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

[drbrumley]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
[The Constitution was] Written by Christian men with Judeo/Christian doctrine in mind.

Were the Founding Fathers "Tolerant" of Islam? [Part I]

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...7&article=4622



Exactly, and giving religious liberty to nutcase religions like Islam wasn't part of their original intent.

Hence the reason that a Muslim flight attendant refusing to serve alcoholic beverages to passengers and a Christian County Clerk refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence when it comes to "constitutional rights".

"When tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

 

[aCultureWarrior]

"When tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

There are two invasions on US soil, one domestic and one from abroad. (i.e. we're fighting two culture wars: against secular humanists like Art Brain and anna b, and against the Muslim barbarians that want to murder all infidels that don't convert to the false religion of Islam).

They're close allies in the war against Judeo/Christian doctrine.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

:rotfl:

404 - File or directory not found.

The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

It was linked from an earlier post. Here is the article:

Were the Founding Fathers "Tolerant" of Islam? [Part I]
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=4622

 

[drbrumley]

It was linked from an earlier post. Here is the article:

Were the Founding Fathers "Tolerant" of Islam? [Part I]
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=4622

Ok, thank you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

There are two invasions on US soil, one domestic and one from abroad. (i.e. we're fighting two culture wars: against secular humanists like Art Brain and anna b, and against the Muslim barbarians that want to murder all infidels that don't convert to the false religion of Islam).

They're close allies in the war against Judeo/Christian doctrine.

So sad, wrong and paranoid it's almost funny...

:freak:

 

[StanJ]

Read ACW's post again. Then, read the post to which he was responding. Then, read the post to which that post was responding.
At that point, it should become evident why your response is just silly and out of place.

Yah, no thanks. I gave up expecting him to make sense a LONG time ago.
Regardless, he made an assertion and I responded to it. Don't really understand why you are bothered by it?

 

[StanJ]

Appropriate for aCW's brain...

:chuckle:

 

[StanJ]

Has Pope Frank's morals "evolved" in that time Stan?

I have no idea what his morals are, but that's not the point now is it?

There you go judging again.

No, just confirming obvious facts.

 

[StanJ]

Why don't you set up your own "Faggot Recovery Center" and see how many patrons you get? Then you can tell any who appear how the little fags that they are deserve to rot in hideous suffering and how you're doing them a great big service by "curing" them.
Pratt.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Has Pope Frank's morals "evolved" in that time Stan?

I have no idea what his morals are, but that's not the point now is it?

The Pope is supposedly a man of God, if it's unclear to anyone what Pope Frank's morals are, then he's not doing his duty to God and to the people who are members of the Catholic Church.

 

[StanJ]

The Pope is supposedly a man of God, if it's unclear to anyone what Pope Frank's morals are, then he's not doing his duty to God and to the people who are members of the Catholic Church.

I have no doubt he is, and just because he does NOT stoop to your level of moral turpitude, does not mean he's NOT doing his duty, whatever you feel that is.

 

[Traditio]

Yah, no thanks. I gave up expecting him to make sense a LONG time ago.
Regardless, he made an assertion and I responded to it. Don't really understand why you are bothered by it?

No, he didn't. I had made a point earlier. He in turn answered what I said with a reply that indicated that he didn't understand me.

I asked him something to the effect of: "What do you think that I am saying?"

He then replied with the "assertion" to which you replied.

He wasn't making an assertion. He was simply telling me what he thought I said.

And frankly, it's particularly annoying because if you look at his grammar, it's obvious he wasn't making an assertion. He started the thing with "that," thereby introducing a subordinate clause.

 

[Traditio]

I only read links when I'm checking a source or when it's something necessary and unavoidable.

It's an extremely important point to Catholic moral theology (and probably not even just Catholic moral theology), and if you don't understand it, you are bound to make conflations and confusions at which an educated Catholic would (were he feeling uncharitable that day) simply roll his eyes, and you're not interested?

Really? "Formal vs. material cooperation" is right up there with double effect. As a person of education, this is something that you should at least be familiar with.

You needn't use my link, of course, but you at least should be familiar, at least on a general level, with the distinction.

 

[quip]

There is no benefit to society in perversion.

Sure there is. You don't want your personal sex acts to be deemed not equal/illegal in relation to homosexual ones do you?

 

[quip]

I don't disagree with this point. I might not use the word "forced," but I don't disagree with the "publically" bit. That's exactly what I assert. It's not a private matter.

Correct, legalized marriage is a public matter...so to is equal representation under public law.

 

[ok doser]

why should perverts receive equal representation under the law?

 

[kmoney]

We have a winner.

Romans 1:32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

con·sent
kənˈsent/
noun
noun: consent; plural noun: consents

1.
permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
"no change may be made without the consent of all the partners"
synonyms: agreement, assent, acceptance, approval, approbation; More
permission, authorization, sanction, leave;
backing, endorsement, support;
informalgo-ahead, thumbs up, green light, OK
"the consent of all members"
antonyms: dissent

verb
verb: consent; 3rd person present: consents; past tense: consented; past participle: consented; gerund or present participle: consenting

1.
give permission for something to happen.
"he consented to a search by a detective"
synonyms: agree to, assent to, yield to, give in to, submit to

Her name on them implies consent/agreement

So for the licenses that the deputy clerks issued during the past few days with her name on it....you think she consented/agreed with them?

Just bumping this because I don't see a response (which I may have missed in all that's been posted since then). I'm curious if A4T, or anyone, truly thinks that Kim consented/agreed with the licenses that the deputy clerks gave out.

 

[kmoney]

However:

A man having a psychological predisposition to want to have sex with another man is probably not different in kind from an adult having a psychological predisposition to want to rape a child (because here, the object of our consideration is simply the inclination as inclination).

:think: This doesn't seem quite right. Are you reducing sexuality to psychology with no biological basis at all?

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.

I think the 'born that way' can matter as it relates to law. I think there are two primary pillars in the justification of sodomy or gay marriage being legal. 1) consenting adults and 2) born that way

I think 2) is more relevant to gay marriage laws. Because if homosexuality is a simple choice then the State would have less interest or need to recognize/protect their relationships.

 

[chrysostom]

Just bumping this because I don't see a response (which I may have missed in all that's been posted since then). I'm curious if A4T, or anyone, truly thinks that Kim consented/agreed with the licenses that the deputy clerks gave out.

I see you are still arguing around the edges because you support same sex marriage
but
you don't seem to get it

this is about judicial tyranny and religious freedom

the state law of kentucky says marriage is between man and woman
and
the county clerk must approve marriage licenses

I know you do get it
and
we know you support same sex marriage

 

[kmoney]

I see you are still arguing around the edges because you support same sex marriage
but
you don't seem to get it

this is about judicial tyranny and religious freedom

the state law of kentucky says marriage is between man and woman
and
the county clerk must approve marriage licenses

I know you do get it
and
we know you support same sex marriage

hi chrys. Do you think she consented to those licenses?