sadbrownsfan Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 From you saying that [unless you been to Vietnam you should shut the fuck up about it]? WSS you were the one saying they should have been thrown in prison equating it with this ky woman who violated the law. Someone who refused to go to war, because in war you would have had to shoot and kill another human being...is a far far different prospect than someone who morally is opposed to two same sex couples but has the legal obligation to stfu and do their job. I reiterate, two gay people getting married is not the same as going and killing people...and also being killed yourself likely. Opposing war and opposing same sex marriage, you can't even begin to apply the apples and oranges analogy to it. It's profoundly stupid to even attempt to equate these two as you are trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 It's the opposition to an obligation that was deemed to be in contempt, not the subject of said opposition, and resulted in jail time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 except the moral question came into play years after she was in her job. the dumb cartoon, ham and condoms have always been sold, long before the clerk worked at the grocery store. The marriage license clerk ended up in the position of objecting by no fault of her own. And the lefties demand the gov not be allowed to legislate morality. Yet, when it is politically expedient, as always, they flip over and demand that everybody go along with the government legislating morality. Civil unions were the answer, but the left wants to raise hell and force every single issue they can, because it helps them to win their culture war. And, as was predicted, it is opening up the old can of worms, pandora's box, and a lot of strife. Now, why would the left WANT to bring about all this racial, cultural, and economic strife? I'm open to different answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 except the moral question came into play years after she was in her job. the dumb cartoon, ham and condoms have always been sold, long before the clerk worked at the grocery store. The marriage license clerk ended up in the position of objecting by no fault of her own. And the lefties demand the gov not be allowed to legislate morality. What sort of nonsensical horseshit statement is that? Every human is born with free will, and everybody is responsible for the choices that they make. She chose to follow the Christian faith, albeit her own cherry-picked interpretation of it. It was her choice to deny those licenses based on nothing more than her religious objections, it was her choice to refuse to delegate the responsibility for that to the deputy clerks as a compromise, it was her choice to not resign when she refused to compromise, and it was ultimately her actions that landed her in jail. Yet, when it is politically expedient, as always, they flip over and demand that everybody go along with the government legislating morality. Civil unions were the answer, but the left wants to raise hell and force every single issue they can, because it helps them to win their culture war. And, as was predicted, it is opening up the old can of worms, pandora's box, and a lot of strife. No, they were not. Ignoring the fact that civil unions were only recognized in a few states, of which Kentucky was not one, they were not equal to marriages at all, neither in name or benefits and protections under law: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/marriage-compared-to-civil-unions.html (And I made absolutely sure to use information from a content-neutral site, Cal. Just for you buddy). Now, why would the left WANT to bring about all this racial, cultural, and economic strife? I'm open to different answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 People in the army I assume, die hard help me out, make some sort of a vow to obey orders. I have no doubt someone is giving orders that someone else believed to be morally unacceptable. I know members of some churches are exempt from military service for just that reason. So back in time or during the civil rights movement or during those stupid Occupy Wall Street sit-ins (of which I would suggest you might have supported) people were supposedly protesting through civil disobedience something that they thought was morally reprehensible. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 and jblu, I never said civil unions were exactly the same. In man-woman REAL MARRIAGE - children are possible. In civil gay unions, they are NOT (outside of adoption, which is also perverse) A federal acceptance of civil unions would have been the answer. What else ? You think gay couples should be allowed to sue God because they can't have children? Sue America because it's America's fault they are perverts and cannot possibly have children? Seriously, your argument doesn't work. I suppose you think gay couples should be allowed to have tax credits for biological children they can't possibly have, because "it would only be fair" Bunch of nonsense. Civil unions were most certainly the answer. That they want to be exaclty as normal as real men-women marriages is impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 and jblu, I never said civil unions were exactly the same. In man-woman REAL MARRIAGE - children are possible. In civil gay unions, they are NOT (outside of adoption, which is also perverse) A federal acceptance of civil unions would have been the answer. What else ? You think gay couples should be allowed to sue God because they can't have children? Sue America because it's America's fault they are perverts and cannot possibly have children? Seriously, your argument doesn't work. I suppose you think gay couples should be allowed to have tax credits for biological children they can't possibly have, because "it would only be fair" Bunch of nonsense. Civil unions were most certainly the answer. That they want to be exaclty as normal as real men-women marriages is impossible. No marriage if you're old / infertile. Got it. I wish the internet was around when mixed race marriage was debated. I'd love to see the parallels in the arguments. All Time "Wrong Side of History" Team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 and jblu, I never said civil unions were exactly the same. In man-woman REAL MARRIAGE - children are possible. In civil gay unions, they are NOT (outside of adoption, which is also perverse). I see. So, by your criteria, I guess that makes infertile couples who adopt children perverts, regardless of their sexuality, as Woody mentioned above. A federal acceptance of civil unions would have been the answer. Ok, so let us say the federal government did recognize civil unions, and gave them the full legal protections and benefits of heterosexual marriage. Putting aside the fact that civil unions were only legal in a few states, and would still be unrecognized by the other states (another fact which you failed to address), that would make civil unions and marriages identical in the eyes of the law. The only difference would be the name, no? A difference in semantics. Ketchup vs Catsup, soda vs pop, etc. And you stated that this "would have been the difference". If so, then what, exactly, is the hubbub all about? You're essentially and paradoxically arguing against something you're actually for. What else ? You think gay couples should be allowed to sue God because they can't have children? I mean, it'd be akin to suing the boogy man, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny or any other make-believe character, so why not? Might as well see if their lawyers can sue Zeus or Odin too while they're at it. ...Sue America because it's America's fault they are perverts and cannot possibly have children? There's that word again. Please, enlighten me on which legal or moral authority you are using to support to claim that homosexuals are perverts. Because in the eyes of the Government of the United States, they are not perverts at all. Seriously, your argument doesn't work. I suppose you think gay couples should be allowed to have tax credits for biological children they can't possibly have, because "it would only be fair" No, but I think that they should be allowed the freedom to seek out the reasonable amount of happiness and dignity in their lives that heterosexuals strive for. I believe that treating a fellow human being with compassion and respect they deserve and judging them on their actions and content of character, not with the gender of adult they choose to spend their lives with, more than "fair" Bunch of nonsense. Civil unions were most certainly the answer. That they want to be exaclty as normal as real men-women marriages is impossible. Impossible to bigoted, hyper-fundamentalist crackpots such as yourself, maybe, but not to other rational, more compassionate human beings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 No marriage if you're old / infertile. Got it. I wish the internet was around when mixed race marriage was debated. I'd love to see the parallels in the arguments. All Time "Wrong Side of History" Team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 so, skin color is perverted, you liberals think? what a bunch of rationalistic nonsense. Being infertile for whatever reason, is not perverted either. You guys can't rationally discuss points, you go off the liberal deepend with asswipish other knee jerk subjects, and to save face, you say that they are the exact same thing. Wierd, really weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 Completely different. Race mixing is between TWO DIFFERENT SEXES. Not two fags butt fucking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 so, skin color is perverted, you liberals think? what a bunch of rationalistic nonsense. Being infertile for whatever reason, is not perverted either. You guys can't rationally discuss points, you go off the liberal deepend with asswipish other knee jerk subjects, and to save face, you say that they are the exact same thing. Wierd, really weird. This post is a joke, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 so, skin color is perverted, you liberals think? Not at all, I think that the interracial marriage analogy flew a bit over your head. What Woody and the others were referring to is that up until a few decades ago, marriage between races, miscegenation, was considered by many to be a "perversion" against God and nature, and many of these people tried to use religion as a justification for their bigotry: Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. Judge Leon M. Bazile, January 6, 1959, http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/ So what was once seen by a group of people as perversion a few decades ago is now considered to be acceptable by the vast majority of rational thinking people. Homosexual marriage is no different. The zealotist crackpots of today are trying to use religion as a legal basis to deprive homosexuals their legal right to marry, and by extension, their right to be treated with decency and respect. what a bunch of rationalistic nonsense. Being infertile for whatever reason, is not perverse either. Yes, I tend to agree with that statement, and I'm glad to see that you have finally come around to that as well. Though, I must admit, I am a bit confused on why you are now agreeing with me on this, when just yesterday you stated the ability to have children as a tenant of "REAL MARRIAGE", while stating the lack of such ability to be "perverse" You guys can't rationally discuss points, you go off the liberal deepend with asswipish other knee jerk subjects, and to save face, you say that they are the exact same thing. Putting aside for the moment that your statement is one of the most hypocritical things I've seen you state so far, coming from the same individual who continuously floods the Political Discussion board with Tea Party-inspired drivel, I'd just like to state that it is quite sad that you would consider the use of rationality and logic in debates as something to be ashamed of. Thankfully you are the minority in this viewpoint, I would hope. And secondly, Cal, I would like to repeat a question to you that I have already asked you about a few times previously, to which you have yet to answer: what are you using as your legal or moral authority to justify the prohibition of equal status for both hetero and homosexual marriage? What exactly are you drawing upon as your authority? The Bible? The U.S. constitution? Please, for the sake of clarity, enlighten us on this. Wierd, really weird. Or, as J.B.S Haldane would put it: I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 Completely different. Race mixing is between TWO DIFFERENT SEXES. Not two fags butt fucking. It'd be a little difficult for lesbians to "butt fuck" each other. Scissoring then, perhaps? If you're dead set upon being bigoted, DieHard, at least don't go about it in a half-assed manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 It'd be a little difficult for lesbians to "butt fuck" each other. Scissoring then, perhaps? If you're dead set upon being bigoted, DieHard, at least don't go about it in a half-assed manner. Strapons dip shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 jblu, are you Cleve's second butt of the board personality? You "both" run your mouth, and then end up with your foot in it. You, like him, make asinine comparisons and assumptions and interpretations, then you hop around gloating that you made some kind of warped point. Gays cannot be married because of science. And only men-women can get married, legally. I'm not an attorney, but this is how I understand it. The cultural extension of the court's judgements are not historically valid, and defy the intention of the 14th Amendment, and also defies the right of the majority of Americans to establish constructive, fundamental institutions for the society to flourish. Read this and try to STFU unless you have a legit point. http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/rational-legal-basis-traditional-marriage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/Marriage.aspx All they had to do, is create civil unions with the legal rights the same as real marriage between a man and a woman. But the lelf didn't want that, because it wasn't a political culture war battle. They had to redefine real marriage into a falsehood, to slap the rest of status quo, healthy marriage-supporters in the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 Gays cannot be married because of science. Quote of 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 Gays cannot be married because of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 Magnets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 Quote of 2015 Right next to German Shepherds can't consent. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 Right next to German Shepherds can't consent. WSS Haha. At least there's some context around that one that makes it nit as bad. What cal just said tho...god damn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 Chris, you were supposed to wait for jblue to raise hell about that one, and THEN I get him with the science of magnets. ruined it, you lefty Brit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 Chris, you were supposed to wait for jblue to raise hell about that one, and THEN I get him with the science of magnets. ruined it, you lefty Brit. The sad thing is, you really believe that,...:; I think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 The sad thing is, you really believe that I think.. Don't sell yourself short judge, nobody here believes that you think. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 bwahhaaa!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 Don't sell yourself short judge, nobody here believes that you think. WSS Lol, I missed some punctuation there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 Don't let my typo take away from the beauty that is Cals comment though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.