# Anti-gay KY County Clerk ignores Federal Order to refuse issuing marriage licenses



## NeoTerraKnight (Aug 29, 2015)

,,,She's been married 4 times.





> MOREHEAD, Ky. ? A Kentucky county clerk asked the U.S. Supreme Court for permission Friday to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
> 
> Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis is seeking "asylum for her conscience," her lawyers with the Orlando-based law firm Liberty Counsel wrote in their emergency application to stay enforcement of a federal court ruling requiring the county to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zyrax (Aug 29, 2015)

He shouldn't be forced to tbh


----------



## Pilaf (Aug 29, 2015)

A town called more head is against gay sex? HIGHLY SUSPECT.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 29, 2015)

I knew it was more "MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS" bullshit.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Aug 30, 2015)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> He shouldn't be forced to tbh



Gets paid 80 000 $ per year.

Swore an oath to uphold their duties.

_Of course_ they should be forcing her to either _do her job _or resign.

That goes for that other Davis asshole as well. You can't just decide you won't do something that is in your job description but then still demand to be paid.


----------



## EJ (Aug 30, 2015)

People still using religion as a way to skip around this..


----------



## Punished Pathos (Aug 30, 2015)

She's been married four times? 
She should have issued the licenses.
Let the Gay people get legally married and divorced.
Government and marriage/divorce industry needs to profit


----------



## Saishin (Aug 30, 2015)

> She's been married four times?


The world is full of hypocrite people and she's one of them,these people preach religiousity to others imposing their beliefs when they are the first ones to not have a life in accordance to the religious rules they are so fond of.
The law is the law and the law now allow same sex couples  to get marry so the public clerks are obliged to apply the law,thus she's fighting a lost battle.


----------



## RockSauron (Aug 30, 2015)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> He shouldn't be forced to tbh



It's her job. She's on the government payroll to stamp the thing. If she doesn't want to do her job, then she doesn't have to have that job.

It'd be like if a super Catholic in her job could refuse to grant divorce papers or interfaith marriage licensees under her same argument.


----------



## EJ (Aug 30, 2015)

Why are people still responding to Zyrax as if he deserves a serious reply?


----------



## stream (Sep 1, 2015)

And now the lady is refusing to do the job even after the Supreme Court ruled that she has to. I guess she's just going to get fired. Or perhaps the country is going to decide that she's on leave, and nobody can get married at all.


----------



## Lucaniel (Sep 1, 2015)

muh selective moral convictions


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Sep 1, 2015)

what is separation of church and state for $200, alex


----------



## ? (Sep 1, 2015)

Claims to not want to do something for religious reasons but is too greedy to step down from job.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Sep 1, 2015)

*slams gavel*

Contempt of court, jail + $1000/day fine until she resigns or agrees to comply with the ruling.

Next case.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 2, 2015)

^

Not to mention, given if she's afraid of hell, tell her she's going there for discrimination against homosexuals. Jesus was a very progressive man, he had two gay followers after all! I hate these 'Christians' who don't even practice what is preached: love, tolerance, and acceptance.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 2, 2015)

^

I hate 'Christians' who cherry pick. The Bible discriminates plenty and encourages it towards women and non-believers and plenty more. Homosexuality is only tolerated unless it involves the sex, and only heterosexuals can marry.

Everything apparently 'progressive' in the Bible contradicts itself and vice-versa. Do not kill - life is apparently a gift from God - but it is apparently _ok_ to kill non believers. A religion is pretty much worthless wherein the word of its deity contradicts itself.


----------



## wibisana (Sep 2, 2015)

maybe i should practice my past belief (Jihad) on her
kill her, and I would get away with it, according to her own logic


----------



## iDrum (Sep 2, 2015)

This lady is a disgrace to my state. And that's saying something considering it's Kentucky.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 3, 2015)

What is 'Love thy neighbor as thyself'?

Something that this bitch and other so called' Christians' don't believe in despite it being one of Jesus' core tenants.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Sep 3, 2015)

She lives in a state that have the initials KY and don't want gay people to be married .


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (Sep 3, 2015)

The bitch is going to jail!





> ASHLAND, Ky. — A federal judge here on Thursday ordered a Kentucky clerk jailed for contempt of court because of her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
> 
> The clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, was ordered incarcerated after a hearing here before Judge David L. Bunning of Federal District Court. The contempt finding was another legal defeat for Ms. Davis, who has argued that she should not be forced to issue licenses that conflict with her religious beliefs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sunuvmann (Sep 3, 2015)

I'm conflicted on this.

While imprisoning for her for contempt of court is absolutely the correct thing to do, its bad politics.

Because you just gave the nutters a martyr to fuel their persecution complex. Who wants to bet the nuts are already declaring her their 'Rosa Parks'?


----------



## very bored (Sep 3, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> I'm conflicted on this.
> 
> While imprisoning for her for contempt of court is absolutely the correct thing to do, its bad politics.
> 
> Because you just gave the nutters a martyr to fuel their persecution complex. *Who wants to bet the nuts are already declaring her their 'Rosa Parks'?*






> Kim Davis is taking a stand and saying no more, much like Rosa Parks did against unjust anti-liberty Jim Crow laws.




  Conservatives are going to flip their shit over this.


----------



## Lucaniel (Sep 3, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> I'm conflicted on this.
> 
> While imprisoning for her for contempt of court is absolutely the correct thing to do, its bad politics.
> 
> Because you just gave the nutters a martyr to fuel their persecution complex. Who wants to bet the nuts are already declaring her their 'Rosa Parks'?



the law is above politics

or it should be


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 3, 2015)

...damn, they're really ignorant: supporting discrimination = stopping Jim Crow Laws.


----------



## Pilaf (Sep 3, 2015)

Ohhhhhhh boy. How annoying. How very annoying. I agree with the ruling and all, but I work with a lot of scared old Obama-hating people. I just know when this comes on the news tonight at work (because it'll be news to them. Believe me. They don't comprehend New Media. They'll see it for the first time at like 6), they're all gonna be screaming about how they're persecuted, then they're gonna hold hands and pray and it's gonna be really goddamn awkward.


----------



## Tyrannos (Sep 3, 2015)

I wouldn't call them ignorant because they're voicing their religious beliefs.  To many religious people they feel their rights are being taken away for the sake of "equality".  But they don't feel its equal since they are no longer allowed to express their religious freedoms.  Just look 10 years ago, people could openly express their beliefs.  Now people go insane if you say express anything religious outside of a church.


As for this woman, she should not be condemned for expressing her beliefs.  But even the Bible says to obey the laws of the land.   So while it would've been proper to resign, she definitely wants to force the issue of religious rights by sacrificing herself to express that point of view.   So really the Rosa Parks analogy isn't too far off.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 3, 2015)

^ It is far off, Tyrannos. Her primary objection isn't even IN the Bible (there's nothing said about Same-Sex marriage at all in it after all), so she literally has no leg to stand on. She wants to be able to discriminate against people who she dislikes and claims the Bible is the reason: its not. She just doesn't want to admit she's an bigot, like the rest of these Fundies.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 3, 2015)

Yeah, this woman is full of shit. She should have just done her job, and if she didn't want to, resigned.


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (Sep 3, 2015)

Tyrannos said:


> I wouldn't call them ignorant because they're voicing their religious beliefs.  To many religious people they feel their rights are being taken away for the sake of "equality".  But they don't feel its equal since they are no longer allowed to express their religious freedoms.  Just look 10 years ago, people could openly express their beliefs.  Now people go insane if you say express anything religious outside of a church.
> 
> 
> As for this woman, she should not be condemned for expressing her beliefs.  But even the Bible says to obey the laws of the land.   So while it would've been proper to resign, she definitely wants to force the issue of religious rights by sacrificing herself to express that point of view.   So really the Rosa Parks analogy isn't too far off.



She's married 4 times. But then again, those people will believe Cruz is born in America more so than Obama is.


----------



## Narcissus (Sep 3, 2015)

Tyrannos said:


> I wouldn't call them ignorant because they're voicing their religious beliefs.


...and? Belifs can be ignorant whether they're religious or not. Comparing Davis to Rosa Parks is extremely ignorant. 





> To many religious people they feel their rights are being taken away for the sake of "equality".  But they don't feel its equal since they are no longer allowed to express their religious freedoms.


Nonsense, the rights of religious people are not being violated.  But this woman is violating the rights of others in the name of her religion. 

There isn't any problem expressing your religion. But expression and using religion against others are two different things.





> As for this woman, she should not be condemned for expressing her beliefs.


Stop. She isn't being condemned for expressing her beliefs. She is still being paid while ignoring a direct court order. She should be jailed for contempt.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 3, 2015)

While the Bible does condemn homosexuality, it has no place in how she conducts her business in the official capacity of her (former) occupation. At the end of the day she was motivated by her own bigotry and used the pretense of being a crusader of God in an attempt to justify her clearly unlawful actions. Under some delusion that it would exempt her from the law, and the obligations of her job. I really don't feel sorry for her going to jail, and she would be martyred either way, because Christians of her type especially have always looked themselves the victim despite this country being overwhelmingly Christian, and all the rights and privileges afforded to people on the basis of faith. They look at any kind of pushback, any accountability, and the fact that they cannot just steamroll over those they oppose as some kind of oppression against them.


----------



## Pilaf (Sep 3, 2015)

Tyrannos said:


> I wouldn't call them ignorant because they're voicing their religious beliefs.  To many religious people they feel their rights are being taken away for the sake of "equality".  But they don't feel its equal since they are no longer allowed to express their religious freedoms.  Just look 10 years ago, people could openly express their beliefs.  Now people go insane if you say express anything religious outside of a church.
> 
> 
> As for this woman, she should not be condemned for expressing her beliefs.  But even the Bible says to obey the laws of the land.   So while it would've been proper to resign, she definitely wants to force the issue of religious rights by sacrificing herself to express that point of view.   So really the Rosa Parks analogy isn't too far off.



Refusing to do your goddamn job isn't "expressing your beliefs". It's negligence. Nobody ever paid me for what I believed. People pay me to produce results. This woman was failing to produce results in her chosen field. Since she worked in a legal capacity, for the government, this is criminal. She has every right to be a homophobic triple divorcee in her own home. I'm sure her offspring, born out of wedlock from cuckold sex, will benefit from her example in the way children raised in such a hypocritical, disjointed way usually do.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 3, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> While the Bible does condemn homosexuality, it has no place in how she conducts her business in the official capacity of her (former) occupation. At the end of the day she was motivated by her own bigotry and used the pretense of being a crusader of God in an attempt to justify her clearly unlawful actions. Under some delusion that it would exempt her from the law, and the obligations of her job. I really don't feel sorry for her going to jail, and she would be martyred either way, because Christians of her type especially have always looked themselves the victim despite this country being overwhelmingly Christian, and all the rights and privileges afforded to people on the basis of faith. They look at any kind of pushback, any accountability, and the fact that they cannot just steamroll over those they oppose as some kind of oppression against them.


Actually, there's many places in the Bible where homosexuality is condoned by the Bible, if not outright supported. Jesus having two homosexual followers for one. The original meaning of Leviticus has also been lost to time, no one can really find a way to translate it accurately and most people go with the King James version. And Sodom and Gamorah's destruction (which many Fundies point to being for homosexuality) was about the cities violating the sacred rules of hospitality.


----------



## Narcissus (Sep 3, 2015)

As for her being upheld as a martyr by the ignorant, I say let them. No one is going to accept a comparison between Davis and Rosa Parks except the people who already agree with her position. Otherwise, people will quickly demonstrate how stupid that attempt at a comparison is...


----------



## Lucaniel (Sep 3, 2015)

man this perception that religion is some sort of special case where if your stupid beliefs come under the umbrella of faith, they deserve more respect than stupid beliefs with no religious connection, needs to go


----------



## Orochibuto (Sep 3, 2015)

To be honest there is a lot of debate on what the Bible says or doesn't say.

For example, I have seen (and wonderfully backed up I might add) articles explaining the Bible didn't taught about God casting eternal torture over sinners. And how "Hell" is an outright edit implant when the original worlds were Sheol, Tartarus and Gehenna. Sheol being a common grave, Tartarus being the prison for fallen angels and Gehenna just a dumpster outside Jerusalem there was always fire there and basically being casted into Gehenna was not a sadistic torture but simply the ultimate shame as horrible criminals at times were rather than properly buried thrown into Gehenna as if they were garbage.

And then a lot of people will say hell exists.

Regarding gay rights, I also remember reading the Leviticus law doesn't apply anymore because Jesus said these things will not pass until everything is fullfilled and when he at the cross said "its finished" it meant exactly that, that they were fullfilled and as such the old law no longer applied.

And then there a lot of people saying homosexuality is properly condemned in Christianity.

So there is a lot of debate on what it says and it doesn't says.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Sep 3, 2015)




----------



## KidTony (Sep 3, 2015)

she's in jail now


----------



## Louis Cyphre (Sep 3, 2015)

Orochibuto said:


> And then a lot of people will say hell exists



The "modern" concept of hell was created in middle-ages IIRC. Bible outrights says that the dead do not think, feel, much less suffer.

But they, the books are a self-contradictory mess.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 3, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> ^
> 
> Not to mention, given if she's afraid of hell, tell her she's going there for discrimination against homosexuals. Jesus was a very progressive man, he had two gay followers after all! I hate these 'Christians' who don't even practice what is preached: love, tolerance, and acceptance.



Yes Jesus hung out with sinners but He told it like it was. What was wrong and is wrong. Jesus never beat around the bush. He loved but never said anything like, "I love you and came to die for your sins, now do what you because you're forgiven!"



NeoTerraKnight said:


> The bitch is going to jail!



#Theintoleranceofthosewhoclaimtolerance



SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> (t*here's nothing said about Same-Sex marriage at all in it after all*), so she literally has no leg to stand on. She wants to be able to discriminate against people who she dislikes and claims the Bible is the reason: its not. She just doesn't want to admit she's an bigot, like the rest of these Fundies.



Really?

Romans 1: 24-27
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator?who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, *God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones*. 27 *In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
*




SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Actually, there's many places in the Bible where homosexuality is condoned by the Bible, if not outright supported.



1.) There are many verses to oppose what you just stated.



> Jesus having two homosexual followers for one.



2.)Please post evidence to this.



> The original meaning of Leviticus has also been lost to time, no one can really find a way to translate it accurately and most people go with the King James version.



3.)We also have evidence supporting that we have the real translations. Dead Sea Scrolls being one of them.




Also they found a bit of Leviticus in those same scrolls.




> And Sodom and Gamorah's destruction (which many Fundies point to being for homosexuality) was about the cities violating the sacred rules of hospitality.



4.)Also wrong and this article destroys that notion.


Please be quiet you shill who only spreads disinfo. Its almost as if you're intentionally trying to prove to us that you're a meat puppet.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 3, 2015)

Surprise surprise, JSJ supports the bigots.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 3, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Surprise surprise, JSJ supports the bigots.



Surpirse surpirse SuperSaiyaMan spews shit out his mouth and doesn't rebut. Shill.


----------



## Louis Cyphre (Sep 3, 2015)

Bitch is going to jail because she refused to perform her duty as an employee of the State - even after a federal order was issued -, not because her views on the gheys per se.

You know what contempt means right?

But I presume your brain is unable to comprehend this.


----------



## Mider T (Sep 3, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Surpirse surpirse SuperSaiyaMan spews shit out his mouth and doesn't rebut. Shill.



Who's the real shill here?  You think being intolerant of intolerant people is just as bad, that's the most sheep thing I've ever heard.


----------



## Nep Nep (Sep 3, 2015)

I saw that on tv at work today x}  

So many memes.


----------



## Blitzomaru (Sep 4, 2015)

I love that people say this violates the sanctity of marriage as well as saying ti goes against the bible, but these are the same people who have no hesitation to going to the Middle East and killing Islamic Terrorists, even tho that goes against a goddam commandment.

The funny thing in the military we have something called conscientious objector status. that is you can join the military, where your main job is to train to defend the country in case of war, but have strong enough beliefs hat you cannot in good conscience kill another person or even just support a war. Its hard to get that status as a ton of people apply just to get out of deployments, but its not uncommon. And you are usually separated from the military when you get CO status. because that is the job you applied for so why should we let you stay in it if your 'beliefs' won't let you perform it.


----------



## Chainwave (Sep 4, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Surprise surprise, JSJ supports the bigots.



He used evidence to correct your view. I don't think that equates to what you said.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 4, 2015)

Chainwave said:


> He used evidence to correct your view. I don't think that equates to what you said.


He didn't use any evidence besides mistranslations. JSJ has always been a bigot, Chainwave. To the point where he was supporting the bill in Nigeria that would kill homosexuals.


----------



## KidTony (Sep 4, 2015)

why the fuck are you two arguing over what some goat fucking farmers wrote 1000 years ago like it means anything lmao


----------



## olaf (Sep 4, 2015)




----------



## Mider T (Sep 4, 2015)

Though it's funny I'm not sure why non-Americans are in here celebrating, it doesn't really affect them.


----------



## wibisana (Sep 4, 2015)

KidTony said:


> why the fuck are you two arguing over what some goat fucking farmers wrote 1000 years ago like it means anything lmao



"my ninja turtle can turn water to wine and stone to bride"
"my Ninja turtle ride superhorse that can fly and meet the god directly"


yeah which is better ninja turtle is no matter because all of them is fiction


----------



## olaf (Sep 4, 2015)

I'm celebrating that woman getting MUH FREEDOM right in the face by the court.

plus schadenfreude of someone you don't like


----------



## Amol (Sep 4, 2015)

Man someone should have told her about too many divorces are sins in her face.
Hypocrite bitch.
How long she will stay in jail btw ?


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 4, 2015)

Amol said:


> Man someone should have told her about too many divorces are sins in her face.
> Hypocrite bitch.
> How long she will stay in jail btw ?


Indefinitely. Until she agrees to either do her job or resign.


----------



## Amol (Sep 4, 2015)

^So if say she never agrees to issue license, then would court keep her in jail for rest of life ?
They would probably just fire her from the job and release her after month or two in jail, right ?
What is the biggest punishment for contempt of court ?


----------



## olaf (Sep 4, 2015)

Amol said:


> They would probably just fire her from the job and release her after month or two in jail, right ?


I've read that it's an electable postition so she can't be fired. not sure if that's true


Amol said:


> What is the biggest punishment for contempt of court ?


after quick look at : indefinitely


----------



## Kira Yamato (Sep 4, 2015)

olaf said:


> I've read that it's an electable postition so she can't be fired. not sure if that's true
> 
> after quick look at : indefinitely



Yep, the only why she can be released from her position is to be impeached by State Legislators.


----------



## olaf (Sep 4, 2015)

oh and that article that I linked states that deputies of that jailed clerk will give out marriage certificates to same sex couples


----------



## Blitzomaru (Sep 4, 2015)

funny thing is one of the deputies is her son.


----------



## olaf (Sep 4, 2015)

this is getting better and better


----------



## stream (Sep 4, 2015)

Mider T said:


> Though it's funny I'm not sure why non-Americans are in here celebrating, it doesn't really affect them.



Watching stupid people get their comeuppance is a pleasure, no matter where they happen to be


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Sep 4, 2015)

Kira Yamato said:


> Yep, the only why she can be released from her position is to be impeached by State Legislators.



She could resign her position as well.  She just can't be "fired"


----------



## Orochibuto (Sep 4, 2015)

Someone has to ask this woman who follows Old Testament law a question.

"Do you wear clothes made of different fabrics?"


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 4, 2015)

Louis Cyphre said:


> Bitch is going to jail because she refused to perform her duty as an employee of the State - even after a federal order was issued -, not because her views on the gheys per se.
> 
> You know what contempt means right?
> 
> But I presume your brain is unable to comprehend this.



No I know what it is. I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing SSM's empty  statements that He has yet to back up. People lambast me for expressing my opinion and actually using sources. Yet this child can say such things and just call me a bigot for rebutting him? Top lol.



Mider T said:


> Who's the real shill here?  You think being intolerant of intolerant people is just as bad, that's the most sheep thing I've ever heard.



No there is no reason to jail her indefinitely. Simply remove her from office. Also since the beginning of time SSM has always said stuff like this then left and called me names when I've called him out.



Blitzomaru said:


> I love that people say this violates the sanctity of marriage as well as saying ti goes against the bible, but these are the same people who have no hesitation to going to the Middle East and killing Islamic Terrorists, even tho that goes against a goddam commandment.



No. Again this comes down to the ancient texts, ?You shall not kill? is actually not a command found in the Ten Commandments. The command from scripture in the original language actually says ?You shall not murder? (Exodus 20:13). The Hebrew word for ?murder? literally means ?the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice.?. The definition for murder is, "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought." 

Killing's definition is, "to deprive of life :  cause the death of"

Two very different things. Malice is a form of evil intent that separates ?murder? from ?killing?. Even today there are acceptable forms of killing that lack this kind of evil intent, and these forms of killing exist as exceptions in the murder laws of the United States. 

Examples: A person kills someone accidentally
A person is trying to defend him or herself and prevent his or her own murder (self-defense)
A person is trying to prevent someone from entering his or her house to commit some violent felony
A person is trying to prevent the murder of someone else (protecting an innocent)

In all these situations, killing is actually legal and justifiable, and exceptions of this nature exist in the Penal Codes of every state in America. Even those who don?t accept the existence of God or the authority of the Bible recognize the necessity for laws like these; laws that allow for deadly force to be used to accomplish some greater good.

It?s interesting to note, however, these exceptions are not the invention of modern humans; they are simply a reflection of ancient Biblical Law. The Bible is the source for these modern laws and the exceptions come straight from the pages of scripture:

*An accidental killing is not murder*:

Exodus 21:12-13
Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate.

Numbers 35:22-25
But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did not intend to harm him, the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send him back to the city of refuge to which he fled.

*A killing performed in self-defense (or in defense of one?s home) is not murder*:

Exodus 22:2
If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed

*A killing performed in an attempt to save the life of an innocent person is not murder*:

Exodus 2:11-12
One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to where his own people were and watched them at their hard labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own people. Glancing this way and that and seeing no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. (God did not judge Moses as a murderer because he was protecting the life of the slave)

Genesis 14:14-16
When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan. During the night Abram divided his men to attack them and he routed them, pursuing them as far as Hobah, north of Damascus. He recovered all the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions, together with the women and the other people. (God did not judge Abram as a murderer because he was protecting the life of Lot)

Killing becomes murder when (and only when) it is not properly justified, and the justifications are clear: you can use whatever force necessary to protect your own life from a hostile aggressor, or to save the life of an innocent from such imminent, life-threatening danger. The difference between the legal or illegal use of deadly force is really a matter of motive, intent and justification, and these distinctions come straight from the pages of Scripture.

Also to end, Jesus even says to buy a sword and defend yourself for trouble ahead.

Luke 22:35-37
35 Then Jesus asked them, ?When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything??

?Nothing,? they answered.

36 He said to them, ?But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don?t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ?And he was numbered with the transgressors?; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.?




SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> He didn't use any evidence besides mistranslations. JSJ has always been a bigot, Chainwave. To the point where he was supporting the bill in Nigeria that would kill homosexuals.



You're making these statements but not backing them up. Prove they are mistranslations and my other points. Right now, I'm winning.

I've never supported the killing of homosexuals. Get your facts straight before spew such bullshit.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 4, 2015)

You people all think because you read Genesis and maybe one book of the Gospels and a few other Googled verses out of context you're all "experts" at how Christianity is the SUPREME EVIL OF AMERICA.


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (Sep 4, 2015)

It's considered Christian to forbid interracial marriage you know.


----------



## jinjue (Sep 4, 2015)

> *Jailed clerk's attorney: Marriage licenses are void*
> 
> MOREHEAD, Ky. ? A jailed Kentucky clerk asserted that marriage licenses issued without her authority Friday to gay couples in Rowan County are void and "not worth the paper they are written on" because she didn't authorize them, her attorney said.
> 
> ...


----------



## PureWIN (Sep 4, 2015)

The funniest thing about all of this is the fact she's a Democrat.


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (Sep 4, 2015)

PureWIN said:


> The funniest thing about all of this is the fact she's a Democrat.



A conservative Democrat. You know, like George Wallace.

And F*** the attorneys.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 4, 2015)

The attorney seriously compared her to Martin Luther King Jr.?! For god's sake is the cognitive dissonance THAT strong in the South when it comes to the Bible Belt?


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 4, 2015)

If this were instead a muslim denying a marriage or divorce to a christian couple, I'd bet money that this lady would be one of the first to complain. She's just a colossal idiot, and a hypocrite no less considering she's awfully divorce-happy.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Sep 4, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> He didn't use any evidence besides mistranslations. JSJ has always been a bigot, Chainwave. To the point where he was supporting the bill in Nigeria that would kill homosexuals.


No, he used evidence and gave you new knowledge.

Also, ad hominem. Can you actually rebut anything he said SSM12?


----------



## Amol (Sep 4, 2015)

olaf said:


> I've read that it's an electable postition so she can't be fired. not sure if that's true
> 
> after quick look at : indefinitely


There should be someone with enough legal power to fire her.
She is practically being tyrant with her position .
Well it doesn't seem like going to jail is enough punishment for her.


----------



## Pilaf (Sep 5, 2015)

The office of County Clerk is an electable office. A person can be impeached or held in contempt, but not fired in the technical sense. Allegedly, a bunch of County Clerks here in Tennessee are about to follow suit and start throwing temper tantrums like this lady did. It's going to become a conservative Christian movement of sorts - something else to fuel their victim complex.


----------



## Orochibuto (Sep 5, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> No I know what it is. I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing SSM's empty  statements that He has yet to back up. People lambast me for expressing my opinion and actually using sources. Yet this child can say such things and just call me a bigot for rebutting him? Top lol.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What about different fabrics in clothing and divorce? If people are to be denied marriage they should also be denied divorce and wearing different fabrics should earn you a fine.

If you get so worked worried about same sex couples getting married, you should also get as angry because divorce occurs.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 5, 2015)

The Handsome Klad said:


> No, he used evidence and gave you new knowledge.
> 
> Also, ad hominem. Can you actually rebut anything he said SSM12?



Of course not he'll just hide in his shell and call me a bigot.



Orochibuto said:


> What about different fabrics in clothing and divorce? If people are to be denied marriage they should also be denied divorce and wearing different fabrics should earn you a fine.
> 
> If you get so worked worried about same sex couples getting married, you should also get as angry because divorce occurs.



Ahh you mean these two verses?

Leviticus 19:19 says, ?Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.?

And Deuteronomy 22:9?11 commands, ?Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled. Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together. Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.?

The rule against wearing different types of fabric was not a moral law. There is nothing inherently wrong with weaving linen and wool together. In fact, the ephod of the high priest was made of linen and dyed thread (Exodus 28:6?8; 39:4?5). The dyed thread would have been made of wool. This fact is probably the key to understanding the prohibition. The ephod of the high priest was the only garment that could be woven of linen and wool. No one else was allowed to have such a garment. Apparently, this rule was to place some distance between the high priest and the people, with the ultimate purpose of reminding Israel of how holy God truly is. A similar prohibition in the Law regarded anointing oil. God gave a special recipe for the anointing oil, and it was strictly forbidden to duplicate the recipe for common use. No Israelite was allowed to make this oil for his own purposes (Exodus 30:31?38).

The passages forbidding wearing clothes woven with wool and linen include a list of other prohibitions against mixing of various kinds. It is interesting to note that ancient Hittite laws also forbade the sowing of different kinds of seed in the same field. It appears that mixing of this kind was reserved for sacred purposes, and the average person was not allowed to engage in these practices. In the Old Testament, the prohibitions may have been to maintain distance between the people and the high priest (and therefore God, whom the high priest represented). In other cases, the prohibitions may have been designed to keep the Israelites from imitating the superstitious or religious practices of the pagan nations surrounding them. Even though we do not understand all that is behind these prohibitions, we can be sure that the ancient Israelites would have understood exactly why the rules were in place.

So, is it wrong for a Christian today to wear clothing made of two different types of material? The clear and unequivocal answer is ?no.? As we have seen, the prohibition was only for linen and wool, which would be uncommon today, anyway. Other types of blends were simply not in view. Beyond that, the prohibition was for ancient Israel, not for the New Testament Christian. *The ceremonial laws for ancient Israel as recorded in the Old Testament simply do not apply today.* 

But thats where moral absolutes come into play. Homosexuality is wrong across the board but I don't hate people who come from this view anymore then Jesus would disown said homosexual. I simply show people what God has to say and let him do to judging. When you are in love with Jesus your old sinful life is gone and you only want to please Him.

Also I'm strong on divorce as I am same gender marriage. You don't divorce. Simple. Jesus stated the only reason for divorce.

Matthew 19:7-9
7 ?Why then,? they asked, ?did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away??

8 Jesus replied, ?Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.?

You work through your problems in marriage you don't divorce over simple things.


----------



## dummy plug (Sep 5, 2015)

lol if you dont agree or believe in your job anymore then you could always resign


----------



## Mider T (Sep 5, 2015)

*Oregon judge refuses to perform same-sex marriages*



> SALEM, Ore. -- Marion County Judge Vance Day is being investigated by a judicial fitness commission in part over his refusal to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds, a spokesman for the judge said.
> 
> 
> When a federal court ruling in May 2014 made same-sex marriage legal in Oregon, Day instructed his staff to refer same-sex couples looking to marry to other judges, spokesman Patrick Korten said Friday.
> ...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 5, 2015)

This bullshit again...


----------



## Mider T (Sep 5, 2015)

I knew you were going to be the first one to respond lol.

Funny thing is though, same-sex marriage has been legalized in Oregon for well over a year now.


----------



## EJ (Sep 5, 2015)

Let them drop like flies.


----------



## ? (Sep 5, 2015)

Oh look, a trend.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 5, 2015)

> Last fall, he decided to stop performing weddings altogether, aside from one in March that had long been scheduled, Korten said.
> 
> "He made a decision nearly a year ago to stop doing weddings altogether, and the principal factor that he weighed was the pressure that one would face to perform a same-sex wedding, which he had a conflict with his religious beliefs," Korten said.



So whats the problem again? He stopped doing ALL weddings? Why the fuss? But of course the Libs are going to turn this into something its not.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 5, 2015)




----------



## Megaharrison (Sep 5, 2015)

I love how it's okay for civil servants to flaunt the law and make sanctuary cities but here is totally outrwgeous


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 5, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> I love how it's okay for civil servants to flaunt the law and make sanctuary cities but here is totally outrwgeous



And what about DC with their blatant disregard of the ruling to allow concealed carry? Oh wait that doesn't fit their agenda. Suddenly, the narrative changes.


----------



## PureWIN (Sep 5, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> So whats the problem again? He stopped doing ALL weddings? Why the fuss? But of course the Libs are going to turn this into something its not.



Because it shows that he has a bias against gays; thus, it could potentially affect his rulings on other court cases besides marriage.

Let me put it like this... if you were Black, would you want a judge presiding over your case for whatever legal matter (e.g. traffic violation) if you knew they refuse to perform interracial marriages because of personal reasons?


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 5, 2015)

It's rather odd to make a stand on this considering he wasn't even doing marriages anyway.

Still, this is going to be a ongoing thing where judges keep refusing to do their jobs because of religion. Hopefully such people all get replaced.


----------



## SLB (Sep 6, 2015)

the messiah complex some people have is scary


----------



## Pilaf (Sep 6, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> So whats the problem again? He stopped doing ALL weddings? Why the fuss? But of course the Libs are going to turn this into something its not.



If I didn't do my job, I'd get fired. Why do government employees think the rules don't apply to them? They're not special. A job is a job.


----------



## Megaharrison (Sep 6, 2015)

Pilaf said:


> If I didn't do my job, I'd get fired. Why do government employees think the rules don't apply to them? They're not special. A job is a job.



Should mayors/judges in US cities still have their jobs for not enforcing immigration law?


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 6, 2015)

^ Not the same thing. Stop mixing the two issues in an attempt to make a stupid 'Conservative' point of view seem reasonable, like your racism Megaharrison.


----------



## Megaharrison (Sep 6, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> ^ Not the same thing. Stop mixing the two issues in an attempt to make a stupid 'Conservative' point of view seem reasonable, like your racism Megaharrison.



How is it isn't the same? Federal laws are Federal laws are laws, right?

Is it not the same because the law ends where liberal emotions begin?

Hard mode response for the usual suspects: Respond to this WITHOUT calling me racist, evil, stupid, crazy, and all the other bored catchphrases.


----------



## stream (Sep 6, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> Should mayors/judges in US cities still have their jobs for not enforcing immigration law?



I suppose anybody is free to sue them? Go ahead, we'll watch 

By the way, the jailed KY clerk is claiming that the marriage licenses issued without her signature are legally void:





> A Kentucky clerk jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses asserted that any ones that are issued without her authority Friday to gay couples in Rowan County are void and ?not worth the paper they are written on? because she didn?t approve them, her attorney said.
> 
> Kim Davis ?has already been doing Bible studies with herself? in jail, her attorney Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel told reporters after meeting her behind bars. He said Davis is in very good spirits and is fully prepared to stay as long it takes to defend her religious freedoms.
> 
> ...


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Sep 6, 2015)

Can't they fire her or impeach her or something? Why would she need to resign?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 6, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> ^ Not the same thing. Stop mixing the two issues in an attempt to make a stupid 'Conservative' point of view seem reasonable, like your racism Megaharrison.



You have probably noticed you're trying to debate a complete retard that doesn't know the first thing about this issue, such as the fundamental difference is that this matter is a one of active denial of citizens' rights.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 6, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> How is it isn't the same? Federal laws are Federal laws are laws, right?
> 
> Is it not the same because the law ends where liberal emotions begin?
> 
> Hard mode response for the usual suspects: Respond to this WITHOUT calling me racist, evil, stupid, crazy, and all the other bored catchphrases.



Then stop being a stupid, evil, crazy, racist? I mean you look like a goddamn Captain Planet villain. What's your motive in this? 

Seriously, you run around here grand standing about how unfair people are for fighting for gay marriage?


----------



## Blitzomaru (Sep 6, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> How is it isn't the same? Federal laws are Federal laws are laws, right?
> 
> Is it not the same because the law ends where liberal emotions begin?
> 
> Hard mode response for the usual suspects: Respond to this WITHOUT calling me racist, evil, stupid, crazy, and all the other bored catchphrases.



Should police still have their jobs for not enforcing Jaywalking? you can't compare apples to oranges.

As has been said, a judge who lets his religious beliefs trump his duties is not an impartial judge. As what already said again, interracial marriage is forbidden in the bible. As is divorce. but the county clerk has been married 3 (4?) times. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if she turned out to have an Ashley Madison account. You can't cherry pick parts of the bible you want to believe, gloss over the rest or say it doesn't apply anymore.  

Daniel Tosh made a great point:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNU6LPQv81E[/YOUTUBE]

 Also, Since you brought up immigration, answer this question. If I magically took every illegal immigrant and put them in every Baseball and football stadium in the country so you knew exactly where they were, how would you deport them? How would you pay for it? How long would it take?


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Sep 6, 2015)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Can't they fire her or impeach her or something? Why would she need to resign?



They could impeach her, but the state congress has to do that.

The state congress is out of session until January.  They could be called into an emergency session but that's rather expensive.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Sep 6, 2015)

WorkingMoogle said:


> They could impeach her, but the state congress has to do that.
> 
> The state congress is out of session until January.  They could be called into an emergency session but that's rather expensive.



It's _september_. They don't have a session for five months, after summer ?

What's the point then ?

Also "Bible Studies" is not something that will tell her if she is legally bound to do something. So maybe do some _other _type of studies instead of rereading the same book over and over again to validate decisions based on what's written in that same book ?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 6, 2015)

WorkingMoogle said:


> They could impeach her, but the state congress has to do that.
> 
> The state congress is out of session until January.  They could be called into an emergency session but that's rather expensive.



A good number of them might support her.


----------



## Megaharrison (Sep 6, 2015)

Since this is the only non-whiny irrelevant bullshit post I'll respond



Blitzomaru said:


> Should police still have their jobs for not enforcing Jaywalking? you can't compare apples to oranges.



I haven'y gotten any good answers here regarding the difference. Just "it's difference gawd u rayciss" and "apples and oranges BECAUSE".

No, I see no difference. The jaywalking comparison is shit. Jaywalking is regularly enforced by police and tickets are regularly dispensed for it. It's not always enforced on a cop-to-cop individual basis. There's no city/state-wide decisions by the leadership to ignore the laws. This comparison just shows your own desperation.



> As has been said, a judge who lets his religious beliefs trump his duties is not an impartial judge.



a judge who lets his political beliefs trump his duties is not an impartial judge. 



> Daniel Tosh made a great point:
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNU6LPQv81E[/YOUTUBE]



As , you know you're dealing with a liberal when they start citing comedians for their political evidence



> Also, Since you brought up immigration, answer this question. If I magically took every illegal immigrant and put them in every Baseball and football stadium in the country so you knew exactly where they were, how would you deport them? How would you pay for it? How long would it take?



I love how liberals are SO CONCERNED about physical feasibility of political policy all of a sudden. The same people who just want to raise the debt ceiling for all of their lavish spending are now very serious about the logistics of policy making.

Anyway, put them in buses and ship them off.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 6, 2015)

You just went after what you thought was easiest to respond to. It had nothing to do with what was whiny and more on your inability to actually follow up on your logic. As I stated before, the fundamental difference here is an active denial of citizens' rights.



> I love how liberals are SO CONCERNED about physical feasibility of political policy all of a sudden. The same people who just want to raise the debt ceiling for all of their lavish spending are now very serious about the logistics of policy making.



Such a mindless talking point, particularly considering that under Republican administrations and a Republican led Congress spending is just as bad if not worse than their Democratic counterparts. Simply put, you just don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Blitzomaru (Sep 6, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> Since this is the only non-whiny irrelevant bullshit post I'll respond
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And I see you didn't answer any of the questions.

Oh, I watched your video. cute, in an 'ignore the argument completely by insulting them because you can't refute their claims' kinda way. Much like most of your replies. I'm sure I could find some video called '10 ways to spot a conservative bigot', but I'm not here to attack anyone. I'm not a liberal, I'm a goddamn adult. There's a difference. In fact, my voting record is mostly for the republican party. Anyone who believes that just 1 party has the answer to everything is exactly what's wrong with this country. And the Primaries are the perfect example. The candidates spend the entire time calling each other out on policies like high school girls, but they've signed agreements to endorse whoever the nominee will be. Does that make any sense?


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 7, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> I love how liberals are SO CONCERNED about physical feasibility of political policy all of a sudden. The same people who just want to raise the debt ceiling for all of their lavish spending are now very serious about the logistics of policy making.
> 
> Anyway, put them in buses and ship them off.


You. Are. A. Sociopath. You're evil now. Megaharrison, the good person is dead and now we have the tyrant Trump Supporter Right Winger in his place.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 7, 2015)

Oh my god, man. Stop being so hammy!


----------



## Mider T (Sep 7, 2015)

Why was my thread merged?  Completely different story, unmerge it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 7, 2015)

Mider T said:


> Why was my thread merged?  Completely different story, unmerge it.



More merged threads, great.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Sep 7, 2015)

this mega business is just getting worse and worse everyday. :/


----------



## afrosheen6565 (Sep 7, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> You. Are. A. Sociopath. You're evil now. Megaharrison, the good person is dead and now we have the tyrant Trump Supporter Right Winger in his place.



You see, it is posts like this that made me reach the conclusion that we cannot ever discuss issues like gay marriage or other issues of social import with any hope of, if not concensus, then at least hope of understanding how people who differ from us feel.

Can you not see that your own mentality, that so easily, nonchalantly calls another a sociopath....can you not see that your mindset is what fuels the "tyrant Trump Supporter Right Wingers" as you put it.

I'm out of words for this. This argument has become dumb.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Sep 7, 2015)

You're expecting restraint on the internet.

Good news is I have a perfectly good bridge I can sell you : D


Seriously, the news section is awful at how quickly people start insulting each other. Sometimes undeserved and then sometimes you get a Mider T or that guy (?) who never understood why an adult woman getting a 12 year old drunk and having him fuck her was a bad thing.

Don't come into any topic here expecting civilised discourse. That way you'll be pleasently surprised when you won't be completely right.


----------



## afrosheen6565 (Sep 7, 2015)

San Juan Wolf said:


> You're expecting restraint on the internet.
> 
> Good news is I have a perfectly good bridge I can sell you : D
> 
> ...



I never learn.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Sep 7, 2015)

I do not understand how Megaharrison can support the right wing or Republican party so much!

With few exceptions, the Republican party does not like or trust Jews and especially Israelis at a personal level.  They only see Israeli Jews as a buffer between the West and East to keep the Muslims at bay in the Middle East, nothing more or less.

They only support Israel for their pseudo Christian religious beliefs that white _*Nordic*_ (no joke,  evangelical conservatives like to believe he looks like that) Jesus will use Israel as a base for the war againt the non-believers.


----------



## Mider T (Sep 7, 2015)

San Juan Wolf said:


> You're expecting restraint on the internet.
> 
> Good news is I have a perfectly good bridge I can sell you : D
> 
> ...



I'm confused at this...are you saying I'm a victim?


----------



## Kira Yamato (Sep 7, 2015)

*Kim Davis asks Kentucky governor to free her in same-sex marriage case*



> (CNN)Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who's refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, on Monday asked the Kentucky governor to immediately free her from jail, according to court documents obtained by CNN.
> 
> "We would like them to release her from jail and provide reasonable, sensible accommodation so she can do her job," one of her lawyers, Horatio Mihet, said in a statement. "That would be taking her name off of marriage licenses in Rowan County and allowing her deputies to issue the licenses."
> 
> ...






She knows exactly what she needs to do in order to get out.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Sep 8, 2015)

Mider T said:


> I'm confused at this...are you saying I'm a victim?



No, more that you tend to respond in _the _most inappropriate of ways at the most ill-fitting of times.


----------



## Mider T (Sep 8, 2015)

I don't see it but if you say so...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 8, 2015)

afrosheen6565 said:


> You see, it is posts like this that made me reach the conclusion that we cannot ever discuss issues like gay marriage or other issues of social import with any hope of, if not concensus, then at least hope of understanding how people who differ from us feel.
> 
> Can you not see that your own mentality, that so easily, nonchalantly calls another a sociopath....can you not see that your mindset is what fuels the "tyrant Trump Supporter Right Wingers" as you put it.
> 
> I'm out of words for this. This argument has become dumb.



It would be easy to see why you get mad at this person if we didn't have people running around here denying others of rights that literally don't effect them and then using "but illegals are allowed to stay" as an excuse. 

It's funny how at the same time that Mega claims that cops are always in the right shooting people that he can take this stance of government (which the cops are essentially an arm of) being wrong in making a law that allows two people to marry.

In defense of this being called out he goes on to cite something that is more of a distraction from the fact that he supports government in one place and not in another. His gripe with sanctuary cities is really bullshit. They're not cities that offer protection from immigration law as much as they are cities that have policies that keep police from questioning the immigration status of people being arrested or from arresting people based on perceived dubious status in the country. 

"Sanctuary city" is like the term "death council" and the "planned parenthood is selling babies" thing in that it's one of the partial truths or sometimes downright lies that conservatives twist to fit the narrative they need to to so that they can argue against it and scare others against defending it or into outright being disgusted. 

I'm almost certain Megaharrison knows what the term actually is talking about, but is using it to deflect the perfectly good question of why this lady shouldn't be impeached. 

He comes into threads like this and claims we all whine and fight with emotion, but every time he's asked direct factual questions he starts deflecting or dancing around a direct answer. 

For anyone interested this article explains .


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Sep 8, 2015)

Kira Yamato said:


> *Kim Davis asks Kentucky governor to free her in same-sex marriage case*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not sure the governor can do anything to be honest.  Contempt of Court isn't a crime that she can be pardoned from, she's not charged with anything.  As I understand it she's stuck in court until she complies with the order (either by resigning her post or issuing licenses).

If it were a state judge (as opposed to federal) the state congress would be able to begin impeachment hearing for the judge if they felt his actions were sufficiently grievous.  But as a federal judge it would have to happen at the national level which is unlikely at the least.


----------



## Mider T (Sep 8, 2015)




----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 8, 2015)

PureWIN said:


> Because it shows that he has a bias against gays; thus, it could potentially affect his rulings on other court cases besides marriage.
> 
> Let me put it like this... if you were Black, would you want a judge presiding over your case for whatever legal matter (e.g. traffic violation) if you knew they refuse to perform interracial marriages because of personal reasons?



It shows that He has a bias against Homos because He stopped doing marriages a year ago before SCOTUS made a ruling on marriage? Not so.



SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> ^ Not the same thing. Stop mixing the two issues in an attempt to make a stupid 'Conservative' point of view seem reasonable, like your racism Megaharrison.



They are the same thing. You can't want people to follow your marriage decision, which was just a decision there was no law made for gay marriage, and then not enforce the immigration rules.



Blitzomaru said:


> Also, Since you brought up immigration, answer this question. If I magically took every illegal immigrant and put them in every Baseball and football stadium in the country so you knew exactly where they were, how would you deport them? How would you pay for it? How long would it take?



We rustled up pretty much all the Japanese-Americans living on the west coast after Pearl Harbor into camps. Look it up. I'm sure we'd have no problem today.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Simply put, you just don't know what you're talking about.



Seto's classic line for anyone who has a different opinion.



SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> You. Are. A. Sociopath. You're evil now. Megaharrison, the good person is dead and now we have the tyrant Trump Supporter Right Winger in his place.



I swear you're a shill/meatpuppet. All you ever do is say insults and never respond to legitimate rebuttals. 

You ever going to respond to me or naw?


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (Sep 8, 2015)

So wait, as long as you are white Christian... it's okay to break the law?


----------



## Sunuvmann (Sep 8, 2015)

> We rustled up pretty much all the Japanese-Americans living on the west coast after Pearl Harbor into camps. Look it up. I'm sure we'd have no problem today.


>Advocating we repeat one of the worst things we ever did as a country with another ethnic group.

You're a horrible person.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 8, 2015)

^ She's technically not 'released'. She's in the custody of a US Marshal. Basically under house arrest.


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (Sep 8, 2015)

You know you are fucked up when the Westboro Baptist Church are against Kim Davis.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 8, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> >Advocating we repeat one of the worst things we ever did as a country with another ethnic group.
> 
> You're a horrible person.



 >Implying that I stated that we should put people in camps. Top lol.

Blitz simply asked how we could do it, like it can't be done, and I showed him that when the US government wants to do something they do it. 

It would not be that hard to round up every illegal and throw them out. But take it as an offensive statement if you want. Your guy's tears are delicious.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Sep 8, 2015)

>100k people in the Japanese camps
>11.5 million illegal immigrants
>100x as many people

Not only are you a sociopath, you're also a retard


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 8, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> >100k people in the Japanese camps
> >11.5 million illegal immigrants
> >100x as many people
> 
> Not only are you a sociopath, you're also a retard



Hitler rounded up 6 million. If He could do it so can we. But without the killing thanks mate.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Sep 8, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Hitler rounded up 6 million. If He could do it so can we. But without the killing thanks mate.


Hmmm yes. Our cattle cars aren't getting enough use nowadays.

Maybe we should pull their gold teeth out while we send them back over the border.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Sep 8, 2015)

Did...

Did someone honestly just use Hitler as a justification to round up and imprison immigrants?


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 8, 2015)

JSJ really has became evil.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 8, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> Hmmm yes. Our cattle cars aren't getting enough use nowadays.
> 
> Maybe we should pull their gold teeth out while we send them back over the border.



Yeah...

wtf



Yami Munesanzun said:


> Did...
> 
> Did someone honestly just use Hitler as a justification to round up and imprison immigrants?



Nope simply stating that a small nation of Germany can round up 6 million for an evil purpose then the World's leading super power should be able to round up 11 million criminals for deportation.

We all act as if we are just going to hold these people for life, we're not. WE ARE SENDING THEM HOME. Any other nation would do the same thing perhaps even worse to a illegal American in their nation. Everyone get off your high horse and stop being morons.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 8, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> JSJ really has became evil.



And you really haven't responded back to me destroying you 4 pages ago.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Sep 8, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Nope simply stating that a small nation of Germany can round up 6 million for an evil purpose then the World's leading super power should be able to round up 11 million criminals for deportation.



So all immigrants are criminals?

That's interesting.

That makes me wonder, however, why the entire nation isn't up in flames. 

Or why there aren't intra-national military operations occurring to take care of this massive inflow of criminals.

Jesus Christ, how horrifying.


----------



## Mider T (Sep 8, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> ^ She's technically not 'released'. She's in the custody of a US Marshal. Basically under house arrest.


If this is to me I didn't say they released her, I said they are letting her out.


Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Yeah...
> 
> wtf
> 
> ...



Their "home" is in America, that holds even truer for the ones that came here as infants.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 8, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> JSJ really has became evil.



People talk about decent conservatives but the forum only seems to have maybe two of them. Bacon is one of them, I'm not even sure the other is conservative


----------



## Hitt (Sep 8, 2015)

JSJ is your canonical right wing nutjob.  Too call him conservative would be the equivalent of calling Stalin liberal.  It's just not in the same ballpark.


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 8, 2015)

Bringing things back on topic, Kim Davis has now been released from jail under the condition that she does nothing to interfere with people handing out gay marriage licenses.

I think that's the best course of action. It hammers the point home that she was not jailed for her beliefs, but rather that she refused to do her job. It also prevents her from being a martyr for conservative groups, and if she tries to stop her deputies from handing out licenses, then her already flimsy excuse of "I just want to practice my religious beliefs" goes flying out the window since she would then be forcing her religion on others more than she already has.

RIght-wingers are still going to try to lionize her, but it's nice to see things making progress.


----------



## Orochibuto (Sep 8, 2015)

She could still argue that she is interfering as an excersise of her religion because she cant allow the licenses to have her name and she would still be supported by those who support her now.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 8, 2015)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> So all immigrants are criminals?
> 
> That's interesting.
> 
> ...



Do you live in America is my first question, if not stfu on OUR immigrant problem.

You'd be correct in stating that there our perfectly fine immigrants with no criminal record living illegally here getting benefits and healthcare that should be going to actual Americans. Sure there is no alien coming to your door holding a gun to your face but it shows in our taxes and debt. They broke the law by crossing the border they need to be sent back.



Mider T said:


> Their "home" is in America, that holds even truer for the ones that came here as infants.



Yes and to the hard working ones that aren't killing people from bridges they can stay once they have been verified and can pass some form of test. Otherwise we need to crack down on our border.


----------



## wibisana (Sep 8, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Do you live in America is my first question, if not stfu on OUR immigrant problem.
> 
> You'd be correct in stating that there our perfectly fine immigrants with no criminal record living illegally here getting benefits and healthcare that should be going to actual Americans. Sure there is no alien coming to your door holding a gun to your face but it shows in our taxes and debt. They broke the law by crossing the border they need to be sent back.
> 
> ...



how Illegal immigrant get your healthcare?
I dont know in US, but in Indonesia you must be able to show ID/documents and AFAIK illegal immigrant dont have any papers so they cant just go to hospital and receive free service (healthcare) w/o showing proof of citizenship


----------



## Mider T (Sep 9, 2015)

They don't.  He's just being obtuse.   Illegal immigrants lack a Social Security number which pretty much prevents them from living, learning,  or working at the same standard as Americans after high school.


----------



## TetraVaal (Sep 9, 2015)

"CTHULU HAS RISEN!"


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Sep 9, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Do you live in America is my first question, if not stfu on OUR immigrant problem.



Falling back on the "Do you even live here" rhetoric.





> Sure there is no alien coming to your door holding a gun to your face but it shows in our taxes and debt. *They broke the law by crossing the border they need to be sent back.*



So they're all _criminals_ thru technical definition of law, but not by any actual _criminal activity_.

Deportations are already happening, but you're kidding yourself if you honestly think anything near the scale of 11 million is a plausible reality. 

It would be far easier, relatively speaking, to keep anymore people from crossing over undocumented, and even then that's iffy as hell. 


I used to think a _lot_ like you on these issues, but then I grew up. You might want to give it a shot. 

We're done, thanks for the late night/early morning entertainment.


----------



## Orochibuto (Sep 9, 2015)

But Hitler rounded up 6 million Jews in the 30s-40s, so a more advanced US should be able to round up 11 million immigrants


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 9, 2015)

TetraVaal said:


> "CTHULU HAS RISEN!"


Is she actually celebrating this as a victory?


----------



## Edward Newgate (Sep 9, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Is she actually celebrating this as a victory?


Yes, she fucking does. 

THE GREATEST HERO OF OUR TIME! Fighting the injustice of persecution against Christians!

[YOUTUBE]ydyFhIjdRlU[/YOUTUBE]

They actually put Eye of the Tiger on when she came out without first asking Survivor for permission to use it 
But that's how the Republicans role, so...

The new Rosa Parks.


----------



## Deer Lord (Sep 9, 2015)

Wait they fucking put Eye of the Tiger as her intro song?

I can't breath


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Sep 9, 2015)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People talk about decent conservatives but the forum only seems to have maybe two of them. Bacon is one of them, I'm not even sure the other is conservative



Virtually all of the "conservatives" online are actually trolls playing the role of opposition, what their political beliefs are in reality is secondary to the character they portray online.

Talking to people in RL you will find decent conservatives at about the same frequency that you find decent liberals or decent librarians or decent <other classification of your choice>.


----------



## Hachibi (Sep 9, 2015)

Edward Newgate said:


> Yes, she fucking does.
> 
> THE GREATEST HERO OF OUR TIME! Fighting the injustice of persecution against Christians!
> 
> ...



 

Holy Shit they actually did it


----------



## soulnova (Sep 9, 2015)

Edward Newgate said:


> Yes, she fucking does.
> 
> THE GREATEST HERO OF OUR TIME! Fighting the injustice of persecution against Christians!
> 
> ...



 Just when I leave my earphones at home. Goddammit...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 9, 2015)

WorkingMoogle said:


> Virtually all of the "conservatives" online are actually trolls playing the role of opposition, what their political beliefs are in reality is secondary to the character they portray online.
> 
> Talking to people in RL you will find decent conservatives at about the same frequency that you find decent liberals or decent librarians or decent <other classification of your choice>.



Oh it seems that way. I have conservative friends and family and while we agree on some stuff they still act like human beings. They don't hate gays (one of my cousins has a gay daughter who is married) or think all the stupid shit I see toted here. 

At worse they pretend things don't exist. Like my Aunt acts like her grandson ain't wearing Capri pants, glitter, and dancing at the gay club.


----------



## Narcissus (Sep 9, 2015)




----------



## Alita (Sep 9, 2015)

So what happens when she goes back to work and refuses licenses again? This happens all over again? And again? And again?


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 9, 2015)

^ If she forces people not to issue licenses and does it herself, she's tossed back into jail for violating the terms of her release.


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (Sep 10, 2015)

The Deputy will do his job if Kim Davis won't. So JSJ or Mega or any other bigot, are you going to trash this guy for doing his job?


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 11, 2015)

NeoTerraKnight said:


> The Deputy will do his job if Kim Davis won't. So JSJ or Mega or any other bigot, are you going to trash this guy for doing his job?



Nope I certainly will not, because guess what? HE WANTS TO DO IT. We should not force people do something that goes against their beliefs. You're going to have people who are for gay marriage and people who are against it. Get over it. 

I simply stated throughout this thread what God states and His law and why it goes against God's plan and creation. While people like SSM12, who has yet to reply back, have called me bigoted and throw insults instead of actually arguing the point.


----------



## Deputy Myself (Sep 11, 2015)

>What god states
>What a bunch of old men wrote down in some book 800 years ago

totally the same thing


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 11, 2015)

Yet they found the identical texts in caves in Isreal that are over 3,000 years old.

But its ok DM one day we'll all pass away but God's word will stand forever.


----------



## Hitt (Sep 11, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> But its ok DM one day we'll all pass away but God's word will stand forever.



I think you mean Lord Krishna, whose Hindu writings predate Jewish texts by a 1000 years or more right?


----------



## very bored (Sep 11, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Nope I certainly will not, because guess what? HE WANTS TO DO IT. *We should not force people do something that goes against their beliefs.* You're going to have people who are for gay marriage and people who are against it. Get over it.
> 
> I simply stated throughout this thread what God states and His law and why it goes against God's plan and creation. While people like SSM12, who has yet to reply back, have called me bigoted and throw insults instead of actually arguing the point.



Do you really mean that?  A lot of people are motivated by their beliefs.  Even if we limit discussion to explicitly religious beliefs, ISIS is still the gorilla in the room.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Sep 11, 2015)

Hitt said:


> I think you mean Lord Krishna, whose Hindu writings predate Jewish texts by a 1000 years or more right?





Don't you guys get me started.

Seriously, for your own good


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 11, 2015)

JerseyShoreJesus, YOU ARE BIGOTED. You support laws that would KILL homosexuals remember? You support laws and other bigots that discriminate against gays! All going by the worse translations of the Bible you could find!

You even act like a Nazi when it comes to Illegal Immigration, you are an evil person at heart.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 11, 2015)

The Oath Keepers are trying to keep this bitch safe. So I guess it's okay when they obstruct justice, right?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 11, 2015)

THEY JUS' SOME GOOD OL' BOYS TRYIN' TO PROTECT WHAT'S RIGHT


----------



## EJ (Sep 11, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> JerseyShoreJesus, YOU ARE BIGOTED. You support laws that would KILL homosexuals remember? You support laws and other bigots that discriminate against gays! All going by the worse translations of the Bible you could find!
> 
> You even act like a Nazi when it comes to Illegal Immigration, you are an evil person at heart.



When did he state anything like this?


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 11, 2015)

Flow said:


> When did he state anything like this?


Last year when he had the Hinata avatar and went by a different name. It was during Nigeria's anti-Gay laws that would allow executions for homosexuals. Which he supported whole heartily, and on the Donald Trump thread he was supporting Nazi-esque measures for getting the illegal immigrants out.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Sep 14, 2015)

Let's play a rousing game of "Acceptable or Not Acceptable:"

1) A Baptist clerk in a "wet" county that refuses to issue any liquor licenses due to conflict of his faith.
2) A Methodist clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses to non-Methodists (they're not "real" marriages).
3) A Mormon clerk refuses to license coffee shops due to the inherent sinful nature of coffee.
4) A Jehovah's Witness clerk refuses to license any ambulance services that will keep blood transfusions in their vehicle.
5) A Jewish clerk that refuses to issue any licenses to businesses that will serve pork.
6) A Buddhist clerk that refuses to issue any licenses to grocery stores that carry meat.
7) A Muslim clerk that refuses to issue any licenses to businesses that employ women.
8) A Wiccan clerk who refuses to issue any licenses to individuals wearing clothes.

(Note none of the above are intended to indicate condoned behavior by any of the above faiths but only what might be an interpretation by a sufficiently extreme member)


----------



## Amol (Sep 14, 2015)

It is scary that few people in this thread actually tried to defend this woman.
Maybe this woman is not the only hypocrite around.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 14, 2015)

Amol said:


> It is scary that few people in this thread actually tried to defend this woman.
> Maybe this woman is not the only hypocrite around.



Hold up, this shit has got to stop.

Sometimes people can disagree with your ass about the most moral of issues, and not be evil shitlords plotting to  blow up the planet.

Fuck, especially on the moral of issues!!

This is by far, not a clear cut case. 

This woman broke the law. Correct. This woman shouldn't be allowed to break the law. Correct

BUT

This woman's religious beliefs don't ALLOW her to obey the law.

You think she's a jerk, she thinks she's going to HELL. "Fuck your opinion, I ain't going to hell" is running through her mind, and it's not unreasonable

AND

This woman might  be right on the rule of law. The same sex law was, for all it's virtues, something that passed a little dubiously for ALL AMERICAN'S OPINION. This is arguably civil disobedience. (Which always ends in jail, yes)

Hell YES this woman warrants defending


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 14, 2015)

> "Fuck your opinion, I ain't going to hell" is running through her mind, and it's not unreasonable



But it is unreasonable.


----------



## EJ (Sep 14, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Last year when he had the Hinata avatar and went by a different name. It was during Nigeria's anti-Gay laws that would allow executions for homosexuals. Which he supported whole heartily, and on the Donald Trump thread he was supporting Nazi-esque measures for getting the illegal immigrants out.



I can see him saying some air-headed shit like "Why don't we just leave them alone and let them live how they see fit" or some shit like that.

I would need to see the thread. Not doubting it completely though.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Sep 14, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Hold up, this shit has got to stop.
> 
> Sometimes people can disagree with your ass about the most moral of issues, and not be evil shitlords plotting to  blow up the planet.
> 
> ...



If she refuses to do one of her functions in under any circumstances regardless of who it cocners, she must either _immediately _resign, be forced to comply using force, or be removed from office using force.

There's nothing more to it. She stopped issuing_ all _marriage licenses, trying to take every couple wanting to get married in the country as a hostage and ignored standing court orders, thus she should be removed from office anyway, as she clearly does not respect her duties or superior authorities.

If she can't fullfill her highly paid job which she swore to do, then why not resign then ?


----------



## Totally not a cat (Sep 14, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Hold up, this shit has got to stop.
> 
> Sometimes people can disagree with your ass about the most moral of issues, and not be evil shitlords plotting to  blow up the planet.
> 
> ...



She was called a hypocrite, not "evil". I see what you mean but this rant is simply out of place. This woman warrants defending from all the death treaths and other hateful message she receives every 15 minutes because that's abusive and just a shitty thing to do that I in no way condone, but the crux of the matter is that she's imposing her own hardly reasonable beliefs on others in an unconstitutional manner, she's defying court and obstructing legal functions trying to impose a twisted moral code she's not any closer to fulfilling.

If she really was  so concerned, the respectable thing to do would be to simply resign. But that's not really what she wants, and she failed to respect her oath. How can you describe her as anything else but a hypocrite?


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 14, 2015)

Talking about "Resigning" like it's a "snap you're fingers and it's done" rather than a "destroy your life and major part of your identity as you know it" situation is a rather heartless thing to do there mate.


Not saying you're wrong, could be that she should have just resigned, just that, pump the breaks and get a real feel for it before instantly dismiss her as a "hypocrite"



Seto Kaiba said:


> But it is unreasonable.



If you believe in hell, it's unreasonable to be more concerned about going to hell than about someone else being inconvenienced?


----------



## Enclave (Sep 14, 2015)

At which point she is not suited for the office she holds and should resign.

If her beliefs are that strong then resigning shouldn't be a problem for her.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 14, 2015)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a time when the AG was upheld as a hero when refusing the defend prop 8 ?

We have to be careful that shit doesn't bite us back in the ass you know


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Sep 14, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Talking about "Resigning" like it's a "snap you're fingers and it's done" rather than a "destroy your life and major part of your identity as you know it" situation is a rather heartless thing to do there mate.



Which is more important, her physical well being in this life, or her immortal soul?

If she is as dedicated to her faith as you claim it _should_ be an easy decision.

Hell, Christianity is full of examples of people who were called upon by their faith to suffer in this life in order to do God's will.  Abraham, Moses, David, Job, what's-his-name-Jesus?  All suffered trials and tribulations directly because of their faith and relationship to God.

One could easily frame the narrative that in order to be a good Christian you should give up comforts in this life in order to have the grace of God in the next.

Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?​


----------



## Enclave (Sep 14, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a time when the AG was upheld as a hero when refusing the defend prop 8 ?
> 
> We have to be careful that shit doesn't bite us back in the ass you know



Jerry Brown refused to defend it based on constitutional grounds and it was correct to do so as laws opposing same sex marriage in fact were found unconstitutional.  An officer of the court is expected to uphold the law and you don't have a higher law than the constitution.

Now, say the Supreme Court had ruled that prop 8 was totally legal and didn't conflict with the constitution and yet Jerry had continued to refuse to defend it?  Well he would rightfully be in dereliction of his duties and should lose his job.

There's far more grey area in play when you don't have a ruling by the Supreme Court.  A lot more wiggle room.  Once the Supreme Court rules though?  You lose that wiggle room.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 14, 2015)

Forcing her to choose between destroying her livelihood and sense of purpose or going to hell over a group of people that ever so marginally have touched her life ( rather than devoting this energy to finding a middle ground solution that lets both parties get what they want) probably explains a lot about the situation


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 14, 2015)

On prolongued ponderation, I really feel for the lady, and I'll definitely grant to her the way the law was passed was a bit skeeby, but the resignation was on religious grounds was rather obvious. Public office is public office. 

Now all those people suing bakeries and shit, those people need a finger wagging


----------



## Amol (Sep 14, 2015)

As I said it is a scary that people are actually defending her dumb ass.
Hypocrites


----------



## Totally not a cat (Sep 14, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Talking about "Resigning" like it's a "snap you're fingers and it's done" rather than a "destroy your life and major part of your identity as you know it" situation is a rather heartless thing to do there mate.



Better than going to hell huh? I do admit it must be a hard choice for her, but correct decisions are not always easy, and she made an oath. She simply isn't suited for office and failed her own word.


Banhammer said:


> Forcing her to choose between destroying her livelihood and sense of purpose or going to hell over a group of people that ever so marginally have touched her life ( rather than devoting this energy to finding a middle ground solution that lets both parties get what they want) probably explains a lot about the situation



It's not so much about 'a group of people that ever so marginally touched her life' as much as it is about her responsability as public servant that she swore to fulfill, or else. This is else. And this is literally the reason why oaths are made you know? This 'group of people' is the same that's paying her salary, by the way.


----------



## Orochibuto (Sep 14, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Now all those people suing bakeries and shit, those people need a finger wagging



Backeries and shit have even LESS of a religious reason to do so. At least this woman has the excuse that she is making same sex marriage legit.

Guys running a backery refusing serive to a gay couple is nothing more than a "I don't deal with you because I don't like you" as performing their jobs would not have any bearing in making their union legit.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 14, 2015)

Orochibuto said:


> Backeries and shit have even LESS of a religious reason to do so. At least this woman has the excuse that she is making same sex marriage legit.
> 
> *Guys running a backery refusing serive to a gay couple is nothing more than a "I don't deal with you because I don't like you" as performing their jobs would not have any bearing in making their union legit.*



Dude, dude, this is BS

"I don't serve you because I don't like you" is a straw man


I'm talking "Sorry Jerry, I know you've been my customer for years, but I can't serve your wedding because it's against my religion, please find another one" is different matter.

It's not the baker's place to judge, and it's not a gays place to damn others to hell for their whims either.. That is in fact everything the gay movement swore it would stand against


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (Sep 15, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Dude, dude, this is BS
> 
> "I don't serve you because I don't like you" is a straw man
> 
> ...



Dude, if God's law is above giving gay people their constitutional rights... then that is Sharia Law conservatives are against. Besides, it was religious to be against interracial marriage.


----------



## Orochibuto (Sep 15, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Dude, dude, this is BS
> 
> "I don't serve you because I don't like you" is a straw man
> 
> ...



Serving a cake to a gay wedding has nothing to do with it, is a service. At least the woman has the excuse of saying that doing her job would be giving an "OK" stamp to gays as well as making their marriages legit.

A cake provider has no bearing in making the marriages legit and neither is his/her opinion relevant to it and as such there is no way he/she is going to hell for making a cake.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Sep 15, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Talking about "Resigning" like it's a "snap you're fingers and it's done" rather than a "destroy your life and major part of your identity as you know it" situation is a rather heartless thing to do there mate.
> 
> 
> Not saying you're wrong, could be that she should have just resigned, just that, pump the breaks and get a real feel for it before instantly dismiss her as a "hypocrite"
> ...



You know, she doesn't exactly get paid minimum wage so I'd think she'd manage.


----------



## Blitzomaru (Sep 15, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Forcing her to choose between destroying her livelihood and sense of purpose or going to hell over a group of people that ever so marginally have touched her life ( rather than devoting this energy to finding a middle ground solution that lets both parties get what they want) probably explains a lot about the situation


Oh well. that's what happens when you take a government job. Killing is sin but we have no problem droning Muslims from afar and sending in soldiers to kill them on the ground. 

I joined the Army in 2000 and one of my friends from basic training was an 11B. That's basic infantryman. Frontline guy. He was from Texas, shot guns on hsi property with his dad, played football in high school. Tough Jock adventurer guy. Wanted to be an Army Ranger and go Airborne. Then 9/11 happened. His unit was one of the first to deploy to Afghanistan 3 weeks later. He filed for Conscientious Objector status because he was scared as hell, along with like 10,000 other troops. And the Army for the most part said 'suck it up. You joined the military during peacetime. We're at War now. Do your job or go to jail.' Some people didn't want to be killed. Some people never thought they would see combat and were scared to go. Some people knew they would never be able to pull the trigger because even though they joined the military, they couldn't bring themselves to kill another human being. I see this the exact same way. Its the Law and it's your job. If you can't do your job, then we're not going to bend the law just to make you feel better. Adapt or resign.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 15, 2015)

Some people in here love defending bigots.


----------



## Krory (Sep 15, 2015)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Some people in here love defending bigots.



Yeah, surprised how many people can stand behind such vehemently and offensively bigoted people as the gays.


----------



## Totally not a cat (Sep 15, 2015)

^Shit posting extraordinaire


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 15, 2015)

Totally not a cat said:


> ^Shit posting extraordinaire



Posting the fucking truth. There's nothing else to say on the issue. If your religion prevents you from doing your job then find another one. Public office,  especially, isn't the place for you to force your views on others. This is literally why we have separation of church and state.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 15, 2015)

Seriously, just turn this to denying interracial couples, and Davis would have ZERO support from any Presidential Nominee...well I hope. But Mike Huckabee seems to be _this_ incredibly stupid.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 15, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Seriously, just turn this to denying interracial couples, and Davis would have ZERO support from any Presidential Nominee...well I hope. But Mike Huckabee seems to be _this_ incredibly stupid.



You'd be shocked. I could see Trump getting behind that (not far fetched). 

There's a pretty sizable group of people who see that as part of the "white genocide" problem. 

I put those words in quotations because the whole idea is too stupid for me to validate as a real thing.

Edit: a southern judge did deny an interracial couple not too long ago.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 15, 2015)

Blitzomaru said:


> Oh well. that's what happens when you take a government job. Killing is sin but we have no.



Dude, dude, dudeee, you missed  this bit:



Banhammer said:


> On prolonged consideration, I really feel for the lady, and I'll definitely grant to her the way the law was passed was a bit skeeby, but the resignation on religious grounds was rather obvious. Public office is public office.



This is just being portrayed as a "ABSOLUTELY NO DEFENSE, IT'S EITHER MY WAY OR BIGOTRY" and it's wrong. She's absolutely got ground and defense, (even on a legal level, though that's a tangential to this issue) there's just happens to be stronger argument on the other side, and her contention exists in the balance between the two.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Some people in here love defending bigots.


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Sep 15, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> This is just being portrayed as a "ABSOLUTELY NO DEFENSE, IT'S EITHER MY WAY OR BIGOTRY" and it's wrong. She's absolutely got ground and defense, (even on a legal level, though that's a tangential to this issue) there's just happens to be stronger argument on the other side, and her contention exists in the balance between the two.



I'd agree with you.....except she flat out refused to issue any marriage licenses, effectively blocking everyone in the county from getting one.

And that's not an issue of morality, it sounds to me like she was trying to use force to get what she wanted.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 15, 2015)

Sounds to me like she thinks she's enacting civil disobedience, but you'll get no disagreement on whether or not she gets to impose her will over the law.

She definitely doesn't


----------



## santanico (Sep 15, 2015)

Her religion shouldn't stop her from doing a job she was elected to do. Bitch needs to go.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 15, 2015)

starr said:


> Her religion shouldn't stop her from doing a job she was elected to do. Bitch needs to go.


Given she's a conservative Christian who doesn't even read the relevant parts of the Bible about how you treat your fellow man, and the fact she's committed both adultery AND divorce (Death-Penalty offenses in the Bible), she is just a hypocrite, attention-whore bigoted idiot.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 15, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Given she's a conservative Christian who doesn't even read the relevant parts of the Bible about how you treat your fellow man, and the fact she's committed both adultery AND divorce (Death-Penalty offenses in the Bible), she is just a hypocrite, attention-whore bigoted idiot.



I don't think that is how religion works

You having committed sins doesn't somehow give you a carte blanche to break any edicts you want


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 15, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Sounds to me like she thinks she's enacting civil disobedience, but you'll get no disagreement on whether or not she gets to impose her will over the law.
> 
> She definitely doesn't



Civil disobedience is still disobedience. 

And given the context she deserved to be locked up.


----------



## Orochibuto (Sep 15, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> I don't think that is how religion works
> 
> You having committed sins doesn't somehow give you a carte blanche to break any edicts you want



It depends if she did those things prior to converting to Christianity or after, if she did it before then we can't call hypocrisy on her part, if she did it.

It makes no sense for her to break the edicts that depended on herself but uphold those that require her to impose her beliefs on others.


----------



## Totally not a cat (Sep 15, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> This is just being portrayed as a "ABSOLUTELY NO DEFENSE, IT'S EITHER MY WAY OR BIGOTRY" and it's wrong. She's absolutely got ground and defense, (even on a legal level, though that's a tangential to this issue) there's just happens to be stronger argument on the other side, and her contention exists in the balance between the two.



Her religion is irrelevant to fulfilling the job she was elected and is being very well paid to do, she brought this to herself because of her negligence and her lack of vision. 

I agree that there could be a middle term agreement to make both parts happy but that would be entirely her responsability as it would be special pleading to be exempt from doing certain aspects of her job for personal reasons, and when confronted she's obliged to respond lawfully until she's given a solution. She took the worst possible approach in being tyrannical, defying, and threatening court, and was rightfully thrown in jail; considering she got released by the judge after the county fulfilled it's pending functions in her absence and not by her own merits or any effort to move a finger from her side, I think your well-meant pity is misplaced here.

What happened to all the talk in the bible about obeying Caesar and the land's laws, and being forgiven for comitting sins you regret? It only goes to show how this is more about her homophobia than her religion, which she relies on using as a shield.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 15, 2015)

Orochibuto said:


> *It depends if she did those things prior to converting to Christianity or after,* if she did it before then we can't call hypocrisy on her part, if she did it.



Holy shit, no, no it doesn't. Nooooo.



> It makes no sense for her to break the edicts that depended on herself but uphold those that require her to impose her beliefs on others.



Yes it does. Having broken edicts in your ledger is not the same as being an edict breaker. It's why confession requires "true regret"

You run afowl of the Word sometimes, sucks, but you use your free will to become something better and not allow yourself to fall back


Some of those edicts are woefully out of touch with modern light, as we understand that the once sound reasoning behind them isn't as linearly bound to the principles they expressed as the people of the time thought, and the faithful adapt to those, but there's no hypocrisy in living a life that upholds them.


*Spoiler*: __ 



For example, in the case of homosexuality, stopping it at any cost made sense back in the day because to the best of our knowledge, any semen that didn't fly straight into a vajayjay was considered abortion, as people had no concept of eggs (women were seen more like "vases" for the "seed") and thus, people jizzing on men or masturbation were seen as people having abortions for shits and giggles, something that would probably be severely frowned up in modern society (with teenagers spraying dead babies everywhere over the walls, fapfapfap).

As Christians we abandon homophobia, because we understand gays aren't swimming in oceans of dead babies on Friday nights, which is the bad thing Christianity is supposed to be against.

It takes a lot of education of Christians to get there, for all his bullshit, pope francis isn't helping much either, but it's not hypocritical to defend not to put maternity wards to a torch AND hold the lifestyle of a vietnamese whore. These two aren't mutually exclusive





Understand that in an average christian mind, it's not as much as "those gays can't get married" as much as it is "I can't be a gay marrier" 

Now, there's a dissonance of "what, you struggle not to be the town's bike, but two guys sixtynining each other, that one you got on lockdown?" but it's not hypocritical either, just weird


----------



## wibisana (Sep 15, 2015)

i cant believe people still discussing it
"you cant violate other people's right (in this case gay couple marriage) because your personal belief (god tell you)"

what if my god tell me to kill you (violate your right to live)? can I do that?


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 15, 2015)

We already established that this woman as a public servant didn't have right to deny a a member of the public a public service based on her religious beliefs.

What I'm talking about is rather something else


----------



## Orochibuto (Sep 16, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Holy shit, no, no it doesn't. Nooooo.



Yes it does, if I subscribe myself to a religion that forbids eating meat and they post countless of photos of me and stories about me eating meat BEFORE I subscribed then it is irrelevant.

In this case I think establishing if this woman divorced AFTER becoming Christian or BEFORE is important to determine if there is double standards or not.

If she did it before, then honestly those bringing up the divorce are just making shit to make her look worse and they are willingly making a dishonest argument, but if she did it after then they have a legit argument.



Banhammer said:


> Yes it does. Having broken edicts in your ledger is not the same as being an edict breaker. It's why confession requires "true regret"
> 
> You run afowl of the Word sometimes, sucks, but you use your free will to become something better and not allow yourself to fall back
> 
> ...




Why keep edicts that make you force your belief on others but break those that apply to yourself? (not divorce) that is pretty much THE DEFINITION of double standards.

Also I don't know how things work in the US....... but does she issue divorce licenses as well as a clerk? Because IF SHE DOES then the LITERALLY have NO GROUNDS to make her arguments and there is NO DEFENSE WHATSOEVER in her favor.

So if someone can tell me if part of her job is as well issuing divorces then we can establish if she has ANY defense or not.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 16, 2015)

Banhammer speaks like the kind of person who had never had his civil rights questioned.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 16, 2015)

Oh, are you going to teach me about homophobia CTK? 


Guess all that bashing I had to literally run away from just to be forced to come back to the same envyroment every day, did leave my education somewhat unfinished, so by all means, go ahead


----------



## Amol (Sep 16, 2015)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Banhammer speaks like the kind of person who had never had his civil rights questioned.



He more speak like a person who doesn't know the meaning of words 'hypocrite' and 'Law'.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 16, 2015)

>Say you acknowledge she broke the law, and law acted well within it's bounds

YOU DON'T KNOW THE MEANING OF THE WORD "LAW"




The Lord tests me.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 16, 2015)

Orochibuto said:


> Yes it does, if I subscribe myself to a religion that forbids eating meat and they post countless of photos of me and stories about me eating meat BEFORE I subscribed then it is irrelevant.
> 
> In this case I think establishing if this woman divorced AFTER becoming Christian or BEFORE is important to determine if there is double standards or not.



>He just compared religion to being a vegetarian

Lord give me strength.



> If she did it before, then honestly those bringing up the divorce are just making shit to make her look worse and they are willingly making a dishonest argument, but if she did it after then they have a legit argument.



GIVE ME STRENGTH



> Why keep edicts that make you force your belief on others but break those that apply to yourself? (not divorce) that is pretty much THE DEFINITION of double standards.



Holy shit, because you fuck up with the Word sometimes, but that's what they are, fuck ups!! 

"Oh, you had the flu once, and now you're a doctor? I THINK NOT!"

That's what you sound like.

And she doesn't force them onto others, others are hampered yes, as a result, but she is acting upon herself.

The same way the goverment acts upon itself, and removes her from her position in order to re-instate the law. Did the government oppress the christian church? Of course not!

Learn the basic ass moral difference between "Not Doing Something" and "Doing Something Against", because people who were too busy witch hunting individuals to know the basic ass difference in between the two, are the reason why lgbt recognition was such a God damned Calvary.



> Also I don't know how things work in the US....... but does she issue divorce licenses as well as a clerk? Because IF SHE DOES then the LITERALLY have NO GROUNDS to make her arguments and there is NO DEFENSE WHATSOEVER in her favor.



Logical leap, argumentum ad ridiculum, red herring, etc, etc...

It is possible that her chapter has made sufficient advances in the field of divorce, and not of gay marriage. Those are parallel issues, the same as gay divorce would have been, should gay marriage have been game from the start.

No hypocrisy there, and please, stop. Trying to make her a super villain just so you can throw yourself a vanity hero party is ungracious.



> So if someone can tell me if part of her job is as well issuing divorces then we can establish if she has ANY defense or not.



She has a defense, even if it is a clearly insufficient defense, as I already said multiple times, but in the words of Banhammer Science :



> Trying to make her a super villain just so you can throw yourself a vanity hero party is ungracious.




It's really mindboggling that when I say in some threads "We can't put people with harmful religious beliefs in positions where they might harm others" I'm the hateful bigot, but when I say in other threads "We can't just disrespect people with religious beliefs who were harmed by shifts in their position by others"  then I'm also the hateful bigot in the conversation


Looks to me y'all just have a fanclub, and anyone that isn't cheering for it from the start, gets the label.

Which all of a sudden makes this conversation awfully familiar


----------



## Krory (Sep 16, 2015)

TFW when everyone but Banhammer is supporting a bigot

What a change!


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Sep 16, 2015)

Orochibuto said:


> In this case I think establishing if this woman divorced AFTER becoming Christian or BEFORE is important to determine if there is double standards or not.



She was divorced before becoming Christian.

That is not why she's a hypocrite, she's a hypocrite in the fact that she had no problem issuing marriage certificates to divorced people for years but does have a problem with issuing marriage certificates to homosexual people.

When questioned on this very fact she replied that divorce is "between them and God."  But homosexuality is apparently her business.


----------



## EJ (Sep 16, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Right here.


Predicted it right. He agrees with Nigeria and  even sided with Thor and gave him props then tried to spin it off by saying he wasn't homophobic, he just believed what Nigeria did wasn'the our issue.


Blitzomaru said:


> Oh well. that's what happens when you take a government job. Killing is sin but we have no problem droning Muslims from afar and sending in soldiers to kill them on the ground.
> 
> I joined the Army in 2000 and one of my friends from basic training was an 11B. That's basic infantryman. Frontline guy. He was from Texas, shot guns on hsi property with his dad, played football in high school. Tough Jock adventurer guy. Wanted to be an Army Ranger and go Airborne. Then 9/11 happened. His unit was one of the first to deploy to Afghanistan 3 weeks later. He filed for Conscientious Objector status because he was scared as hell, along with like 10,000 other troops. And the Army for the most part said 'suck it up. You joined the military during peacetime. We're at War now. Do your job or go to jail.' Some people didn't want to be killed. Some people never thought they would see combat and were scared to go. Some people knew they would never be able to pull the trigger because even though they joined the military, they couldn't bring themselves to kill another human being. I see this the exact same way. Its the Law and it's your job. If you can't do your job, then we're not going to bend the law just to make you feel better. Adapt or resign.



Yeah, pretty much


----------



## Mider T (Sep 16, 2015)

Wait this woman wasn't raised as a Christian?  That's a bit odd unless she's a drug addict or something.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 16, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Oh, are you going to teach me about homophobia CTK?
> 
> 
> Guess all that bashing I had to literally run away from just to be forced to come back to the same envyroment every day, did leave my education somewhat unfinished, so by all means, go ahead



Compares bullying to having someone deny you something you've a legal right to.

This is an anime forum, being bullied isn't going to impress anyone here, but nice try.


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (Sep 19, 2015)

This fucking bitch is at it again and this time, she's done for. She's been altering licenses!

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...m-davis-may-be-violating-judges-order-n430116



> The lawyer for a county official in Kentucky said Friday that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis may have violated a federal judge's order against interfering with the issuance of marriage licenses.
> 
> After claiming that granting them to same-sex couples would violate her religious beliefs, Davis was found in contempt of court for refusing to issue any licenses and spent five days in jail earlier this month.
> 
> ...


----------



## Orochibuto (Sep 19, 2015)

It will depend if the validity is undermined or not, if it doesn't, then she will not go to jail.


----------



## Totally not a cat (Sep 19, 2015)

Technically, marriage license application forms are the property of the state. Therefore, any changes to those forms must come from state legislatures and/or the representatives of that States government office.

Tampering with legal documents and government records can be aggravated into felony, doesn't help that she isn't exactly the judge's favorite person at these moments


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Sep 19, 2015)

digging your own hole


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Sep 19, 2015)

Doesn't want to issue licenses to gay couples > Stops issuing all licenses
Is ordered to not interfere > makes illegal changes to the licenses to make them invalid

I'm pretty sure the licenses _*are*_ invalid if they don't even say where they were issued or under which official.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 19, 2015)

Hitt said:


> I think you mean Lord Krishna, whose Hindu writings predate Jewish texts by a 1000 years or more right?



Have they found those texts? I provided links to my Jewish texts.



very bored said:


> Do you really mean that?  A lot of people are motivated by their beliefs.  Even if we limit discussion to explicitly religious beliefs, ISIS is still the gorilla in the room.



Yes. There is a certain line of course. But this man decided to stop doing marriages because his morals would interfere with his job. Good on this man for not making a be deal out of it like this Kim lady.



SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> JerseyShoreJesus, YOU ARE BIGOTED. You support laws that would KILL homosexuals remember? You support laws and other bigots that discriminate against gays! All going by the worse translations of the Bible you could find!
> 
> You even act like a Nazi when it comes to Illegal Immigration, you are an evil person at heart.



To bad that bill only puts people in jail and doesn't kill them. Try harder at twisting words.

No I supported Thor because He stated that Nigeria isn't our problem and that we shouldn't police the world. I agreed with him on his homosexual points which at this point on this forum shouldn't come as a shock to any of you morons.

Also nice try at trying to get me to look like a Nazi. People simply stating that we can't deport millions of illegals out of America because we don't have the man power or some stupid shit and then me asking and stating how did 1930-40s Germany do it with 6 million plus doesn't make me a Nazi.



SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Last year when he had the Hinata avatar and went by a different name. It was during Nigeria's anti-Gay laws that would allow executions for homosexuals. Which he supported whole heartily, and on the Donald Trump thread he was supporting Nazi-esque measures for getting the illegal immigrants out.



You still ani't going to respond to me from like page 2 right? I'm a bigot so I must be hard to take down.



Flow said:


> Predicted it right. He agrees with Nigeria and  even sided with Thor and gave him props then tried to spin it off by saying he wasn't homophobic, he just *believed what Nigeria did wasn't our issue*.



Yup you can read, good job Flow. Now go back to your room and listen to more Drake with your soft ass.


----------



## Blitzomaru (Sep 19, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Also nice try at trying to get me to look like a Nazi. People simply stating that we can't deport millions of illegals out of America because we don't have the man power or some stupid shit and then me asking and stating how did 1930-40s Germany do it with 6 million plus doesn't make me a Nazi.




Because of 3 reasons:

1)We don't. What, are you gonna force the national guard to move 11 million people? Yeah, that won't work either. they'd still be outnumbered 100-1.

2)The Nazi's army beat and killed jews and that fear kept most from any type of open rebellion. take the lack of numbers and any type of mass exodus of immigrants would lead to protests and revolts. The US isn't going to kill women and children to keep people in line.

3) The Nazi's paid for this by taking and selling everything the Jews had, even ripping the gold out of their teeth.

You can't be this stupid or ignorant of history.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Sep 22, 2015)

Kim Davis needs to be punched in the face. 'I'm not a hypocrite' when she's told flat out that she committed adultery during the ABC interview:

[YOUTUBE]ZgQzGkHgR_k[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Mider T (Sep 22, 2015)

Why does she dress like an Amish lady?


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (Sep 27, 2015)

It's official, Kim Davis is now a Republican.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 27, 2015)

NeoTerraKnight said:


> It's official, Kim Davis is now a Republican.



Didn't matter what she claimed, she acts like one anyway.


----------



## EnterTheTao (Sep 27, 2015)

Dixiecrats are basically Republican anyway


----------



## Punished Pathos (Sep 27, 2015)

Marriage isn't a religion thing anymore.
Its a government thing 

The old hag may as well quit her job
She shouldn't deny Homosexuals the right to get married.
The new system and industry will be against her not out of love and equal rights for all but because the 
Industry of Marriage and Divorce needs new blood 

People really shouldn't care about what homosexual couples decide to do.
No one is getting hurt and attributing folks' gay marriages to the defilement of your own religion would make you appear to be a zealot.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 28, 2015)

Blitzomaru said:


> Because of 3 reasons:
> 
> 1)We don't. What, are you gonna force the national guard to move 11 million people? Yeah, that won't work either. they'd still be outnumbered 100-1.



Ok for this point no we don't need to deport *EVERY SINGLE ONE*. Just the criminal ones. The drug dealers, murders, and people with a rap sheet need to leave. The hard working ones who actually want a better life and whom assimilate can stay. But the ones who avoid taxes and use benefits with out paying into the system need to go they are moochers who know the system and work it like a pro. 

Also the Nazi were outnumbered and did it. America can't legally deport people? Don't make me laugh. We are the most powerful nation in the world miss me with that bullshit.



> 2)The Nazi's army beat and killed jews and that fear kept most from any type of open rebellion. take the lack of numbers and any type of mass exodus of immigrants would lead to protests and revolts. The US isn't going to kill women and children to keep people in line.



Yes but we aren't here to mass kill illegals are we? Thats why I said only criminals and the moochers need to go. They would be the ones to fight not the hopeful future law abiding citizens.



> 3) The Nazi's paid for this by taking and selling everything the Jews had, even ripping the gold out of their teeth.



Our Federal Reserve prints millions of more dollars everyday and steals from you from a thing called "Income tax". Your "we can't pay" for it is bullshit. We have enough money to train rebels in other countries, drone strike ISIS, and numerous other not needed bullshit yet we can't secure our *OWN* country?! Dafaq m8? Again miss me with your bullshit.



> You can't be this stupid or ignorant of history.



Finally I never approved of the Nazi's method of killing or anything else. EVER. I simply stated that people, like you, have stated "we can't fix the problem so lets not do anything about it." If 1% of Germany can do something surely *AMERICA* can fix their illegal immigrant problem? 

I'm sure someone like SSM12 will come in here and call me a bigot or something but use your brains people.


----------



## Mider T (Sep 28, 2015)

JSJ is probably the best parody I've ever seen.


----------



## EJ (Sep 28, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Yup you can read, good job Flow. Now go back to your room and listen to more Drake with your soft ass.



You're so terrible at this in a comedic way. Thor went on his usual homophobia troll sprees and the fact you agreed with his post says a lot about yourself. Did you even read what you agreed with hum on? Or were you just jumping on the little bandwagon he had going for himself in that thread?


----------



## Orochibuto (Sep 28, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Ok for this point no we don't need to deport *EVERY SINGLE ONE*. Just the criminal ones. The drug dealers, murders, and people with a rap sheet need to leave. The hard working ones who actually want a better life and whom assimilate can stay. But the ones who avoid taxes and use benefits with out paying into the system need to go they are moochers who know the system and work it like a pro.
> 
> Also the Nazi were outnumbered and did it. America can't legally deport people? Don't make me laugh. We are the most powerful nation in the world miss me with that bullshit.
> 
> ...



The issue is that now your argument for deporting has lost relevance. You can just replace the term "illegal" with "foreign criminals" at that point, if you say you will only deport criminal ones you are not doing anything different than what is done now.

Illegal that are taken to the police station for crimes are deported as far as I know. Fuck, even LEGAL vistors to the US can be deported if they have done a crime in the US.

How are you going to identify them? Are you going to wait until they are charged or you will use racist stereotypes (ie using how they LOOK) to pick them?

Trump is not about deporting only illegals that commit crimes but EVERY SINGLE ONE and that policy will encounter the points Blitzomaru pointed out.


----------



## Hitt (Sep 29, 2015)

Get a good luck at JSJ folks.  Cause I present to you, the perfect representative of the GOP's "base" these days.


----------



## Blitzomaru (Sep 29, 2015)

Nah, he's just a troll. 10 bucks he gets off sexually to rustlin' jimmies.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 29, 2015)

Flow said:


> You're so terrible at this in a comedic way. Thor went on his usual homophobia troll sprees and the fact you agreed with his post says a lot about yourself. Did you even read what you agreed with hum on? Or were you just jumping on the little bandwagon he had going for himself in that thread?



Ok let me address you and your smooth RnB ass first. This is what Thor stated a year ago.



Thor said:


> Well Done Nigeria, every country has both the right and duty to establish their own laws in accordance with their own moral and cultural values.


 He was absolutely right in that. Don't like that country, don't visit it. Bottom line.




> The Homosexual community claims they stand for and want tolerance, yet anyone that does not tolerant or support their agenda is chastised and despised.


Don't for one second tell me this isn't true either. Because I can simply state on here that I'm against Homosexuality and I will be condemned left and right by people like you.




> Now I freely admit that I am not a tolerant nor politically correct man, but I do not force my principles on others. If someone else's lifestyle does not agree with my principles I do not associate nor do business with them, simple and straight-forth. I consider homosexuality to be a sexual perversion; no different, no better and certainly no worse than any other sexual perversion be it i*c*st, pedophiles, necrophilia, beastality, S & M, etc. I do not support nor condone those that participate in these perversions.



I admit that I am a Jesus believing Christian and I am against Homosexuality. I still love the person but the same would go with my cousin whom is addicted to heroin. I love him but I don't agree with what He does. 



> If I have reason to suspect someone is a pervert, I ask them directly. If they say yes, I inform them that I will not need their business/services and depart or ask them to leave without costing them or their company any money. If management wants to know why, I tell them the truth.
> Yes, this extends to my personal life, I have disowned a sibling and a cousin for their perverted lifestyle choices. By disown I mean they are dead to me and I will not discuss them. If they show up at a family social event I leave, no drama or arguments, I simply leave. They are not permitted at my home nor were they permitted to visit me in the hospital when I was near death. Convenience or emotional circumstances does not justify violating ones principles, so I do not.
> Before you write; I am not a religious man, I go to church only to attend weddings, baptisms or funerals when invited. I have yet to read a single proven scientific finding that attributes homosexuality to a real medical condition, gene or DNA sequence. Most findings do little more than "tend to support" the politically correct theory that homosexuality is normal while the Mental Health findings are motivated by funding opportunities and political correctness, not proven science.
> I view and treat alcohol abusers, drug (legal & illegal) abusers, liars, thieves, criminals, and hypocripes in the same manner.
> I do not expect nor demand anyone to accept my principles, but I do hope that others will extend to me the same courtesy. If not, then we agree to disagree, and I will not associate with nor do business with you and recommend the same to you.



I agree with him on the "refusal of service" that is such a hot topic right now. There are thousands of other business to go to. Quit being a baby and go to another one.



> Since when is sexual perversion a "Civil Right"? Does your interpretation of Civil Rights extent to those sexual perverts that are practicing i*c*st, pedophiles, necrophilia, beastality, S & M, etc. ? If not, why not, don't they merit the same considerations you are demanding, civil rights based on sexual desires/preferences not race or religion? Not a fair comparison?
> 
> 
> News Headline “Italian appeals court determines 60-year-old and 11-year-old have ‘romantic relationship’“: 11 Dec 2013: Via the BBC, Italian news company TGCom24 is reporting that Italy’s top appeals court has annulled a five-year jail sentence against a 60-year-old man who had been found guilty of sexual violence against a minor. Why? Because the court determined that the man and the 11-year-old girl he was found in bed with have a “romantic relationship.”
> Tis a slippery slope you tread when you demand “Civil Rights” for one type of sexual perversion over another.



He was also right with this one. There are literally people who are crying for pedophila to be legalized the way Gay marriage was. When will the "research" come out in favor of these people who like to take advantage of kids? Is it "normal" human behavior? Or is it sin twisting our lives?

Never once did we say kill homosexuals and I never will. So people like SSM12 can go suck eggs for twisting words.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 29, 2015)




----------



## Island (Sep 29, 2015)

No because your right to marry is affirmed by the federal government. Your right to carry a weapon, however, is dependent on the state.


----------



## Bill G (Sep 29, 2015)

Yes, actually, and that's one of Trump's points regarding gun laws.





> PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
> 
> Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
> 
> ...


----------



## EJ (Sep 29, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Ok let me address you and your smooth RnB ass first. This is what Thor stated a year ago.



Nice to see you being original and coming up with jokes on your own as usual.




> He was absolutely right in that. Don't like that country, don't visit it. Bottom line.



Of course he's right about countries having the right to pass whatever law they want to pass. But don't try to act obtuse on this. What specifically caught your attention was the fact that he was actively speaking out against homosexuality(he was trolling and you still don't realize this is beyond me). That's what motivated your sense to post in that thread and agree with Thor.



> Don't for one second tell me this isn't true either. Because I can simply state on here that I'm against Homosexuality and I will be condemned left and right by people like you.
> 
> 
> I admit that I am a Jesus believing Christian and I am against Homosexuality. I still love the person but the same would go with my cousin whom is addicted to heroin. I love him but I don't agree with what He does.



You know, it's highly ironic that you as an individual go around on a crusade calling people sensitive, and soft but when people call you out on your views you get extremely irrational not just on your defense in them but prove yourself to be a hypocrite  in the sense where you want to openly express your views and not be challenged or judged based on them. 

This isn't even me getting on a soap-box really. You have every right to feel the way you do about gay people, but don't expect to not be challenged if you make an outright idiot of yourself in the manner in which of how you express yourself. 






> He was also right with this one. There are literally people who are crying for pedophila to be legalized the way Gay marriage was. When will the "research" come out in favor of these people who like to take advantage of kids? Is it "normal" human behavior? Or is it sin twisting our lives?.



Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. It's like the more you talk, the more you make an utter fool out of yourself. What really is scary is that you genuinely believe more than half the shit that you state, and agree with trolls without realizing they are in fact trolls..

Like how air-headed..


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 29, 2015)

Island said:


> No because your right to marry is affirmed by the federal government. Your right to carry a weapon, however, is dependent on the state.



...Cause the 2nd Amendment isn't a Federal level thing...



Bill G said:


> Yes, actually, and that's one of Trump's points regarding gun laws.



If those are his views on firearms He has my vote.



Flow said:


> Nice to see you being original and coming up with jokes on your own as usual.



Someone else came up with that? Thats too bad I didn't I thought it was a good one.




> Of course he's right about countries having the right to pass whatever law they want to pass. But don't try to act obtuse on this. What specifically caught your attention was the fact that he was actively speaking out against homosexuality(he was trolling and you still don't realize this is beyond me). That's what motivated your sense to post in that thread and agree with Thor.



Thor was not a troll. He really believed in what He said. I was motivated to post because He points are the same as mine? But please read into however you want.




> You know, it's highly ironic that you as an individual go around on a crusade calling people sensitive, and soft but when people call you out on your views you get extremely irrational not just on your defense in them but prove yourself to be a hypocrite in the sense where you want to openly express your views and not be challenged or judged based on them.



No I get "irrational" Because people like you, Seto, and Hitt to name a few. Tell me I have "no idea what I am talking about", insult me, call me "air headed" when I try and have a discussion. Which is whatever. I honestly don't care about this forum at the end of the day. It doesn't give me a sense of purpose like some keyboard warriors on here do. I'm not going to convince you I'm right at the end of the day only Jesus will show you that. I'm not perfect by any sense. In fact I'm a total mess up. But at the end of the day I know who the ruler of this world is and thats really the root of this issue. It always comes back to Jesus.



> This isn't even me getting on a soap-box really. You have every right to feel the way you do about gay people, but don't expect to not be challenged if you make an outright idiot of yourself in the manner in which of how you express yourself.



I fully understand that Flow. I welcome it. Although I get to a point where the evidence I'm providing is literally flat out ignored. An example would be SSM12 from the first 3 pages of this thread. He flat out said lies and I corrected him. He still hasn't rebutted because He knows He is wrong. Those are the moments when I become "irrational."





> Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. It's like the more you talk, the more you make an utter fool out of yourself. What really is scary is that you genuinely believe more than half the shit that you state, and agree with trolls without realizing they are in fact trolls..
> 
> Like how air-headed..


This is no joke Flow... Psychologists are beginning to walk down the same path LGBT activists established more than 50 years ago, insisting that pedophilia is an inborn ?sexual orientation,? not a learned sexual behavior. If people are born with a sexual attraction to minors, the argument goes, their ?orientation? should be accepted as normative and not stigmatized. Thats not normal.


----------



## EJ (Sep 29, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Someone else came up with that? Thats too bad I didn't I thought it was a good one.



Others have already established you're a blatant liar, there's no reason for you to display it here.






> Thor was not a troll. He really believed in what He said. I was motivated to post because He points are the same as mine? But please read into however you want.



Riiight, he wasn't a troll despite consistently being warned and banned for his behavior.



> No I get "irrational" Because people like you, Seto, and Hitt to name a few. Tell me I have "no idea what I am talking about", insult me, call me "air headed" when I try and have a discussion. Which is whatever.



Don't even try that. You've been complaining about being targeted and slammed for you beliefs for a long time, and your behavior when confronted on your beliefs doesn't help you out. Don't even try to act like a victim. You bring a lot of this shit upon yourself. 




> I honestly don't care about this forum at the end of the day. It doesn't give me a sense of purpose like some keyboard warriors on here do. I'm not going to convince you I'm right at the end of the day only Jesus will show you that. I'm not perfect by any sense. In fact I'm a total mess up. But at the end of the day I know who the ruler of this world is and thats really the root of this issue. It always comes back to Jesus.



Good for you.


> I fully understand that Flow. I welcome it.



Except, you obviously don't. You do not like it when people argue with you on your beliefs and tear your arguments apart. You take it completely personal. 



> This is no joke Flow... Psychologists are beginning to walk down the same path LGBT activists established more than 50 years ago, insisting that pedophilia is an inborn “sexual orientation,” not a learned sexual behavior. If people are born with a sexual attraction to minors, the argument goes, their “orientation” should be accepted as normative and not stigmatized. Thats not normal.



Like I said, it's completely air-headed that you would begin to try and compare homosexuality and pedophilia to one another. You're delusional if you think that a child could be able to consent to an adult. That's the specific issue with pedophilia. Exploiting and taking advantage of a child. 

Two consenting adults that are of the same gender consenting to be with one another and have sex is not the same as pedophilia.


----------



## Island (Sep 29, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> ...Cause the 2nd Amendment isn't a Federal level thing...


The Second Amendment protects your right to own and carry firearms. _How_ and _where_ you can carry them is left up to individual states.

This contrasts with marriage which is wholly defined at the federal level.


----------



## EJ (Sep 29, 2015)

JSJ like I said, it's ironic that you've begun the typical 

"Can't handle me telling it like it is"

or 

"You're soft since you don't want to hear my point of view"

And you seemingly can't handle people holding different views than you. Your mannerisms are just a reflection of what you claim to dislike. I don't mind you expressing your views.but you fail to realize that your views just like anyone else has every right to be dismantled and torn apart. On account of the fact that your delivery in a lot of cases is downright terrible..

Like agreeing with Thor then trying to backpedal at the same time. Come on now.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 29, 2015)

He's a right-wing conspiracy theory nutcase. You'd think he'd be used to it.


----------



## Amol (Sep 29, 2015)

Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia 
What part of 'consenting adult' is so hard to understand ?
Such a terrible argument.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Sep 30, 2015)

Flow, wtf. why do you get into debates and drag them out with people you KNOW are not gonna listen to reason?


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Sep 30, 2015)

This guy breaks down everything wrong with Kim Davis's non arguments pretty damn well. 

[YOUTUBE]7NrKUCp7CGM[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Orochibuto (Sep 30, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> This is no joke Flow... Psychologists are beginning to walk down the same path LGBT activists established more than 50 years ago, insisting that pedophilia is an inborn ?sexual orientation,? not a learned sexual behavior. If people are born with a sexual attraction to minors, the argument goes, their ?orientation? should be accepted as normative and not stigmatized. Thats not normal.



The issue only arise if you look at it from the perspective of "It is wrong because it is not normal" or "eww it is gross".

However for rational people, Homosexuality and Pedophilia isn't about how normal it is or how gross it is, because if you do that your argument amounts to "eww it is gross" which is no argument at all. The argument is if it hurts anyone.

Consensual homosexuality hurts no one, Pedophilia does. This is why despite being inborn sexual orientations (if they are) they can never be equated. If children somehow magically became capable of consenting, attaining full physical and mental maturity to have 100% the capability to consent, then yes, there would be nothing wrong with having sex with pedophilia, but as this is not the case then it IS wrong and thus can't be compared to homosexuality.


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (Oct 1, 2015)

NOOOOOO! Pope! Don't give her any needed attention! Please-- Oh fuck, she actually got to visit the Pope himself and this is a true story.





> ROME — Pope Francis met privately in Washington last week with Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who defied a court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, adding a new element to an American tour that saw Francis attract huge crowds and articulate left-leaning positions on poverty, immigration, the environment and inequality.
> 
> Vatican officials initially would not confirm that the meeting occurred, finally doing so on Wednesday afternoon, while refusing to discuss any details.
> 
> ...


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Oct 1, 2015)

...except Pope Francis, it wasn't 'Religious Liberty' on the line.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Oct 1, 2015)

> Consensual homosexuality hurts no one, Pedophilia does. This is why despite being inborn sexual orientations (if they are) they can never be equated. If children somehow magically became capable of consenting, attaining full physical and mental maturity to have 100% the capability to consent, then yes, there would be nothing wrong with having sex with pedophilia, but as this is not the case then it IS wrong and thus can't be compared to homosexuality.



You almost don't want to legitimize this point because it fuels too many fires, but I don't know. I slide towards the crazies on this one. Psychiatrists and child development authorities are probably inching closer and closer to a retraction on exactly how damaging sexual intercourse is for minors. A few retractions have already been made, but it's tentative, and for good reason. Psychiatry found homosexual relationships between consenting adults to be unhealthy too a time ago. Probably because homosexuality was controversial at the time, and people reacted to it traumatically, and so anyone embroiled in that wouldn't come out rainbows. I wouldn't put it past us to one day acknowledge that certain pedophilic relationships aren't as inherently damaging as we once thought them to be (and hemming around brain development and a young person's ability to consent is a weird one, since human brain development isn't necessarily matured until well into our 20s).

I mean, what would we do if we discovered that sexual relationships with minors didn't necessarily damage them, so long as the culture they lived in wasn't so judgmental and traumatized by the interaction? 

I've said this on the forums before, but it helps me see some of the gayphobic people in a more understanding way. Most of us wouldn't care if sexual relationships with minors was shown to be neutral. We don't like it. Period. I don't want it around me. I don't want to see a grown man lean in and kiss some 14 year old across the street, even if it's proved to be nothing inherently damaging. Acknowledging that, I'm a little more sympathetic to people who have similar reactions to seeing gay folks walking around being gay. No matter what you tell them, they have the same cultural aversion to seeing that as most of us do to seeing a grown up being intimate with a young person.

If progressives want to get on a high horse about not standing in the way of two people loving each other, or waving credentialed peer reviewed findings about there being nothing inherently damaging in a gay relationship, or showing how being gay is natural because it exists in nature, people like me nod, agree, but then look worryingly towards other still-controversial sexual orientations that fit all of those talking points to a T. The worry being, we're not all the way honest about where this could be headed a few generations down the line.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 1, 2015)

These pedophiles are getting easier and easier to spot.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Oct 1, 2015)

It's pretty fuckin' simple.  

Consenting adults having sex, regardless of sexuality: OK

Fucking children that can't consent (because they're fucking children), regardless of sexuality:  NOT FUCKING OK!

This shouldn't be that fucking hard to understand!


FUCK!


*Spoiler*: __ 



Like, seriously, THE FUCK!?


*Spoiler*: __ 



This clarification, and whole post,  brought to you by copious amounts of rum!


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Oct 1, 2015)

But my unproven concept of a higher power is claimed to be against the gays...


----------



## reiatsuflow (Oct 1, 2015)

> Consenting adults having sex, regardless of sexuality: OK
> 
> Fucking children that can't consent (because they're fucking children), regardless of sexuality: NOT FUCKING OK!
> 
> This shouldn't be that fucking hard to understand!



These straw house bylaws get blown over even when you add in bestiality, which is usually a punchline. And bestiality is a bit softer than pedophelia, so let's go with that. Same reservations apply, but magnified. Seems even more traumatic to be all interspecies. The animal is even less capable of grasping what's up.

And even then. While animals can't consent verbally, you know somewhere out there a guy banging his dog and everybody can tell the dog is totally okay and happy about it. Wagging its tail. Humping the guy's leg. Every nonverbal indication is consenting. Animals might not be able to communicate, but chimp trainers have problems with their monkeys trying to have sex with them. Most trainers have problems with fending off advances by the animals. Dogs unsheathe their raw dog and start humping basically everything. Dolphins hump people swimming with them. Somewhere out there are obvious examples of a fully grown animal that's visibly consenting to have sex with a person, doesn't seem remotely traumatized by it, and it's still gross. Still don't want that guy living next door. Still not okay with it.

At the end of the day, that's the reaction most of us are probably using when we gauge this stuff. I really don't think the reason I'm all right with gay people is because I combed over the data and was convinced that it's not unhealthy or traumatizing. Likewise, the reason we're not okay with bestiality isn't because animals can't express consent (they probably can), or because animal's brains can't comprehend it (they probably can, at least to the extent that they comprehend sex in their own species). It's because don't fuck your dog.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 1, 2015)

reiatsuflow said:


> These straw house bylaws get blown over even when you add in bestiality, which is usually a punchline. And bestiality is a bit softer than pedophelia, so let's go with that. Same reservations apply, but magnified. Seems even more traumatic to be all interspecies. The animal is even less capable of grasping what's up.
> 
> And even then. While animals can't consent verbally, you know somewhere out there a guy banging his dog and everybody can tell the dog is totally okay and happy about it. Wagging its tail. Humping the guy's leg. Every nonverbal indication is consenting. Animals might not be able to communicate, but chimp trainers have problems with their monkeys trying to have sex with them. Most trainers have problems with fending off advances by the animals. Dogs unsheathe their raw dog and start humping basically everything. Dolphins hump people swimming with them. Somewhere out there are obvious examples of a fully grown animal that's visibly consenting to have sex with a person, doesn't seem remotely traumatized by it, and it's still gross. Still don't want that guy living next door. Still not okay with it.
> 
> At the end of the day, that's the reaction most of us are probably using when we gauge this stuff. I really don't think the reason I'm all right with gay people is because I combed over the data and was convinced that it's not unhealthy or traumatizing. Likewise, the reason we're not okay with bestiality isn't because animals can't express consent (they probably can), or because animal's brains can't comprehend it (they probably can, at least to the extent that they comprehend sex in their own species). It's because don't fuck your dog.



So your logic was "I couldn't prove my point about fucking kids being okay because gays, so I'll try proving that fucking kids is okay because fucking animals is okay?" 

Huh?


----------



## reiatsuflow (Oct 1, 2015)

> So your logic was "I couldn't prove my point about fucking kids being okay because gays, so I'll try proving that fucking kids is okay because fucking animals is okay?"
> 
> Huh?



If I concentrate really hard I might be able to segue onto i*c*st too and complete some kind of pervert trifecta in one page. It's sort of like pokemon. Don't think about it. Just collect as many as you can.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Oct 1, 2015)

You have a talent for saying a lot of nothing, I notice.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Oct 1, 2015)

reiatsuflow said:


> These straw house bylaws get blown over even when you add in bestiality, which is usually a punchline. And bestiality is a bit softer than pedophelia, so let's go with that. Same reservations apply, but magnified. Seems even more traumatic to be all interspecies. The animal is even less capable of grasping what's up.
> 
> And even then. While animals can't consent verbally, you know somewhere out there a guy banging his dog and everybody can tell the dog is totally okay and happy about it. Wagging its tail. Humping the guy's leg. Every nonverbal indication is consenting. Animals might not be able to communicate, but chimp trainers have problems with their monkeys trying to have sex with them. Most trainers have problems with fending off advances by the animals. Dogs unsheathe their raw dog and start humping basically everything. Dolphins hump people swimming with them. Somewhere out there are obvious examples of a fully grown animal that's visibly consenting to have sex with a person, doesn't seem remotely traumatized by it, and it's still gross. Still don't want that guy living next door. Still not okay with it.
> 
> At the end of the day, that's the reaction most of us are probably using when we gauge this stuff. I really don't think the reason I'm all right with gay people is because I combed over the data and was convinced that it's not unhealthy or traumatizing. Likewise, the reason we're not okay with bestiality isn't because animals can't express consent (they probably can), or because animal's brains can't comprehend it (they probably can, at least to the extent that they comprehend sex in their own species). It's because don't fuck your dog.



...

OK, holy good goddamn fuck, I can't believe I have to make this post. 

If a thing cannot openly say and or write down that it openly consents to you fucking it... *THEN YOU SHOULDN'T FUCK IT!*



> No, but it totally seems like it wants me to fuck it


Did it say "yes" when you asked to fuck it?



> Well, no.  I didn't actually ask...


So you just started fucking it because it seemed like it wanted it?



> Yeah, exactly so...


So you're like a frat boy trying to justify your raping of a drunk girl.



> Dude!  No, of course not.  it mean...


Did the animal say yes?



> Well, I mean... obviously no.  But...



Did it agree in any other way to fuck you before you actually started fucking it.



> It... uh... look man, it liked it when I was doin it.



But did it give consent that you didn't have to personally interpret as consent because it wasn't actual agreed upon mutual consent?



> I...



Was it?



> But, it just...



WAS IT?



> ...no.



THEN IT WASN'T FUCKING CONSENT!

-------


As I stated before, this isn't that fucking hard.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Oct 1, 2015)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> So your logic was "I couldn't prove my point about fucking kids being okay because gays, so I'll try proving that fucking kids is okay because fucking animals is okay?"
> 
> Huh?



It's also a strawman.  The question here isn't "is gay sex okay" it's "is gay marriage okay."

Marriage is a legal construct, essentially a contract between the two parties.  

Animals cannot enter into contracts.

Young children cannot enter into contracts.

Comparing gay marriage to any type of _sex_ is not a valid comparison.  It's just a sign of the arguers frustration that gays are allowed to exist at all.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Oct 1, 2015)

> It's also a strawman. The question here isn't "is gay sex okay" it's "is gay marriage okay."



It's off topic. I was replying to the poster I quoted more than the overall topic. I don't have a problem with gay people or gay marriage. 

...That I have to say I don't have a problem with gay people makes me look suspicious, but that's the corner I find myself in.

Otherwise, my user cp just lit up with reds like a sexual predator database on google, so let me backtrack several paragraphs and dust myself off here before I get a friend request from the guy with shirtless cartoon kids running around his sig. To that, look - sexuality is still being studied and defined, and our cultural progress in accepting once unacceptable sexualities probably won't end after homosexuality. 

Points about accepting whatever sexuality we're accepting because it's not inherently damaging, as once thought, runs potential parallels with any sexuality that might be revealed to be less damaging than 'once thought'. Hindsight is 20/20. And if every time I start creeping towards this point (pun intended) your brain starts whirring the alarm thinking that I'm suggesting we might eventually discover it's okay for adults to bang infants like a highlights real from a serbian film, that's not what I'm talking about. I should have jumped on bestiality or i*c*st first, because pedophelia isn't a good lubricant when you're making the point. I'm also using pedophelia broadly, because I forget the specifiers for the other 'phelias' if you're talking about teenagers versus pubescents, and other age range taboos. Imagine the least offensive one for someone to be psuedointellectually challenging on an internet messageboard, and stick with that.

Points about accepting whatever sexuality we're accepting because it's between two fully functional adults who are capable of consent and have developed brains, etcetera, sounds good and moral, but falls apart if it's clicked in almost any challenging context. Brains aren't fully developed into our 20s. Brains develop at different stages. Female brains develop these capacities sooner than male counterparts, which would apparently suggest females would have a slightly younger age range than males. And above all else, every single person on this board would react differently to some hot to trot adult woman seducing a mentally handicapped man than we would to an adult seducing a teenager. So on.

I'm glad that the culture accepts gay sexualities. On the other hand, there are other areas of sex and sexuality the culture is accepting, or outright encouraging, that I don't think are healthy. And once you have that experience, it's easier to sympathetize with homophobes who are frustrated with the culture accepting gay sexualities. And it's easier to understand why those people aren't persuaded by arguments about how homosexuality shouldn't be criticized because we've (recently) revealed that it isn't inherently damaging, or that it shouldn't be criticized because it's between two consenting adults. Those points don't really make a lick of difference if we're talking about a sexuality you're offended by, which I just accidentally demonstrated.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Oct 1, 2015)

reiatsuflow said:


> Points about accepting whatever sexuality we're accepting because it's between two fully functional adults who are capable of consent and have developed brains, etcetera, sounds good and moral, but falls apart if it's clicked in almost any challenging context. Brains aren't fully developed into our 20s. Brains develop at different stages. Female brains develop these capacities sooner than male counterparts, which would apparently suggest females would have a slightly younger age range than males. And above all else, every single person on this board would react differently to some hot to trot adult woman seducing a mentally handicapped man than we would to an adult seducing a teenager. So on.



Following this tangent for a moment I don't think it does, necessarily, need to get any more complicated than this.

Our laws, in regards to sex are based on the idea that having sex is a complex interaction between people that can have profound effects on both parties based on specific circumstances far too numerous to possibly enumerate.

Since we can't accurately predict all of the time how people will react to sex we largely leave it down to the more simple (but still surprisingly complex) concept of consent.  Do both parties involved agree to go forward with whatever situation they find themselves in?

I don't think anyone would argue seriously that it's okay if one party is actively fighting against the consent.  But there is a serious question at times whether both parties fully understand the weight of the decision.

As you point out not all brains mature at the same rate.  So, as a society, we use a shortcut of an arbitrary age where we believe most people are "mature enough" for sex (which varies state-to-state and nation-to-nation).  Are there some 17-year-olds out there that are more mature than the average 18-year-old?  Almost certainly.  Do we have a good way of identifying these cases?  Unfortunately not.

Your example of the case of a mentally handicapped individual is probably a reasonable one.  There are certainly cases where what is moral and what is legal are at conflict.

But basically your argument comes down to "the law isn't perfect therefore the law is meaningless" which is a rather flawed one.  It doesn't apply at all to the case of homosexuality because it's not a question of the capacity to consent.  

When you have two adults that are absolutely accepted as fully functioning members of society it comes back to the base argument that we can't accurately predict how their relationship, or even their sexual encounter will turn out and therefore we have to grant them a measure of freedom to make their own decisions.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Oct 1, 2015)

I just realized something.

For those that are offended by the idea of gay marriage sex the correct comparison isn't to pedophilia or bestiality or abusing the mentally challenged.

The correct comparison is sex with ugly people.  Let me give you the example.  This woman:


Has been married to 3 different people.  Meaning she has had sex with at least 3 different people and I assume this means that 3 men have consented to have sex with her.

And I cannot fathom this (and I've been married 11 years so I totally understand being desperate for sex).

Therefor is it reasonable for me to object to her getting married based on the fact that I find the concept of her having sex absolutely repugnant?  Would it be reasonable for me to stand in the way of her getting her 5th marriage certificate because of my strong moral belief that I am helping save the man that she is attempting to marry from having to face that horror?

Or would you say that while I have the right to voice my objection to the thought of her getting married, it is considered rude in society to draw attention to my personal disgust at someone's looks.  And despite the fact that I have every right to my personal opinion were I clerk of court my job is to issue certificates when given valid credentials not to sit in judgement of every couple applying, even if I believe I have their best interests at heart.


----------



## baconbits (Oct 1, 2015)

That has nothing to do with my objection to gay marriage.  I think you're trying to paint a caricature of your opposition.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Oct 1, 2015)

> But basically your argument comes down to "the law isn't perfect therefore the law is meaningless" which is a rather flawed one. It doesn't apply at all to the case of homosexuality because it's not a question of the capacity to consent.
> 
> When you have two adults that are absolutely accepted as fully functioning members of society it comes back to the base argument that we can't accurately predict how their relationship, or even their sexual encounter will turn out and therefore we have to grant them a measure of freedom to make their own decisions.



The argument is that there's a cultural danger in the way we accept 'taboo' sexualities, and the way that certain acceptances can be stepping stones to other acceptances. The sexual revolution in the 60s is a nearby example of sexuality going downhill in progressive subcultures, in exactly the way these conversations suppose. One stepping stone leads to another stepping stone.

I dug myself a little hole by starting off with pedophelia, because that's an extreme corner of sexuality and it shuts down the conversation. One of the reasons it shuts down the conversation is because there are a good number of people out there who were molested or abused when they were kids, or at least know of someone close to them who was, and it's just not a good buzzword to start off with when you're trying to reframe the situation. 

Beyond that misstep... Progressive sexual culture is a valid thing to worry about. I've said this stuff before on the boards, prompted by the few regulars that have a problem with gay sexuality being accepted in the mainstream wondering where that sexual progress goes next, or comparing the progress in gay sexuality to a potential (and unwanted) progress with other sexualities. For me it has less to do with gay people than it does the unfortunate coincidence of gay sexuality being a recently reevaluated, reinterpreted taboo, and the way the progressive culture reinforced that reinterpretation. Some people think it's stupid to believe the culture could pattern that through to some other sexual taboo, the same way they did with homosexuality. I don't.



> Therefor is it reasonable for me to object to her getting married based on the fact that I find the concept of her having sex absolutely repugnant? Would it be reasonable for me to stand in the way of her getting her 5th marriage certificate because of my strong moral belief that I am helping save the man that she is attempting to marry from having to face that horror?
> 
> Or would you say that while I have the right to voice my objection to the thought of her getting married, it is considered rude in society to draw attention to my personal disgust at someone's looks. And despite the fact that I have every right to my personal opinion were I clerk of court my job is to issue certificates when given valid credentials not to sit in judgement of every couple applying, even if I believe I have their best interests at heart.



I think I made that point too, but it was a different conclusion. The point was, crudely, I'm sure somewhere out there, in all the infinite possibilities of coincidence, a guy is fucking some dog and they're both perfectly fine with it. Pretend situation. They're both perfectly fine. Even so, I don't approve of it. I don't like it. Someone could show me studies and behavioralists ensuring that both the man and the dog are not being negatively effected by that relationship, and I still wouldn't care. Understanding that, I better understand homophobic people who have that same reaction to gay sexuality.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Oct 1, 2015)

baconbits said:


> That has nothing to do with my objection to gay marriage.  I think you're trying to paint a caricature of your opposition.



It doesn't?  Are you sure?

Do you object to atheists getting married with the same level of zeal that you object to gay marriage?  I've never seen a protest, march, etc attempting to deny the right of marriage to atheists.  And they've been legally allowed to marry for years and Kim Davis never refused any of them that I have heard of.

And even if you specifically are an exception to this, the vast majority of gay marriage opponents clearly are not.  When asked for examples they bring up (much as this very thread) "disgusting" things like pedophilia, bestiality, or abuse of handicapped.

A far better example of "disgusting" is sex with the ugly.  Yet beyond "I don't want to watch that" nobody ever really objects to that (in the interest of full disclosure I think ugly people have every right to sex where they can find it that others do, as long as they are not asking me personally to participate in the act).


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 1, 2015)

baconbits said:


> That has nothing to do with my objection to gay marriage.  I think you're trying to paint a caricature of your opposition.



He couldn't paint one worse than some of the people concerned about this issue.


----------



## HolyHands (Oct 1, 2015)

reiatsuflow said:


> The argument is that there's a cultural danger in the way we accept 'taboo' sexualities, and the way that certain acceptances can be stepping stones to other acceptances. The sexual revolution in the 60s is a nearby example of sexuality going downhill in progressive subcultures, in exactly the way these conversations suppose. One stepping stone leads to another stepping stone.
> 
> I dug myself a little hole by starting off with pedophelia, because that's an extreme corner of sexuality and it shuts down the conversation. One of the reasons it shuts down the conversation is because there are a good number of people out there who were molested or abused when they were kids, or at least know of someone close to them who was, and it's just not a good buzzword to start off with when you're trying to reframe the situation.
> 
> Beyond that misstep... Progressive sexual culture is a valid thing to worry about. I've said this stuff before on the boards, prompted by the few regulars that have a problem with gay sexuality being accepted in the mainstream wondering where that sexual progress goes next, or comparing the progress in gay sexuality to a potential (and unwanted) progress with other sexualities. For me it has less to do with gay people than it does the unfortunate coincidence of gay sexuality being a recently reevaluated, reinterpreted taboo, and the way the progressive culture reinforced that reinterpretation. Some people think it's stupid to believe the culture could pattern that through to some other sexual taboo, the same way they did with homosexuality. I don't.



I don't really see the issue. Yes, things can go too far, ANYTHING can go too far. I see no reason to fight against gays just because you fear that it might lead to some people trying to toss pedophilia acceptance into the pile. If something goes extreme, fight the extremism. Don't fight the moderate because you fear an extremist will take advantage of it.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Oct 1, 2015)

baconbits said:


> That has nothing to do with my objection to gay marriage.  I think you're trying to paint a caricature of your opposition.



It's not like that objection is any more rational than the one she presented.


----------



## Saishin (Oct 2, 2015)

> *Pope meeting with U.S. anti-gay clerk 'not support'*
> 
> Encounter 'must not be considered' as backing for Davis' stance
> 
> ...


----------



## Amol (Oct 2, 2015)

Even Pope realized that this woman is full of shit


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Oct 2, 2015)

Flow said:


> Others have already established you're a blatant liar, there's no reason for you to display it here.



Ok how did I lie again? Because I agreed with Thor on a certain topic and SSM12 goes and try to turn it around on me and you agree with him like the sad cunt that you are. Ok schlanger get out of here. Ain't nothing I hate more then being called a liar when I ain't lied about shit. 






> Riiight, he wasn't a troll despite consistently being warned and banned for his behavior.



Your opinion. Just because what He said was outrageous to you doesn't mean He was a troll.




> Don't even try that. You've been complaining about being targeted and slammed for you beliefs for a long time, and your behavior when confronted on your beliefs doesn't help you out. Don't even try to act like a victim. You bring a lot of this shit upon yourself.



I'm not acting like a victim but when people complain about the facts I present them there isn't much I can do besides say no one wants to listen to me.





> Good for you.



Thanks m8.



> Except, you obviously don't. You do not like it when people argue with you on your beliefs and tear your arguments apart. You take it completely personal.



Really? Cause I've always come back to anyone trying to "rip me apart." Honestly I don't even know why I'm bothering talking to some sad boy who gets emotional about everything and gets his ass handed to him by Nas in the Cafe convo on a daily basis. Sit down and stop acting like a hard cunt everyday of your life.




Island said:


> The Second Amendment protects your right to own and carry firearms. *How and where you can carry them is left up to individual states.
> *
> 
> This contrasts with marriage which is wholly defined at the federal level.



So basically holding you back from defending your self and the ability to bear arms. 



Amol said:


> Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia
> What part of 'consenting adult' is so hard to understand ?
> Such a terrible argument.



Not when they are using the EXACT same argument the Homosexual community has been using to help legalize their side.



Seto Kaiba said:


> But my unproven concept of a higher power is claimed to be against the gays...



Not against Gays. Against the innate sin in all of us that causes us to rebel.


----------



## EJ (Oct 2, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Ok how did I lie again?



"Oh, I totally came up with the RnB soft ass joke by mself"








> Your opinion. Just because what He said was outrageous to you doesn't mean He was a troll.



You're the only person that doesn't think he was a troll in that regard. In that very thread he stated he considered moving to Ghana based off the law that was passed. 



> I'm not acting like a victim but when people complain about the facts I present them there isn't much I can do besides say no one wants to listen to me.



No, you act like a victim in a lot of these threads. Like I said, it's highly ironic that you complain about people that you deem as soft, but you hate it when your views are targeted, or when you're challenged on a lot of topics. You basically want to be able to post without getting into a concrete argument. You aren't looking to learn in a lot of these topics, rather you just want to go around 'educating' other posters with your own beliefs. 



> Really? Cause I've always come back to anyone trying to "rip me apart." Honestly I don't even know why I'm bothering talking to some sad boy who gets emotional about everything and gets his ass handed to him by Nas in the Cafe convo on a daily basis. Sit down and stop acting like a hard cunt everyday of your life.



And here we go, with you continuously proving why no one should take you seriously on these topics. Go ahead and keep copying or backing up NaS if that makes you seem credible. It doesn't though.

I can sit here and try and discredit you by stating you're a crazed conspiracy supporter that thinks 9/11 was an inside job, gets his news from far right-wing sights, etc but that would be damn pointless and immature of me to do. Keep on topic.  



> Not when they are using the EXACT same argument the Homosexual community has been using to help legalize their side.



You completely dodged his/her statement. Why do you keep trying to compare homosexuality and pedophilia? You can argue all you want about them using 'the same arguments', the fact that children are HURT is what throws that shit out the window. Like I said, you're being air-headed. 



> Not against Gays. Against the innate sin in all of us that causes us to rebel.



You're against homosexuals on matters regarding their human-rights, don't delude yourself. Hide behind your religion all you want.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Oct 3, 2015)

She never had any real principles. She's like a lot of self-righteous, self-indulgent religious hypocrites in that she wants that accolades for piousness with none of the necessary work or sacrifice. It would be one thing if she did resign in the name of her beliefs, but she could not do even that. I guess that yearly salary and the power was just too good to pass up, and that where here priorities really lie I bet.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Oct 3, 2015)

Flow said:


> "Oh, I totally came up with the RnB soft ass joke by mself"



I LITERALLY THOUGHT OF THAT ON MY OWN.







> You're the only person that doesn't think he was a troll in that regard. In that very thread he stated he considered moving to Ghana based off the law that was passed.



Ok good for him lets stop talking about Thor then since He was a "troll." I simply brought up his statement since you all wanted to use it as a smear piece against me.




> No, you act like a victim in a lot of these threads. Like I said, it's highly ironic that you complain about people that you deem as soft, but you hate it when your views are targeted, or when you're challenged on a lot of topics. You basically want to be able to post without getting into a concrete argument. You aren't looking to learn in a lot of these topics, rather you just want to go around 'educating' other posters with your own beliefs.



Most of the news pieces on here are extremely opinionated. I try to give my side on the way I view them. I have different thoughts and views on the way things should be done. I also certainly don't complain like a victim in any of these threads. 

Shit I came on here to correct SSM12's lies and now 10 pages later I'm sitting here playing ping pong reply back and forth with you on no real substance of anything.




> And here we go, with you continuously proving why no one should take you seriously on these topics. Go ahead and keep copying or backing up NaS if that makes you seem credible. It doesn't though.



How am I copying Nas?



> I can sit here and try and discredit you by stating you're *a crazed conspiracy supporter that thinks 9/11 was an inside job*, gets his news from far right-wing sights, etc but that would be damn pointless and immature of me to do. Keep on topic.



People already think that so who cares. Sorry you don't do your own research.






> You completely dodged his/her statement. Why do you keep trying to compare homosexuality and pedophilia? You can argue all you want about them using 'the same arguments', the fact that children are HURT is what throws that shit out the window. Like I said, you're being air-headed.




Dear Lord...

I'm down with this argument I'm not going to get you to see where I am coming from.



> You're against homosexuals on matters regarding their human-rights, don't delude yourself. Hide behind your religion all you want.



Yup sure am..... 

I'm done with this convo take my responses and spread more lies about how I am a bigot and air headed and don't know what I am talking about. Have a good one Flow.


----------



## Amol (Oct 3, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Not when they are using the EXACT same argument the Homosexual community has been using to help legalize their side.


Hmm... What?
You are talking nonsense.
As I said in my previous post exactly what part of 'consenting adult' is so hard for you to understand ?
Do children look like consenting adults to you?
Actually do you even understand words 'consent' and 'children' ?
Then why the fuck you are still comparing Homosexuality to pedophilia?
There is absolutely no similarity in between them. Like at all.
Do you even have an argument here other than you being ignorant and bigoted ?
[sp][/sp]


----------



## EJ (Oct 3, 2015)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Dear Lord...
> 
> I'm down with this argument I'm not going to get you to see where I am coming from.
> 
> ...



Concession accepted.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Oct 3, 2015)

Flow said:


> Concession accepted.



Whatever makes you feel better.

"I won the "debate" on NF!" *Dick grows*


----------



## EJ (Oct 3, 2015)

Weren't you just done stating how you were done arguing?

I take it you want to spend time throwing snippy jabs at one another as opposed to staying on topic.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Oct 3, 2015)

Hey you're the one who didn't want to leave it alone and had to put in your snarky "concession accepted" like a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).


----------



## Orochibuto (Oct 4, 2015)

reiatsuflow said:


> You almost don't want to legitimize this point because it fuels too many fires, but I don't know.



HAHAHAHAHAHA, NO. Me not wanting to legitimize a point just because of reactions? I have been on the controversial side of many debates here, which naturally earned me from people who can't argue a point the obligatory "Ya don't agree with me ya are a p*d*p****." prodding.

I agree this point has legitimate issues, but making it equal to homosexuality isn't one of them.



reiatsuflow said:


> I slide towards the crazies on this one. Psychiatrists and child development authorities are probably inching closer and closer to a retraction on exactly how damaging sexual intercourse is for minors. A few retractions have already been made, but it's tentative, and for good reason. Psychiatry found homosexual relationships between consenting adults to be unhealthy too a time ago. Probably because homosexuality was controversial at the time, and people reacted to it traumatically, and so anyone embroiled in that wouldn't come out rainbows.



Just because it isn't AS damaging as is painted does not mean it is not damaging. I admit it is possible the effects and exactly HOW damaging it is, may be exaggerated by the taboo. However there can't be an argument that it is not damaging.

The difference here is that homosexuality never had a sound base when you look at it logically, everything was an "appeal to grossness", common sense itself tell us children are unprepared for sex and damaged by it, unlike homosexuality where basically everything that pointed against it was the "ewww factor."

You can't tell me the body of a 8 year old girl is ready to be penetrated by a grown adult for instance, or that she knows well the full implications and understanding of sex or that she wants it. Is the sex drive even awake at that age? I can't get how it can't be non damaging where his/her body has not even started to desire the opposite sex, let alone desire sexual interactions with it.



reiatsuflow said:


> I wouldn't put it past us to one day acknowledge that certain pedophilic relationships aren't as inherently damaging as we once thought them to be (and hemming around brain development and a young person's ability to consent is a weird one, since human brain development isn't necessarily matured until well into our 20s).



There is some gray area certaintly. For instance I agree pedophilia THE ATTRACTION should not be reason for scorn, but not so pedophilia THE ACT. Since the former has nothing but the "ewww factor" going for it, as long as it doesn't evolve into an act. While the latter brings harm.

I can get behind a lot of initiatives, for instance (tied to the sex robots thread) allow pedophiles to have outlet for their urges, treat them as patients instead of criminals and not burden them for the urge itself. Those are initiatives I can get behind. However actually allowing child sex to happen? No.

Then again of course, it comes WHAT WE DEFINE AS A CHILD. If it is like the US where everything under 18 is a child and some people outright refuse to differentiate between pedophilia and stuff like ephebophilia and pedophilia, then I agree with you, it is completely ridiculous, as teenagers are not children. So if we are talking about a 16 year old, then I agree it is likely not damaging and thus okay.

But talking about children? No, I don't find it acceptable, again simply I can't see how the body of an actual child is prepared for it specially in ages where attraction and/or sexuality for the opposite sex has not even awakened.



reiatsuflow said:


> I mean, what would we do if we discovered that sexual relationships with minors didn't necessarily damage them, so long as the culture they lived in wasn't so judgmental and traumatized by the interaction?



It is funny you mention that, because I remember years ago seeing a documentary of a celebrity that had sexual intercouse with a 13 year old girl and the girl interviewed latter as an adult outright said that the press attention and the prosecution to land the guy in jail damaged her way more than anything the guy did. So I agree that of course judgemental culture contributes to the traumatization in at least some cases.

But again, just because the "super taboo" overreaction might be very damaging, doesn't mean the sexual act is okay.

I agree that sexual relationships with MINORS (not children) as defined as "people who are not legal adults do not necessarily damage them. However with CHILDREN it is another story.



reiatsuflow said:


> I've said this on the forums before, but it helps me see some of the gayphobic people in a more understanding way. Most of us wouldn't care if sexual relationships with minors was shown to be neutral. We don't like it. Period. I don't want it around me. I don't want to see a grown man lean in and kiss some 14 year old across the street, even if it's proved to be nothing inherently damaging. Acknowledging that, I'm a little more sympathetic to people who have similar reactions to seeing gay folks walking around being gay. No matter what you tell them, they have the same cultural aversion to seeing that as most of us do to seeing a grown up being intimate with a young person.



If we lived in a parallel universe where a 14 year old was fully physical and mentaly prepared for sex, I would completely agree with you because as I said "ewwness" is not a valid argument with me, unfortunately we dont. I have a hard time believing a 14 year old are in the majority of cases prepared for having sexual relationships both in body and mind.



reiatsuflow said:


> If progressives want to get on a high horse about not standing in the way of two people loving each other, or waving credentialed peer reviewed findings about there being nothing inherently damaging in a gay relationship, or showing how being gay is natural because it exists in nature, people like me nod, agree, but then look worryingly towards other still-controversial sexual orientations that fit all of those talking points to a T. The worry being, we're not all the way honest about where this could be headed a few generations down the line.



Again, the issue is about damage, that is the stuff here. Sexual intercouse with children IS damaging, if not 100% of the time at least to a very high degree of risk.

At most you could be arguing to the lowering of what is considered a children, with this I agree. But sexual intercouse with outright children, it isn't going to happen because it is obviiously damaging.

As I said though, I do agree that if it wasn't damaging (meaning the only argument against it would be "eww its wierd") I would be at your side, however seeing how it is damaging then it is not okay. No matter how many mental gymnastics we play, you can't present an argument that demonstrate sex with people that per nature have not even awakened to sexual desire is not damaging.

You could make me scratch my head with that slippery slope gray area where the physical problems are not present anymore (there is sexual desire, there is reproductive capacity and pregnancy at that age is not more threatening than there is for an adult) and there is only the "Is he/she mentaly prepared?" question to solve.

However your argument is not about pedophilia the act being okay, but simply asking the question "At what age, should we start considering it pedophilia?" Which I think is a valid question

As you can see, the fact that here there are so many gray areas to see, is evident it is NOT the same as homosexuality, homosexuality is a clear-cut black and white issue where the only argument against it ever (in modern society, societies in peril that depended on active reproduction HAD A POINT against homosexuality) is different varietes of "ewww". Where here there is the legit damage done. As you seem to admit, there is no question about pedophilia (the act) being damaging IT IS damaging, the question simply is where it is about pedophilia and where it is about someone who is not a legal adult having sex with a legal adult of any age.

I do agree there are some legit points about pedophilia itself (attraction to actual children) to be made, like for example stopping the satanization of people who simply have the urge but don't act on it, but the act is not acceptable.


----------

