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

[Totton Linnet]

So we can choose to obey the draft or not but on not on other moral issues?

It depends upon whether you believe that marriage is a civil institution to be allowed or disallowed by human government or an institution of God...to be kept holy and according to God's decree.

There never was a reason for homos to be married, they could have civil partnerships with all the rights of married couples.

Just out of interest are doctors and nurses allowed to opt out of abortion? I don't know the position...if I were a doctor I would only abort on medical grounds.

If everyone who called themselves Christian did so how dramatically would that affect the abortion trade?

 

[Totton Linnet]

Marriage does not affect rights but only status.

 

[Yorzhik]

Being homosexual isn't a crime

It is. Regardless what any particular countries law says, it's a crime against humanity just as much as the Nazi crimes were. This is also regardless if any government puts those responsible on trial.

the point of hunting human beings

No. Not hunting human beings. Hunting chattel slaves.

 

[Town Heretic]

So we can choose to obey the draft or not but on not on other moral issues?

Where'd I say that? I said how you went about it would impact what I thought about it. People who are willing to pay a price for their convictions get a different sort of respect than people who voice them from safety (or Canada, whichever comes first and assuming there's a difference).

It depends upon whether you believe that marriage is a civil institution to be allowed or disallowed by human government or an institution of God...to be kept holy and according to God's decree.

That's not a matter of belief. A marriage is absolutely, in relation to the state, a civil contract/institution. Now it can be more, depending on your beliefs, but you can be a strong anti theist, run down to the courthouse and get married without any religious trappings or understandings at all.

There never was a reason for homos[exuals] to be married, they could have civil partnerships with all the rights of married couples.

It typically didn't work out that way. And they have as much "reason" as two Hindus, who are also outside of the Christian covenant, or two atheists, also disinterested in Christian distinctions.

Just out of interest are doctors and nurses allowed to opt out of abortion? I don't know the position...if I were a doctor I would only abort on medical grounds.

I don't know, but I can't imagine they'd be required to provide the service. Now lawyers can be appointed against their will, but I don't think that translates to the medical profession.

 

[StanJ]

I pray that concerned Americans will keep in mind that freedom is the Avenue along which we are all treading.

Only Jesus gives us true freedom, and He gives us no guarantee of any other kind of freedom outside of Him. This is a delusion the Christian right in the U.S. has swallowed hook line and sinker.

 

[zoo22]

You still haven't proven that there is any entitlement for people to marry others of the same sex, nor have you proven that there is a law in Kentucky that allows for people to marry someone of the same sex.

Kentucky does have this law, which has not been overturned by any other law:

_____
402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the
civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for
life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent
upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
_____​

Kentucky also has this law:

_____
402.020 Other prohibited marriages.
(1) Marriage is prohibited and void:
. . .
(d) Between members of the same sex;
_____​

And this law:

_____
402.045 Same-sex marriage in another jurisdiction void and unenforceable.
(1) A marriage between members of the same sex which occurs in another jurisdiction
shall be void in Kentucky.
(2) Any rights granted by virtue of the marriage, or its termination, shall be
unenforceable in Kentucky courts.
_____​

So what. There's also a law on the books in Kentucky that says a woman can't buy a hat without her husband's permission.

 

[Arthur Brain]

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.

Please explain the point of such separation and unending nature so it makes sense to those who have objections to it's...pointlessness in essence. Is it any wonder that people have a 'hard time' with the notion of such? Yeh - 'people'.

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

It is. Regardless what any particular countries law says, it's a crime against humanity just as much as the Nazi crimes were.

Bollocks.

 

[Granite]

It is. Regardless what any particular countries law says, it's a crime against humanity just as much as the Nazi crimes were.

Oh just stop, already.

 

[bybee]

Please explain the point of such separation and unending nature so it makes sense to those who have objections to it's...pointlessness in essence. Is it any wonder that people have a 'hard time' with the notion of such? Yeh - 'people'.

lain:

in plain words? Either you're or you're out!
Of course being in and/or getting in are the main topics for countless theologians and those who count angels dancing on the heads of pins....
If you're out, where are you? That topic also occupies the minds of theologians who have written innumerable weighty tomes and flyers on the topic!
Personally? I'm in!:Elaine:

 

[PureX]

in plain words? Either you're in or you're out!

That's exactly what does NOT make sense to those who are not overly-simplistic, binary extremists.

I can understand that sin harms the sinner as well as others. But the consequence of sin is collective, not absolute. Every time I sin, it becomes a little easier for me to do it the next time. Until it eventually becomes my default nature, and I am 'lost'. And the more heinous the harm my sins do to others, the more sickly and complete my acceptance of it will become, unless I repent. And I can repent at any point, and every point, repeatedly, and be forgiven.

There is nothing in this process that advances an "in or out/all or nothing" understanding of sin, except in the minds of those who don't like to think, but instead want everything laid out for them in overly simplistic extremes.

Of course being in and/or getting in are the main topics for countless theologians and those who count angels dancing on the heads of pins….

Right. You mean those who are not frightened of complexity, or of nuance, and who dare to use their minds to explore those aspects and depths of reality that the frightened simpletons of the world dare not recognize.

 

[Town Heretic]

Please explain the point of such separation and unending nature so it makes sense to those who have objections to it's...pointlessness in essence.

As much point as existence itself, fundamentally. That is, there's a context and what occurs within it. If you have gravity and mountains someone is going to have a nasty fall at some point. What's the point of that nasty fall? There isn't one, but there's a point to gravity.

Is it any wonder that people have a 'hard time' with the notion of such?

No. But maybe that should be a yes and the real answer is to stop worrying about the fall and concentrate on the mountain. Let God worry about the rest. Because here's the thing, no one here knows the fate of anyone else here or ever. That's in God's hands and if He's not worthy of that then we have larger problems than whose metaphysical mathematics sums correctly.

That's exactly what does NOT make sense to those who are not overly-simplistic, binary extremists.

Okay Trad. Seriously, you have to stop that. Disagreeing with you contextually doesn't remove a single point of IQ from anyone or indicate a lesser understanding.

Unless you're arguing politics with chrys or anything with aCW, of course. lain:

I can understand that sin harms the sinner as well as others. But the consequence of sin is collective, not absolute.

That's your context and no one can talk you out of it, but it isn't necessarily true.

Every time I sin, it becomes a little easier for me to do it the next time. Until it eventually becomes my default nature, and I am 'lost'.

See what I mean? You don't even believe it completely.

And the more heinous the harm my sins do to others, the more sickly and complete my acceptance of it will become, unless I repent.

But why would you were you willfully lost. A man who has fallen in love with his disease doesn't want a cure unless his sickness compels him at some point. Mostly that doesn't appear to happen.

And I can repent at any point, and every point, repeatedly, and be forgiven.

Sure, you can repent. But the further you go down that road the less likely it becomes that you'll want to.

There is nothing in this process that advances an "in or out/all or nothing" understanding of sin, except in the minds of those who don't like to think, but instead want everything laid out for them in overly simplistic extremes.

There is, but you're not considering it.

Right. You mean those who are not frightened of complexity, or of nuance, and who dare to use their minds to explore those aspects and depths of reality that the frightened simpletons of the world dare not recognize.

Or, maybe you're wrong...it was either that or I was going with, "I don't know what that means but it's scary."

 

[PureX]

I can understand that sin harms the sinner as well as others. But the consequence of sin is collective, not absolute. Every time I sin, it becomes a little easier for me to do it the next time. Until it eventually becomes my default nature, and I am 'lost'. And the more heinous the harm my sins do to others, the more sickly and complete my acceptance of it will become, unless I repent. And I can repent at any point, and every point, repeatedly, and be forgiven.

There is nothing in this process that advances an "in or out/all or nothing" understanding of sin, except in the minds of those who don't like to think, but instead want everything laid out for them in overly simplistic extremes.

But why would you (repent) were you willfully lost. A man who has fallen in love with his disease doesn't want a cure unless his sickness compels him at some point. Mostly that doesn't appear to happen.

We don't "fall in love with our disease" absolutely. That's my point. It happens slowly, and cumulatively, by degrees. NOT absolutely. If it happened absolutely, there could be no repentance at any point. There would be no forgiveness at any point. Fortunately for us, this is not the case.

Sure, you can repent. But the further you go down that road the less likely it becomes that you'll want to.

Yep, we "fall" be degrees. But we're never beyond redemption. It's not absolute.

There is, but you're not considering it.

Interestingly, I notice that you're not explaining it, either.

 

[genuineoriginal]

So what. There's also a law on the books in Kentucky that says a woman can't buy a hat without her husband's permission.

Was the clerk put in jail for buying a hat or was she put in jail for following Kentucky marriage laws?

 

[Granite]

Was the clerk put in jail for buying a hat or was she put in jail for following Kentucky marriage laws?

The state law is completely irrelevant in this case. TH already pointed this out.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Two problems with your answer: first, state law isn't controlling and, second, marriage isn't an entitlement. It's part of your right to contract in a particular sense. Else and to sum, the issue over access to the right has been decided.


Kentucky could pass a law that outlaws interracial marriage if it wanted to, but the S. Ct. has already invalidated it. Same thing here.

Then the supreme court violated the law and abused the power of their office.

They should be impeached and jailed for what they did.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The state law is completely irrelevant in this case.

The founding fathers carefully wrote limits into the Federal governments power to prevent the Federal government from usurping the rightful power of the States in this manner.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Kentucky could pass a law that outlaws interracial marriage if it wanted to, but the S. Ct. has already invalidated it. Same thing here.

Your argument appears to be claiming that there is no difference between having dark skin and acting on sexual perversions.

 

[Granite]

Your argument appears to be claiming that there is no difference between having dark skin and acting on sexual perversions.

Ya know it's possible for people of two races to get married and not even have dark skin enter the equation.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Ya know it's possible for people of two races to get married and not even have dark skin enter the equation.

And yet it is impossible for two people of the same sex to marry each other without their sexual perversions entering the equations.
:thumb: