Gay Rights

Exactly, aside from the gay rights argument she's just a shoddy worker.

 

Absolutely. Morality-wise, I don't give a damn whether something is illegal or not. If it's wrong, it's wrong, and if it's right, it's right; a socially constructed law does not change that.

It's irrelevant though, because the fact of the matter is that it is illegal, and as someone who works for the government, her job is to follow the laws put in place by it.

Again, absolutely, and again, whether or not something's legal, doesn't change whether or not it's right or wrong.

No, not at all. Personally, I don't believe that Christianity is a logical belief, BUT, it has absolutely no connection to me believing that gay marriage is right. I do side with belief that any Christian that is against gay marriage is wrong, but any Christian that's not a bigot isn't against gay marriage. So, I don't at all believe that Christianity is wrong just because of gay marriage, I just believe that those who don't support gay marriage are wrong.

It doesn't matter if Christians think it is "right" or not. It doesn't affect them at all, and they can't control others by their beliefs.

They were fired from their jobs for trying to be controlling jerks who believe they have power over how other people can live.

That's what you Christians who support discrimination don't seem to understand; it's irrelevant whether or not you think that being gay is "right", because gay people aren't doing anything at all that personally affects you, but by discriminating against them and attempting to take away their rights, you are hugely negatively affecting them

That's because you can't deny people service because of their orientation. How hard is that to understand?? AND, it's not like it's even something that people can control. Someone who's gay can't decide "Oh, I guess I'll be straight instead, so that people will stop being jerks to me". No, it doesn't work like that. If someone's gay, they're gay; end of story. So, why is it acceptable to deny someone equal rights because of a natural quality of theirs, that they have no control over?

No one is hurting any other people by wanting to have equal rights and wanting to be treated like a human being.

Disagreeing over whether or not same-sex marriage is "right", is an entirely different subject. There's absolutely, nothing at all wrong with it, but whether or not you agree with that it completely irrelevant to whether or not gay people should have rights. No matter how strongly you think that being gay is "wrong", you can't take away the ability for others to have equal rights, just because you don't believe that their orientation is "right".

If you're not open to the idea of other opinions, why would you post this here, in a debate thread? The purpose of a debate is to debate/argue about our opinions.

 

I kind of want to point out that Kim Davis isn't allowing any of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses. Most of the clerks (her son being the only exception) are willing to issue the marriage licenses. She's abusing her power by being in contempt of court. This is beyond religious freedom. I don't care what side you're on, but she's a hypocrite and idiot.

 

So that makes you right and her wrong? "I don't care what side you're on" Ok, fine. Strong language, but I understand.
"But she's a hypocrite and an idiot." Hypocrite definition - a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. Um, no. If the clerks disagreed, she's not the only one in the state. There are other people that issue marriage licenses too, they can work there instead. Plus, there haven't been any news that they'd rebelled against her or anything for believing what she did. Now that they're free to issue them to gays because she's in jail, what are you going to do? They're not bound to the ban anymore. End of story.
Idiot definition - A person lacking intelligence or common sense, a stupid person. She knew what she was doing. She knew she'd get in trouble for not wanting to issue licenses to gays. But she's not the first that's willing to go to that extent for her beliefs. Recently, 21 Egyptian-Christians were beheaded for not professing their faith to the god that ISIS worshipped. Instead, they proudly announced that God was the one true god. What happened? They lost their lives. You're only saying what you said because it went against your beliefs and that because she willingly went to jail. Oh, crazy right? No one wants to live in prison. But she believed that it was worth it because she trusted in God to help her. But who are you to judge? You aren't in control of her life, nor am I. What will become of her, no one knows. We'll just have to see.

 

Why should people have to go somewhere else when they are well within their rights to get a license in that county?

Welp, she's in jail for contempt of court. She will remain behind bars until the case is moot. There's a few ways she can get out of jail. A) Resign B) Lose the next election C) Get impeached 4) Issue marriage licenses.

Even behind bars, she's still trying to stop the marriage licenses in the county.

I'm not saying this about all Christians. I'm saying what is law and what isn't law. She is blocking the county from issuing marriage licenses and is failing to carry out the will of the government (Which may I remind you pays her with tax payer money). Wow, you're comparing this to ISIS? Aside from the fact that ISIS is throwing gays off of tall buildings, this has nothing to do with being a martyr. Kim Davis is not a martyr.

 

Are you...Are you comparing ISIS who are HUGE extremist and don't even follow their religion correctly to this...

 

This'll be fun.

This doesn't make much sense to me, would you care to clarify what you meant?

I actually kind of agree with you here, she isn't necessarily a hypocrite. But she is still wrong in the strictest sense. She is acting directly contrary not only to the law, but to her superiors who have told her to change her actions. She refused, and she's paying the price.

Again, they shouldn't have to. That's undue discrimination based on personal beliefs, and should play no part in how a paid employee is treated.

Actually, as the county clerk she needs to authorise anyone under her to give out licenses. She refuses to do that, even though people in her office have said they would give out licenses to those who seek them.

But she clearly is lacking in common sense - the law and those who uphold/interpret it have all told her to issue the licenses. She still refused. That's pretty stupid if you don't want to end up in jail and out of a job.

No. This comparison is not acceptable. Kim Davis is nothing like those who are currently experiencing the extreme barbarism from ISIS. She's an ignorant, close-minded, silly woman who doesn't want to obey the law. She is fixated in her delusions of denying humans their civil rights and as such is paying the consequence for her actions.

She can have the opinion that gay people can't marry, fine - I would disagree with that opinion but I would happily let her have it. But she's gone one step further by using what modicum of power she has over the lives of other to discriminate against them. What she's doing is illegal and cruel.

"She trusted in God to help her" - I don't know what to make of that statement. I also don't know how many times I can continue to say the same thing over and over; what she was doing was illegal. She was treating other humans beings as lesser than her for what many would label a terrible reason.

Who are we to judge? Who is she to judge who can and cannot be married, something that is no longer purely a religious institution. The irony there is palpable.

 

What I meant here is that often atheists accuse Christians for not caring about what side the atheists or anyone else of another religion are on. What I saw here, well, was the opposite. I'm not accusing Skaros of anything, just wanted to point out that other people aside from Christians do it to. Don't take it too harshly, Skaros, please.

See, if she were a hypocrite, she would be giving out the licenses against her own beliefs. I agree with you that not allowing her clerks to give it out was wrong; if I were in her place, I would let the clerks do whatever they need to do and I do whatever I need as well. I would not interfere with their work because of my beliefs, as it is my choice to follow my beliefs and their choice to follow theirs.

She felt like following her beliefs was more important than her job and not being in jail. Because she could not give up what she did in her beliefs, she went to jail. Plus, the law is not someone's belief. It was made to attempt to please everyone in the country. Because most everyone is different, people are somehow bound to disagree with it one way or another. It may be a lot of people's sense of direction in terms of right and wrong, but it is not everyone's. Here, she decided that giving up her job was worth keeping her beliefs. Yes, that makes her a hardcore Christian, but that doesn't mean she's stupid. It's her base for right and wrong, not the law.

The concept is the same. You profess your faith and work upon it, you lose a big part of your life, or all of it. Jail's only the first step to America discriminating against Christians, mainly for their reason to refuse service to gays. I don't mean that in the future America will go to the extent of giving death penalties to Christians, but in no way am I saying that that will never happen either. Again, their base for right and wrong is the Bible, not the law. The Bible did say that those who announce their faith and are persecuted because of it are doing their work correctly, that there will be a lot of trouble for Christians as they live out their beliefs. But in the end, after the Second Coming, they will receive a great reward in heaven. End of story. Now before you quote me on saying it is Christian bs, let me ask you this: If you were a "hardcore" Christian, in her place, what would you have done differently?

Under the law, she's doing something wrong. Under God, she is doing something right. Illegal in the world, righteous in God's eyes. As big as a marriage license may be, it's just one thing. She's not going after them, hunting them down, or suing them for asking to get married. At one point, everyone treats someone else has lesser than themselves because of a trait or quality that they don't have. Some is for what they work for; people that work in Microsoft are too high to care for someone who does window washing, for example. Others are for how smart they are; 9th graders taking the upper level math class may scrutinize their peers for taking Algebra 1, the standard math class for 9th graders. There's a variety of things that people will try to look down on others for. It's just one thing. Yes, it's illegal. No, it doesn't make her any less stupid than any of us are.

 

Oh, don't get me wrong. I know where you're getting at.

See, the issue here is that she's going against the law and expecting the law to just forgive her. I honestly feel like she would have a better case if it weren't for her stopping her deputy clerks from issuing marriage licenses. I can see what you mean about her not being stupid for her beliefs, but her beliefs shouldn't triumph over others'.

 

Ok, I understand where you're getting at. To be honest, I wouldn't have done she did if I were in her place either.

 

Hi Elsa. I've already replied in length on another thread (Is God real?), and I'm seeing similar arguments crop up again and again. Could you take a look at my other reply too? I'd appreciate it, thank you.

Yes, I care whether someone is a Christian. More specifically, which parts of Christianity they adhere to.

I want to oppose any harmful actions and harmful ideas. To change the world for the better, and make it a better place. This is why I hate most religions. Christianity in particular is incredibly harmful, and is (and has been) responsible for many atrocities the world over.

Just to name a few? Promoting anti-scientific claims, homophobia, xenophobia, intolerance toward non-believers, teaching people not to question (faith, arguably the worst of the lot), the burning of 'witches' in Africa (parents burning their children at the stake, adhering to the Bible), the promotion and regulation of slavery, the idea that some people deserve infinite punishment for a finite crime, sex-negative views....

...I could go on, really. Beliefs influence actions, and actions have real-world consequences. That's why I dislike Christianity. Because it promotes ideas that I consider to be immoral (that impede on the well-being of sentient life).

In this story, Christianity makes yet another unwelcome appearance, promoting the discrimination of homosexuals. If Kim was opposing inter-racial marriage, or womens-rights, would you be apologising/defending her actions, in the way that you are here?

That's not the problem here. It's that, she uses the Bible as justification for her actions. Then, she ignores the Bible's messages when it suits her. This makes her a hypocrite. If she obeyed the Bible to the letter, she would be punished for being divorced multiple times (among other things). The hypocrisy on display here is a logical fallacy also known as 'Special Pleading'.

Would she want to live by someone else's religious values? Would she want to be forced to follow Shariah law? No? Then why force others to follow the Christian doctrine?

This is another difference between you and I. I would step in if they acted on harmful beliefs. If they started harming others because of what they believe, I'd have the balls to stand up for what is 'right'. Which is exactly what's happening here in this thread.

She didn't give it up, she was forced to 'give it up' by law. Quick question for you, Elsa. Would you defend the actions of ISIS in the same way?

They publicly behead and crucify children that do not follow some of the rules/guidelines set out in Islam. Would you say...

"Yes, well they are hardcore Muslims. But that doesn't mean they are stupid. It's just their base for right or wrong."

False. Some of us have no 'faith'. I in fact, despise it. It is the antithesis to evidence, which I am a huge proponent of. And I never had any 'faith' in a god to begin with, I've never been a Christian or a Theist.

If you were arguing against someone else, that believed based on 'faith'? You may have a point. I don't, regarding any of my beliefs.

This is probably the most troubling thing I've heard you say on the forums.

You seem to think that Christians are being unfairly discriminated... because they're homophobic (and act on it) and deny equal-rights to minority groups?

Question. Do you feel the same way towards Muslims? If they behead someone in the street because their Islamic doctrine tells them so, are you discriminating against them for practicing their beliefs?

I'm really worried by what you've said here. You think that religious beliefs come before human-rights. That it's unfair to stop people action on religious beliefs, even if it harms others. But... only for Christianity, right? This is also incredibly hypocritical.

Oh man, here we go. The persecution complex is strong with this one. The overwhelming majority of America is Christian. There are countless laws and policies that cater (unfairly) to Christians and Christianity. You can't even get elected without professing some sort of belief in the Christian god.

Do you think Muslims can complain in the same way?

"Oh, first you want to lock us up for not letting us practice the Q'uran, the next thing you'll want is to kill us!"

This, is craziness. You do not get to infringe on the human-rights of others. If Nazi-ism became an religion, would Hitler be justified in saying that it's unfair for you to lock him up for not being allowed to practice his religious beliefs?

Yes, after 2000 years of getting away with crimes against humanity, we're finally taking affirmative actions against this harmful religious doctrine. We're putting the well-being of humans before an old book. And it's about damn time.

And the Muslims will receive 72 virgins and eternal paradise if they die a martyr. Do you want to go on record and say that Muslims should stand up for their religious beliefs too, no matter what the law is?

Our current understanding as a species leads us to believe she is acting immoral. It's not just an arbitrary set of rules. We can use science, reason, logic and evidence to prove that she's 'wrong'. That being gay isn't a choice. That is isn't unnatural. That 'gay sex' won't affect or harm anyone else.

And again I will ask you, do you condone the actions of violent or oppressive Muslims to enforce their religious beliefs to discriminate against others?

"Under Allah, we are doing something right. Illegal in the West, righteous in Allah's eyes."

Fighting for the execution of gays and non-believers, advocating and spreading pseudo-scientific quackery, and oppressing whatever group their holy books tell them to.

You are not much more justified than an extremist Muslim. But instead of defending the slaughter of gay people, you're defending that they shouldn't have equal rights. That the Christian doctrine comes before any human-rights issues. All based on a holy book.

Yes, and one more thing we can get right.

I wonder if you would have said the same thing about 'Equal rights for women'. If you would have told feminists or MLK that their cause is JUST ONE THING. It's one issue, sure. But a big one. Just as this one is.

No-one said that she was. She's standing in direct opposition to basic human-rights.

At one point, everyone treats someone else has lesser than themselves because of a trait or quality that they don't have.

Sure, we realise that as fallible humans, we make mistakes. That's the difference between you and. I seek to correct them wherever possible. You just brush them aside because 'everyone makes mistakes at some point or another'.

Illegal AND immoral.

She thinks that other people should be forced to live by her religious beliefs, but she is excluded from some of these rules. I'd say that's pretty stupid. She thinks that her religion should have special rights that other religions don't. She wouldn't want to live under Sharia Law, yet she wants others to live under Christian law. I think that's pretty stupid too.

 

Right and wrong are socially constructed concepts, so...

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 7, 2015, Original Post Date: Sep 7, 2015 ---

I would advise you to leave morality out of this, as it is an ill-defined concept, and morality can be used to support the opposition.

 

And if morality were used to support the opposition argument, I'd highlight all the areas where that argument is flawed. Christian "morality" relies on faith and adhering to tenets written out by a book that's been translated and interpreted countless times, whereas humanist morality comes directly from empathy towards fellow man.

I know which morality I find more compelling.

 

Yes, by "right and wrong", I mean what I consider to be right and wrong.

 

No, they are not.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91508-morality/

(I am not saying all morality isn't socially constructed, but the concept of "morality" is also given to us by evolution. Humans are designed to live in societies, that wouldn't much work if we went around killing everyone.)

 

TIL I'm a half-sinner

 

Well, Kim Davis is released, back to more debating.

 

It was under the condition that she let her deputy clerks do their work.

Although, in a very recent article, I heard she's planning on blocking gay marriage again. http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/law...lt-marriage-licenses-after-release-from-jail/

Although, I'm not sure how trustworthy that site is. In any case, let's see how this goes.

 

If she directly or indirectly attempts to block gay marriage again, she should expect more consequences.

Also, I find it hilarious that Mike Huckabee attempted to use slavery to defend Kim Davis' standpoint.

 

Mike Huckabee is an idiot. He probably only went to the Kim Davis rally just to gain attention. It's funny because even Republicans criticize how he doesn't know how the law works.