Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
TracerBullet
New member
has nothing to do with the topic - your claims about choosing your orientation.
you don't get to redefine orientation just so you can justify your personal prejudice. Orientation remains 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).
you're bigoted because you tried to falsely tie the abuse of children to a minority.
Last edited:
I'm going to answer this point.
Yes, it is of direct concern to the State whether or not someone is molesting children, even if it is going on "behind the privacy of closed doors," so to speak. Child molestation is rape. Rape is a sin against justice. That's the State's business.
So, I'll grant the point: "Yes, we should be concerned about whether some 'sicko is seducing kids in his bedroom.'"
I'll then say: "What's your point?"
Your point, I suppose, is that just as we should be concerned about child molestation, we should also be concerned about homosexual conduct. After all, sicko is sicko. Right?
And I'll say "wrong." Sodomites are, I will fully grant you, sickos (in the general sense that anyone who wants to do something which is deeply wrong and unnatural is a "sicko," but in this, I imply no moral judgment. In some real sense, we are all sickos; it's just that some sicknesses are more common and popular than others).
Sodomy, however, is not a sin against justice. It does not constitute a rape. It does not constitute a kind of violence, except, of course, except insofar as every sin is a kind of violence against reason, against nature, etc.
Once more, however, I will agree with and insist on this point. The common liberal argument that homosexuals are "born that way" and "can't help it" equally applies to all sexual inclinations (probably), including those which are ordered to actions which are illegal and unjust. It holds absolutely no water when it comes to justifying the conduct of the individual who is so inclined.
For anyone who might be waiting for me to answer Tracer Bullet's response to my response to AnnaBenedetti, I'd like to note that I've already indicated, earlier in the thread, that I have no interest in conversing with him. :idunno:
Edit: In fact, a cursory review of said response only indicates more of the same on Tracer Bullet's part. I have no interest in engaging. :nono:
Edit: In fact, a cursory review of said response only indicates more of the same on Tracer Bullet's part. I have no interest in engaging. :nono:
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I didn't know he said anything directly to me, are you sure? If he had, I'm sure it was worthy of a response, because I agree with the points he's made in the thread.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Likewise.
See, that's the thing that doesn't work. It's one thing to know a child has been molested (a crime has been committed, and you act on knowledge of that fact) and another entirely to make it my responsibility to think about what might be happening to a random child I don't know, can't identify, have no knowledge of, and no awareness that a crime has been committed.
You're wanting to compare that sort of speculative thinking to my not wanting to know or consider any of my business what happens in a bedroom between two consenting adults who aren't committing any crime.
That was a typo on my part. He had responded to one of my responses to you. :idunno:
Town Heretic, I think that the most reasonable and productive way to answer your most recent point is simply to return to my initial posting to regain sight of the context of the conversation:
"Rights? Make no mistake: sodomy is an unholy crime against nature itself. It cries out to heaven for vengeance. Sodomites will pay for their crimes either here, or else, there. There is no escape from Justice."
The way that I see it, you have taken issue with the following parts:
1. My assertion that sodomites, as sodomites, do not have rights.
2. My calling sodomy a crime.
3. My saying that sodomy cries out to heaven for vengeance.
4. My assertion that there is no escape from justice.
So far as I can see, I think that we've basically either agreed on, or else, moved past 4, which should be trivial. In point of fact, there is no escape from divine justice for anyone, even if divine justice is expressed by an act of divine mercy. [Problematic for protestants; but that would be a different discussion.]
So, what remains at issue are the following points:
1. Do sodomites have a right? Here, you and I are going to have a different conception of right:
1. Pre-modern conception of "right": Claim of justice
2. Modern conception of "right": legal entitlement
Even supposing I were to "roll" with the latter definition, this again can be interpreted in one of two ways:
A. In the sense of actual entitlement (i.e., such that sense 1 and 2 above agree).
B. In the sheerly legal positivistic sense, i.e.: the letter of the "law" says this, and this is what the guys with guns are enforcing.
At which point, of course, it would be incredibly silly for me to deny that sodomites have a right in the sense of 2B, and this is, I believe, that sense onto which you've latched, and which you probably feel is the concern of your profession.
This may or may not be an oversimplification. If it is, I don't think it's terribly much of one.
So, 2B. My response will be: "So what if sodomites have a right in that sense? '...We ought to obey God, rather than men' (Acts 5:29). '...there is no power but from God' (Romans 13:1)."
Granted that sodomites have a right in the case of 2B, 2B does not suffice to compel our actions or to bind us in conscience. It alone does not constitute the expression of legitimate political authority. The expression of political authority is legitimate if and only if that expression accords with the Natural and Divine laws. Otherwise, circumstances permitting and justifying, we are perfectly free to ignore it.
To which, in turn, you will make three points:
a. I have oversimplified your position. The "right" of sodomites isn't simply gauranteed simply because the guy with the gun is saying so. It's gauranteed because it's inherent the very "logic" of our political system and must be played out as an expression and conclusion thereof.
To which I'll answer: I understand this point to a more or less extent, but I just don't think that it's particularly compelling. This leaves me scratching my head and saying: "So what?"
b. You'll express doubt about natural law, either with respect to our knowledge of it, its existence, or both.
I'll answer with the words of St. Paul: "For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them" (Romans 2:14-15).
I have yet to see you (as far as I can recall) give an adequate answer to this point.
c. "Have fun arguing this in court."
To which I'll respond this argument is purely rhetorical and carries no rational weight. :idunno:
2. My calling sodomy a "crime," likewise, reduces to the matter of whether or not we recognize natural and divine law, and ultimately is a semantic matter of which violations of which law(s) constitute crimes.
3. Finally, there is the issue of sodomy being a particularly grave sin which cries out to heaven for justice. Ultimately, once more, your disagreement stems from a twofold disagreement:
A. You disagree that sins or moral offenses are unequal.
B. You don't think that there is a natural law, or, if you think there is one, you don't think that we can know it.
In answer to A, I'll raise the following considerations:
a. Jesus disagrees with you. He Himself says that sins differ in gravity in the parable of Luke 7: "A certain creditor had two debtors, the one who owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty" (Luke 7:41).
You are entirely correct, of course, in saying that, in a certain sense, "all sins are equal," but only in the sense that we are equally unable to justify ourselves of any mortal sin. The fornicator is no more able to justify himself than the serial murderer.
From this it does not follow that all sins are equal in gravity. If I owe 100 denarii and you only owe 10, and both of us are equally unable to pay, that doesn't make our debts equal.
b. If all sins were equal, then all of the damned would either receive equal punishment or not.
b1. If they receive equal punishment, this just seems unreasonable. Suppose that Adolf Hitler and a common prostitute are in Hell (in fact, I hope, and we should all pray, that neither is). Do they really deserve equal punishment? Does that sound right?
Again, consider Judas Iscariot and, say, the young boy who, just now fully becoming morally accountable for his actions, commits only a single mortal sin, and then dies without absolution.
They deserve equal punishment? They both deserve equal suffering?
b2. If they do not receive equal punishment, then they receive different punishments for some reason other than their actual merit or desert for punishment, which would be unjust.
Since b1 and b2 are both wrong, it must be the case that not all sins are equal.
b3. Related to b2 is the converse consideration, i.e., that not all of the saints enjoy equal glory: "For star differeth from star in glory" (1 Corinthians 15:41). Therefore, by analogy, not all of the damned should "enjoy" equal demerit, condemnation and punishment. Therefore, not all sins are equal.
c. A sin is a violation of the Natural or Divine Law. The Natural Law is the law which is written in the heart. It's measure is reason. Some acts more or less accord with the measure set by reason. A sin, in this sense, is an act of vice. Sins are opposed to acts of virtue. Reason recognizes some actions as more or less deformed, as being more or less opposed to virtue. Having a single glass of wine too many is much less of an act of intemperance than having a single bottle of wine too many.
As St. Thomas tells us, for any moral act, there is a single way to go right, and pretty much an infinite number of ways to go wrong, to be defective. Every additional defect that reason "notices" in an act adds to the gravity and deformity of the sin.
A contraceptive act has the right matter (i.e., the act is with a woman), but the wrong form (the act has been closed to life).
An act of sodomy has the wrong matter (the act is with a man, not with a woman).
An act of bestiality has the wrong matter even more so (the act isn't even with a human being).
So, yes, the fact that a sodomite makes the State a co-conspirator to his crime (i.e., by getting "married"), this does, in fact, increase the gravity of his sins and makes him even more guilty. It adds scandal to his unnatural intemperance.
B. Again, against this second point, is Romans 2:14-15.
"Rights? Make no mistake: sodomy is an unholy crime against nature itself. It cries out to heaven for vengeance. Sodomites will pay for their crimes either here, or else, there. There is no escape from Justice."
The way that I see it, you have taken issue with the following parts:
1. My assertion that sodomites, as sodomites, do not have rights.
2. My calling sodomy a crime.
3. My saying that sodomy cries out to heaven for vengeance.
4. My assertion that there is no escape from justice.
So far as I can see, I think that we've basically either agreed on, or else, moved past 4, which should be trivial. In point of fact, there is no escape from divine justice for anyone, even if divine justice is expressed by an act of divine mercy. [Problematic for protestants; but that would be a different discussion.]
So, what remains at issue are the following points:
1. Do sodomites have a right? Here, you and I are going to have a different conception of right:
1. Pre-modern conception of "right": Claim of justice
2. Modern conception of "right": legal entitlement
Even supposing I were to "roll" with the latter definition, this again can be interpreted in one of two ways:
A. In the sense of actual entitlement (i.e., such that sense 1 and 2 above agree).
B. In the sheerly legal positivistic sense, i.e.: the letter of the "law" says this, and this is what the guys with guns are enforcing.
At which point, of course, it would be incredibly silly for me to deny that sodomites have a right in the sense of 2B, and this is, I believe, that sense onto which you've latched, and which you probably feel is the concern of your profession.
This may or may not be an oversimplification. If it is, I don't think it's terribly much of one.
So, 2B. My response will be: "So what if sodomites have a right in that sense? '...We ought to obey God, rather than men' (Acts 5:29). '...there is no power but from God' (Romans 13:1)."
Granted that sodomites have a right in the case of 2B, 2B does not suffice to compel our actions or to bind us in conscience. It alone does not constitute the expression of legitimate political authority. The expression of political authority is legitimate if and only if that expression accords with the Natural and Divine laws. Otherwise, circumstances permitting and justifying, we are perfectly free to ignore it.
To which, in turn, you will make three points:
a. I have oversimplified your position. The "right" of sodomites isn't simply gauranteed simply because the guy with the gun is saying so. It's gauranteed because it's inherent the very "logic" of our political system and must be played out as an expression and conclusion thereof.
To which I'll answer: I understand this point to a more or less extent, but I just don't think that it's particularly compelling. This leaves me scratching my head and saying: "So what?"
b. You'll express doubt about natural law, either with respect to our knowledge of it, its existence, or both.
I'll answer with the words of St. Paul: "For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them" (Romans 2:14-15).
I have yet to see you (as far as I can recall) give an adequate answer to this point.
c. "Have fun arguing this in court."
To which I'll respond this argument is purely rhetorical and carries no rational weight. :idunno:
2. My calling sodomy a "crime," likewise, reduces to the matter of whether or not we recognize natural and divine law, and ultimately is a semantic matter of which violations of which law(s) constitute crimes.
3. Finally, there is the issue of sodomy being a particularly grave sin which cries out to heaven for justice. Ultimately, once more, your disagreement stems from a twofold disagreement:
A. You disagree that sins or moral offenses are unequal.
B. You don't think that there is a natural law, or, if you think there is one, you don't think that we can know it.
In answer to A, I'll raise the following considerations:
a. Jesus disagrees with you. He Himself says that sins differ in gravity in the parable of Luke 7: "A certain creditor had two debtors, the one who owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty" (Luke 7:41).
You are entirely correct, of course, in saying that, in a certain sense, "all sins are equal," but only in the sense that we are equally unable to justify ourselves of any mortal sin. The fornicator is no more able to justify himself than the serial murderer.
From this it does not follow that all sins are equal in gravity. If I owe 100 denarii and you only owe 10, and both of us are equally unable to pay, that doesn't make our debts equal.
b. If all sins were equal, then all of the damned would either receive equal punishment or not.
b1. If they receive equal punishment, this just seems unreasonable. Suppose that Adolf Hitler and a common prostitute are in Hell (in fact, I hope, and we should all pray, that neither is). Do they really deserve equal punishment? Does that sound right?
Again, consider Judas Iscariot and, say, the young boy who, just now fully becoming morally accountable for his actions, commits only a single mortal sin, and then dies without absolution.
They deserve equal punishment? They both deserve equal suffering?
b2. If they do not receive equal punishment, then they receive different punishments for some reason other than their actual merit or desert for punishment, which would be unjust.
Since b1 and b2 are both wrong, it must be the case that not all sins are equal.
b3. Related to b2 is the converse consideration, i.e., that not all of the saints enjoy equal glory: "For star differeth from star in glory" (1 Corinthians 15:41). Therefore, by analogy, not all of the damned should "enjoy" equal demerit, condemnation and punishment. Therefore, not all sins are equal.
c. A sin is a violation of the Natural or Divine Law. The Natural Law is the law which is written in the heart. It's measure is reason. Some acts more or less accord with the measure set by reason. A sin, in this sense, is an act of vice. Sins are opposed to acts of virtue. Reason recognizes some actions as more or less deformed, as being more or less opposed to virtue. Having a single glass of wine too many is much less of an act of intemperance than having a single bottle of wine too many.
As St. Thomas tells us, for any moral act, there is a single way to go right, and pretty much an infinite number of ways to go wrong, to be defective. Every additional defect that reason "notices" in an act adds to the gravity and deformity of the sin.
A contraceptive act has the right matter (i.e., the act is with a woman), but the wrong form (the act has been closed to life).
An act of sodomy has the wrong matter (the act is with a man, not with a woman).
An act of bestiality has the wrong matter even more so (the act isn't even with a human being).
So, yes, the fact that a sodomite makes the State a co-conspirator to his crime (i.e., by getting "married"), this does, in fact, increase the gravity of his sins and makes him even more guilty. It adds scandal to his unnatural intemperance.
B. Again, against this second point, is Romans 2:14-15.
A moral pronouncement outside of the context of the discourse relating to the law as it functions in Kentucky and the larger nation, which remains the point in consideration.
Well, you're factually wrong on (1) and (2), (3) is a bit overstated and (4) may be errant as speculation, depending on the action of a particular sinner at some point along their line of being, as you noted. So it has debatable value as declarations go without heavy qualification.
If we're talking about the controlling law, the steps taken by the Clerk in Kentucky, ect, I win. And I'm not talking about your or my or anyone's moral vision/belief, except as it relates to impinging on legal right as it exists within the compact.
I'd say we tried to do that, but men have a way of disagreeing on the fine print and the last concerted effort Christendom made along those lines killed off about a third of Europe's Christian population.
So the alternative strikes me as far less worrisome. Let each man follow the dictates of his conscience within a law that respects but does not proffer a particular understanding of what that conscience must be. And let men live with the consequences of their choices.
On what I omit following. It was entertaining, though you do a better job arguing for you than for me, which is understandable. Ultimately, the above is my fundamental answer in sum.
A point or two though...
I think you conflate difference with degree. Sins are demonstrably different and those differences can have disproportionately evil/harmful consequences for others, but the thing itself, the consequence of sin for the sinner remains constant. So kill a hundred men or twenty, your consequence for one is the same as the consequence for all.
I think men have a hard time with that, which is why some invented levels of hell, as if an eternity separated from every good could be experienced in any meaningful sense by degree...people.
Then Hell itself is unreasonable, given you suffer an eternal consequence for a finite act or series of acts. Of course, the problem is in the consideration. We don't suffer for the particular sin, but suffer the consequence that any sin visits, absent grace, a separation from the good, from it's source, God.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
king, crown, pointing, blablablablabla
It depends on what law we are talking about. Before the natural and divine laws, sodomy is a crime. Sodomites, considered simply as such, do not have a right of sexual expression or social legitimacy. You'll tell me that it's not a crime according to human positive law, at least, not in the U.S. I'll agree.
I mean, I fully agree with you. Given the principles of the "social compact" and given the letter of the law, unless there are contravening first amendment considerations, then you are probably right. The judge acted according to the letter of the "law," and the Clerk of Court violated a court order.
But you know what? When that judge dies, he is going to find himself in the same position as the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials: before a Judge who will render his sentence, not based upon the laws of the U.S. or of Germany or of any other nation-state (except insofar as those laws legitimately bound in conscience), but according to a higher and more authoritative law, a Judge, I say, before whom "I was just following orders" and "It was the 'law'" will not be an excuse for his crime against the moral order, for his crime against Kim Davis, for his crime against God.
When the majority of the current Supreme Court are standing before that Judge, "it was a consequence of our political system" will not excuse them for their crimes against the political society.
He won't be holding the U.S. constitution. He won't be holding the volumes of U.S. law. He'll be judging according to the Natural and Divine Laws, and their own reasons, their own natures will bear testimony against them. Ye who deal unjust judgment here below and perservere even unto the end in your injustice, beware: ye justly shall be judged.
Was it the "law"? Maybe. But it was a law that Kim Davis had a moral obligation to disobey, and it was a law that the Judge had a moral obligation not to enforce, which the Supreme Court had a moral obligation not to recognize.
It is a "law" that all rational human beings have an obligation to ignore. You speak according to the letter of the "law." I speak according to reality: in fact, sodomites have no claim of justice to commit their crimes. In fact, sodomites, in justice, have an obligation to refrain from their crimes and amend their lives. In fact, the State has no obligation to recognize their unions, but, rather, an obligation not to do so.
Why? Because the State has the authority to command acts of the virtues, to forbid acts of vice and to permit those acts which are generically indifferent. It may, of course, remain silent in some cases (e.g., it is not necessary for the State to criminalize sodomy, if this would be more harmful than beneficial to the common good). But it has no authority to command acts of the vices.
If the State sets itself against the Natural Law, it has failed, it has deviated from its natural duties, from its natural role. The end of the State is to lead mean, albeit imperfectly, to imperfect beatitude, i.e., the full flourishing of human nature. It is to serve as a help (albeit very indirectly), not a hindrance, on the way to eternal life (a point which Jacques Maritain compellingly makes in various places; I recommend Integral Humanism).
If the State commands the individual to choose between civic obligation and moral obligation, the State does something most unreasonable, most perverted and most disordered.
Will you tell me that this perversion, this failure is inherent in the very nature of our "compact?" Then so much the worse for our "compact."
Obligation vs. permission vs. prohibition.
The difference between 10 denarii and 100 denarii is one of difference, not of degree?
I think that you are focused too much on the "consequences" of sin. This is wrong. You should consider moral acts on the analogy of human art. Just as the artisan can go wrong in building a table to a greater or less degree, so too, the moral agent can go wrong in acting well to a greater or lesser degree, and, likewise, can incur greater praise or blame.
The bolded would take a longer and more tangential discussion. Suffice to say here that there is a difference between the severity of punishment intensive (i.e., in terms of how "harsh" the penalty is) and extensive (i.e., how long the penalty lasts). All souls in hell will be punished infinitely extensive. Not all souls in Hell will be punished equally intensive, nor is it possible for any soul to be punished infinitely intensive. It's simply not possible for a created being.
Each of the damned have a special place in Hell and very special torments reserved just for them.
Here, I quote St. Faustina:
"The First Torture that constitutes hell is:
The loss of God.
The Second is:
Perpetual remorse of conscience.
The Third is
That one's condition will never change.
The Fourth is:
The fire that will penetrate the soul without destroying it. A terrible suffering since it is a purely spiritual fire, lit by God's anger.
The Fifth Torture is:
Continual darkness and a terrible suffocating smell, and despite the darkness, the devils and the souls of the damned see each other and all the evil, both of others and their own.
The Sixth Torture is:
The constant company of Satan.
The Seventh Torture is:
Horrible despair, hatred of God, vile words, curses and blasphemies.
These are the Tortures suffered by all the damned together, but that is not the end of the sufferings.
Indescribable Sufferings
There are special Tortures destined for particular souls. These are the torments of the senses. Each soul undergoes terrible and indescribable sufferings related to the manner in which it has sinned."
And remember, Town Heretic, even the damned will get their bodies back, right along with their powers of sensation and their capacities for sensuous torment.
Aside from this, I think that my previous comments are sufficiently compelling, in particular, about the different degrees of debt and the analogy with the differences in the degrees of glory of the Saints.
IMJerusha
New member
This is a very long thread and I was wondering if anyone had posted about the similarity between this case and the ExpressJet flight attendant who is refusing to serve alcohol to ExpressJet passengers. It seems to me that if the EEOC is going to back this Muslim woman, then they should also back the Kentucky clerk. I find a statement made by the Muslim woman's attorney extremely apropos: "...no one should have to choose between their career and religion and it’s incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can practice their religion freely,”
Excellent. And in our compact (where Kentucky remains) that's the ballgame.
As per my racists/mark of Cain note earlier, there's no conflict in right.
That's about it.
Maybe, maybe not...which fairly covers most of what follows. I don't know what the disposition of any man's soul will be and, thankfully, it isn't my job to speculate.
There I think you're wrong. She chose to disobey. She could simply have resigned. Else, I've set out why putting anyone other than God incarnate (who declined) in charge of the government and speaking for God's intent hasn't worked out well for many.
I've told you something, but it's a little different than that, supra and prior.
No, degree and not difference. You have it backwards. And, more to the point, if the consequence of one is death and the consequence of sixty is death, then, well, back to my consequence for the sinner remark.
I don't see how that's possible given the point of the cross.
That's not scriptural, but it does hit on the problem of putting men in charge of deciding moral issues from foundations of faith and empowering them over other men. So it has objective value in that sense.
There are no similarities: one is a woman who practices a false religion where the murder of infidels is justified and the other is a follower of Jesus Christ who loves her sinful neighbors so much that she won't be a party to their eternal damnation.
It's interesting how you compare the consumption of alcohol with homosexuality. From the Judeo/Christian perspective, one is only immoral if it is abused, the other one is sexual perversion which God abhors.
There's another reason you boyz like Frank so much, he made the cover of the most popular homosexual magazine in the US.
Oh and Trad, let me know if both your and Frank's quotes was "taken out of context".
IMJerusha
New member
ACW, I wasn't drawing similarities between the faiths but rather between the cases. Those similarities do not give credence to any faith over another.
Back up your train, Brother, I am speaking of defense of the right to live (which includes when one is working) according to ones faith and am, in no way, comparing alcohol to homosexuality. There are times when you are so OCD (for lack of better descriptor) about homosexuality that you fail to actually absorb and comprehend the words of a poster.