Kentucky county clerk jailed on contempt charges until she agrees to issue same-sex marriage licenses

[homersapien 11,371]

I got it from your examples. I didn't choose them for you , you did.....I simply asked the question, you could answer or not...

My give a damn is mostly busted

I have no issues with race nor I'm I homophobic.

Don't ever change. I like you with a busted gad

So you just object to their having a legally sanctioned, committed monogamous relationship?

Its the legally sanctioned stuff.

You know this

So, essentially your answer is yes, correct?

Or is it you approve of them having committed, monogamous relationships as long as the relationship is not legally sanctioned?

Either way, that necessarily means you don't think homosexuals are entitled to the same legal benefits as other citizens. Is that not so?

I don't see marraige as an entitlement or a means to gain legal benefits.

Seriously? You don't understand our legal system provides benefits to married couples than unmarried couples aren't entitled to?

You need to educate yourself: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

[aubfaninga 16]

Congrats, how you see, has no constitutional applicability. Feel that way until the cows come home(notice I didn't make a Davis joke), it won't change a thing...

The first couple from Minnesota, two women, who were part of the original court challenge were together 53ish yrs....

Not a viable relationship in your eyes?

Not biologically viable in my eyes.

[AUDub 11,147]

Congrats, how you see, has no constitutional applicability. Feel that way until the cows come home(notice I didn't make a Davis joke), it won't change a thing...

The first couple from Minnesota, two women, who were part of the original court challenge were together 53ish yrs....

Not a viable relationship in your eyes?

Not biologically viable in my eyes.

Biologically?

[telling tiger 156]

[aubfaninga 16]

I got it from your examples. I didn't choose them for you , you did.....I simply asked the question, you could answer or not...

My give a damn is mostly busted

I have no issues with race nor I'm I homophobic.

Don't ever change. I like you with a busted gad

So you just object to their having a legally sanctioned, committed monogamous relationship?

Its the legally sanctioned stuff.

You know this

So, essentially your answer is yes, correct?

Or is it you approve of them having committed, monogamous relationships as long as the relationship is not legally sanctioned?

Either way, that necessarily means you don't think homosexuals are entitled to the same legal benefits as other citizens. Is that not so?

I don't see marraige as an entitlement or a means to gain legal benefits.

Seriously? You don't understand our legal system provides benefits to married couples than unmarried couples aren't entitled to?

You need to educate yourself: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

Of course I see the benefits given. What I can't answer is why they were given to start with. Do you have the answer?

I don't feel that people should get married for the perks.

[homersapien 11,371]

Wow.......when you and another member got into your 30 day diatribe on Will and Grace or hope and grace, I placed you on ignore then, the above is more wood for that dam.....back to the pile bucko....

There are starving and homeless children in the world. People who need clothes..people who need education and childcare to work or achieve education. There are some reasons to change humanity.....Grow the fuzz up.

Yet, this is what sends SOME fundi's into meltdown?

I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.....

Kasich gets it:

http://www.huffingto...969125520884516

John Kasich Worries Kim Davis Spectacle Will Turn People Away From Religion

"We have bigger fish to fry in terms of the whole issue of faith."

Ohio Gov. John Kasich ® bemoaned the spectacle in Kentucky over same-sex marriage Tuesday, distancing himself from some of his fellow GOP presidential candidates who have literally embraced Kim Davis....

Since then, she has become a hero among religious conservatives, and supporters -- including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee ® -- threw a rally for her upon her release. Huckabee has said Davis' case demonstrates the "criminalization of Christianity in America."

...."We have a lot of young people that have walked away from, or are confused or uncertain about personal faith. And one of the things that I know that's so great about it -- being a flawed man -- is that, thank God we have grace," Kasich said.

"In this case, when young people, or people who are looking at what is religion all about, what is faith all about -- when they see dust-ups like this, my concern is they would go the other way and say, 'Look, I don't want anything to do with that,'" he added.

Kasich also said that while he supports so-called "traditional marriage" and understands Davis' concerns, "we have bigger fish to fry in terms of the whole issue of faith."

"For me, it means I can forgive ... It means I am supposed to live a life bigger than myself. It means I have to be aware of those who are the downtrodden and the widows, the orphans," Kasich added.

He reiterated that marriage equality is now the law of the land, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, and that government officials need to abide by that ruling.

[AUDub 11,147]

LOL... you have to be brown to be muslim???

No, but when controlled by race, most of them will be Arab, ethnic Indian populations, Persian and South East Asian, etc.

I am suggesting that the embrace of homosexuality will change and effect society. 50 years from now I cannot see how it could not have some impact on birth rates. Lets use the interacial marriage as the model. How many mixed children were born per year 50 years ago? How many today? Just the changing of taboos surrounding interacial relationships effected the birth rate in mixed children.

Nature vs environment will get tested for sure by the time our children have grandchildren.

Odd thing to assume axiomatically. Gay folks don't typically reproduce and their population shouldn't rise measurably as a result of this ruling.

If 10% more men practice same sex marriage in a village, the birth rate in that village will be affected. If that village does not accept polygamy then even fewer females will reproduce.

So do you feel that only nature plays a role in homosexuality?

I believe it is a combination of difficult to quantify factors. One thing it sure as hell is not is a choice.

So your position is that acceptance of gay marriage will lead to more gay people?

[telling tiger 156]

Childless opposite sex couples are just as biologically .......oh good grief.....don't have the energy..

I'll take this to the bottom line. Your religion or her religion has no say so and no bearing...People do not need your approval or your version of God's approval to live a life of their choosing....

ALL recent decisions and court actions should have led you to this LOGICAL conclusion by now.

We are not a theocracy......Find a hobby.

[homersapien 11,371]

Congrats, how you see, has no constitutional applicability. Feel that way until the cows come home(notice I didn't make a Davis joke), it won't change a thing...

The first couple from Minnesota, two women, who were part of the original court challenge were together 53ish yrs....

Not a viable relationship in your eyes?

Not biologically viable in my eyes.

Biologically?

Yeah, if two homosexuals get married, they instantly drop dead. (It's being covered-up.)

[aubfaninga 16]

LOL... you have to be brown to be muslim???

No, but when controlled by race, most of them will be Arab, ethnic Indian populations, Persian and South East Asian, etc.

I am suggesting that the embrace of homosexuality will change and effect society. 50 years from now I cannot see how it could not have some impact on birth rates. Lets use the interacial marriage as the model. How many mixed children were born per year 50 years ago? How many today? Just the changing of taboos surrounding interacial relationships effected the birth rate in mixed children.

Nature vs environment will get tested for sure by the time our children have grandchildren.

Odd thing to assume axiomatically. Gay folks don't typically reproduce and their population shouldn't rise measurably as a result of this ruling.

If 10% more men practice same sex marriage in a village, the birth rate in that village will be affected. If that village does not accept polygamy then even fewer females will reproduce.

So do you feel that only nature plays a role in homosexuality?

I believe it is a combination of difficult to quantify factors. One thing it sure as hell is not is a choice.

So your position is that acceptance of gay marriage will lead to more gay people?

I feel this will lead to more homosexuality which will lead to more same sex relationships.

[homersapien 11,371]

I got it from your examples. I didn't choose them for you , you did.....I simply asked the question, you could answer or not...

My give a damn is mostly busted

I have no issues with race nor I'm I homophobic.

Don't ever change. I like you with a busted gad

So you just object to their having a legally sanctioned, committed monogamous relationship?

Its the legally sanctioned stuff.

You know this

So, essentially your answer is yes, correct?

Or is it you approve of them having committed, monogamous relationships as long as the relationship is not legally sanctioned?

Either way, that necessarily means you don't think homosexuals are entitled to the same legal benefits as other citizens. Is that not so?

I don't see marraige as an entitlement or a means to gain legal benefits.

Seriously? You don't understand our legal system provides benefits to married couples than unmarried couples aren't entitled to?

You need to educate yourself: http://www.nolo.com/...fits-30190.html

Of course I see the benefits given. What I can't answer is why they were given to start with. Do you have the answer?

I don't feel that people should get married for the perks.

No, I don't know why. Probably for the same sort of reason mortgage payments are income deductible.

But why change the subject? It doesn't really matter why those legal rights were created. They exist.

Furthermore, I don't see how your opinion on the proper or improper reasons for two people to marry has relevance to anyone but yourself.

[telling tiger 156]

Has more visible religion in the US led to more religion or is its influence, attendance and belief. lessening?

Rhetorical question.

[AUDub 11,147]

LOL... you have to be brown to be muslim???

No, but when controlled by race, most of them will be Arab, ethnic Indian populations, Persian and South East Asian, etc.

I am suggesting that the embrace of homosexuality will change and effect society. 50 years from now I cannot see how it could not have some impact on birth rates. Lets use the interacial marriage as the model. How many mixed children were born per year 50 years ago? How many today? Just the changing of taboos surrounding interacial relationships effected the birth rate in mixed children.

Nature vs environment will get tested for sure by the time our children have grandchildren.

Odd thing to assume axiomatically. Gay folks don't typically reproduce and their population shouldn't rise measurably as a result of this ruling.

If 10% more men practice same sex marriage in a village, the birth rate in that village will be affected. If that village does not accept polygamy then even fewer females will reproduce.

So do you feel that only nature plays a role in homosexuality?

I believe it is a combination of difficult to quantify factors. One thing it sure as hell is not is a choice.

So your position is that acceptance of gay marriage will lead to more gay people?

I feel this will lead to more homosexuality which will lead to more same sex relationships.

This argument overlooks two things: in none of the places where gay marriage is already legal has this occurred; and that most heterosexuals are in fact heterosexuals, and are not simply biding their time until they can legally marry a person of the same sex.

[AUDub 11,147]

Congrats, how you see, has no constitutional applicability. Feel that way until the cows come home(notice I didn't make a Davis joke), it won't change a thing...

The first couple from Minnesota, two women, who were part of the original court challenge were together 53ish yrs....

Not a viable relationship in your eyes?

Not biologically viable in my eyes.

Biologically?

Yeah, if two homosexuals get married, they instantly drop dead. (It's being covered-up.)

[telling tiger 156]

hehe

[homersapien 11,371]

LOL... you have to be brown to be muslim???

No, but when controlled by race, most of them will be Arab, ethnic Indian populations, Persian and South East Asian, etc.

I am suggesting that the embrace of homosexuality will change and effect society. 50 years from now I cannot see how it could not have some impact on birth rates. Lets use the interacial marriage as the model. How many mixed children were born per year 50 years ago? How many today? Just the changing of taboos surrounding interacial relationships effected the birth rate in mixed children.

Nature vs environment will get tested for sure by the time our children have grandchildren.

Odd thing to assume axiomatically. Gay folks don't typically reproduce and their population shouldn't rise measurably as a result of this ruling.

If 10% more men practice same sex marriage in a village, the birth rate in that village will be affected. If that village does not accept polygamy then even fewer females will reproduce.

So do you feel that only nature plays a role in homosexuality?

I believe it is a combination of difficult to quantify factors. One thing it sure as hell is not is a choice.

So your position is that acceptance of gay marriage will lead to more gay people?

I feel this will lead to more homosexuality which will lead to more same sex relationships.

This argument overlooks two things: in none of the places where gay marriage is already legal has this occurred; and that most heterosexuals are in fact heterosexuals, and are not simply biding their time until they can legally marry a person of the same sex.

Let's not overlook the underlying logic that it's desirable to discriminate against homosexuals because - as undesirable members of society - we don't want more of them.

Nah, "I'm not homophobic". :-\

[Strychnine 1,802]

It's September 9, 2015, and the issue of whether or not two consenting adults can marry one another still needs to be addressed; here in the bastion of freedom.

[telling tiger 156]

Astounding, isn't it?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

"I am suggesting that the embrace of homosexuality will change and effect society. 50 years from now I cannot see how it could not have some impact on birth rates. Lets use the interacial marriage as the model. How many mixed children were born per year 50 years ago? How many today? Just the changing of taboos surrounding interacial relationships effected the birth rate in mixed children.

Nature vs environment will get tested for sure by the time our children have grandchildren."

What sort of problems would more, openly homosexual people cause? Why should I be concerned? Is the birthrate continuing to drop going to lead to a major problem?

[TitanTiger 20,481]

It's September 9, 2015, and the issue of whether or not two consenting adults can marry one another still needs to be addressed; here in the bastion of freedom.

Yeah...amazingly, some folks still think words mean something - that "marriage" actually has a real definition, rooted in millennia of human experience, that goes beyond merely "consenting adults" or better yet "whatever we have decided to call it this week."

[telling tiger 156]

Hogwash.......marriage has been redefined....biblical marriage was often represented among many female partners with one man....even purchased at times...

[Strychnine 1,802]

It's September 9, 2015, and the issue of whether or not two consenting adults can marry one another still needs to be addressed; here in the bastion of freedom.

Yeah...amazingly, some folks still think words mean something - that "marriage" actually has a real definition, rooted in millennia of human experience, that goes beyond merely "consenting adults" or better yet "whatever we have decided to call it this week."

Does the ability of two homosexuals to marry change what it means to you?

[homersapien 11,371]

It's September 9, 2015, and the issue of whether or not two consenting adults can marry one another still needs to be addressed; here in the bastion of freedom.

Yeah...amazingly, some folks still think words mean something - that "marriage" actually has a real definition, rooted in millennia of human experience, that goes beyond merely "consenting adults" or better yet "whatever we have decided to call it this week."

Language has always evolved according to our needs, which is perfectly normal and appropriate.

If we want to advance, improve or evolve we cannot be prisoners of convention, by definition.

[AUDub 11,147]

It's September 9, 2015, and the issue of whether or not two consenting adults can marry one another still needs to be addressed; here in the bastion of freedom.

Yeah...amazingly, some folks still think words mean something - that "marriage" actually has a real definition, rooted in millennia of human experience, that goes beyond merely "consenting adults" or better yet "whatever we have decided to call it this week."

Does the ability of two homosexuals to marry change what it means to you?

BRB got to go tell my wife that traditional marriage has been destroyed by the homogays.

[Strychnine 1,802]

It's September 9, 2015, and the issue of whether or not two consenting adults can marry one another still needs to be addressed; here in the bastion of freedom.

Yeah...amazingly, some folks still think words mean something - that "marriage" actually has a real definition, rooted in millennia of human experience, that goes beyond merely "consenting adults" or better yet "whatever we have decided to call it this week."

Does the ability of two homosexuals to marry change what it means to you?

BRB got to go tell my wife that traditional marriage has been destroyed by the homogays.

Aye. How's your marriage doing a few months later?