How is Kim Davis (county clerk) a democrat?

[kage69]

"Christians...they...ignore..."

Suuuure. You weren't ascribing the un-Christian-like behavior of some rich people to "Christians" in general.

Your personal example should only prove to you that this caricature of greedy rich people is just that: a caricature. You don't think your family is the only exception, do you?

Golly CZ, no questions at all there, just going to run on what you got huh? Ok.
I think it's...interesting that you're pursuing this tangent when my first post in this thread, #41 on page 2, contains:

"It's pretty simple OP; there are bigoted religious fuckwads in both parties.


Although, to be fair, I've met a lot of "Red Letter" Dems , and none of them to my knowledge have ever displayed the religious authoritarian element this bitch in Kentucky is proud of. They employ gay people at their businesses, have gay people as family, have gay congregation members."

Yuuuup, as previously demonstrated in this very thread, I am indeed one that rushes to embrace caricatures. Shit. Looks like I completely misspelled "agnostic philanthropists" right? :biggrin:

I think you're trying to have an argument over a point I wasn't trying to make, and this kicked in after I had a laugh about some popular, quite hypocritical and disgraceful christians. Why, it's almost like you're exhibiting a lesser degree of very same butthurt the subject of this thread does. Food for thought anyway... but let's resist the urge to derail more by making this about us. Ultimately it's about as relevant to the topic as TheGardner's problems in history class or what music Nintendo used for what and if it was legal.


Moving on...

 

[kage69]

sigh. some fucking wacko needs to just off this bitch.

she is insane. she won't let this go because she is now a "hero" for Jesus.

She won't volenterly do what she is sopposed to. she needs to be fired

Hey hey hey whoa whoa, we just had a gay guy with a gun go and murder some people didn't we? Easy there Putin...

Seriously though, all things considered I think the fucking wackos usually wouldn't fall on the side following the law. This is pretty much the perfect "federal tyranny" issue for religious nutjobs who feel persecuted by others getting rights they enjoy.

She needs to be removed from office, agreed. You can't do the job? Then you don't work here! Simple!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Her office opens in about 12 hours. I don't know why this interests me so much but I can't wait to see what happens.

 

[kage69]

I love it. A non-profit gay rights group just put up a billboard in Morehead stating:

Dear Kim Davis,

The fact that you can no longer sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we've already re-defined marriage.


Heh.

I think this article from Salon's Jeff Taylor just nails it, best run down I've seen yet. Butthurt hypocritical christians and militia types who go frothy over the word "tyranny" can go pound sand. If you somehow think Davis or Cruz is making sense, do yourself a favor and read this article.

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/13/ted...ing_theocracy_that_threatens_the_rule_of_law/

“Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny,” writes Cruz. “Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.”


Oh Ted, you never disappoint.

 

[kage69]

Her office opens in about 12 hours. I don't know why this interests me so much but I can't wait to see what happens.

Trainwreck effect.


Watching grown adults act like petulant children over bullshit dogma can do that I guess.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Its like the perfect cliff hanger for a show except I don't have to wait until next season.

 

[who?]

Her office opens in about 12 hours. I don't know why this interests me so much but I can't wait to see what happens.

Why would her office open on Sunday evening?

 

[alcoholbob]

I love it. A non-profit gay rights group just put up a billboard in Morehead stating:

Dear Kim Davis,

The fact that you can no longer sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we've already re-defined marriage.

I dunno if the act of transferring the dowry from private hands (monetary deposit or farm capital) to the state (alimony) is really redefining marriage, since it still functionally involves the same thing, which is a monetary incentive for the husband to make the marriage work.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Why would her office open on Sunday evening?

Oops I meant 24 hours

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I dunno if the act of transferring the dowry from private hands (monetary deposit or farm capital) to the state (alimony) is really redefining marriage, since it still functionally involves the same thing, which is a monetary incentive for the husband to make the marriage work.

In the past I agree now its about a marriage contract 50-50. Keep in mind many women sacrifice their careers to care for children.

 

[kage69]

I dunno if the act of transferring the dowry from private hands (monetary deposit or farm capital) to the state (alimony) is really redefining marriage, since it still functionally involves the same thing, which is a monetary incentive for the husband to make the marriage work.

Come now, let's not pretend women haven't been seen throughout history as possessions of their husbands and fathers, not unlike livestock. That's a traditional view of marriage that we've moved beyond, and this issue should be no different for rational adults who choose not to let Bronze Age principles govern their lives (or excuse them to fuck with the lives of others).

Wait. What kind of traditional marriage are we even talking about here? Maybe christians should be specific so we're all on the same page.

 

[alcoholbob]

Come now, let's not pretend women haven't been seen throughout history as possessions of their husbands and fathers, not unlike livestock. That's a traditional view of marriage that we've moved beyond, and this issue should be no different for rational adults who choose not to let Bronze Age principles govern their lives (or excuse them to fuck with the lives of others).

Wait. What kind of traditional marriage are we even talking about here? Maybe christians should be specific so we're all on the same page.

Marriage is a result of the agricultural revolution and subsequent land rights; ultimately a way to both guarantee that rest of society isn't stuck caring for unwanted children, and also to prevent conflicts over land and succession. It's also if you will, the birth the patriarchy, because only under this patriarchal system of laws you have beta males reproducing.

Marriage didn't exist in purely hunter-gatherer tribes, at least not nuclear families. What you had were alpha male hunters who would have their choice of the women in the tribes, would reproduce repeatedly, and beta males would die during hunter trials and not further themselves in the gene pool. If you notice when most radfems argue against the patriarchy, essentially what they are arguing against is the agricultural revolution system of 1 man, 1 woman, created largely to reduce friction over land rights, and returning more to the "natural state" where women are effectively in alpha male harems. This sort of tracks what you see statistically within online dating today for example--about 10% of the guys date 90% of the women.

You also see that when men and women are polled about the opposite gender, men tend to rate women along a bell-curve scale, whereas women consider 80% of men below average and tend to be attracted only to the top 10-20%. Women have had alot of strong evolutionary forces for hundreds of thousands of years where it was natural for most women to compete for a small number of desirable guys, and the modern post-agricultural revolution "patriarchy", aka 1-man 1-woman system, strongly interferes with women's natural instincts. Most (beta) men of course, love the patriarchy, since it's a completely artificial system that allows the 80% of the men who are beta males a chance to reproduce. Alpha males of course hate the limiting nature of the patriarchy as much as radfems since societal norms look down upon them for having "affairs."

 

[kage69]

Marriage is a result of the agricultural revolution and subsequent land rights; ultimately a way to both guarantee that rest of society isn't stuck caring for unwanted children, and also to prevent conflicts over land and succession. It's also if you will, the birth the patriarchy, because only under this patriarchal system of laws you have beta males reproducing.

Marriage didn't exist in purely hunter-gatherer tribes, at least not nuclear families. What you had were alpha male hunters who would have their choice of the women in the tribes, would reproduce repeatedly, and beta males would die during hunter trials and not further themselves in the gene pool. If you notice when most radfems argue against the patriarchy, essentially what they are arguing against is the agricultural revolution system of 1 man, 1 woman, created largely to reduce friction over land rights, and returning more to the "natural state" where women are effectively in alpha male harems. This sort of tracks what you see statistically within online dating today for example--about 10% of the guys date 90% of the women.

You also see that when men and women are polled about the opposite gender, men tend to rate women along a bell-curve scale, whereas women consider 80% of men below average and tend to be attracted only to the top 10-20%. Women have had alot of strong evolutionary forces for hundreds of thousands of years where it was natural for most women to compete for a small number of desirable guys, and the modern post-agricultural revolution "patriarchy", aka 1-man 1-woman system, strongly interferes with women's natural instincts. Most (beta) men of course, love the patriarchy, since it's a completely artificial system that allows the 80% of the men who are beta males a chance to reproduce. Alpha males of course hate the limiting nature of the patriarchy as much as radfems since societal norms look down upon them for having "affairs."

Preaching to the choir my friend. I've had people walk out of debates for informing the crowd of exactly that. Regardless, it does kind of detract away from the biblical/legal context in which this debate is rooted (at least so far as the Kim Davis side, and while I'd love for them to acknowledge the factual history of our species and just deal with it, one doesn't need to resort to scientific empiricism to punch holes in their arguments). People like these deserve to be hoisted by their own petard IMO, and it's easier and quicker to do if we just skip the whole part about marriage being a roughly 23,000 year old practice meant to insure the survival of offspring, and not a religious right ordained by the supernatural and endorsed by young earth creationists.

If bigots can ignore that marriage licenses are state business (no connection to the bible), have a sordid origin as a response to interracial marriages, and have only been a nationwide thing since 1929, then honestly I think the finer points of that billboard as it relates to actual history is somewhat a non-issue for them.

Remember, we're dealing with holy rollers here - not exactly a crowd known for sound logical arguments or intellectual honesty/consistency. Davis is attributing her disdain of gay marriage to a figure who never spoke out against them, and even though a woman of her "godly" ways should probably be familiar with Luke 16:18 ("Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries the a wife divorced from her husband commits adultery") she's on her fourth marriage, with two of her kids born out of wedlock. The LGBT community bringing up assets to make a point in a sociological/religious debate (that the opposition has already lost mind you) seems like small potatoes to me.

 

[JSt0rm]

Marriage is a result of the agricultural revolution and subsequent land rights; ultimately a way to both guarantee that rest of society isn't stuck caring for unwanted children, and also to prevent conflicts over land and succession. It's also if you will, the birth the patriarchy, because only under this patriarchal system of laws you have beta males reproducing.

Marriage didn't exist in purely hunter-gatherer tribes, at least not nuclear families. What you had were alpha male hunters who would have their choice of the women in the tribes, would reproduce repeatedly, and beta males would die during hunter trials and not further themselves in the gene pool. If you notice when most radfems argue against the patriarchy, essentially what they are arguing against is the agricultural revolution system of 1 man, 1 woman, created largely to reduce friction over land rights, and returning more to the "natural state" where women are effectively in alpha male harems. This sort of tracks what you see statistically within online dating today for example--about 10% of the guys date 90% of the women.

You also see that when men and women are polled about the opposite gender, men tend to rate women along a bell-curve scale, whereas women consider 80% of men below average and tend to be attracted only to the top 10-20%. Women have had alot of strong evolutionary forces for hundreds of thousands of years where it was natural for most women to compete for a small number of desirable guys, and the modern post-agricultural revolution "patriarchy", aka 1-man 1-woman system, strongly interferes with women's natural instincts. Most (beta) men of course, love the patriarchy, since it's a completely artificial system that allows the 80% of the men who are beta males a chance to reproduce. Alpha males of course hate the limiting nature of the patriarchy as much as radfems since societal norms look down upon them for having "affairs."

what in the actual fuck?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Just watched a teary eyed Davis said she is in an impossible position but she will not interfere with her Deputies but licenses issued by them will not carry the county clerks approval.
Sounds suspiciously like the original solution the county proposed to her. I guess money is more important to her than her perception of sinning.

 

[steppinthrax]

Just watched a teary eyed Davis said she is in an impossible position but she will not interfere with her Deputies but licenses issued by them will not carry the county clerks approval.
Sounds suspiciously like the original solution the county proposed to her. I guess money is more important to her than her perception of sinning.

I posted this in another forum.

My strong suspicion is she is going to pretty much sign no marriage licenses and everybody will work around her dumb ass. She will fade from existence and maybe she might just f---- resign.

She is ordered not to interfere, she might and land her ass back into jail. It's interesting how these GOP candidates are backing her ass.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I posted this in another forum.

My strong suspicion is she is going to pretty much sign no marriage licenses and everybody will work around her dumb ass. She will fade from existence and maybe she might just f---- resign.

She is ordered not to interfere, she might and land her ass back into jail. It's interesting how these GOP candidates are backing her ass.

Real test is does she get elected again.

 

[steppinthrax]

Real test is does she get elected again.

That will all depend how it rolls out!!!!!

LOL

If she is looked at as a hero, she will become "gold plated" and re-elected, maybe even higher salary etc...

My suspicion is no, then she will fade out of existence along with OJ Simpson, Lorena Bobbitt and Anita Hill.

 

[HomerJS]

Just watched a teary eyed Davis said she is in an impossible position but she will not interfere with her Deputies but licenses issued by them will not carry the county clerks approval.
Sounds suspiciously like the original solution the county proposed to her. I guess money is more important to her than her perception of sinning.

Remember its the right sinning, according to her.

 

[Genx87]

I posted this in another forum.

My strong suspicion is she is going to pretty much sign no marriage licenses and everybody will work around her dumb ass. She will fade from existence and maybe she might just f---- resign.

She is ordered not to interfere, she might and land her ass back into jail. It's interesting how these GOP candidates are backing her ass.

It is sadly predictable that Huckabee and Cruz would back such an asshole. Why is her past of cheating husbands with future husbands not being drilled upon by the MSM? Who has done more to damage the sanctity of marriage? Her or the gay people she opposes getting married? Where was her christian fanaticism when it came to cheating on her husbands?

 

[steppinthrax]

It is sadly predictable that Huckabee and Cruz would back such an asshole. Why is her past of cheating husbands with future husbands not being drilled upon by the MSM? Who has done more to damage the sanctity of marriage? Her or the gay people she opposes getting married? Where was her christian fanaticism when it came to cheating on her husbands?

Because conservatives like to NITPICK and choose material from certain events to fit their agenda and get their point across.

Yep, she's had a whole string of husbands.

Yep, how would this event unfold if a Muslim man refused to grant marriage licenses to gays (would we get the same type of publicity).

Also, since she's a strong believer of the Bible, how about let's be consistent and file the bible to the rule. What else dose it say in there about other circumstances!!!!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Remember its the right sinning, according to her.

I was talking about allowing gay marriage in her office.

 

[Mike64]

but licenses issued by them will not carry the county clerks approval.

What is she, my grandmother?

BIG HAIRY FUCKING DEAL! Who gives even half a rat's ass whether a state license carries the "county clerk's approval" or not?

Sounds suspiciously like the original solution the county proposed to her.

Ya think maybe?

I guess money is more important to her than her perception of sinning.

Well doesn't that just come as the shock of the century...

 

[Mike64]

Where was her christian fanaticism when it came to cheating on her husbands?

According to her personal timeline as discussed in the various news media, she was a Christian, but not yet a fanatic, when she cheated on her husband.:biggrin:

 

[Mike64]

and maybe she might just f---- resign.

There's not even a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. (Unless maybe she get's a better offer, like on some Bible-thumper lecture circuit...)