It doesn't make me feel good or bad as I don't believe god exists anyway.
I do find the contradiction interesting, though.
Fine, God is evil if it makes you feel better. I don't care and I don't think religionists will either.
Sure it does. It helps explain why the existence of such a being is not logical and why you shouldn't waste your time trying to live by whatever you think his rules are, or worshiping him, or scaring your children with the thoughts of eternal damnation, etc... There's so many more productive things we could be doing as a society if we didn't have to deal with this nonsense.
But I agree, it is all about faith. Although I'm not sure why so many people see "believing without evidence" as a virtue.
Do you revel in telling kids that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don't exist also? Aside from being a dick, there's no reason to care what someone else believes. If their beliefs influence their politics then so what, fight them on the political merits.
Do as you wish. I do find some biblical writings interesting. Took me a long time to figure out how a meager amount of food could feed hundreds or maybe thousands. Once you get past the idea that everyone needed to be fed the next idea is maybe only some really needed food the rest decided they can give their share to someone in need and maybe others had more food that they contributed to help others in need.
A useful statement I've heard is look at the old testament as a simple rules set for children because mankind was essentially children when living in communities at that time.
Fine, God is evil if it makes you feel better. I don't care and I don't think religionists will either.
I'm perfectly capable of teaching my children that they shouldn't cheat on their spouse without suggesting that they should stone their wife if she is unfaithful.
To bring this back to the actual topic of the OP, the solution to the "problem" of gay marriage is obvious - separate the legal infrastructure of rights and privileges that marriage brings from the act/state of marriage. The ability to allow another to share rights with you like hospital visitation rights, inheritance, etc. shouldn't require you to pay $50 to get a piece of paper from City Hall or allow them to say who can get that piece of paper.
I'd certainly agree that she isn't too bright, but I highly doubt that her new-found celebrityhood lasts beyond her fifteen minutes. One thing about being a martyr that people tend to forget is that it requires your death - thankfully for her, her political death only.I think this old gal let herself be used by her lawyers. they were the ones making the decision and they used her and never actually gave a damn what happened to her, she was a rube. they gave her the advice to prevent others signing the licenses knowing the likely outcome. I don't think she's too bright.
Something wrong there. Judges in Tennessee have no obligation to perform marriage ceremonies - that's for justices of the peace - and I do not believe clerks have that power at all.Unrelated to Davis but related to Obergefell in general, the madness seems to be spreading.
A judge in Tenn. has had his feathers ruffled by the USSC's stance and is now claiming that, due to the USSC's definition of marriage being contrary to his State's Constitution, he is unable to define divorce and, as such, unable to perform divorce. The killer isn't his eyebrow-raising assertion but instead the passive-aggressively written opinion. I feel sorry for every couple (former couple?) caught up in him making political statements - they didn't ask for this and their lives are probably in turmoil enough as it is.
Also, similar to Davis, an Oregon judge and former head of the Oregon Republican Party is now refusing to perform marriages altogether saying perform such duties for same-sex couples would violate his First-Amendment Rights. He's instructing his clerks to do the same and, thanks to his instruction, it seems this judge is actually encouraging lawlessness which I assume is going to get him in trouble.
LMAO!
Do you revel in telling kids that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don't exist also? Aside from being a dick, there's no reason to care what someone else believes. If their beliefs influence their politics then so what, fight them on the political merits.
.
and she's out! Lets see if she complies, tomorrow should be an interesting day.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-kentucky/index.html
INSTRUCTING his clerks to do the same? The hypocrisy is rich in this judge. By his own principle, his clerks are completely free to disregard his "instructions" and issue marriage licenses, because otherwise their own "First-Amendment Rights" would be violated.Also, similar to Davis, an Oregon judge and former head of the Oregon Republican Party is now refusing to perform marriages altogether saying perform such duties for same-sex couples would violate his First-Amendment Rights. He's instructing his clerks to do the same and, thanks to his instruction, it seems this judge is actually encouraging lawlessness which I assume is going to get him in trouble.
How many certificates has Davis refused because one of the applicants had been divorced?
Oh yeah, I forgot. Religious objections solely for gay people.
Presumably, though, Davis supporters would be totally supportive of a judge who has just converted to Catholicism, who refuses to issue divorce decrees. And if it's the head judge, he can order all subordinate judges to not issue divorce decrees in any court within the head judge's jurisdiction.This is an asinine argument, and a fairly ignorant one.
It's not like she KNEW she was issuing licenses to people on their second marriage, like she knew with gay people.
Additionally, the bible makes it clear that divorce is permissible on grounds of fornication (cheating).
So no, she's NOT a hypocrite in that regard, you're just an idiot.
You missed the point. People at that time were not capable of doing that hence the old testament prepared us as a culture.
This is really a different discussion.
This is an asinine argument, and a fairly ignorant one.
It's not like she KNEW she was issuing licenses to people on their second marriage, like she knew with gay people.
Additionally, the bible makes it clear that divorce is permissible on grounds of fornication (cheating).
So no, she's NOT a hypocrite in that regard, you're just an idiot.
She very clearly is a hypocrite. If she is going to this much trouble to make sure that no one in her office will sign a marriage certificate for a gay couple then you would think she would make sure she doesn't sign a marriage certificate for someone that has been divorced. That should be trivial for someone in her position.
She very clearly is a hypocrite. If she is going to this much trouble to make sure that no one in her office will sign a marriage certificate for a gay couple then you would think she would make sure she doesn't sign a marriage certificate for someone that has been divorced. That should be trivial for someone in her position.
This is an asinine argument, and a fairly ignorant one.
It's not like she KNEW she was issuing licenses to people on their second marriage, like she knew with gay people.
Additionally, the bible makes it clear that divorce is permissible on grounds of fornication (cheating).
So no, she's NOT a hypocrite in that regard, you're just an idiot.
O really? Where in the bible does it speak about gay marriage?
Also as a govt representative it would be her job to verify applicants can legally apply. Questions like age, marital status.
Read what I just said, divorce is permissible under certain circumstances Biblically where gay marriage is not.
It's not her place to ask why someone was divorced. As long as the Bible allows it, she can allow it.
This isn't hypocritical at all. You guys just so desperately want it to be.
Don't a lot of marriage applications ask if you have been previously married?
You're right, and it's not her place to refuse to issue marriage certificates to a gay couple on behalf of the state, but she's doing that.
She has shown that she has no problems overstepping her bounds and getting into other people's business, so why isn't she doing that with regards to divorce?