Kim Davis - Unethical

It does not need to be exclusive to qualify for exercising a religion.

 

You didn't explain how you meant that. There wasn't a complete sentence with the statement you made which I previously quoted..

 

Zzap, let me ask you - What is the point your attempting to make; and please, be as concise as possible.

 

Yes, thank you, Ari...i was not sure what the point was either..... :unsure:

 

One other question, Zzap.

Are you Ozzy Osbourne?

 

Aha, I thought he looked familiar!

 

Nobody here is talking about what goes on within the Catholic Church. None of those couples in Kentucky are demanding a Catholic wedding, and the court order doesn't mention any church.

Southern leaders used to say the same thing about just about every sexual practice that didn't involve a straight married same race couple trying to make a baby in the missionary position, in total darkness. It wasn't that long ago that there were laws against almost everything else, and I've probably broken them all.

We have to stay diligent about protecting our rights from the theocrats, or they will continue to erode. From time to time, I still hear about a landlord refusing to rent a place to an unmarried straight couple. I broke that old law twice.

 

i think i just demonstrated that Kim Davis and her followers don't have a case. since this law does not violate anybody's right to exercise their religious belief.

does a union between two people consecrated by church alone stand as marriage? no. you have to get recognized by the state. ergo, no religious argument stands here. you may go out and get a church wedding and celebrate it as a catholic event if you want it so -- that is your right under religious freedom -- but even then your marriage is also of a legal secular standing first and foremost. gay couples aren't asking for the holy babble (my way of mocking the idiot book) to get changed. they are asking for a right for a secular marriage. no church or religious belief argument applies by default.

and -- if anyone wants to claim they can't issue a gay couple a license for getting married, then they would have to argue, by their actions, that issuing marriage licenses is, in fact, a religious practice. which would then mean that enforcing and conducting US law is a religious practice. i'd like to see Kim Davis even try to make an argument towards that. she and everyone on her side has already lost that argument. religious people are just desperate, because the world doesn't live in the 16th century anymore. an average person of our age sees through their BS.

 

Yes, right; just as my friend stated.

 

well said.

 

It makes sense to me to first say: this is an immoral act, and is so regardless of whether it is an illegal act or not, and explain why. I don't understand why the legality of the act needs to be brought into the discussion when you make it clear that the morality of an act is not related to its legality.

 

Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council, presented Davis with a "Cost of Discipleship Award" that compared her with Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and Abraham Lincoln because, like them, she "pursued justice at great personal cost." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kim-davis-award_5605df9de4b0dd850307bb10


Nevermind the fact that MLK Jr., Rosa Parks, and Abe Lincoln were on the freedom for all people Civil Rights end of things.

 

Your facts are not in order.

"i think i just demonstrated that Kim Davis and her followers don't have a case. since this law does not violate anybody's right to exercise their religious belief."

Here I will explain it again for those who did not bother to read my previous posts.

Forcing you to murder someone is forcing you to be party and accessory to the commission of a crime against man and state, and since you did it, you will go to prison.
Forcing Davis to accomodate gay marriage against her to be party to and an accessory to the commission of a crime against her religion and her God.

There is no 'reasonable' difference this should be obvious.


gay marriage is absolutely no more than a demand for government recognition so the couple can receive government benefits. The gvmnt refused married gays benefits.

Any marriage is valid under any religion no state is required what so ever, even contract marriage will stand under the state based on the contract.

However to receive statist benefits with regard to marriage couples are required to register themselves under the state overlordship.

The only thing I see people promoting here is grotesque example nazi based socialism.





Davis insisting that her name not be on any gay marriage certificates did gays no harm what so ever.

Did they try to collect state benefits and were refused and died of starvation or otherwise hospitalized? How were these gay people injured.

If they were so injured why didnt they sue the gvmnt over the last millennium?







right back to square one when the gvmnt sticks its nose into religion, right back to prerevolution corporate collectivism and nazi politics.

all hail the state!

 

Copy and paste must be accompanied by reference information. If it isn't, we will assume it is your personal opinion.

 

thats not correct.

everyone is religious.

the elements of a religion are the ability to decide something is right or wrong, choosing a course of action and then acting upon that decision to govern yourself accordingly.

any who is not totally insane and of reasonable sound mind is in fact religious.

Even a satanist.

No state or God or church is required.

That is the simple part. Its gets more difficult when someone say mr wall worships money. Which would mean mr wall makes and exorcizes moral decisions based on money, which of course would be considered a false god by every definition I can think of. For instance Phizer shipping tainted vaccine to africa to save their investment. Money = is the God being worshiped in that situation.

 

How is that religion itself? What you've described is simply experience, learning, and applying what is learned.

 

That's what being ethical is.


Dino Lobaton states that "standard definitions of ethics have typically included such phrases as 'the science of the ideal human character' or 'the science of moral duty' ".[3] Richard William Paul and Linda Elder define ethics as "a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics


Morals are rules handed down to you.

adjective1.
of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:
moral attitudes.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral

 

That is not absolute. There are many personal reasons for same sex couples to desire legal marriage.

Having the same benefits as other married couples is but one, and you say that like it's a bad thing.

Shame on you. That's supremacist.

 

Shaming is unethical especially in an instance of no harm/no crime . And there is neither harm nor
crime in not encouraging homosexuality (theatrical sex) . Anyway , the honestly ashamed may find a
shamer to just have been annoying .

 

Not to be disageeable with you, but isn't that just called having a conscience?
Live and let live is my motto....and do your thing, but don't involve me, if I don';t want to be involved with it....in other words.
No one should force their own beliefs on anyone else, in other words.