally given up by God to uncleanness to dishonor their own bodies, to vile affections, & to a reprobate mind such that they cannot think straight about anything (Rom. 1:23-28); and, unable to blush, be ashamed, or repent (Jer. 6:15), they have no hope of Heaven (Rev. 22:15). "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Heb. 10:31.

 

[erowe1]

This?

Not unless you interpret my words to mean something totally different than what they are. Saying there's something wrong with homosexuals, just like there's something wrong with kleptomaniacs or alcoholics, is not dehumanizing. It is a prerequisite to addressing their problems. If a doctor lies to a sick person and tells them they're well, that's not compassionate, it's evil.

 

[erowe1]

What Ender said. But if you really want to knock yourself out with anti-gay screeds, try the folks at the Westboro Baptist Church:

The fact that you have to resort to the example of Westboro Baptist Church shows how far off you are. Most Christians have never heard of any other Christians who are anything like them, except for the fact that they've seen that very group in the news.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

It has everything to do with equal rights. It just doesn't appear that way to those whose religious beliefs characterize gays as illegitimate, less-than-human, perverted sinners, or some other pejorative label. It's reminiscent of the time blacks were viewed in the same way.

Many people I know supported the real civil rights movement of the '60s and oppose the so called "gay rights" movement. The movements are completely different and have very different origins.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Many people I know supported the real civil rights movement of the '60s and oppose the so called "gay rights" movement. The movements are completely different and have very different origins.

That's true, but what's common to some of the opponents of both movements was and is the feeling that blacks and gays are second-class citizens who needn't be treated the same as whites and straights.

 

[Ender]

Not unless you interpret my words to mean something totally different than what they are. Saying there's something wrong with homosexuals, just like there's something wrong with kleptomaniacs or alcoholics, is not dehumanizing. It is a prerequisite to addressing their problems. If a doctor lies to a sick person and tells them they're well, that's not compassionate, it's evil.

Do you actually know any gays?

Do you actually understand that most- if not all- were born that way? Do you have any idea of the pain and suffering that most gays go through? I know many Christian gays who have been celibate all of their lives and who do not understand why they are different.

Also- do you have ANY concept of FREEDOM? Consenting adults should have the FREEDOM to act as they choose. If I am not forced into anything then it should not be any of my business what they do?

FREEDOM also means for ALL mankind, not just for those that live in a way someone else thinks is appropriate.

 

[tod evans]

Freedom is also being able to live free from those whom you disagree with which is why homogenization is never going to work.

This isn't an issue for the feds.

 

[Ender]

Freedom is also being able to live free from those whom you disagree with which is why homogenization is never going to work.

This isn't an issue for the feds.

Absolutely it is not an issue for the feds- they should never have been involved in marriage, in the first place.

 

[tod evans]

Absolutely it is not an issue for the feds- they should never have been involved in marriage, in the first place.

Not just marriage!

Federally mandated "fairness" will always infringe on one party.

 

[erowe1]

Do you actually know any gays?

Do you actually understand that most- if not all- were born that way? Do you have any idea of the pain and suffering that most gays go through? I know many Christian gays who have been celibate all of their lives and who do not understand why they are different.

Also- do you have ANY concept of FREEDOM? Consenting adults should have the FREEDOM to act as they choose. If I am not forced into anything then it should not be any of my business what they do?

FREEDOM also means for ALL mankind, not just for those that live in a way someone else thinks is appropriate.

1) Of course I know many gays.
2) No, they are not born that way. The hypothesis that they are has been extensively studied and proven false. I don't see why it matters though. We're all born sinners in need of a savior. Many addicts are born with a predisposition that makes them more susceptible to alcoholism than other people. Many other disorders are congenital. Does this mean we are supposed to pretend they aren't problems and do nothing to ameliorate them, or worse yet, try to manipulate society so as to make them more common?
3) Their pain and suffering gives all the more reason to acknowledge the problem and address it as one.
4) My commitment to freedom is the very basis for me view here. The pro-same-sex-marriage-license position has no basis whatsoever in wanting to make anyone more free or make government smaller and less relevant. It's the very opposite.
5) Correct. It's not your business what they do. It's not my business either. It's not the state's business either. So don't try to make the state license it.

 

[erowe1]

Absolutely it is not an issue for the feds- they should never have been involved in marriage, in the first place.

Says the guy who agrees with the recent SCOTUS decision and the jailing of Kim Davis?

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

That's true, but what's common to some of the opponents of both movements was and is the feeling that blacks and gays are second-class citizens who needn't be treated the same as whites and straights.

It really isn't. The people who oppose homosexuality usually do so because out of love and a desire to see people repent and turn from their ways. The most unloving thing I could do is encourage someone in their lifestyle that will lead to destruction.

 

[Ender]

Says the guy who agrees with the recent SCOTUS decision and the jailing of Kim Davis?

I never said I agreed with jailing Davis- AND I have said from my start on this forum that GOVERNMENT DOES NOT BELONG IN MARRIAGE.

We should all be working together on the stuff that is freedom-winning for all, instead of boo-hooing when a government servant decides to throw her religion into an area that gov does not belong in the first place.

 

[erowe1]

I never said I agreed with jailing Davis- AND I have said from my start on this forum that GOVERNMENT DOES NOT BELONG IN MARRIAGE.

We should all be working together on the stuff that is freedom-winning for all, instead of boo-hooing when a government servant decides to throw her religion into an area that gov does not belong in the first place.

Then what part of my position did you have in mind when you asked if I had any concept of freedom? Have I ever advocated restricting the freedom of gay people?

 

[mac_hine]

You can't make this shit up.

 

[Dianne]

Do you actually know any gays?

Do you actually understand that most- if not all- were born that way? Do you have any idea of the pain and suffering that most gays go through? I know many Christian gays who have been celibate all of their lives and who do not understand why they are different.

Also- do you have ANY concept of FREEDOM? Consenting adults should have the FREEDOM to act as they choose. If I am not forced into anything then it should not be any of my business what they do?

FREEDOM also means for ALL mankind, not just for those that live in a way someone else thinks is appropriate.

Actually, both of my sisters children are gay. The son Trey was undoubtedly born gay. From the time he began to walk and talk, it was clear he was a female. So I know from experience, there are x and y chromosomes. And sometimes there are more of one then the other. "Gay" people are born that way.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

I think you're right, but what you say is not inconsistent with the religious person's fear of the government defining marriage. See, the problem, to me, is that the government can define and is defining marriage as an institution of government rather than a private one. This is the fear that many Christians have, although many don't actually realize the connection between their fear of a certain "definition" and the government's intrusion in their lives. The simpletons only know that they don't like what the government is doing to the institution of marriage, although they are unable to pinpoint just what the problem is besides the vague notion of a supposedly incorrect "definition". It just so happens, however, that what they are afraid of is the government takeover of the marriage institution which is the process by which the government goes about redefining marriage.

In this way, I think the religious people are right in their loathing of the government's attempts to redefine marriage because it has real-world implications that you, yourself would agree are bad (I assume).

I completely agree. I just think they are going about it the wrong way. By clinging to this state sanctioned certificate and the definition of said certificate remaining between a man and a women gives the impression that the state sanctioned certificate is the real deal. In a way I think you could say that marriage has already been defined as an institution of government to the public, in our times at least. The SCOTUS ruling provided a great jumping board for the separation of such. For the pastors to tell their flocks that the marriage certificate from the state is nothing but a tax deduction, reduction of force, whatever, and that real marriage and commitment comes from within the church and the individuals. Instead it has been through political aspirations that those who opposed the ruling have fought. And that just reaffirms the belief that marriage is an institution of government.