Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed

[annabenedetti]

1. I've already addressed this stupid rhetorical point earlier in this thread in one of my initial replies to Jose Fly.

2. More importantly, this claim is irrelevent.

I don't think it's irrelevant at all. I think it makes people uncomfortable because they don't want to acknowledge their bigotry to themselves. It's a particular self-serving bias: the very human tendency to perceive oneself in a favorable light. Much easier to deny than to admit shortcomings.

 

[TracerBullet]

So the Bible is not good enough for you? You accept man's science over God's word?

can you provide the chapter and verse that discusses your orientation? (or watching sports with a Sasquatch?)

In the context of this thread, that is exactly what it is

,

Why are you divorcing this thread from reality?

Orientation is an individuals enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. It is distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), sexual acts, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and social gender role (the cultural norms that define feminine and masculine behavior).

and that orientation is a choice, no matter what the orientation is. If you don't accept that the homosexual chooses his orientation, then you can't possibly believe the pedophile, necrophile, fornicator, bisexual or those into bestiality, have no choice, and neither do heterosexuals.

You take ACultureWarrior to task when he posts false and bigoted comparisons like this.

Pedophilia necrophilia and bestiality are not orientations no matter how much hate mongers try to pretend they are. Pedophi8lia is linked to brain damage and I wouldn't be surprised to learn this is true of other phillias.

If we have no choice and ARE born with our sexual orientation, then God has no rational or ability to condemn those that do it wrong and therefore would not condemn them. Paul shows in Rom 1, that this is NOT the case.

then maybe your interpretation of Paul is not accurate

 

[ok doser]

I don't think it's irrelevant at all. I think it makes people uncomfortable because they don't want to acknowledge their bigotry to themselves. It's a particular self-serving bias: the very human tendency to perceive oneself in a favorable light. Much easier to deny than to admit shortcomings.

why shouldn't we, as Christians, be bigoted against those who want their perversions to be accepted as normal?


and why are you so unwilling to answer my questions about pedophiles and wife beaters?

 

[Traditio]

I didn't say you thought the only sin left on earth was sodomy, but it's the only one you're talking about

[sarcasm]Alright. What sin would you like to talk about? I mean, this is a thread which is ultimately about homosexual "marriage," but hey, I'm sure that other sins would be a more appropriate topic of discussion, so why not?[/sarcasm] lain:

I'm fairly sure I responded directly on the point, which is that many a right carries with it the ability to use it for good or for sin. Baring a use that impinges on someone else's right it's between you and God. That's how we function and how disparate beliefs can occupy the same compact without violence and subjugation that typically, historically went with the dominance of one form of religion mingled with the power structure.

We're likely talking past each other in terms of what does and does not constitute a "right." By "right," I understand what the Latins meant by "ius," i.e., "the right." Thus, even a parricide has the right...i.e., to be tied up in a sack full of vipers and thrown into the river Tiber. [I draw this example from an article I read a while back, the author of whom I forget).

You said the first part. As to right, in this compact a right is that to which you are entitled by birth. One of the things we believe is that you should be free to enter into contract, understanding that contracts are the means by which we attain all sorts of things that serve our happiness.

Except, you don't really believe that, at least, not simply speaking. There's all sorts of contracts that you don't have a "right" to contract. Gambling, e.g., is illegal outside of Indian reservations and and Nevada (to my understanding).

See, that's really just a fancy way to conflate secular and moral law, to presuppose the necessity that isn't, in fact, part of our compact. The state neither endorses nor denies your claim, rather it supports your right to make it and hold it, subject to the understanding that you are not free to impose it simply because you believe it is so.

So, if you'll refer back to my previous points to Jose Fly about positive vs. negative right, I think that you are in error. If there is a positive right (i.e., one which necessitates State intervention), then the State is endorsing the claim. To use Catholic moral terminology, there is formal cooperation on the part of the State in what you are doing.

That's a nonsensical statement. Sin is only a description of disobedience to God, willful disobedience. And scripture is clear as to the lack of relative value in it in consequence.

By "sin," I understand any thought, word or deed (or omission thereof) which violates the law of God (whether the Natural Law or the Divine positive laws). A mortal sin is a direct breach or violation thereof, i.e., is such a thought, word, deed or omission directly in breach, contradiction or violation of the letter of the law. A venial sin is, not so much a breach of the law, but is an act which is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "beside" the law.

Not all violations of the Natural Law are equal in gravity. Murder is worse than fornication.

Of course you do. Remove your religious views and you've no argument at all.

That some actions are worse, more deformed, more contrary to reason, more deserving of censure, blame, punishment, etc. than others? No, I can know this by reason alone. There is such a thing as a philosophical ethics.

No, that's what I thought you meant. But you're really just saying the same thing in a different way. It reduces to the same essential complaint and conflation. And I'm still talking about the law in Kentucky and the compact. Not to oppose moral law, but to note what is and isn't actually happening here.

lain:

Would you please briefly summarize/paraphrase what you think my initial point was?

 

[Yorzhik]

See, that wasn't so hard to admit.

Hard to admit? As if I was having a hard time admitting that "homo" raises tension? Where did you get the idea it was hard for me to admit?

So it doesn't really matter to you that it's shorter. You want the "tension". And right back to my earlier criticism on the point.

Quite wrong. Your earlier criticism was "a descriptive that sounds angry and fearful, which is how "homos" resonates. That kind of language always feels like a schoolyard insult...I think kids go to it for power, conflating force with a sort of reason that truth never requires."

It's not angry and fearful on my part. More like amusement when I found out the power of the word. It's not a schoolyard insult, but a grown-up part of a rhetorical conversation. You see, homos cannot use a dialectic approach. They don't understand it. So, one must meet them where they are in the rhetorical realm. It's a reasonable way to convey the truth in a manner that is the most loving and humble way it can be done.

People aren't moved to do a thing by tension, but by resolve that may follow it.

Without the preceding tension, the resolve cannot follow. See: the end of chattel slavery in England.

So we'll differ on the hearts business,...

I do have examples, history, and logic on my side.

... or at least on their consciences, even if they remained within a racist context, beyond that miserable part. That is, I think comfortable and insulated people got a look at what was being done to human beings and found it impossible to look away, to give tacit consent to that inhumanity.

And without the tension, it would have been possible to look away.

Problem is, no one's doing anything to you and all that just happened was a repeal of what we were doing to homosexuals. It's just not in the same boat.

It's identical. It would be the same as in my example of repealing what we were doing to people that said jews were not human, and those that wanted to exploit their labor.

And what we've done by repealing what was done to homos is the same as repealing what we do with child molesters today. Let's hope we at least keep them in the closet.

I don't agree. In fact, I think that if most Christians pursue that course of action it will backfire.

It is the homo's only hope that it won't backfire. And there are examples of it not backfiring in the passed, so there's that.

Part of what began the public turn in favor of recognizing homosexuals as a community that should be protected was the treatment of it by others, the denial of right, the language and derision, the physical brutality that sometimes attended it, all of that was too reminiscent of the treatment of blacks and minorities in general through too much of this nation's history when white Christians dominated the political and cultural landscape.

It's not a great association for us to bring to the fore.

It was only reminiscent of treatment of blacks and minorities because Christians stopped teaching their kids scientific facts and right from wrong. They left their kids to government schools that taught them that DNA and behavior are the same (indirectly, it is a complicated path that is outside the scope of this thread), that taught them that homos just want to be left alone. And beyond that, since the 90's churches and national ministries like Focus on the Family have been teaching "equal rights not special rights" for homos. No... the approach that protected people from becoming homos was abandoned decades ago and now the approach you advocate has lead to what we have now. It will only get worse unless we return homo behavior to being criminal behavior, which can only be achieved through a process that starts with tension.

Now if we ever get around to following a more humble, loving and clear walk I think that might have an impact. It won't reverse law or lead people to want to, but it might make some want to walk with us.

That's what our Christian leaders have been doing for a very long time. The vast majority of churches have been preaching that for decades, especially the mega churches. All the national ministries have been advocating that for decades. The most evil minded left wingers have been saying the same thing for the same reason.

We might not have the strength to win the battle at the end of this particular fight, because as time goes by Christianity gets weaker in the US. So we should change our coarse of appeasement that you cite here and return to tension as quickly as possible to give the right side the best chance for victory.

 

[TracerBullet]

1. I've already addressed this stupid rhetorical point earlier in this thread in one of my initial replies to Jose Fly.

2. More importantly, this claim is irrelevent. This isn't an argument that I'm speaking incorrectly. It could be the case (as I claim) that, even if racists were saying the same thing and arguing from natural law, that they were doing so incorrectly, whereas I am doing so correctly. You haven't ruled this possibility out. In fact:

What you are saying is when racists do exactly what I'm doing they are just wrong.



Let's take your post and change minorities and see what we get:
" Again, I believe that you've misunderstood me. It was interracial "marriage" that I meant when I talked about 'black loving perverts' "dragging the State into it." It's one thing to commit a sin on your own time, secretly, and out of the public eye, observing due shame. It's another thing to flaunt it in public and demand that the State garnish it with the airs of political legitimacy. That's a particularly odious offense, since it involves, not just the 'black loving perverts', but the entire political society (or, at least, those political officials who are involved) in his crimes. It heaps up scandal and injustice upon his unnatural intemperance."

 

[Traditio]

I don't think it's irrelevant at all. I think it makes people uncomfortable because they don't want to acknowledge their bigotry to themselves. It's a particular self-serving bias: the very human tendency to perceive oneself in a favorable light. Much easier to deny than to admit shortcomings.

You're assuming that both racism and the sense or notion that sodomy is a moral offense are both reducible to irrational prejudice (and, let's be more specific, irrational, not only in the case of the particular individual, but irrational in principle).

I think that this is ultimately the liberal assumption, no? Simply drawing a comparison between racism and sodomy doesn't give the liberal the case that he wants.

Once again:

Let us suppose that the racists gave natural law arguments and spoke in a similar way. Were the arguments good? Were the arguments similar to the ones used against sodomy? Is there a similar tradition in the West of using natural law arguments to support racism?

Once again, I think that the social liberals are simply blinded by their historical myopia. I've made this point once, and I'll make it again. Expressions of racism are historically conditioned anomolies. Nazi racism was an expression of that time period, of that society. U.S. racism against black people was an expression of that time period, of that society.

The moral sense that there is something deeply wrong about sodomy? Not so much. I have a friend who is writing his dissertation, a big part of which is about sodomy. He's gathering quotes from various authors in the Western and near eastern tradition. Suffice to say, pretty much everybody seems to think it's messed up.

Historically speaking, the sense that sodomy is a moral offense, or that sodomy is disordered, is not the historical anomoly. It's the modern idea that sodomy is, for all intents and purposes, "equal" to heterosexual union, which is the anomoly, which takes brainwashing.

 

[Traditio]

What you are saying is when racists do exactly what I'm doing they are just wrong.

This is not an answer to my previous point. Your point is purely rhetorical and only proves my case about you in particular.

I'm sorry, but I'm simply not interested in talking to a liberal meme.

Have a pleasant day.

 

[annabenedetti]

Once again, I think that the social liberals are simply blinded by their historical myopia. I've made this point once, and I'll make it again. Expressions of racism are historically conditioned anomolies. Nazi racism was an expression of that time period, of that society. U.S. racism against black people was an expression of that time period, of that society.

Do you honestly think racism in this country ended with the civil rights era, that it's settled history? Legislation may have ended institutional injustice, but individuals have a long way to go. I think you must be very much aware of that.

The moral sense that there is something deeply wrong about sodomy? Not so much. I have a friend who is writing his dissertation, a big part of which is about sodomy. He's gathering quotes from various authors in the Western and near eastern tradition. Suffice to say, pretty much everybody seems to think it's messed up.

It doesn't matter what your friend or various authors think. What matters is whether you're justifying intolerance toward, or the denial of rights to a particular group of people who aren't breaking the law. The law that this country recognizes, not your own personal/moral/natural/religious law.

 

[Traditio]

Do you honestly think racism in this country ended with the civil rights era, that it's settled history? Legislation may have ended institutional injustice, but individuals have a long way to go. I think you must be very much aware of that.

Be that as it may, that still doesn't make U.S. racism anything other than a particular historical/social expression of U.S. society. :idunno:

It doesn't matter what your friend or various authors think. What matters is whether you're justifying intolerance toward, or the denial of rights to a particular group of people who aren't breaking the law. The law that this country recognizes, not your own personal/moral/natural/religious law.

1. You understand that the bolded is question-begging, yes?

2. Need I point out that there are all sorts of behaviors of which you yourself are probably intolerant and think should not be given State endorsement, even though they aren't illegal? I.e., alcholism (not so much an act, of course, as a habit)? Excessive gambling (where legal to do so)? Any number of economic/business practices among the wealthy and among CEOs?

Expressions of bigotry and intolerance (of which, I am sure, you are accusing me, at least mentally, right now as we speak)?

Simply saying "it's legal!" isn't the same thing as saying that the thing in question is morally permissible, anything other than worthy of censure and blame (or even, perhaps, public censure and blame), or, much less, that the State should endorse it.

There was criticism a while back because of (I think) a German program where they were giving alcoholics free light beers in exchange for public service.

At any rate, if you don't mind me saying so, what I think underlies your objection is that you don't think that sodomy is wrong (of course, I could be in error about this). At which point, AnnaBenedetti, you really should take into account what I had said earlier about pretty much the entire Western and near eastern tradition disagreeing with you. That, at the very least, should give you pause. If it doesn't, that's sheer hubris on your part.

Who are you compared to Plato? To Aristotle? To St. Thomas Aquinas? To St. Augustine? To Seneca (so I hear)?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Does it violate the law of the State? Yes or no.

14 states still have the laws on the books.

Soooo, you don't wanna get caught doing it on public land.

Say like conservation areas, the courthouse parking lot, etc.etc.

Better stay in yer own bedroom and maybe even be careful who you invite to join in or watch.

 

[Town Heretic]

Hard to admit? As if I was having a hard time admitting that "homo" raises tension? Where did you get the idea it was hard for me to admit?

From you. From your "It's the plural" beginning. I don't think you're completely comfortable with it or with how you understand it will be generally received or why couch or qualify it first?

Quite wrong. Your earlier criticism was "a descriptive that sounds angry and fearful, which is how "homos" resonates.That kind of language always feels like a schoolyard insult...I think kids go to it for power, conflating force with a sort of reason that truth never requires."

That was it all right. Still is.

It's not angry and fearful on my part.

Maybe, but I've never met someone who regularly used homo as a descriptive who didn't sound angry at some point. And given you recognize the term is provocative and insulting. So what sort of fellow is usually trying to start a fight? Rarely the calm and unperturbed, I'd reckon.

More like amusement when I found out the power of the word.

The power to insult and incite. That amuses you.

It's not a schoolyard insult, but a grown-up part of a rhetorical conversation.

No, it really isn't. It's insult, not a part of an argument. Your own acknowledgment of its impact speaks to that.

You see, homos cannot use a dialectic approach.

Are they born with the impairment or is it a choice?

They don't understand it. So, one must meet them where they are in the rhetorical realm. It's a reasonable way to convey the truth in a manner that is the most loving and humble way it can be done.

It's an insult you aim to upset people. You justify it by saying you have to because they have some impairment you haven't made the case for and you cap the insult as an act of love? lain:

...I do have examples, history, and logic on my side.

A king doesn't need to talk about his crown. It's on his head. If you have one put it on.

It's identical.

That's literally, factually untrue on its face. I've set out why prior but anyone trying to equate dehumanization with empowerment has a logic problem.

And what we've done by repealing what was done to homos is the same as repealing what we do with child molesters today. Let's hope we at least keep them in the closet.

Comparing child molesters with homosexuals is just sensationalist nonsense. Why not compare them to fornicators? At least you'd have a rough parallel, that being consensual, sexual congress wrapped in sin.

It was only reminiscent of treatment of blacks and minorities because Christians stopped teaching their kids scientific facts and right from wrong.

That's an interesting thesis. What's the supportive tissue?

They left their kids to government schools that taught them that DNA and behavior are the same (indirectly, it is a complicated path that is outside the scope of this thread),

No, there's a real and ongoing argument about nurture and nature, though both play a role in all sorts of behaviors, both good and ill. No school system is teaching biological determinism as a given. Fox would start a separate channel dedicated to following that one.

that taught them that homos just want to be left alone.

I never heard that. I heard and witnessed a march for equality before the law, which was finally granted. And I've noted in this thread how Christians were largely responsible for their attaining it, because popular sentiment is usually moved by attempts on the part of an empowered majority to denigrate and deny a minority access and right. The associations were so obvious anyone with an understanding of history and fundamental human psychology had to be shaking their heads watching the massive and predictable failure in methodology take shape.

And beyond that, since the 90's churches and national ministries like Focus on the Family have been teaching "equal rights not special rights" for homos. No... the approach that protected people from becoming homos was abandoned decades ago and now the approach you advocate has lead to what we have now.

"
I'm not an advocate of homosexual union or right, only a recognizer that it was inevitable and, within the framework of the law, necessary.

It will only get worse unless we return homo behavior to being criminal behavior, which can only be achieved through a process that starts with tension.

Won't happen. I can't think of a single group that's lost right once it attained it. Not here.

I wrote: Now if we ever get around to following a more humble, loving and clear walk I think that might have an impact. It won't reverse law or lead people to want to, but it might make some want to walk with us.

That's what our Christian leaders have been doing for a very long time....The most evil minded left wingers have been saying the same thing for the same reason.

I think it's tragic that you believe that, but it doesn't surprise me and I'm not going to try to argue you out of your demonization of the other, in this case bleeding out into any and everyone who differs with you in approach.

So we should change our coarse of appeasement that you cite here

That's not it. Not it at all, really.

 

[moparguy]

Except the 14th amendment did pass.
The 14th amendment was ratified by congress in 1866 and ratified by 30 states by 1868

Would you also say that the winners write the history?

Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on Oct. 27, 1866.
Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on Nov. 9, 1866.
Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 6, 1866.
Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 7, 1866.
North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 14, 1866.
Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 17, 1866.
South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 20, 1866.
Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 8, 1867.
Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 9, 1867.
Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on Feb. 6, 1867.
Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on Feb. 7, 1867.
Maryland rejected the l4th amendment on Mar. 23, 1867.
Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 31, 1867.
Ohio rejected the 14th amendment on Jan. 16, 1868.
New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on Mar. 24, 1868.

That's 15 out of 37 rejecting the amendment. If you missed civics 101, that's less than the required number approving. Just because congress says it was ratified, doesn't mean it was ratified. Congressweasels, bureaucrats, and politicians have been known to lie from time to time. Especially when they think they can utterly destroy their opponent's power structure, which the radical republicans in the government thought they could do.

By the way, if you'd bother to read the link you posted, even it shows that more than 9 rejected the amendment; which still would mean it did not pass.

Despite the fact that the southern states had been functioning peacefully for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern states. It excluded Tennessee from military occupation, and one must suspect it was because Tennessee had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 7, 1866. The Act further disfranchised practically all white voters and provided that no senator or congressman from the occupied states could be seated in Congress until a new constitution was adopted by each state which would be approved by Congress, and further provided that each of the 10 states must ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment must become a part of the Constitution of the United States before the military occupancy would cease and the states be allowed to have seats in Congress.

http://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/1968/11089-0.html

Yep; that's right. The same state governments that had been valid for the passage of the 13th were shoved out of office in a military coup after they would not pass the 14th. Furthermore, the states had to re-write their state constitutions to align with what the radical repubs in congress wanted before re-admission as well.

I find it sad when people get surprised that there's been political weasel-ism in the US right from the start.

Would you like to know how they lied in order to achieve their ends, as far as who did and didn't pass the amendment? The states which had first rejected the amendment but who switched votes to the positive under the duress of military occupation were counted as ratifying. They also counted those states which initially ratified but later rejected the amendment.

To support the idea of the 14th being a constitutionally passed amendment, you have to say that the constitution supports military occupation and rule as a valid way to get "yes" votes.

But it gets worse; the radical repubs in congress unseated 80 reps and 23 senators so that they could get a "two thirds" approval vote in "congress" to approve the joint resolution now falsely known as the "14th amendment." ... directly denying this section of article five - "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

------

And yet again, even the text of the 14th non-amendment doesn't in any way contain the meaning that the government must recognize people's desires to force the government to treat their wants as recognizable (or approovable) by the state. This "right" is nowhere contained in anything that is validly called the U.S. constitution.

 

[annabenedetti]

14 states still have the laws on the books.

Soooo, you don't wanna get caught doing it on public land.

Say like conservation areas, the courthouse parking lot, etc.etc.

Better stay in yer own bedroom and maybe even be careful who you invite to join in or watch.

By law of the State (capitalized) I'm talking about Federal law.

Soooo, your 14 states are outta luck.

And I don't spend my time speculating about what other people do in the privacy of their own homes.

If more of you spent less time thinking about other people's bedrooms, you'd have enough mental energy left over to figure out why civil protections are necessary.

 

[Traditio]

If more of you spent less time thinking about other people's bedrooms, you'd have enough mental energy left over to figure out why civil protections are necessary.

In what sense is the "right" to a civil marriage a civil "protection"? What on earth is that even supposed to mean?

 

[annabenedetti]

In what sense is the "right" to a civil marriage a civil "protection"? What on earth is that even supposed to mean?

It means it's the law, Trad. You may not like it, but it's the law.

 

[moparguy]

If more of you spent less time thinking about other people's bedrooms, you'd have enough mental energy left over to figure out why civil protections are necessary.

If you were consistent with this position, you'd also have to say that it's wrong to think about what sickos can seduce kids into in their bedrooms.

In fact, just about any evil can be carried off quietly in a bedroom.

Again, repeated until the creation is replaced: Obergefell is not law. To enforce it is illegal.

 

[Traditio]

It means it's the law, Trad. You may not like it, but it's the law.

No, no. I get "it's the law." It's a dubious claim (as St. Augustine says and St. Thomas Aquinas repeats, "an unjust law is not a law"), but I understand it nonetheless.

I don't understand why you are calling the right to civil marriage a civil "protection."

What do you mean by "protection"?

 

[annabenedetti]

If you were consistent with this position, you'd also have to say that it's wrong to think about what sickos can seduce kids into in their bedrooms.

In fact, just about any evil can be carried off quietly in a bedroom.

Are you telling me that you speculate about sickos seducing kids in their bedrooms?

 

[annabenedetti]

No, no. I get "it's the law." It's a dubious claim (as St. Augustine says and St. Thomas Aquinas repeats, "an unjust law is not a law"), but I understand it nonetheless.

I don't understand why you are calling the right to civil marriage a civil "protection."

What do you mean by "protection"?

If you get that it's the law, then what do the saints have to do with it?