Kim Davis - Unethical

Kim Davis took this position, like her mother before her and her son behind her, long before they ever dreamed they'd be asked to sign on in agreement with equal marriage rights.

Now, she won't resign her $80,000 annual salary and she thinks the law should be bent to accommodate her.

Boo Hoo, Kimmie.

 

Its a waste of time.

Becuase i eventually have to get to the point where I try and explain to people that they dont even know what they are angry about. Or I have to try and explain women to women. Or try and tell you there is still somethings about girls and women in relation to this going on under your nose the whole you will never see or hear of.

At the risk of alienating one of the few members here that likes me. Shale forever will be in B camp. Even though he probably has stuck to the same sex for 30 years. He was never the obvious gay dude in high school and thus aware of EVERYTHING that entails. He also was never the obvious gay dude at 6 years old and thus not aware of EVERYTHING that entails with manbeasts like Ms Davis or any of her oversexed daughters.

I know this, some of the girls know this, it will always remain hidden.

Why do you assume any of these couples are homosexual?

If shes got it in her head that issuing licenses to 'gay' couples is really issuing licenses to bi couples who will then maybe sneak around with everyones else partner. She is probably right 95% of the time, on the bi thing that is, not necessarily the sneaking around part.

Then there is that remaing 5%, minority within a minority, which she also has to try surpress....becuase 4 husbands, fair idea what she would have been like at 8 years old. Now try get any female to try and explain to you what I mean by that

 

That was as plain as

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrbumvF-Oe4

 

Another angle

Noxious since you like dealing in cold hard facts, as do I

Even when it comes to 'traditional' marriage between a man and a woman. Do your own digging, try and work out what percentage of the population never get married, what percentage marry only once less than seven years, percentage of population whose first marriage wasnt till after 60. Stuff like that. Or back in the 'good ole days'when everyone supposedly had to get married to have sex. What percentage of those born in 1925 never got married before 40.

Its damn near impossible in some ways, confronting in other ways. We all go through life just assuming thats what most people do, but we dont really pay attention.

Back to the gay thing, civil unions arent the same as marriage, but over a decade of data now from the UK, again do your own digging, but works out rougly 0.2% of the population, impossible to work out how many of those have civil unioned more than once. Impossible to work out how many of those are gay as opposed to bi, mostly gay, or not gay at all for that matter.

So either they are all gay, only 0.3% of the population are gay and 2/3 of them have entered into a civil union in that 11/12 year period

Or at least 1/2 of them arent even gay, 2% of the population is gay, and 90% of them never bothered with a civil union in that more than a decade period.

You can make the argument, civil union isnt marriage. But if it ten years, we get the same kind of percentages out of the US from marriages, then what

All this talk about marriage equality, mainly coming from do gooders, couples that arent even gay, guys that love attending a protest march and have an after party but marriage fuck that....and the maybe 1 in 10 people in such march that will actually eventually enter into a same sex marriage.

If it does turn out to be that kind of ratio only 10% of gay people ever marry compared to around 60% of straight people. Maybe Ms Davis's paranoia is at least partly valid.

And you are still dealing with a whole bunch of abstract concepts and self reporting no one is ever sure about

 

I loved & lived with a certified crazy man for five years (paranoid-schizophrenic as per Bellevue hospital NYC - tho I think bipolar woulda been more accurate).

So, I usually just ignore these incoherent rants, slink off to another room, hope you don't follow me and wait for you to come back. :unsure:

 

I guess that would depend on how you view the word. Seems you see it as the last definition and I see it more as the first.












1.a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, beliefs, practices, racial or ethnic origins, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.





2.a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions, beliefs, and practices that differ from one's own.

3.interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.


4.he act or capacity of enduring; endurance:My tolerance of noise is limited

 

As a matter of fact I did see it somewhat that way, but....you said that my posts must stem from my opinions of homosexuals and my religion. You knew nothing about me, my life or how it has been affected by issues. You assumed and you were wrong.

You have not once even attempted to understand my point. I believe she should have done her job. I also understand her convictions. I said this will not end the way she wants it to. She will not be able to hold that position unless she complies. But to turn her into some extremist murderer is complete nonsense and over the top exaggeration. My other point was if this woman saw love, compassion and understanding, it may have changed her life. But the nastiness toward her has only cemented her fear of gays.

This would not be the type of thing Jesus would have fought over...IMO. Besides...the big battle has been won, same sex marriage is legal, it will just take time for some people to wrap their minds around it and accept it.

 

You really have no clue about how I think; do you?

There is something much bigger than tolerance out there, if you choose to align yourself with it.

 

I think the article I am linking to is full of good explanations of why it is not good enough to merely tolerate others.

The goal is mutual respect; and though the article is referring the strife Christians feel when they are asked to mutually respect another religion, I think it speaks well to the case at hand - that of intolerance vs. tolerance vs. mutual respect toward other humans who are breaking no law and mean you no harm.

" the Latin origin of "tolerance" refers to enduring and does not convey mutual affirmation or support: "[The term] also implicitly suggests an imbalance of power in the relationship, with one of the parties in the position of giving or withholding permission for the other to be." The Latin word for respect, by contrast, "presupposes we are equally worthy of honor. There is no room for arrogance and exclusivity in mutual respect."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/hypocrisy-of-tolerance_b_792239.html

 

Tolerating something or someone is not the same as has having tolerance toward others. I posted the definitions.
The concept of tolerance covers a lot: attitudes as well actions, individual choices as well as social, political and legal commitments. It is also a vision that encompasses everybody. Every person is both a purveyor and beneficiary of tolerance.

I think the article I am linking to is full of wonderful ways to learn tolerance and promote peace.

http://www.nasponline.org/resources/crisis_safety/teaching-tolerance.aspx



I noted you changed your post from telling me I do not have a clue Thanks.

 

If it had been confined to that 6 to 13 age range, 4 and 5 too although my memory is pretty fuzzy under 6, you might be able to convince me I was crazy

But its not confined to that age range, every year since. It will happen next week, next month, 100 times before the year ends.

If we met up and went to the mall, it wouldnt happen if you were standing next to me, they'd wait till you went off to make a phone call, get a coffee, whatever. And in case you didnt get it, not talking about anything male.

Thats one way we know.

The trouble with not be confrontational, being polite, one gets blinded to what others really see.

The photos shale, its only ever inside your apartment, some secluded beach, on a boat in the middle of nowhere, never in public, never holding a guys hand standing next to your family. IRL no one really knows do they?. I and im sure some of the girls have noticed this the whole time

Ms Davis, before all this, its not like if she had walked into a hairdresser and freaked out if the guy about to do her hair was an obvious flamer. She doesnt hate the ones instantly obvious to her.

All it would take is one of those ex husbands, one past boyfriend, to be caught with or leave her for a guy, for her to hold a life time grudge....not against obvious gay ones...but the straight looking, acting bi ones

It always has been, and always will be the case, that what you, me or any guy is. Is up to the opposite sex. If you dont get that special VIP pass into the sisterhood by the time you are 6. You are just some guy, somewhere on that bi scale

 

You don't get it.
the term "tolerance" always carries with it the connotation that one group is "allowing" another group to exist.
No matter how you slice it, or what twist you want to apply to it, it will always at it's root signify that one group, "the tolerators" somehow feel they are superior in comparison to those being "tolerated".

there really is no way around that core, rudimentary connotation/meaning of the word.

Equality is what is needed, not tolerance.

 

where did you get those definitions?

Merriam-webster;

1
: capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina


2
a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own (this is the definition that applies to this situation)

b : the act of allowing something : toleration


3
: the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece


4
a (1) : the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (as a drug) or a physiological insult especially with repeated use or exposure <developed a tolerance to painkillers>; also : the immunological state marked by unresponsiveness to a specific antigen (2) : relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factor


but you will note that every definition has a negative connotation to it in the respect that "tolerance" always refers to dealing with something "unpleasant" in some manner, whether it be physiological, psychological or political, it is always one group/thing/person having to put up with and "allow" another group/thing/person to exist, and not actual equality between the two.





Now the idea of tolerance between differing groups is fine and progressive, but don't fool yourself into thinking it is the same concept as equality or that it doesn't at it's core definitions carry with it the connotation of Us vs Them.

 

Granted, I grew up in het world as a heterosexual. Didn't come out until the Sexual Revolution in the late '60s in New Orleans when and where you could be out without a lot of grief from anyone. However, my affect & demeanor is that of a str8 man. Sorry if I don't fit the stereotype of a gay man, but it really is not "str8 acting." To be other than what I am would be "gay acting" and it is easier for me to just be me.

However, not ALL my pix with my lovers are taken inside my apartment. I do go to the mall and our affection is not hidden.

I have kissed Michel goodnight on my doorstep with my neighbors present (he even mentioned how daring I was). But I live on Miami Beach a tolerant place.



I embrace men on our very public Nude Beach as well.





And even make an old fool of myself with the young cuties in undies at the Gay Pride events.



I have also been out in print in the local press for decades under my real name, so it is not like I am closeted as a gay man.

VG, you seem to have some anger issues with bi men who are not flamming faggots getting in ppls faces in public. IDK how badly you were injured by society growing up nor how you deal with it but I have seen it expressed on occasion here and I usually ignore it unless you call me out by name.

BTW, my crazy male partner for 5 years also had this kind of anger issue and the only time he fysically pushed me was when I insisted I was bi, even tho we were two men sharing our lives. IDK what it is with gay men who cannot accept bi men - but I refuse to change to accommodate their bigotry.

Ironically, Jim was previously married and had a child. After we split up and I enjoyed sex almost exclusively with one woman for the next 18 years, Jim married one of our female friends. (I even cried at their wedding like a girl) But there's no such thing as bisexuals, right?

 

Nice goal to aim for, but mutual respect is not always possible. In a lot of cases, I'll settle for tolerance. We're talking about legal rights here. Somebody like Kim Davis will probably never consider a nonchristian like me worthy of equal respect. I don't really care, as long as people like her in positions of authority don't abuse that authority to mistreat those who are different from herself. I personally don't offer equal respect to the most extreme right wing religious fanatics, but I'm willing to tolerate them, and that's enough for civil society to continue to function.

Respect has to be earned, to some degree. Tolerance should be a basic expectation; a fundamental human right in a free society.

 

Right, Karen; but if you're going to "spread love and tolerance" as piecofmyheart said - you can't. Love and Tolerance aren't compatible terms.

You can spread the idea of tolerance. You can spread love; but you can't spread love and tolerance because they are two different things.

Spreading love and mutual respect would work, however.

" the Latin origin of "tolerance" refers to enduring and does not convey mutual affirmation or support: "[The term] also implicitly suggests an imbalance of power in the relationship, with one of the parties in the position of giving or withholding permission for the other to be." The Latin word for respect, by contrast, "presupposes we are equally worthy of honor. There is no room for arrogance and exclusivity in mutual respect."
http://www.huffingto...e_b_792239.html

 

Errrrghhhh. See, Pieceofmyheart is right you will always be blind to anything but what you want, feel or believe in

So you were with this guy for 5 years, nup, I'm still bi, he got dumped, then you ran off to marry a woman. But he's the crazy one, he's the bigot...You really dont see it?

When i said, if we go shopping together, they wont approach me until you disappear somewhere. You have no clue what Im talking about do you?

How much I supposedly hate them is irrelevant, if the girls wont even approach when they are there, then bang, just like that you are out of the club, with no idea why. But that never registers becuase it always has to be about him or me, half of its always becuase theyll scare away my friends....that they never have any idea about, because they always only give a shit about themsleves, get angry when Im like, no get away from me, oh but I'm the one with anger issues

Marriage equality, even amongst straight couples, no one views the marriage of a straight couple without kids, the same as married couple with kids...and thats never going to change

Why the fuck would I want to get married for, move to surbubia, try mingle with a bunch of angry straight guys, selfish bi guys, both of whom repel girls like they have the plague....I'd loose all my friends. That does come off sounding pretty snotty doesnt it

 

My own personal idea of how the scale moves is:

From to Tolerance, to Acceptance, to Understanding, to Mutual Respect, to Love.

On the other end of the scale is where Bigotry, Intolerance, and Kim Davis are.




ANYWAY -

Today, there's been a report filed by one of the deputy clerks in the office, stating that Kim Davis has

" made substantial modifications to the marriage licenses that could undermine their validity.
"Those changes were made in some attempt to circumvent the court's orders and may have raised to the level of interference against the court's orders," wrote Richard Hughes, who represents Brian Mason, a deputy county clerk who has issued marriage licenses under the judge's order."
"The changes Davis made, Hughes said, include deleting her name, all mention of Rowan County, and references to deputy clerks. Only Mason's name is on the form, not his title, with a place for him to initial rather than to use his signature."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lawyer-deputy-clerk-kim-davis-may-violating-judges-order-n430116

She came back to work Monday saying she wouldn't interfere with the deputies issuing marriage licenses.

She's such a liar.

 

How does she have the authority to alter a state of Kentucky document? I just checked all the marriage licenses I have and all of them are printed by the state with blanks to fill in the county.

That is how it was on my great grandparents license in the 19th Century Mississippi and both my mom's marriages from Mississippi in 1944 and Arkansas in 1951.

And my own in Florida in1983


Each of these were printed forms with the state name on it and all the blanks that need to be filled out by hand or typed in INCLUDING THE COUNTY.

They need to throw her crazy ass in jail until she agrees to resign.

 

She confiscated the forms she was supposed to use and replaced them with a form she made up.