Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[jamil]

The real question that we are asking is: "how does this affect society? Does this have a positive, unifying affect on society, or does it continue the breaking of society into special interest groups? Is it "fair" to denigrate a long-held societal more based on religious beliefs in favor of a secular "religious" more?"

But don't we tend to argue against a societal benefit on other conservative issues? If I'm going to favor an individualist philosophy I guess I need to find some consistent place to draw the line. When does a societal argument make a good basis for restrictive laws, and when does it not?

As far as government recognition of any marriage goes, today even, aside from the gaystopo's need for social victories, it is about who gets what benefits and legal protections. It really isn't much about holy matrimony. I'd like to end government sanctioning of it altogether. But realistically, we not going to get rid of that legal construct. So I think I'd rather see marriage replaced with civil unions that has nothing to do with matrimony at all. I know of some elderly sisters who live together in order to pool their resources. I seriously doubt there is a sexual relationship there at all. They could benefit from the kinds of tax considerations and legal protections that married people get. Why does a couple need to have a sexual relationship and be wed? Why can't they legally form a civil union? Let marriage be about what it's always been, and separate that from government sanctioning altogether.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

World Net Daily ^ push back

 

[mrjarrell]

Someone call the welcome wagon. The lunatic in residence has decided she wants to be a republican now. At least she'll have more party supporters now.

Kim Davis Is Officially Becoming A Republican

 

[jamil]

Someone call the welcome wagon. The lunatic in residence has decided she wants to be a republican now. At least she'll have more party supporters now.

Kim Davis Is Officially Becoming A Republican

That's kinda the effect mob-shaming has on a person.

 

[mrjarrell]

That's kinda the effect mob-shaming has on a person.

She deserved everything she got and has no-one to blame but herself, (and maybe her incompetent lawyers). She brought everything she got on herself.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Someone call the welcome wagon. The lunatic in residence has decided she wants to be a republican now. At least she'll have more party supporters now.

Kim Davis Is Officially Becoming A Republican

That's kinda the effect mob-shaming has on a person.

I guess she finally figured out that when the democrats claim to be all about diversity, standing for the little people and their rights as human beings, they really don't mean it.

 

[MisterChester]

Someone call the welcome wagon. The lunatic in residence has decided she wants to be a republican now. At least she'll have more party supporters now.

Kim Davis Is Officially Becoming A Republican

Well it's rare for republicans to side with a selfish bum who refuses to perform their job and agree she should keep that job. Guess she had to return the favor.

 

[jamil]

She deserved everything she got and has no-one to blame but herself, (and maybe her incompetent lawyers). She brought everything she got on herself.

So you're saying that she deserved national ridicule? Is that the America you want? You really want people to take sides and ridicule each other until there's a winner and a loser? That's not what we used to be. And it's not what I want us to be. There are no laws on the books that impose national ridicule as a punishment for non-conformance. But, you get to decide how YOU want to act.

The system is working to resolve it. The mob-shaming is external and a distraction to that process, and is really nothing more than vindictive. The nation is divided enough. We don't need the nation's pop culture to enforce political correctness. I'd urge you to reconsider how deserving she was of the punishment the mob inflicted beyond what the judge ordered.

I guess she finally figured out that when the democrats claim to be all about diversity, standing for the little people and their rights as human beings, they really don't mean it.

At first I was going to argue the point that her rights as a human being don't extend to enforcing her personal religious beliefs. But after further thought I think the way you said it is spot on. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of her actions, a moral society does not use those kinds of tactics to enforce social standards. I find America's behavior towards each other appalling. And I also find it appalling when people say stupid **** like she deserves ridicule. I don't blame her for switching parties at all.

 

[jamil]

Well it's rare for republicans to side with a selfish bum who refuses to perform their job and agree she should keep that job. Guess she had to return the favor.

2/10. Does not follow.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So you're saying that she deserved national ridicule? Is that the America you want? You really want people to take sides and ridicule each other until there's a winner and a loser? That's not what we used to be. And it's not what I want us to be. There are no laws on the books that impose national ridicule as a punishment for non-conformance. But, you get to decide how YOU want to act.

The system is working to resolve it. The mob-shaming is external and a distraction to that process, and is really nothing more than vindictive. The nation is divided enough. We don't need the nation's pop culture to enforce political correctness. I'd urge you to reconsider how deserving she was of the punishment the mob inflicted beyond what the judge ordered.



At first I was going to argue the point that her rights as a human being don't extend to enforcing her personal religious beliefs. But after further thought I think the way you said it is spot on. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of her actions, a moral society does not use those kinds of tactics to enforce social standards. I find America's behavior towards each other appalling. And I also find it appalling when people say stupid **** like she deserves ridicule. I don't blame her for switching parties at all.

People that support the actions of others towards Mrs. Davis now, are they same ones that revile the various ways they accused religious people of "forcing of religion" on them? If you viewed the later as wrong but agree with or look the other way and don't speak out against it when the former is done, you are a hypocrite.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

But don't we tend to argue against a societal benefit on other conservative issues? If I'm going to favor an individualist philosophy I guess I need to find some consistent place to draw the line. When does a societal argument make a good basis for restrictive laws, and when does it not?

As far as government recognition of any marriage goes, today even, aside from the gaystopo's need for social victories, it is about who gets what benefits and legal protections. It really isn't much about holy matrimony. I'd like to end government sanctioning of it altogether. But realistically, we not going to get rid of that legal construct. So I think I'd rather see marriage replaced with civil unions that has nothing to do with matrimony at all. I know of some elderly sisters who live together in order to pool their resources. I seriously doubt there is a sexual relationship there at all. They could benefit from the kinds of tax considerations and legal protections that married people get. Why does a couple need to have a sexual relationship and be wed? Why can't they legally form a civil union? Let marriage be about what it's always been, and separate that from government sanctioning altogether.

It's a shame I don't know how to copy/paste from Facebook. Someone today posted about six quotes from Founders (including, to my surprise, Ben Franklin) posting about how a republic could not stand without the moral underpinnings of a god-fearing citizenry. I suspect that rugged individualism has its place on the frontier where population densities are low and if you don't like your neighbors' rules for living you can just move on, but such individualism doesn't play well in larger settings where tribalism of one sort or another (e.g. "Republican," "Democrat," "conservative," "socialist," "hippie," "gay," etc.) becomes more important than nationalism/patriotism/common courtesy.

I take your point about letting "marriage" be a religious contract rather than a government-regulated one, but "gay marriage" or even the rise in unwed mothers having children are just two symptoms of a general problem in society today.

 

[jamil]

People that support the actions of others towards Mrs. Davis now, are they same ones that revile the various ways they accused religious people of "forcing of religion" on them? If you viewed the later as wrong but agree with or look the other way and don't speak out against it when the former is done, you are a hypocrite.

I don't get what you're saying. Can you restate it and make it clearer? I don't want to comment on it until I'm sure what you're saying.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I don't get what you're saying. Can you restate it and make it clearer? I don't want to comment on it until I'm sure what you're saying.

I suspect he is saying that those who approve of the "public shaming" being directed at Ms. Davis - and by extension all Christians who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds - are no different than the "hypocrites" they criticized for using religious beliefs to publicly shame homosexuals for their failure to conform to societal mores.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I suspect he is saying that those who approve of the "public shaming" being directed at Ms. Davis - and by extension all Christians who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds - are no different than the "hypocrites" they criticized for using religious beliefs to publicly shame homosexuals for their failure to conform to societal mores.

You get me.

 

[mrjarrell]

So you're saying that she deserved national ridicule? Is that the America you want? You really want people to take sides and ridicule each other until there's a winner and a loser? That's not what we used to be. And it's not what I want us to be. There are no laws on the books that impose national ridicule as a punishment for non-conformance. But, you get to decide how YOU want to act.

The system is working to resolve it. The mob-shaming is external and a distraction to that process, and is really nothing more than vindictive. The nation is divided enough. We don't need the nation's pop culture to enforce political correctness. I'd urge you to reconsider how deserving she was of the punishment the mob inflicted beyond what the judge ordered.



At first I was going to argue the point that her rights as a human being don't extend to enforcing her personal religious beliefs. But after further thought I think the way you said it is spot on. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of her actions, a moral society does not use those kinds of tactics to enforce social standards. I find America's behavior towards each other appalling. And I also find it appalling when people say stupid **** like she deserves ridicule. I don't blame her for switching parties at all.

Didn't say anything about the national scorn she received. I was talking solely about her jailing for contempt. But, now that you brought it up, I'm not averse to her being ridiculed for her stupidity, either. You buys your ticket, you takes your chances.No-one in the public eye who is a government official is immune from ridicule and they never have been in the history of this country. Nor should they be. She chose to be a douche and the American public, along with the citizens of her county and state, heaped scorn and ridicule upon her for her actions. She's hardly an innocent in this matter and got what she deserved. If public figures were immune from ridicule then half the threads on INGO would be banned and the news networks and papers would be closed.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Didn't say anything about the national scorn she received. I was talking solely about her jailing for contempt. But, now that you brought it up, I'm not averse to her being ridiculed for her stupidity, either. You buys your ticket, you takes your chances.No-one in the public eye who is a government official is immune from ridicule and they never have been in the history of this country. Nor should they be. She chose to be a douche and the American public, along with the citizens of her county and state, heaped scorn and ridicule upon her for her actions. She's hardly an innocent in this matter and got what she deserved. If public figures were immune from ridicule then half the threads on INGO would be banned and the news networks and papers would be closed.

Deleted

 

[jamil]

I suspect he is saying that those who approve of the "public shaming" being directed at Ms. Davis - and by extension all Christians who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds - are no different than the "hypocrites" they criticized for using religious beliefs to publicly shame homosexuals for their failure to conform to societal mores.

Thanks, I get it now, and mostly agree. It's pretty obvious that "tolerance" means acceptance of mob-approved social behavior.

You get me.

I think I got it now. Too many back references for me to keep track of in my ADD state.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Thanks, I get it now, and mostly agree. It's pretty obvious that "tolerance" means acceptance of mob-approved social behavior.



I think I got it now. Too many back references for me to keep track of in my ADD state.

Sounds like you might need a "Political calculator" to help you with your ADD.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Thanks, I get it now, and mostly agree. It's pretty obvious that "tolerance" means acceptance of mob-approved social behavior.



I think I got it now. Too many back references for me to keep track of in my ADD state.

You must have it bad if I threw you off!

 

[jamil]

That's kinda the effect mob-shaming has on a person.

She deserved everything she got and has no-one to blame but herself, (and maybe her incompetent lawyers). She brought everything she got on herself.

Didn't say anything about the national scorn she received. I was talking solely about her jailing for contempt. But, now that you brought it up, I'm not averse to her being ridiculed for her stupidity, either. You buys your ticket, you takes your chances.No-one in the public eye who is a government official is immune from ridicule and they never have been in the history of this country. Nor should they be. She chose to be a douche and the American public, along with the citizens of her county and state, heaped scorn and ridicule upon her for her actions. She's hardly an innocent in this matter and got what she deserved. If public figures were immune from ridicule then half the threads on INGO would be banned and the news networks and papers would be closed.

Words mean what they mean. You, by the meaning of the words you used, indeed said everything about the national scorn she received. And given your response, that is exactly what you intended. And you've made those kinds of points before. It's pretty obvious from those and other remarks, that a snarky America, which mob-shames people into politically correct compliance, is the America you prefer. Okay. Fine. Own it.