GAY MEN WANT KIM DAVIS BACK IN JAIL

[x_Molotov]

You are wasting your time and force everyone else who put her on their ignore list to read her replies... Do not quote her if you want this back and forth to go on.

You are right.

I am giving up on this sad sap.

His arguments don't even make sense.

He's like the definition of shitposter, I now see why people hate liberals..

:/

now ignored.

I can't hate liberals all the time, otherwise I won't have a partner to kickbox with...

  He is the only liberal I have ever met that I have disliked though.

[Wilikon]

You are wasting your time and force everyone else who put her on their ignore list to read her replies... Do not quote her if you want this back and forth to go on.

You are right.

I am giving up on this sad sap.

His arguments don't even make sense.

He's like the definition of shitposter, I now see why people hate liberals..

:/

now ignored.

I can't hate liberals all the time, otherwise I won't have a partner to kickbox with...

  He is the only liberal I have ever met that I have disliked though.

She has been ignored by you. Still hope for you my dear padawan, there is.  Yes, hmmm.

[x_Molotov]

You are wasting your time and force everyone else who put her on their ignore list to read her replies... Do not quote her if you want this back and forth to go on.

You are right.

I am giving up on this sad sap.

His arguments don't even make sense.

He's like the definition of shitposter, I now see why people hate liberals..

:/

now ignored.

I can't hate liberals all the time, otherwise I won't have a partner to kickbox with...

  He is the only liberal I have ever met that I have disliked though.

She has been ignored by you. Still hope for you my dear padawan, there is.  Yes, hmmm.

Well, I am not truly on one side or the other, I just hold a tad more liberal views than I do conservative.

Also, I don't appreciate the anti- everything conservative attitude.
I think we would be a hell lot further developed as a country if the republicans weren't sitting around putting stops to every possible new idea.

But I do have a few right-leaning views.

[Wilikon]

You are wasting your time and force everyone else who put her on their ignore list to read her replies... Do not quote her if you want this back and forth to go on.

You are right.

I am giving up on this sad sap.

His arguments don't even make sense.

He's like the definition of shitposter, I now see why people hate liberals..

:/

now ignored.

I can't hate liberals all the time, otherwise I won't have a partner to kickbox with...

  He is the only liberal I have ever met that I have disliked though.

She has been ignored by you. Still hope for you my dear padawan, there is.  Yes, hmmm.

Well, I am not truly on one side or the other, I just hold a tad more liberal views than I do conservative.

Also, I don't appreciate the anti- everything conservative attitude.
I think we would be a hell lot further developed as a country if the republicans weren't sitting around putting stops to every possible new idea.

But I do have a few right-leaning views.

I believe the same thing, but with democrats, when I think of Soros...


PopCornTime!

 

[x_Molotov]

You are wasting your time and force everyone else who put her on their ignore list to read her replies... Do not quote her if you want this back and forth to go on.

You are right.

I am giving up on this sad sap.

His arguments don't even make sense.

He's like the definition of shitposter, I now see why people hate liberals..

:/

now ignored.

I can't hate liberals all the time, otherwise I won't have a partner to kickbox with...

  He is the only liberal I have ever met that I have disliked though.

She has been ignored by you. Still hope for you my dear padawan, there is.  Yes, hmmm.

Well, I am not truly on one side or the other, I just hold a tad more liberal views than I do conservative.

Also, I don't appreciate the anti- everything conservative attitude.
I think we would be a hell lot further developed as a country if the republicans weren't sitting around putting stops to every possible new idea.

But I do have a few right-leaning views.

I believe the same thing, but with democrats, when I think of Soros...


PopCornTime!

 

Who is Soros? Sorry, try to follow politics, heard of the name.
No idea of who/what he did.

[Spendulus]

You are wasting your time and force everyone else who put her on their ignore list to read her replies... Do not quote her if you want this back and forth to go on.

You are right.

I am giving up on this sad sap.

His arguments don't even make sense.

He's like the definition of shitposter, I now see why people hate liberals..

:/

now ignored.

Hey, I have this really good idea.  The problem here is that this forum is unmoderated so people can say any disgusting lies they want.  We can fix this.  Here's how - just vote me in to moderate the forums, and then I'll ban people whom we don't like or want.  You know, it's for the common good.  Don't worry I'll figure the details on that out.  And everything will be a lot nicer because you won't hear or see a lot of negativity because they'll be gone.  I'm sure you understand that you'll have to stay within limits, too.  Reasonable limits, basically don't argue with anything I say and agree with my friends.   My friends will send me messages on who to handle different ways.  Some of them are secret friends and say outlandish things to try to provoke responses.   They help me find out who really isn't on our side.  If they're not, they're gone. 

<<<Sarcasm TOTALLY>>>

[Wilikon]

You are wasting your time and force everyone else who put her on their ignore list to read her replies... Do not quote her if you want this back and forth to go on.

You are right.

I am giving up on this sad sap.

His arguments don't even make sense.

He's like the definition of shitposter, I now see why people hate liberals..

:/

now ignored.

Hey, I have this really good idea.  The problem here is that this forum is unmoderated so people can say any disgusting lies they want.  We can fix this.  Here's how - just vote me in to moderate the forums, and then I'll ban people whom we don't like or want.  You know, it's for the common good.  Don't worry I'll figure the details on that out.  And everything will be a lot nicer because you won't hear or see a lot of negativity because they'll be gone.  I'm sure you understand that you'll have to stay within limits, too.  Reasonable limits, basically don't argue with anything I say and agree with my friends.   My friends will send me messages on who to handle different ways.  Some of them are secret friends and say outlandish things to try to provoke responses.   They help me find out who really isn't on our side.  If they're not, they're gone. 

<<<Sarcasm TOTALLY>>>

I love george soros, 0bama and al gore...

[catch.me.if.you.can]

She has the right to oppose to the gay marriage.

[Lenore]

You are wasting your time and force everyone else who put her on their ignore list to read her replies... Do not quote her if you want this back and forth to go on.

You are right.

I am giving up on this sad sap.

His arguments don't even make sense.

He's like the definition of shitposter, I now see why people hate liberals..

:/

now ignored.

I can't hate liberals all the time, otherwise I won't have a partner to kickbox with...

Awesome.....lol

[H1N1]

So does State trump Federal when you want it to (weed) but Federal trumps State when you want that to (Marriage)?

Yes. If the feds were to say same sex marriage is not okay, and states did it anyway, I would support that as well. That's because I support basic civil rights for human beings, marriage is one of them.

that's some screwed up thinking there.   Really there are no principles involved here at are, are there?  It's all about I want what I want and it's my right to get it my way and screw you.  I am able to change my opinion here if you can present a logical method to show why your approach doesn't just mean no principles, and no rule of law.

Yes, supporting giving people their rights back is horrible of me.

Look can we just have some honesty here?

You see something okay in Fed enforcing the marriage thing, but not in them enforcing the weed law?  

So who gets to pick and choose when and to whom to apply "law" to?

Leaving aside for the moment that this constitutes the very reverse of law, who?

No hiding behind vague slogans please.

What's wrong with the current system? If you are trying to convince me that states should have final say no matter what, you won't. The history of civil rights abuses have proven it to not be the best method.  

You say that you want me to be honest and stop hiding behind slogans, while at the same time ignoring my comments, and trying to bait me into a states rights debate that's been had millions of times, so you can hide behind your slogan of states rights. Civil rights>state's rights.

So does State trump Federal when you want it to (weed) but Federal trumps State when you want that to (Marriage)?

Yes. If the feds were to say same sex marriage is not okay, and states did it anyway, I would support that as well. That's because I support basic civil rights for human beings, marriage is one of them.

that's some screwed up thinking there.   Really there are no principles involved here at are, are there?  It's all about I want what I want and it's my right to get it my way and screw you.  I am able to change my opinion here if you can present a logical method to show why your approach doesn't just mean no principles, and no rule of law.

Yes, supporting giving people their rights back is horrible of me.

Then... The gays has no rights to force her to re-sign a document that is perfectly legal, and already signed and 100% valid. Would you agree with that?

Somewhat, but they do have a legitimate bone to pick in that they are being given "special" licenses. Seems like a scarlet letter to me. I'll leave that to the courts to decide.

You can't even logically process your own bias. The court said the paper signed was valid. "Bone picking" has nothing to do with it, unless it was a political move by the gay couple, not based on #lovewins. There is no need to go any further. They are married. The Scarlet Letter will be on the face of the gay couple forever because they wrote that Scarlet Letter themselves, accepting to be a farce for all the world to see, a martyr for others like them to be free from people like davis, and send her to jail.

They should accept their martyrdom fully and be happy, forever and never.

Then it'll be tossed out of court, or the judge will tell them to fuck off. People have the right to air greivances if they feel they have one. Don't be so quick to blindly accept something an authority figure says, just because it lines up with your personal beliefs.


 

She's an elected official, she refuses to do her job, refuses to resign, she can't be fired, thus ends up in jail. I don't think she deserves to be in jail but she needs to leave her religious bullshit at the door where it belongs. Religion has no place in politics, it's just a convenient smokescreen to excuse bigotry and hatred.

Your are not alone here.   I get into arguments all the time over this very same thing.  Religion and politics do not mingle well and should not work together either.  If your an elected official you should keep your beliefs to yourself.  No one wants to hear them anyways.

Why pick on religion?  Is it somehow unique from other personal beliefs?

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on IMMIGRATION and BORDERS.

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on MARIHUANA.

FUCK YEAH, let's slap it to those religious bigots WHO WANT TO DISOBEY THE FEDERAL LAW.

Are you guys insane?

Religion has very little to do with it, it's about the rights of the people to get married. Religion doesn't give you the right to take someone else's rights away. 

[Lenore]

So does State trump Federal when you want it to (weed) but Federal trumps State when you want that to (Marriage)?

Yes. If the feds were to say same sex marriage is not okay, and states did it anyway, I would support that as well. That's because I support basic civil rights for human beings, marriage is one of them.

that's some screwed up thinking there.   Really there are no principles involved here at are, are there?  It's all about I want what I want and it's my right to get it my way and screw you.  I am able to change my opinion here if you can present a logical method to show why your approach doesn't just mean no principles, and no rule of law.

Yes, supporting giving people their rights back is horrible of me.

Look can we just have some honesty here?

You see something okay in Fed enforcing the marriage thing, but not in them enforcing the weed law?  

So who gets to pick and choose when and to whom to apply "law" to?

Leaving aside for the moment that this constitutes the very reverse of law, who?

No hiding behind vague slogans please.

What's wrong with the current system? If you are trying to convince me that states should have final say no matter what, you won't. The history of civil rights abuses have proven it to not be the best method.  

You say that you want me to be honest and stop hiding behind slogans, while at the same time ignoring my comments, and trying to bait me into a states rights debate that's been had millions of times, so you can hide behind your slogan of states rights. Civil rights>state's rights.

So does State trump Federal when you want it to (weed) but Federal trumps State when you want that to (Marriage)?

Yes. If the feds were to say same sex marriage is not okay, and states did it anyway, I would support that as well. That's because I support basic civil rights for human beings, marriage is one of them.

that's some screwed up thinking there.   Really there are no principles involved here at are, are there?  It's all about I want what I want and it's my right to get it my way and screw you.  I am able to change my opinion here if you can present a logical method to show why your approach doesn't just mean no principles, and no rule of law.

Yes, supporting giving people their rights back is horrible of me.

Then... The gays has no rights to force her to re-sign a document that is perfectly legal, and already signed and 100% valid. Would you agree with that?

Somewhat, but they do have a legitimate bone to pick in that they are being given "special" licenses. Seems like a scarlet letter to me. I'll leave that to the courts to decide.

You can't even logically process your own bias. The court said the paper signed was valid. "Bone picking" has nothing to do with it, unless it was a political move by the gay couple, not based on #lovewins. There is no need to go any further. They are married. The Scarlet Letter will be on the face of the gay couple forever because they wrote that Scarlet Letter themselves, accepting to be a farce for all the world to see, a martyr for others like them to be free from people like davis, and send her to jail.

They should accept their martyrdom fully and be happy, forever and never.

Then it'll be tossed out of court, or the judge will tell them to fuck off. People have the right to air greivances if they feel they have one. Don't be so quick to blindly accept something an authority figure says, just because it lines up with your personal beliefs.


 

She's an elected official, she refuses to do her job, refuses to resign, she can't be fired, thus ends up in jail. I don't think she deserves to be in jail but she needs to leave her religious bullshit at the door where it belongs. Religion has no place in politics, it's just a convenient smokescreen to excuse bigotry and hatred.

Your are not alone here.   I get into arguments all the time over this very same thing.  Religion and politics do not mingle well and should not work together either.  If your an elected official you should keep your beliefs to yourself.  No one wants to hear them anyways.

Why pick on religion?  Is it somehow unique from other personal beliefs?

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on IMMIGRATION and BORDERS.

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on MARIHUANA.

FUCK YEAH, let's slap it to those religious bigots WHO WANT TO DISOBEY THE FEDERAL LAW.

Are you guys insane?

Religion has very little to do with it, it's about the rights of the people to get married. Religion doesn't give you the right to take someone else's rights away. 

You are right.  It doesnt. But people in and that are highly religious and see things only there way need to understand this.  Most dont.  They think it is this way and this way only.
I dont see it much different as me blocking the door to a church.  Im blocking the door because I believe you shouldnt attend church.  So I wont let you.   I would never do that but.  Wouldnt be much difference.  Kim Davis should sit in jail for a while and be made an example out of.  She is in no place to say what happens to someone else. 

They should lock her up in a room filled with lesbians.  And have them talk about getting married all day.  Wonder if it would deive Kim nuts?   LoL

[Spendulus]

So does State trump Federal when you want it to (weed) but Federal trumps State when you want that to (Marriage)?

Yes. If the feds were to say same sex marriage is not okay, and states did it anyway, I would support that as well. That's because I support basic civil rights for human beings, marriage is one of them.

that's some screwed up thinking there.   Really there are no principles involved here at are, are there?  It's all about I want what I want and it's my right to get it my way and screw you.  I am able to change my opinion here if you can present a logical method to show why your approach doesn't just mean no principles, and no rule of law.

Yes, supporting giving people their rights back is horrible of me.

Look can we just have some honesty here?

You see something okay in Fed enforcing the marriage thing, but not in them enforcing the weed law?  

So who gets to pick and choose when and to whom to apply "law" to?

Leaving aside for the moment that this constitutes the very reverse of law, who?

No hiding behind vague slogans please.

What's wrong with the current system? If you are trying to convince me that states should have final say no matter what, you won't. The history of civil rights abuses have proven it to not be the best method.  

You say that you want me to be honest and stop hiding behind slogans, while at the same time ignoring my comments, and trying to bait me into a states rights debate that's been had millions of times, so you can hide behind your slogan of states rights. Civil rights>state's rights.

So does State trump Federal when you want it to (weed) but Federal trumps State when you want that to (Marriage)?

Yes. If the feds were to say same sex marriage is not okay, and states did it anyway, I would support that as well. That's because I support basic civil rights for human beings, marriage is one of them.

that's some screwed up thinking there.   Really there are no principles involved here at are, are there?  It's all about I want what I want and it's my right to get it my way and screw you.  I am able to change my opinion here if you can present a logical method to show why your approach doesn't just mean no principles, and no rule of law.

Yes, supporting giving people their rights back is horrible of me.

Then... The gays has no rights to force her to re-sign a document that is perfectly legal, and already signed and 100% valid. Would you agree with that?

Somewhat, but they do have a legitimate bone to pick in that they are being given "special" licenses. Seems like a scarlet letter to me. I'll leave that to the courts to decide.

You can't even logically process your own bias. The court said the paper signed was valid. "Bone picking" has nothing to do with it, unless it was a political move by the gay couple, not based on #lovewins. There is no need to go any further. They are married. The Scarlet Letter will be on the face of the gay couple forever because they wrote that Scarlet Letter themselves, accepting to be a farce for all the world to see, a martyr for others like them to be free from people like davis, and send her to jail.

They should accept their martyrdom fully and be happy, forever and never.

Then it'll be tossed out of court, or the judge will tell them to fuck off. People have the right to air greivances if they feel they have one. Don't be so quick to blindly accept something an authority figure says, just because it lines up with your personal beliefs.


 

She's an elected official, she refuses to do her job, refuses to resign, she can't be fired, thus ends up in jail. I don't think she deserves to be in jail but she needs to leave her religious bullshit at the door where it belongs. Religion has no place in politics, it's just a convenient smokescreen to excuse bigotry and hatred.

Your are not alone here.   I get into arguments all the time over this very same thing.  Religion and politics do not mingle well and should not work together either.  If your an elected official you should keep your beliefs to yourself.  No one wants to hear them anyways.

Why pick on religion?  Is it somehow unique from other personal beliefs?

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on IMMIGRATION and BORDERS.

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on MARIHUANA.

FUCK YEAH, let's slap it to those religious bigots WHO WANT TO DISOBEY THE FEDERAL LAW.

Are you guys insane?

Religion has very little to do with it, it's about the rights of the people to get married. Religion doesn't give you the right to take someone else's rights away. 

You are right.  It doesnt. But people in and that are highly religious and see things only there way need to understand this.  Most dont.  They think it is this way and this way only.
I dont see it much different as me blocking the door to a church.  Im blocking the door because I believe you shouldnt attend church.  So I wont let you.   I would never do that but.  Wouldnt be much difference.  Kim Davis should sit in jail for a while and be made an example out of.  She is in no place to say what happens to someone else. 

They should lock her up in a room filled with lesbians.  And have them talk about getting married all day.  Wonder if it would deive Kim nuts?   LoL

You and the prior poster are misdirecting, to avoid the substantive argument made.  The misdirection is simply to flog the offensive illegality of the lady's action (or from another point of view, her heroic disobediance.)  But if you can't address the substantive argument, you are just expressing your own opinion that it's fine for one political group to selectively enforce and not enforce the law.  Hence my question -

Why pick on religion?  Is it somehow unique from other personal beliefs?

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on IMMIGRATION and BORDERS.

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on MARIHUANA.

FUCK YEAH, let's slap it to those religious bigots WHO WANT TO DISOBEY THE FEDERAL LAW.

Are you guys insane?

[x_Molotov]

So does State trump Federal when you want it to (weed) but Federal trumps State when you want that to (Marriage)?

Yes. If the feds were to say same sex marriage is not okay, and states did it anyway, I would support that as well. That's because I support basic civil rights for human beings, marriage is one of them.

that's some screwed up thinking there.   Really there are no principles involved here at are, are there?  It's all about I want what I want and it's my right to get it my way and screw you.  I am able to change my opinion here if you can present a logical method to show why your approach doesn't just mean no principles, and no rule of law.

Yes, supporting giving people their rights back is horrible of me.

Look can we just have some honesty here?

You see something okay in Fed enforcing the marriage thing, but not in them enforcing the weed law?  

So who gets to pick and choose when and to whom to apply "law" to?

Leaving aside for the moment that this constitutes the very reverse of law, who?

No hiding behind vague slogans please.

What's wrong with the current system? If you are trying to convince me that states should have final say no matter what, you won't. The history of civil rights abuses have proven it to not be the best method.  

You say that you want me to be honest and stop hiding behind slogans, while at the same time ignoring my comments, and trying to bait me into a states rights debate that's been had millions of times, so you can hide behind your slogan of states rights. Civil rights>state's rights.

So does State trump Federal when you want it to (weed) but Federal trumps State when you want that to (Marriage)?

Yes. If the feds were to say same sex marriage is not okay, and states did it anyway, I would support that as well. That's because I support basic civil rights for human beings, marriage is one of them.

that's some screwed up thinking there.   Really there are no principles involved here at are, are there?  It's all about I want what I want and it's my right to get it my way and screw you.  I am able to change my opinion here if you can present a logical method to show why your approach doesn't just mean no principles, and no rule of law.

Yes, supporting giving people their rights back is horrible of me.

Then... The gays has no rights to force her to re-sign a document that is perfectly legal, and already signed and 100% valid. Would you agree with that?

Somewhat, but they do have a legitimate bone to pick in that they are being given "special" licenses. Seems like a scarlet letter to me. I'll leave that to the courts to decide.

You can't even logically process your own bias. The court said the paper signed was valid. "Bone picking" has nothing to do with it, unless it was a political move by the gay couple, not based on #lovewins. There is no need to go any further. They are married. The Scarlet Letter will be on the face of the gay couple forever because they wrote that Scarlet Letter themselves, accepting to be a farce for all the world to see, a martyr for others like them to be free from people like davis, and send her to jail.

They should accept their martyrdom fully and be happy, forever and never.

Then it'll be tossed out of court, or the judge will tell them to fuck off. People have the right to air greivances if they feel they have one. Don't be so quick to blindly accept something an authority figure says, just because it lines up with your personal beliefs.


 

She's an elected official, she refuses to do her job, refuses to resign, she can't be fired, thus ends up in jail. I don't think she deserves to be in jail but she needs to leave her religious bullshit at the door where it belongs. Religion has no place in politics, it's just a convenient smokescreen to excuse bigotry and hatred.

Your are not alone here.   I get into arguments all the time over this very same thing.  Religion and politics do not mingle well and should not work together either.  If your an elected official you should keep your beliefs to yourself.  No one wants to hear them anyways.

Why pick on religion?  Is it somehow unique from other personal beliefs?

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on IMMIGRATION and BORDERS.

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on MARIHUANA.

FUCK YEAH, let's slap it to those religious bigots WHO WANT TO DISOBEY THE FEDERAL LAW.

Are you guys insane?

Religion has very little to do with it, it's about the rights of the people to get married. Religion doesn't give you the right to take someone else's rights away. 

You are right.  It doesnt. But people in and that are highly religious and see things only there way need to understand this.  Most dont.  They think it is this way and this way only.
I dont see it much different as me blocking the door to a church.  Im blocking the door because I believe you shouldnt attend church.  So I wont let you.   I would never do that but.  Wouldnt be much difference.  Kim Davis should sit in jail for a while and be made an example out of.  She is in no place to say what happens to someone else. 

They should lock her up in a room filled with lesbians.  And have them talk about getting married all day.  Wonder if it would deive Kim nuts?   LoL

You and the prior poster are misdirecting, to avoid the substantive argument made.  The misdirection is simply to flog the offensive illegality of the lady's action (or from another point of view, her heroic disobediance.)  But if you can't address the substantive argument, you are just expressing your own opinion that it's fine for one political group to selectively enforce and not enforce the law.  Hence my question -

Why pick on religion?  Is it somehow unique from other personal beliefs?

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on IMMIGRATION and BORDERS.

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on MARIHUANA.

FUCK YEAH, let's slap it to those religious bigots WHO WANT TO DISOBEY THE FEDERAL LAW.

Are you guys insane?

Suppose it is a battle of morals to laws.
Marijuana ain't that bad, but it is a federal-ly banned thing.
Which either means the law should change (which it will within 2 years) or they got to stop the state laws.

This country is built on immigrants, the only people who aren't immigrants are the Native Americans.

However, the whole love wins law was recently put in place, so people are more up in arms about that.

I think laws need to change.

[Spendulus]

So does State trump Federal when you want it to (weed) but Federal trumps State when you want that to (Marriage)?

Yes. If the feds were to say same sex marriage is not okay, and states did it anyway, I would support that as well. That's because I support basic civil rights for human beings, marriage is one of them.

that's some screwed up thinking there.   Really there are no principles involved here at are, are there?  It's all about I want what I want and it's my right to get it my way and screw you.  I am able to change my opinion here if you can present a logical method to show why your approach doesn't just mean no principles, and no rule of law.

Yes, supporting giving people their rights back is horrible of me.

Look can we just have some honesty here?

You see something okay in Fed enforcing the marriage thing, but not in them enforcing the weed law?  

So who gets to pick and choose when and to whom to apply "law" to?

Leaving aside for the moment that this constitutes the very reverse of law, who?

No hiding behind vague slogans please.

What's wrong with the current system? If you are trying to convince me that states should have final say no matter what, you won't. The history of civil rights abuses have proven it to not be the best method.  

You say that you want me to be honest and stop hiding behind slogans, while at the same time ignoring my comments, and trying to bait me into a states rights debate that's been had millions of times, so you can hide behind your slogan of states rights. Civil rights>state's rights.

So does State trump Federal when you want it to (weed) but Federal trumps State when you want that to (Marriage)?

Yes. If the feds were to say same sex marriage is not okay, and states did it anyway, I would support that as well. That's because I support basic civil rights for human beings, marriage is one of them.

that's some screwed up thinking there.   Really there are no principles involved here at are, are there?  It's all about I want what I want and it's my right to get it my way and screw you.  I am able to change my opinion here if you can present a logical method to show why your approach doesn't just mean no principles, and no rule of law.

Yes, supporting giving people their rights back is horrible of me.

Then... The gays has no rights to force her to re-sign a document that is perfectly legal, and already signed and 100% valid. Would you agree with that?

Somewhat, but they do have a legitimate bone to pick in that they are being given "special" licenses. Seems like a scarlet letter to me. I'll leave that to the courts to decide.

You can't even logically process your own bias. The court said the paper signed was valid. "Bone picking" has nothing to do with it, unless it was a political move by the gay couple, not based on #lovewins. There is no need to go any further. They are married. The Scarlet Letter will be on the face of the gay couple forever because they wrote that Scarlet Letter themselves, accepting to be a farce for all the world to see, a martyr for others like them to be free from people like davis, and send her to jail.

They should accept their martyrdom fully and be happy, forever and never.

Then it'll be tossed out of court, or the judge will tell them to fuck off. People have the right to air greivances if they feel they have one. Don't be so quick to blindly accept something an authority figure says, just because it lines up with your personal beliefs.


  

She's an elected official, she refuses to do her job, refuses to resign, she can't be fired, thus ends up in jail. I don't think she deserves to be in jail but she needs to leave her religious bullshit at the door where it belongs. Religion has no place in politics, it's just a convenient smokescreen to excuse bigotry and hatred.

Your are not alone here.   I get into arguments all the time over this very same thing.  Religion and politics do not mingle well and should not work together either.  If your an elected official you should keep your beliefs to yourself.  No one wants to hear them anyways.

Why pick on religion?  Is it somehow unique from other personal beliefs?

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on IMMIGRATION and BORDERS.

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on MARIHUANA.

FUCK YEAH, let's slap it to those religious bigots WHO WANT TO DISOBEY THE FEDERAL LAW.

Are you guys insane?

Religion has very little to do with it, it's about the rights of the people to get married. Religion doesn't give you the right to take someone else's rights away.  

You are right.  It doesnt. But people in and that are highly religious and see things only there way need to understand this.  Most dont.  They think it is this way and this way only.
I dont see it much different as me blocking the door to a church.  Im blocking the door because I believe you shouldnt attend church.  So I wont let you.   I would never do that but.  Wouldnt be much difference.  Kim Davis should sit in jail for a while and be made an example out of.  She is in no place to say what happens to someone else.  

They should lock her up in a room filled with lesbians.  And have them talk about getting married all day.  Wonder if it would deive Kim nuts?   LoL

You and the prior poster are misdirecting, to avoid the substantive argument made.  The misdirection is simply to flog the offensive illegality of the lady's action (or from another point of view, her heroic disobediance.)  But if you can't address the substantive argument, you are just expressing your own opinion that it's fine for one political group to selectively enforce and not enforce the law.  Hence my question -

Why pick on religion?  Is it somehow unique from other personal beliefs?

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on IMMIGRATION and BORDERS.

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on MARIHUANA.

FUCK YEAH, let's slap it to those religious bigots WHO WANT TO DISOBEY THE FEDERAL LAW.

Are you guys insane?

Suppose it is a battle of morals to laws.
Marijuana ain't that bad, but it is a federal-ly banned thing.
Which either means the law should change (which it will within 2 years) or they got to stop the state laws.

This country is built on immigrants, the only people who aren't immigrants are the Native Americans.

However, the whole love wins law was recently put in place, so people are more up in arms about that.

I think laws need to change.

So laws need to change.  So fucking WHAT?  That's true anytime in the last hundred years on any number of subjects.

The laws that get enforced should be -

A.  Whatever prosecutors want
B.  Whatever you want.
C.  Whatever some group that shouts the loudest wants.
D.  Whatever your political party wants.
E.  Laws on the books need to be enforced equally.

Please stop the bitching, moaning, endless praise of your own point of view, demonizing of other people and their views, and try to simply think this matter through.

[Lenore]

So does State trump Federal when you want it to (weed) but Federal trumps State when you want that to (Marriage)?

Yes. If the feds were to say same sex marriage is not okay, and states did it anyway, I would support that as well. That's because I support basic civil rights for human beings, marriage is one of them.

that's some screwed up thinking there.   Really there are no principles involved here at are, are there?  It's all about I want what I want and it's my right to get it my way and screw you.  I am able to change my opinion here if you can present a logical method to show why your approach doesn't just mean no principles, and no rule of law.

Yes, supporting giving people their rights back is horrible of me.

Look can we just have some honesty here?

You see something okay in Fed enforcing the marriage thing, but not in them enforcing the weed law?  

So who gets to pick and choose when and to whom to apply "law" to?

Leaving aside for the moment that this constitutes the very reverse of law, who?

No hiding behind vague slogans please.

What's wrong with the current system? If you are trying to convince me that states should have final say no matter what, you won't. The history of civil rights abuses have proven it to not be the best method.  

You say that you want me to be honest and stop hiding behind slogans, while at the same time ignoring my comments, and trying to bait me into a states rights debate that's been had millions of times, so you can hide behind your slogan of states rights. Civil rights>state's rights.

So does State trump Federal when you want it to (weed) but Federal trumps State when you want that to (Marriage)?

Yes. If the feds were to say same sex marriage is not okay, and states did it anyway, I would support that as well. That's because I support basic civil rights for human beings, marriage is one of them.

that's some screwed up thinking there.   Really there are no principles involved here at are, are there?  It's all about I want what I want and it's my right to get it my way and screw you.  I am able to change my opinion here if you can present a logical method to show why your approach doesn't just mean no principles, and no rule of law.

Yes, supporting giving people their rights back is horrible of me.

Then... The gays has no rights to force her to re-sign a document that is perfectly legal, and already signed and 100% valid. Would you agree with that?

Somewhat, but they do have a legitimate bone to pick in that they are being given "special" licenses. Seems like a scarlet letter to me. I'll leave that to the courts to decide.

You can't even logically process your own bias. The court said the paper signed was valid. "Bone picking" has nothing to do with it, unless it was a political move by the gay couple, not based on #lovewins. There is no need to go any further. They are married. The Scarlet Letter will be on the face of the gay couple forever because they wrote that Scarlet Letter themselves, accepting to be a farce for all the world to see, a martyr for others like them to be free from people like davis, and send her to jail.

They should accept their martyrdom fully and be happy, forever and never.

Then it'll be tossed out of court, or the judge will tell them to fuck off. People have the right to air greivances if they feel they have one. Don't be so quick to blindly accept something an authority figure says, just because it lines up with your personal beliefs.


  

She's an elected official, she refuses to do her job, refuses to resign, she can't be fired, thus ends up in jail. I don't think she deserves to be in jail but she needs to leave her religious bullshit at the door where it belongs. Religion has no place in politics, it's just a convenient smokescreen to excuse bigotry and hatred.

Your are not alone here.   I get into arguments all the time over this very same thing.  Religion and politics do not mingle well and should not work together either.  If your an elected official you should keep your beliefs to yourself.  No one wants to hear them anyways.

Why pick on religion?  Is it somehow unique from other personal beliefs?

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on IMMIGRATION and BORDERS.

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on MARIHUANA.

FUCK YEAH, let's slap it to those religious bigots WHO WANT TO DISOBEY THE FEDERAL LAW.

Are you guys insane?

Religion has very little to do with it, it's about the rights of the people to get married. Religion doesn't give you the right to take someone else's rights away.  

You are right.  It doesnt. But people in and that are highly religious and see things only there way need to understand this.  Most dont.  They think it is this way and this way only.
I dont see it much different as me blocking the door to a church.  Im blocking the door because I believe you shouldnt attend church.  So I wont let you.   I would never do that but.  Wouldnt be much difference.  Kim Davis should sit in jail for a while and be made an example out of.  She is in no place to say what happens to someone else.  

They should lock her up in a room filled with lesbians.  And have them talk about getting married all day.  Wonder if it would deive Kim nuts?   LoL

You and the prior poster are misdirecting, to avoid the substantive argument made.  The misdirection is simply to flog the offensive illegality of the lady's action (or from another point of view, her heroic disobediance.)  But if you can't address the substantive argument, you are just expressing your own opinion that it's fine for one political group to selectively enforce and not enforce the law.  Hence my question -

Why pick on religion?  Is it somehow unique from other personal beliefs?

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on IMMIGRATION and BORDERS.

Let's NOT ENFORCE the federal law on MARIHUANA.

FUCK YEAH, let's slap it to those religious bigots WHO WANT TO DISOBEY THE FEDERAL LAW.

Are you guys insane?

Suppose it is a battle of morals to laws.
Marijuana ain't that bad, but it is a federal-ly banned thing.
Which either means the law should change (which it will within 2 years) or they got to stop the state laws.

This country is built on immigrants, the only people who aren't immigrants are the Native Americans.

However, the whole love wins law was recently put in place, so people are more up in arms about that.

I think laws need to change.

So laws need to change.  So fucking WHAT?  That's true anytime in the last hundred years on any number of subjects.

The laws that get enforced should be -

A.  Whatever prosecutors want
B.  Whatever you want.
C.  Whatever some group that shouts the loudest wants.
D.  Whatever your political party wants.
E.  Laws on the books need to be enforced equally.

Please stop the bitching, moaning, endless praise of your own point of view, demonizing of other people and their views, and try to simply think this matter through.

Laws should be enforced equally. However they are not.  I live in a commonwealth state.  Some laws and punishments to to be all over the place.  One person nailed with possession of marijuanna on there first offense can get 5 years while someone with the same charge and first offense can get 2 years.  Sentencing and laws seem to be all over the place.  It also goes on how much you have when caught.  Which shouldnt really matter.  Your in possession period.  1 gram or 3 grams it should still be the same.

It should never be about what the prosecuters want.  Thats just a bad idea. Thats opening a door to have them fry someone for whatever they feel they want.

It shouldnt be about what the political parties want either. We all know how that is already going.

What it should be about is what the majority of people want.  All people who would want to vote on laws.  Instead of voting on poloticians.

The law makers themselves in legislature should be bias on what laws are put into effect and what they vote to pass.but you know as well as I do.  That everyone has there opinion and that is what persuades a vote for law.  Its like being on jury duty.  12 people are supose to be unbias but everyone always has there own thoughts and opinions. 

Laws arent much different.  People (lawmakers) can and i am sure do use there own opinions to pass laws.

It should be about what us the people want and not what parties want or feel we the people should have.  I know there are many laws in place that I never voted for nor do I want them.

[Spendulus]

Laws should be enforced equally. However they are not.  I live in a commonwealth state.  Some laws and punishments to to be all over the place.  One person nailed with possession of marijuanna on there first offense can get 5 years while someone with the same charge and first offense can get 2 years.  Sentencing and laws seem to be all over the place.  It also goes on how much you have when caught.  Which shouldnt really matter.  Your in possession period.  1 gram or 3 grams it should still be the same.

It should never be about what the prosecuters want.  Thats just a bad idea. Thats opening a door to have them fry someone for whatever they feel they want.

It shouldnt be about what the political parties want either. We all know how that is already going.

What it should be about is what the majority of people want.  All people who would want to vote on laws.  Instead of voting on poloticians.

The law makers themselves in legislature should be bias on what laws are put into effect and what they vote to pass.but you know as well as I do.  That everyone has there opinion and that is what persuades a vote for law.  Its like being on jury duty.  12 people are supose to be unbias but everyone always has there own thoughts and opinions. 

Laws arent much different.  People (lawmakers) can and i am sure do use there own opinions to pass laws.

It should be about what us the people want and not what parties want or feel we the people should have.  I know there are many laws in place that I never voted for nor do I want them.

Well, you see....we are pretty much in agreement on ALL OF THAT.  Now comes the difficult part.
*****

THE PRIVATE ISSUE:
Someone has a moral and ethical disagreement with a law, and is willing to stand up against it, in spite of possibly grave personal consequences (jail, public ridicule, etc).

HERO OR VILLAIN?
I say, as long as it's a non-violent protest, HERO.
That goes for MARIHUANA, IMMIGRATION, MARRIAGE.  And countless other issues.

THE PUBLIC ISSUE:
Public officials have a moral and ethical disagreement with a law (for now let's say it that way, the reality is often they are pushed in a direction by political pressures) and they enforce law selectively, and choose whom to punish selectively.

HERO OR VILLAIN?
I say VILLAIN. 
That goes for MARIHUANA, IMMIGRATION, MARRIAGE.  And countless other issues.

[H1N1]

Laws should be enforced equally. However they are not.  I live in a commonwealth state.  Some laws and punishments to to be all over the place.  One person nailed with possession of marijuanna on there first offense can get 5 years while someone with the same charge and first offense can get 2 years.  Sentencing and laws seem to be all over the place.  It also goes on how much you have when caught.  Which shouldnt really matter.  Your in possession period.  1 gram or 3 grams it should still be the same.

It should never be about what the prosecuters want.  Thats just a bad idea. Thats opening a door to have them fry someone for whatever they feel they want.

It shouldnt be about what the political parties want either. We all know how that is already going.

What it should be about is what the majority of people want.  All people who would want to vote on laws.  Instead of voting on poloticians.

The law makers themselves in legislature should be bias on what laws are put into effect and what they vote to pass.but you know as well as I do.  That everyone has there opinion and that is what persuades a vote for law.  Its like being on jury duty.  12 people are supose to be unbias but everyone always has there own thoughts and opinions. 

Laws arent much different.  People (lawmakers) can and i am sure do use there own opinions to pass laws.

It should be about what us the people want and not what parties want or feel we the people should have.  I know there are many laws in place that I never voted for nor do I want them.

Well, you see....we are pretty much in agreement on ALL OF THAT.  Now comes the difficult part.
*****

THE PRIVATE ISSUE:
Someone has a moral and ethical disagreement with a law, and is willing to stand up against it, in spite of possibly grave personal consequences (jail, public ridicule, etc).

HERO OR VILLAIN?
I say, as long as it's a non-violent protest, HERO.
That goes for MARIHUANA, IMMIGRATION, MARRIAGE.  And countless other issues.

THE PUBLIC ISSUE:
Public officials have a moral and ethical disagreement with a law (for now let's say it that way, the reality is often they are pushed in a direction by political pressures) and they enforce law selectively, and choose whom to punish selectively.

HERO OR VILLAIN?
I say VILLAIN. 
That goes for MARIHUANA, IMMIGRATION, MARRIAGE.  And countless other issues.

So you do support standing up against unjust laws like refusing to let gays marry, as long as it's someone who can't actually do anything about it.

[Spendulus]

Laws should be enforced equally. However they are not.  I live in a commonwealth state.  Some laws and punishments to to be all over the place.  One person nailed with possession of marijuanna on there first offense can get 5 years while someone with the same charge and first offense can get 2 years.  Sentencing and laws seem to be all over the place.  It also goes on how much you have when caught.  Which shouldnt really matter.  Your in possession period.  1 gram or 3 grams it should still be the same.

It should never be about what the prosecuters want.  Thats just a bad idea. Thats opening a door to have them fry someone for whatever they feel they want.

It shouldnt be about what the political parties want either. We all know how that is already going.

What it should be about is what the majority of people want.  All people who would want to vote on laws.  Instead of voting on poloticians.

The law makers themselves in legislature should be bias on what laws are put into effect and what they vote to pass.but you know as well as I do.  That everyone has there opinion and that is what persuades a vote for law.  Its like being on jury duty.  12 people are supose to be unbias but everyone always has there own thoughts and opinions.  

Laws arent much different.  People (lawmakers) can and i am sure do use there own opinions to pass laws.

It should be about what us the people want and not what parties want or feel we the people should have.  I know there are many laws in place that I never voted for nor do I want them.

Well, you see....we are pretty much in agreement on ALL OF THAT.  Now comes the difficult part.
*****

THE PRIVATE ISSUE:
Someone has a moral and ethical disagreement with a law, and is willing to stand up against it, in spite of possibly grave personal consequences (jail, public ridicule, etc).

HERO OR VILLAIN?
I say, as long as it's a non-violent protest, HERO.
That goes for MARIHUANA, IMMIGRATION, MARRIAGE.  And countless other issues.

THE PUBLIC ISSUE:
Public officials have a moral and ethical disagreement with a law (for now let's say it that way, the reality is often they are pushed in a direction by political pressures) and they enforce law selectively, and choose whom to punish selectively.

HERO OR VILLAIN?
I say VILLAIN.  
That goes for MARIHUANA, IMMIGRATION, MARRIAGE.  And countless other issues.

So you do support standing up against unjust laws like refusing to let gays marry, as long as it's someone who can't actually do anything about it.

It makes no difference what I think.  

I am only trying to clarify the underlying and substantive issue, because I don't care one rat's ass about you spewing polemic about some evil Republican religious knuckled dragging degenerates because you, sir, are no exemplary example of Enlightened and Progressive Humans, at least judging from past posts.  You are not the one standing up against anything, but simply coming along behind those who have done so, babbling, one voice in an ocean of babboons, one might say.

Let's here what your votes are on the two issues cited.

[H1N1]

Laws should be enforced equally. However they are not.  I live in a commonwealth state.  Some laws and punishments to to be all over the place.  One person nailed with possession of marijuanna on there first offense can get 5 years while someone with the same charge and first offense can get 2 years.  Sentencing and laws seem to be all over the place.  It also goes on how much you have when caught.  Which shouldnt really matter.  Your in possession period.  1 gram or 3 grams it should still be the same.

It should never be about what the prosecuters want.  Thats just a bad idea. Thats opening a door to have them fry someone for whatever they feel they want.

It shouldnt be about what the political parties want either. We all know how that is already going.

What it should be about is what the majority of people want.  All people who would want to vote on laws.  Instead of voting on poloticians.

The law makers themselves in legislature should be bias on what laws are put into effect and what they vote to pass.but you know as well as I do.  That everyone has there opinion and that is what persuades a vote for law.  Its like being on jury duty.  12 people are supose to be unbias but everyone always has there own thoughts and opinions.  

Laws arent much different.  People (lawmakers) can and i am sure do use there own opinions to pass laws.

It should be about what us the people want and not what parties want or feel we the people should have.  I know there are many laws in place that I never voted for nor do I want them.

Well, you see....we are pretty much in agreement on ALL OF THAT.  Now comes the difficult part.
*****

THE PRIVATE ISSUE:
Someone has a moral and ethical disagreement with a law, and is willing to stand up against it, in spite of possibly grave personal consequences (jail, public ridicule, etc).

HERO OR VILLAIN?
I say, as long as it's a non-violent protest, HERO.
That goes for MARIHUANA, IMMIGRATION, MARRIAGE.  And countless other issues.

THE PUBLIC ISSUE:
Public officials have a moral and ethical disagreement with a law (for now let's say it that way, the reality is often they are pushed in a direction by political pressures) and they enforce law selectively, and choose whom to punish selectively.

HERO OR VILLAIN?
I say VILLAIN.  
That goes for MARIHUANA, IMMIGRATION, MARRIAGE.  And countless other issues.

So you do support standing up against unjust laws like refusing to let gays marry, as long as it's someone who can't actually do anything about it.

It makes no difference what I think.  

I am only trying to clarify the underlying and substantive issue, because I don't care one rat's ass about you spewing polemic about some evil Republican religious knuckled dragging degenerates because you, sir, are no exemplary example of Enlightened and Progressive Humans, at least judging from past posts.  You are not the one standing up against anything, but simply coming along behind those who have done so, babbling, one voice in an ocean of babboons, one might say.

Let's here what your votes are on the two issues cited.

I just found it amusing that you claim to only support non violent protests, yet this whole thing started because a certain group of people were using threat of force via laws to oppress a minority. But that's okay because blargh state's rights urgh, plus your invisible sky god said so. Speaking of insanity.

Yet a bigger bully comes along and does the same thing and it's suddenly a problem.

Why can't the religious folk stick to non violent protests? I'd be okay with that too.

[vero]

When most people look at the world around them, they see only the trees; they do not see the forest that is there. It should be obvious that God exists because of His creation, not only us humans, but the world we live in, the galaxy that world is in, and the universe that the galaxy is in.