Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The Westboro Baptist Church couldn't have said it better Sandy.

Cute projection.

From the above article by the leftwing mediaite.com:

Essentially, the [Westboro Baptist] church believes that 1) Davis did violate her oath of office, 2) is a hypocrite because of her multiple marriages, 3) she “caused fag marriage,” and 4) jailing her was the right thing to do.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-...ged-at-kim-davis-too-she-caused-fag-marriage/

I would gather to say that you and the WBC both agree on #1 & #2; probably not #3 (I'm trying to figure out how Kim Davis is responsible for faux marriages, probably because she works for the evil government), and you're much kinder and gentler than the WBC on #4, you just want Kim Davis to be canned and dragged behind a team of horses until she's a bloody mess (ok, I "projected" on that last part).

 

[Rusha]

#4, you just want Kim Davis to be canned and dragged behind a team of horses until she's a bloody mess (ok, I "projected" on that last part).

That is what you normally do ... project. I am perfectly fine with her losing her job and no criminal prosecution.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

From the above article by the leftwing mediaite.com:

Essentially, the [Westboro Baptist] church believes that 1) Davis did violate her oath of office, 2) is a hypocrite because of her multiple marriages, 3) she “caused fag marriage,” and 4) jailing her was the right thing to do.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-...ged-at-kim-davis-too-she-caused-fag-marriage/

I would gather to say that you and the WBC both agree on #1 & #2; probably not #3 (I'm trying to figure out how Kim Davis is responsible for faux marriages, probably because she works for the evil government), and you're much kinder and gentler than the WBC on #4, you just want Kim Davis to be canned and dragged behind a team of horses until she's a bloody mess (ok, I "projected" on that last part).

That is what you normally do ... project. I am perfectly fine with her losing her job and no criminal prosecution.

I'm going to "project" again and say that you're not a big fan of religious liberty (with an *).

*If it's done in a sound proof church where the doors are closed, curtains are drawn and no talk of homosexuality being a sin is discussed, then you're fine with religious liberty.

 

[GFR7]

That is what you normally do ... project. I am perfectly fine with her losing her job and no criminal prosecution.

She can't lose her job, because she is an elected public official. She will remain in Federal prison until her term runs out. She cannot be impeached, as she is protected by a union, and by the community. The judge tried to give her an out; she chose martyrdom.

 

[alwight]

But Kim Davis was doing her job. She was elected by the voters of Rowan County Kentucky to amongst other things issue marriage licenses to one man, who was marrying one woman. A marriage amendment was passed in Kentucky by a whopping 75% stating that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Just for clarity aCW, you and Ms Davis seem to think that secular civil laws can always be ignored when you think they are contrary to your religious beliefs right?
Since civil laws apparently don't necessarily apply to Christians then why are y'all so het up about criminalising homosexuals?

Perhaps you expect only non-Christians to always abide by secular laws that you approve of, but when you don't then Christians only should be allowed to flout them? :think:

If you did somehow manage to criminalise homosexuality why wouldn't it be just as reasonable for gay people to flout that law if they saw fit to, just as Davis is flouting the law now?
All they need claim is that their own deeply held religious beliefs completely supports homosexuality and so the new civil law against it can therefore be ignored by them? :think:

Not that I suspected you of any hypocrisy or anything aCW, oh heavens no, I just wanted some clarification here.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusha
That is what you normally do ... project. I am perfectly fine with her losing her job and no criminal prosecution.

She can't lose her job, because she is an elected public official.

Are you sure that you have a degree in political science?

She will remain in Federal prison until her term runs out. She cannot be impeached, as she is protected by a union, and by the community.

Refer to my previous question.

The judge tried to give her an out; she chose martyrdom.

She chose the laws of God over the laws of man. In this day and age where supposed Christians sell out God because it's the convenient thing to do, that does make Kim Davis an extremely rare martyr.

martyr:
One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/martyr

 

[GFR7]

Are you sure that you have a degree in political science?

:think: philosophy and....... :wave2:

 

[GFR7]

:think: philosophy and....... :wave2:

Oh, forgot to add, baby :cigar:

Why Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Can't Be Fired for Refusing to Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses


.........Getting rid of a county clerk isn't easy. Davis is an elected official, so she would have to be impeached by the state legislature. Not even the governor could fire Davis on his own........

http://www.newsweek.com/why-kim-davis-cant-be-fired-marriage-licenses-368902

 

[aCultureWarrior]

:think: philosophy and....... :wave2:

So elected officials are all of the sudden union members?

And this alleged union that Kim Davis belongs to is more powerful than the Kentucky State Legislature (which by the way enacted the traditional marriage law that Kim Davis is enforcing because the citizens of Kentucky voted it in by a 3-1 margin) and would override any impeachment proceedings?

 

[GFR7]

So elected officials are all of the sudden union members?

And this alleged union that Kim Davis belongs to is more powerful than the Kentucky State Legislature (which by the way enacted the traditional marriage law that Kim Davis is enforcing because the citizens of Kentucky voted it in by a 3-1 margin) and would override any impeachment proceedings?

Oh, forgot to add, baby :cigar:

Why Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Can't Be Fired for Refusing to Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses


.........Getting rid of a county clerk isn't easy. Davis is an elected official, so she would have to be impeached by the state legislature. Not even the governor could fire Davis on his own........

http://www.newsweek.com/why-kim-davis-cant-be-fired-marriage-licenses-368902

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
But Kim Davis was doing her job. She was elected by the voters of Rowan County Kentucky to amongst other things issue marriage licenses to one man, who was marrying one woman. A marriage amendment was passed in Kentucky by a whopping 75% stating that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Just for clarity aCW, you and Ms Davis seem to think that secular civil laws can always be ignored when you think they are contrary to your religious beliefs right?

You have Kim Davis and me confused with LGBTQueer activist Judges who ignore civil laws that were voted in by the citizens of respective states and enacted by the state legislatures of those respective states Al.

Since civil laws apparently don't necessarily apply to Christians then why are y'all so het up about criminalising homosexuals?

Laws, even if they are unjust, apply to everyone. If the people of a state (such as Washington State has done) vote to allow sodomites to 'marry', then even we Christians have to live with it until we go through a legitimate legal process (which doesn't mean finding an activist Judge to overturn the will of the people) to repeal that law.

...If you did somehow manage to criminalise homosexuality why wouldn't it be just as reasonable for gay people to flout that law if they saw fit to, just as Davis is flouting the law now?
All they need claim is that their own deeply held religious beliefs completely supports homosexuality and so the new civil law against it can therefore be ignored by them? :think:

Refer to my above words about legitimate legislation, which is the total opposite of judicial activism.

BTW, you can tell Art Brain he can return to the thread now, as his buddy Town Heretic supplied me with some laws that are "protecting" children.

Besides, I need Art to ok turning over his Queen of Denial title before I can give it to TH.

 

[The Horn]

Culturewarrior, same sex marriage is NOT "against the people's will . Millions of Americans have no problem with it .
I don't believe in eternal damnation, and even if it existed , being gay is NOT a reason for anyone to be sent to an imaginary place of eternal punishment called hell .
If hell existed , Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and other truly evil people would deserve to be sent there . But God sending people to hell merely for being gay ? This is monstrously cruel . And one of many reasons why I don't believe in the Christian God .
I'm an agnostic ; possibly some kind of deity exists , but the conventional Christian one makes absolutely no sense to me .
Kim Davis refusing to do her job isn't an attempt to "save gay people from hell ". It's just plain stupidity ,narrow-mindedness, intolerance and self-righteousness .

 

[aCultureWarrior]

And now, a few more words from the monologue wonder:

Culturewarrior, same sex marriage is NOT "against the people's will . Millions of Americans have no problem with it .

The people of Kentucky had a problem with it, as they voted to make traditional marriage a state laws by 75% of the vote.

I don't believe in eternal damnation, and even if it existed , being gay is NOT a reason for anyone to be sent to an imaginary place of eternal punishment called hell .

Attempt to reason with God on your judgment day and tell Him that His morals are way off quilter.

If hell existed , Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and other truly evil people would deserve to be sent there . But God sending people to hell merely for being gay ? This is monstrously cruel . And one of many reasons why I don't believe in the Christian God .

Supporting a changeable behavior that brings amongst other things nothing but misery, disease and death is monstrously cruel De Horn.

God allows people to repent their unrighteous ways and embraces them for eternity when they do. God's love is amazing, you should look into it.

I'm an agnostic ; possibly some kind of deity exists , but the conventional Christian one makes absolutely no sense to me .

And here I thought that you and TracerBullet attended the same Christian church. (pssst, there is only one Christianity, and it's the conventional one as shown in Holy Scripture).

Kim Davis refusing to do her job isn't an attempt to "save gay people from hell ". It's just plain stupidity ,narrow-mindedness, intolerance and self-righteousness .

I'm sure that Kim Davis has heard those kind loving words from other LGBTQueer activists quite a bit in the past few days.

 

[The Horn]

Culture Warrior, homosexuality is NOT "changeable ". It is inborn .
All so-called "ex gays " have been brainwashed by other Christians and they always revert eventually .
Homosexuality is NOT dangerous in and of itself . There are plenty of elderly gays who are in good health .
I'm a non-observant, secular Jew . Jews do not believe in Jesus as
savior and do not believe in eternal damnation .

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Culture Warrior, homosexuality is NOT "changeable ". It is inborn .

You are correct for once De Horn. A gene was found by world renowned geneticist Dr. Alfred Wight that undisputedly proves that homosexuality is in a person's chromosome makeup.

Dr. Wight has called this gene the "Just Happens" gene.

All so-called "ex gays " have been brainwashed by other Christians and they always revert eventually .

Which goes to show you that there is no overcoming that "Just Happens" gene.

Homosexuality is NOT dangerous in and of itself . There are plenty of elderly gays who are in good health .

Paraphrasing the words of Rusha (aka Sandy) from a thread or two back :

"Then they must not be real homosexuals."

I'm a non-observant, secular Jew . Jews do not believe in Jesus as
savior and do not believe in eternal damnation .

Save valuable internet space and call yourself what you really are:

An atheist.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Refer to my above words about legitimate legislation, which is the total opposite of judicial activism.

BTW, you can tell Art Brain he can return to the thread now, as his buddy Town Heretic supplied me with some laws that are "protecting" children.

Besides, I need Art to ok turning over his Queen of Denial title before I can give it to TH.

Oh, well thanks for your 'permission' to return to this ongoing ineffectual manure fest...

As per usual when it comes to you attempting to engage in a battle of "wits" with TH it's half amusing and half cringe fest as let's face it, one of you is intelligent and witty...

...and the other...isn't. It's like seeing a boxing match between Muhammad Ali and...well, you. lain:

By all means please donate my "award" to TH. Perhaps you can ramble on about how he's in dire need of spiritual and psychological help, or that he lives in his mothers basement, or Ovaltine 'gags', hairdretthers etc.

You're really just one rather sad crank aCW. Get out a bit (not necessarily the closet) and just live a little. Go wild and watch a film that isn't in black and white or put a drop of rum in your milkshake or something.

:e4e:

 

[alwight]

You have Kim Davis and me confused with LGBTQueer activist Judges who ignore civil laws that were voted in by the citizens of respective states and enacted by the state legislatures of those respective states Al.

I think you'll find instead that the judge has a job to do too, which by definition isn't ever likely to please all the people, never mind extremist nutters like your good self of course aCW.

When the appointed judge decides how civil law is interpreted then that is just how the process works in practice and how the law will operate until perhaps another judge changes it. Pleasing all the people all the time isn't a requirement of it.
Claiming that your particular idea of God doesn't like it won't earn you any special privileges. The judge is at least an officially appointed person while self appointed spokesmen of gods like you are merely sad four-a-penny wind bags.

Laws, even if they are unjust, apply to everyone. If the people of a state (such as Washington State has done) vote to allow sodomites to 'marry', then even we Christians have to live with it until we go through a legitimate legal process (which doesn't mean finding an activist Judge to overturn the will of the people) to repeal that law.

Generally speaking aCW I think that civil laws are not designed to police the choices and actions of what consenting adult individuals may or may not be doing together in private, nor to deny a civil status of "marriage" already granted to some.
I do realise that you are so very keen to impose a theocracy and all but life is so unfair sometimes, isn't it just.
But in the meantime I suggest that if you disapprove and don't want to do whatever you think others may be doing then by all means feel free to not do them yourself. lain:

BTW, you can tell Art Brain he can return to the thread now, as his buddy Town Heretic supplied me with some laws that are "protecting" children.

Besides, I need Art to ok turning over his Queen of Denial title before I can give it to TH.

Naaa I think you can keep that title all for yourself aCW, since clearly you are more than infatuated by all things gay and by what gay people may be doing in bed together, in their, how did you put it, sodomy chambers? :thumb:

 

[The Horn]

ACW , I'm an agnostic . I don't know whether a God exists or not . Atheists dogmatically claim that no God exists . They are not the
same thing .
However, I do not believe in the traditional conservative Christian God - an old man with a white beard in the sky who judges everyone and who demands constant worship and who considers homosexuality to be "an abomination " . And who supposedly dictated the Bible, which is actually nothing but a collection of primitive religious and historical writings from ancient times .
I don't believe in this caricature any more than I believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy .

 

[alwight]

ACW , I'm an agnostic . I don't know whether a God exists or not . Atheists dogmatically claim that no God exists . They are not the
same thing .

But that's simply not true, I'm an agnostic because I don't think I can know if gods exist or not, but I am also an atheist because I don't tend to believe that any god is likely or true, I rather tend toward disbelief, albeit strongly, rather than harbouring any belief.
Other atheists however may claim to know that no god exists, I really don't understand how they can know that, but they would be gnostic atheists, just as some theists will claim to know that a god does exist.
Gnosticism is about knowledge while theism is about belief, they are two different and non mutually exclusive notions. Indeed most atheists are in fact also agnostic because they don't claim to know that gods don't exist they just don't believe that any do. The old atheist slogan was that God "probably" doesn't exist.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

...BTW [Al], you can tell Art Brain he can return to the thread now, as his buddy Town Heretic supplied me with some laws that are "protecting" children.

Besides, I need Art to ok turning over his Queen of Denial title before I can give it to TH.

Oh, well thanks for your 'permission' to return to this ongoing ineffectual manure fest...

I feared that your homework assignment (showing laws that are currently protecting children from sexual deviants) chased you off. Fortunately Town Heretic came up with some great ones that show just how much our society cares about it's children:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4437695&postcount=362

Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule ("COPPA")

Rule Summary:
COPPA imposes certain requirements on operators of websites or online services directed to children under 13 years of age, and on operators of other websites or online services that have actual knowledge that they are collecting personal information online from a child under 13 years of age.
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rul...ings/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule

Here's another:

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (Public Law 93-247) provides federal funding to States in support of prevention, assessment, investigation, prosecution, and treatment activities and also provides grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations for demonstration programs and projects. Additionally, CAPTA identifies the Federal role in supporting research, evaluation, technical assistance, and data collection activities; establishes the Office on Child Abuse and Neglect; and mandates the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. CAPTA also sets forth a minimum definition of child abuse and neglect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Abuse_Prevention_and_Treatment_Act

Adoption and Safe Families Act

ASFA was enacted in an attempt to correct problems that were inherent in the foster care system that deterred the adoption of children with special needs. Many of these problems had stemmed from an earlier bill, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980,[1] although they had not been anticipated when that law was passed, as states decided to interpret that law as requiring biological families be kept together no matter what.[1] The biggest change to the law was how ASFA amended Title IV-E of the Social Security Act regarding funding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_and_Safe_Families_Act

How about we discuss one (federal bureaucratic) law at a time? I like the last one that protect children that are up for adoption, like the little boy below:

Share your thoughts and then we can discuss some of the other laws that are protecting children from sexual deviants like homosexual icon Dan Savage and his wife/husband Terry Miller.

...By all means please donate my "award" to TH. Perhaps you can ramble on about how he's in dire need of spiritual and psychological help, or that he lives in his mothers basement, or Ovaltine 'gags', hairdretthers etc.

Not that Town Heretic isn't a Queen of Denial in his own right, but you went above and beyond the call of leftwing-homosexualist duty to deny pretty much everything that has been presented in this now 4 part thread.

Your title is secure Art.