Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Take-down of the "cafeteria Christianity" of Kim Davis (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Take-down of the "cafeteria Christianity" of Kim Davis
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since the essence of Christianity is belief that Jesus' sacrifice can save us from sin as well as death, one can be a christian and believe in the validity of Same sex marriage. The teachings of christ unambiguously define marriage as a union of man and woman but that isnt the core definition of Christianity. I have even known some Chriatians who seemed to genuinely believe that Jesus' teachings required acceptance of llegal same ssex marriage, although those who claimed to beleive so on this forum have demlnstrated hypocrisy and inconsistency on multiple fronts.

But I am most dubious about those who pretend to be constitutional secularists and believers in a separation of church and state who hypocritically howl Amen at the US court's fatwa on the religious validity of Kim Davis' position re what definition of marriqage she must hang her name on. You ar5e a generation of vipers and you jackboot this country towards Juristic theocracy.

Kim Davis is no Socrates, but her persecutors are the jury that made him drink poison. Kim Davis is no Joan of Aek but her accusers are the treacherous Frednch Priests that fed her to the British fire.
You shall have no king but Caesar.

[ November 02, 2015, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, get a life, numbnuts.
Kim Davis is paid to do her job. Her job is to rubber-stamp her signature on pieces of paper and direct peons to provide additional stamps. She is not evaluating marriages for their quality or for her approval of the individuals involved.

She can wave around her little petulant petard all she wants, but it only makes her and her defenders look like idiots.

No one is saying that Kim Davis needs to get married to a woman the next time she decides to marry. They are saying that as a representative of government, she has to provide the option for same-sex couples to be legally married even if she thinks it's icky.

Of course, that's probably just the viper speaking. No doubt the suggestion that the head of the DMV should feel free to refuse driver's licenses to people with previous felony convictions is equally destabilizing to society. *laugh*

[ November 02, 2015, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The teachings of christ unambiguously define marriage as a union of man and woman but that isnt the core definition of Christianity.
No they don't. About the most that he said of it was that if you make a marriage vow in God's name, you should keep it. (Except if you count metaphorically, in which case Paul did, with no confusion at all, describe all of Christ's followers- the church as a whole- as being married to him.)

quote:
But I am most dubious about those who pretend to be constitutional secularists and believers in a separation of church and state who hypocritically howl Amen at the US court's fatwa on the religious validity of Kim Davis' position re what definition of marriage she must hang her name on.
She's not validating anything expect that she received and filed the paperwork and that everything was filled out properly. Her signature does not denote personal approval, just that the documentation was properly submitted. She's the one issuing a "fatwa" here, when she acts as if the secular power gives her the right to exceed the authority of her office and deny others their rights based on her religious beliefs. She's the only one bringing religion into state authority here, something that violates both the law of the state and even the explicit words of the religion she claims to represent.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My money has the signature of the Secretary of the Treasury on it. I wonder how he feels when someone uses those bills to pay prostitutes.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"No one is saying that Kim Davis needs to get married to a woman the next time she decides to marry"

No one is saying that anyone is saying that, thou forked tongue wunderkint. When i think of the hours I have wasted trying to get you to adress what i actually said, i want to tear my fingers out by the roots.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And my argument that you are a crypto theocrat maps to what you have said and argued here more than your knee jerk argument that i am some sort of elderly bigot." you are Pepsi Cola. Proclaiming itself the voice of the new generation since 1920. Recycled antique novelty with a comb-over.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But you never say anything meaningful, Pete.
Kim Davis has to issue legal marriage licenses to legal marriages.

This has nothing to do with vipers, Caesar, or religious rights. She just has to stamp pieces of paper. This is hardly an onerous intrusion into her life, unless you believe she has the legal right to still be paid while refusing to do her job.

I'm not the voice of the new generation. The NEW generation is genuinely baffled by this. MY generation at least understands why she's being a stupid jerk. Believe me, it is little consolation to me that you'll look back at your position on this kind of thing thirty years from now and think, "Man, I have no idea why I made such a big deal out of clinging to that bit of bigotry." But you will.

[ November 02, 2015, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Kim Davis has to issue legal marriage licenses to legal marriages"

Where are you pretending that i ever said differently?

"But you never say anything meaningful, Pete"

Then stop already with the straw man responses. If you cant be bothered to adress what i said then get off my leg.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Im not the voice of the new generation"

Never accused you of actually being the voice of anyone, even of yourself. Like G3 you are a reactive machine voice that rarely stands for anything in particular. But your endless bigoted arguments that causes you oppose are "elderly" therefore wrong, is an older and more deecrepit piece of pig crap than any of the causes you oppose. Hell, Pepsi didnt even make that crap up. The argument that old equals stupid is itself as old as it is stupid.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"She just has to stamp pieces of paper. This is hardly an onerous intrusion into her life,"

That's not for you to say. None of the plaintiffs in the federal case even argued that they needed her name on their marriage license. There was no ruling from the US Supreme court that required that. So why the hell is it any of your business what she signs? if it wasnt an insult to her faith and a victory against what you believe to be Christianity, you wouldnt be in this argument. Anyone who has read your rants through the years know what a farce it is for you to suddenly pretending a positive view of the faith. You froth at the mouth at the very idea of a courthouse wall bearing the word "thou shalt not bear false witness" but here you defend a fe4deral jusge issuing rulings on the correct interpretation of Jesus' teachings on issues like divorce where interpretation has divided Christian sects for 500 years. Thou hypocrite. Thou whitene4d sepulchre. You suppress public discussion of the prophetic word then proclaim your undisputable interpretation.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
None of the plaintiffs in the federal case even argued that they needed her name on their marriage license.
They needed a valid marriage license. Until the law is changed to offer a valid license without her name, her name needs to be attached.

quote:
So why the hell is it any of your business what she signs?
Because valid marriage licenses need to be offered.

quote:
here you defend a fe4deral jusge issuing rulings on the correct interpretation of Jesus' teachings
Nope. Haven't done so. Nor do I believe the judge did. I couldn't possibly care less what "Christianity" has to do with her decision to be a lazy putz.

----------

quote:
The argument that old equals stupid is itself as old as it is stupid.
You're arguing backasswards, Pete. I'm saying that the elderly bigots who're bigoted and stupid will cease to be a problem within a few years because they are elderly.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"eve me, it is little consolation to me that you'll look back at your position on this kind of thing thirty years from now and think, "Man, I have no idea why I made such a big deal out of clinging to that bit of bigotry." But you will."

I wish I had as much faith that the nect 30 years would teach you introspection about why you and other pseudoliberals spent 14 years fighting Jihad over a mere word during the Infamous REIGN OF COUNTERTERROR that started under Reno, ontinued under Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Eric Holder, and their successors. I dont know why we thought that forcing religious excentrics to sign gay marriage certificates was more important than the obvious erosion of the bill of rights. It was just a more stylish movement.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I dont know why we thought that forcing religious excentrics to sign gay marriage certificates ...
Forcing government officials to issue valid marriage certificates, you mean. You don't think that's important?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"
Forcing government officials to issue valid marriage certificates, you mean"

Nope. Not what i mean. I am unaware of any federal law or ruling that a marriage certificate is not perfectly valid without the signature of Kim Davis. The plaintiffs never argued otherwise. And the court didnt even consider the issue. You are inventing law out of nowhere to feed your argument.

Stop using the families as human shields in your war against Christians. It's obvious that imprisoning Kim Davis serves no one's rights.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am unaware of any federal law or ruling that a marriage certificate is not perfectly valid without the signature of Kim Davis.
How do you believe these certificates should have been issued in a timely fashion otherwise? Bear in mind that she didn't just remove her name; she removed reference to the clerkship and demoted the signing authority to that of a "notary public." At the time this was challenged, it was an open question whether these changes (above and beyond just removing her name) actually rendered the licenses invalid.

quote:
Stop using the families as human shields in your war against Christians.
Can you explain why you think requiring that clerks fulfill their job functions somehow strikes a blow against Christianity, Pete?

[ November 02, 2015, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I already explained the difference between what i said and what you just pretended I said. But here we go again:

Christianity is the belief that Jesus' atonement can save us from sin as welll as from death. I dont see how the imprisonment of Kim Davis relates to CHRISTIANITY at all, Tom.

Do you need the timestamp of when I explained this already today or can you scan up the thread for yourself?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, see, I agree. It doesn't relate to Christianity at all. So why do you think that opposition to Kim Davis' stupidity is part of a war against Christians?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"
So why the hell is it any of your business what she signs?
Because valid marriage licenses need to be offered"

she says it is legally valid without her signature, and that's better authority than your opinion or a federal district court's. It is her job to say whether the license is legally valid.

There's no evidence anyone has been denied rights due to absence of her sig on their license. No valid legal authority has been offered to contradict her claim that it can be done. And the thread a ft gument that the court can determine what doctrines of Christian churches are "Cafetetia" vs valid or sincere, is poisonous crypto theocracy

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
she says it is legally valid without her signature
After first insisting it was not legally valid. Nor is her signature the only thing missing. Its validity is not solely hers to determine; the license as she finally changed it actually removes all mentions of the county clerk, which might actually invalidate it since there is no longer any mention of an issuing authority.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"After first insisting it was not legally valid"

So?


I find it hard to believe that you actually believe that these alterations in the paperwork will actually invalidate the couple's rights in light of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Hell, if it does, then the remedy is to sue her for damages. Not to imprison her for not doing something outside the fed court's authority to order.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1