Hillary Clinton

• FatHobbit

  

  HitsRus;1748656 wrote: Many Christians would be okay with Gay civil unions, recognizing that we live in a secular society with a constitution that guarantees the practice of many religions or non religions. What they object to is the co-opting and equivocating of the term "marriage", which they view to be a union between a man and a woman accordingly, an affront to their religion.
  So much wiser it would have been, to have just called it a civil union, and sidestepped the issue with Christians.... But that's not how politics works with the left, does it?

  I don't understand how a gay marriage is any different than Muslim or atheist marriage. IMHO calling it a civil union would make it less than a marriage. Why do Christians get define what a marriage is?
• Heretic

  

  FatHobbit;1748701 wrote:I don't understand how a gay marriage is any different than Muslim or atheist marriage. IMHO calling it a civil union would make it less than a marriage. Why do Christians get define what a marriage is?

  Because the instant Christians are told they can't define something, they're "oppressed".
• Heretic

  

  QuakerOats;1748678 wrote:Yes, that is what the judge said; of course this judge (appointed by Bush) has turned out to be a radical liberal and obviously wants to be viewed as a hero by the progressives.
  
  There have been no incremental taxpayer dollars spent; the same paychecks were issued regardless of who did what.
  
  She is not a victim per se, but her religion is definitely under assault in a country where one would think otherwise.
  
  We go overboard to 'accommodate' a plethora of groups, yet simultaneously trample the beliefs of many others.

  First sentence: Whining. "OMG THOSE RADICAL LIBERALS ACTUALLY PUNISHING PEOPLE FOR NOT DOING THEIR JOB!!!"
  
  Second sentence: Ignoring simple truth. Paying someone their salary for not doing their job is wasted money. Paying someone their salary for doing their job is completely different.
  
  Third sentence: Laughable sensationalism. No one is stopping anyone from practicing their religion, going to church and so on. If "telling people that cherry-picking certain Bible verses as a reason to discriminate is wrong while ignoring others because it doesn't fit an agenda (ie: how said clerk is at 4 husbands and counting, which according to the Bible is adultery which is one of the 10 Commandments)" is putting religion under assault, that means that said religion has run its course.
  
  Fourth sentence: And the funny thing is that in this scenario, the clerk was going overboard to accommodate her personal beliefs and trampling those of others. PROTIP: If you have a job where one of your potential duties goes against your beliefs, you can either keep your beliefs intact or maintain said job. Not refuse to do that part of your job and act like you're the "victim" when repercussions come down.
• superman

  FatHobbit;1748701 wrote:I don't understand how a gay marriage is any different than Muslim or atheist marriage. IMHO calling it a civil union would make it less than a marriage. Why do Christians get define what a marriage is?

  Christians don't. Thousands of years of history do.
• fish82

  

  gut;1748655 wrote:Bullshit. Sounds like someone else needs to look up "persecution". Offensive is still offensive, obviously when it's intended to offend like you said with "Bible Thumper". It's still derogatory, it's still an attack, and it's still oppression of many people's religious choice who have done NOTHING to actively oppress GLBA. It's a pure double standard (first world problems), the typical liberal BS that offends people who don't otherwise give a damn about the issue.
  
  And most people when they're getting a cake don't say "oh, I've been divorced" or "oh, I've had premarital sex". Besides being rather obvious when two men or two women get married, many activist GLBA tend to make a point of letting you know it, either because they enjoy being offended or because they're looking for a bigoted reaction to post and share to score points with their activist friends.
  
  And the other argument is also weak. I'd stop short of calling people hypocrites who strive to be better but fail - that's why there's confession/forgiveness/support groups. Just because people are weak or make mistakes doesn't mean they can't demand more of themselves and others. And divorce is something in the past, whereas gay marriage is commitment to an ongoing sin (and if they're marrying in a Catholic church, then the marriage was annulled or they've been forgiven). You may disagree with that, but all the false equivalences in the world aren't going to make it a contradiction of faith.

  
• QuakerOats

  Heretic;1748703 wrote:First sentence: Whining. "OMG THOSE RADICAL LIBERALS ACTUALLY PUNISHING PEOPLE FOR NOT DOING THEIR JOB!!!"
  
  Second sentence: Ignoring simple truth. Paying someone their salary for not doing their job is wasted money. Paying someone their salary for doing their job is completely different.
  
  Third sentence: Laughable sensationalism. No one is stopping anyone from practicing their religion, going to church and so on. If "telling people that cherry-picking certain Bible verses as a reason to discriminate is wrong while ignoring others because it doesn't fit an agenda (ie: how said clerk is at 4 husbands and counting, which according to the Bible is adultery which is one of the 10 Commandments)" is putting religion under assault, that means that said religion has run its course.
  
  Fourth sentence: And the funny thing is that in this scenario, the clerk was going overboard to accommodate her personal beliefs and trampling those of others. PROTIP: If you have a job where one of your potential duties goes against your beliefs, you can either keep your beliefs intact or maintain said job. Not refuse to do that part of your job and act like you're the "victim" when repercussions come down.

  
  When will the liberal media go after the employees at Immigration and Customs Enforcement who WILL NOT DO THEIR JOB and deport criminals that are turned over to them by law enforcement? When will they be imprisoned for NOT DOING THEIR JOB?
  
  She did her job; she just did not do it the way you and the progressives wanted her to do it.
  
  Christianity is under major assault in this country, and it is coming from atheism, muslims, earth worshipers, and other progressives.
  
  The liberal policy agenda is indeed trampling upon the beliefs of Christians, and through the use of liberal judges succeeding in doing so.
• Heretic

  

  QuakerOats;1748714 wrote:When will the liberal media go after the employees at Immigration and Customs Enforcement who WILL NOT DO THEIR JOB and deport criminals that are turned over to them by law enforcement? When will they be imprisoned for NOT DOING THEIR JOB?
  
  She did her job; she just did not do it the way you and the progressives wanted her to do it.
  
  Christianity is under major assault in this country, and it is coming from atheism, muslims, earth worshipers, and other progressives.
  
  The liberal policy agenda is indeed trampling upon the beliefs of Christians, and through the use of liberal judges succeeding in doing so.

  Ah, she did her job. And that is why people who were legally allowed to get married were being turned away, even after people higher than her on the food chain told her that it was her job. Bang-up job of doing her job there!
  
  Along with the requisite whining about liberal media. By your standards, the media deserves a free pass on however they choose to do their work. After all, they're just doing their job the way they feel they should and if that isn't the way others feel they should do it, whatevs!
• QuakerOats

  So, it is ok if ICE refuses to do its job in deporting tens of thousands illegal criminals, but it is not ok for a backwoods clerk to not hand out a gay union license to a couple people thereby resulting in a prison term.
  
  I just want to make sure I understand that correctly.
• HitsRus

  

  ^^^ at Hobbit...they don't. But why does anyone else, doing something new, get to automatically use the term which has traditionally meant something specific to a large group of people ? Why do certain groups get to define whose "oppressed", and who gets to be offensive to other groups with impugnity? I don't understand that mentality.
• Heretic

  

  QuakerOats;1748726 wrote:So, it is ok if ICE refuses to do its job in deporting tens of thousands illegal criminals, but it is not ok for a backwoods clerk to not hand out a gay union license to a couple people thereby resulting in a prison term.
  
  I just want to make sure I understand that correctly.

  Considering I never said anything about ICE, your understanding is about what it tends to be on most issues. The second part, though, is correct. The woman refused a court order and, therefore was found in contempt of court. Ergo, jail.
  
  As to that issue, I wasn't overly familiar with it, so I did a quick Google search ("ICE refusing to deport illegals" or something similar). Most stuff I found was from mid-late last year and seems to indicate that the issue goes beyond ICE, though. From this article (and it's on a site that probably won't get you to cry about left-wing reporting!!!!) -- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/19/local-jails-refusing-to-hold-illegal-immigrant-offenders-forcing-feds-to-track/ -- it seems that a lot of jails are refusing to hold these prisoners, which makes it kind of tough for ICE to get them out of the country. In that case, it seems more a problem inherent in the system as a whole than something that can be blamed on one specific part of that system.
• gut

  HitsRus;1748731 wrote:^^^ at Hobbit...they don't. But why does anyone else, doing something new, get to automatically use the term which has traditionally meant something specific to a large group of people ? Why do certain groups get to define whose "oppressed", and who gets to be offensive to other groups with impugnity? I don't understand that mentality.

  It's not just about being equal or whole, it's about payback and revenge - "you denied us, now we're going to deny you". You can't gin up an aggrieved mob and not give them reprisal.
  
  Liberals love talking about fairness and compassion, but they're quite a vindictive bunch.
• like_that

  

  gut;1748737 wrote:It's not just about being equal or whole, it's about payback and revenge - "you denied us, now we're going to deny you". You can't gin up an aggrieved mob and not give them reprisal.
  
  Liberals love talking about fairness and compassion, but they're quite a vindictive bunch.

  This.
  
  I am all for equality, but it really rubs me the wrong way with how they go about it. I thought the point was to preach tolerance for all, instead it's just creates more tension. Good luck getting people to shift toward tolerance when you come at them like that.
• gut

  like_that;1748738 wrote:This.
  
  I am all for equality, but it really rubs me the wrong way with how they go about it. I thought the point was to preach tolerance for all, instead it's just creates more tension. Good luck getting people to shift toward tolerance when you come at them like that.

  Don't get equal, get even!
• FatHobbit

  

  HitsRus;1748731 wrote:^^^ at Hobbit...they don't. But why does anyone else, doing something new, get to automatically use the term which has traditionally meant something specific to a large group of people ?

  Oh come on. They aren't doing anything new. That would be like saying it's not sex because they are the same sex.
  
  I can't think of one single activity that has a different name depending on if the participants are the same sex or not. Maybe that exists but I can't think of one.
  
  

  HitsRus;1748731 wrote:Why do certain groups get to define whose "oppressed", and who gets to be offensive to other groups with impugnity? I don't understand that mentality.

  In this case, I think it's fairly obvious who is being oppressed. She had a job to do and she refused. It would be no different IMHO than if she decided she wasn't going to hand out marriage licenses to ugly people. It wasn't her job to decide who gets to be married.
• FatHobbit

  

  gut;1748737 wrote:It's not just about being equal or whole, it's about payback and revenge - "you denied us, now we're going to deny you". You can't gin up an aggrieved mob and not give them reprisal.
  
  Liberals love talking about fairness and compassion, but they're quite a vindictive bunch.

  I'm not following how anyone wanted any payback. She refused a court order. There are typically consequences for that.
• HitsRus

  

  I am not supporting the woman. If she was unable to do her job due to religious reasons then she needs to resign.... And there should be no consequences in regards to her civil service and / or pension. Very simply put, if she did not resign, and refused to do her job, then she should be fired. I don't know why it was necessary for this to be in court, and why she should be incarcerated.
  
  My point regarding the term marriage is retrospect to how same sex unions became legal in the first place. As far as the government is concerned, it is (or should be)about the rights and benefits legally bestowed on people who commit to being a family, regardless of terminology. "Marriage" has traditional religious connotations , and in deference to that, other term could have been used so as not to antagonize religious people.
  But again, that doesn't seem to be how we do business in this country anymore. It's all about being confrontational, uncompromising, winning, and spiking the ball in your opponents face.
• BoatShoes

  Heretic;1748703 wrote:First sentence: Whining. "OMG THOSE RADICAL LIBERALS ACTUALLY PUNISHING PEOPLE FOR NOT DOING THEIR JOB!!!"
  
  Second sentence: Ignoring simple truth. Paying someone their salary for not doing their job is wasted money. Paying someone their salary for doing their job is completely different.
  
  Third sentence: Laughable sensationalism. No one is stopping anyone from practicing their religion, going to church and so on. If "telling people that cherry-picking certain Bible verses as a reason to discriminate is wrong while ignoring others because it doesn't fit an agenda (ie: how said clerk is at 4 husbands and counting, which according to the Bible is adultery which is one of the 10 Commandments)" is putting religion under assault, that means that said religion has run its course.
  
  Fourth sentence: And the funny thing is that in this scenario, the clerk was going overboard to accommodate her personal beliefs and trampling those of others. PROTIP: If you have a job where one of your potential duties goes against your beliefs, you can either keep your beliefs intact or maintain said job. Not refuse to do that part of your job and act like you're the "victim" when repercussions come down.

  Just imagine Quacker's completely opposite opinion if she engaged in the exact same behavior and refused to issue marriage licenses because she wanted the Clerk's office to unionize....
• BoatShoes

  HitsRus;1748751 wrote:I am not supporting the woman. If she was unable to do her job due to religious reasons then she needs to resign.... And there should be no consequences in regards to her civil service and / or pension. Very simply put, if she did not resign, and refused to do her job, then she should be fired. I don't know why it was necessary for this to be in court, and why she should be incarcerated.
  
  My point regarding the term marriage is retrospect to how same sex unions became legal in the first place. As far as the government is concerned, it is (or should be)about the rights and benefits legally bestowed on people who commit to being a family, regardless of terminology. "Marriage" has traditional religious connotations , and in deference to that, other term could have been used so as not to antagonize religious people.
  But again, that doesn't seem to be how we do business in this country anymore. It's all about being confrontational, uncompromising, winning, and spiking the ball in your opponents face.

  This argumen has already been hashed out. The parties to a contract do not determine what kind of contract is taking place. The subject matter and promises exchanged do.
  
  The exchange of marital vows is a marriage and that does not change simply because homosexuals were oppressed for centuries.
  
  
  I mean jeez...maybe we should have come up with a different term for a mortgage when women were allowed to own property so as not to antagonize the men.
  
  Wanting to be treated the same and have the equal protection of the law is not confrontational!
• BoatShoes

  HitsRus;1748654 wrote:F
  Ugh.... This is the kind of gobbledygook that some liberal college professor sold to you, ....and you bought, in "Diversity class" freshman year in college.
  It really is just an excuse for " the oppressed" to behave badly, without being held to the same laws and standards as everyone else. How incredibly convenient to be part of the self defined persecuted class.

  For what it is worth I agree it is not the best idea as far as changing hearts and minds goes to go around yelling "Bible Thumper!" as decorum and kindess go much farther.
  
  With that said it is not hard to see who is in the persecuted class when they do not have the equal protection of the law. Indeed, African-Americans sitting at Whites Only lunch counters and getting the shit kicked out of them was "behaving badly" and not being held to the "same laws and standards as everyone else" - laws and standards crafted to oppress and persecute a minority.
  
  Necessary Caveate to Pre-empt Derp: LGBT folks were oppressed and persecuted but I am not saying they had it as bad as blacks!
• BoatShoes

  gut;1748655 wrote:Bullshit. Sounds like someone else needs to look up "persecution". Offensive is still offensive, obviously when it's intended to offend like you said with "Bible Thumper".

  LoL you silly goose. I repeated the phrase "Bible Thumper!" because you used it and I did not use it to offend. I was merely repeating the phrase you used and explained to you why it is not as bad for an oppressed minority to use offensive language to express disdain against their oppressors as it is for the oppressor to use offensive language against the oppressed.
  
  For what it is worth, I don't think it is the best political strategy because we end up with silly arguments like you're making here...it's like saying "Why was it ok for Malcolm X to decry "whities" when white people can't call them "N******?"
• BoatShoes

  gut;1748655 wrote:Bullshit. Sounds like someone else needs to look up "persecution". Offensive is still offensive, obviously when it's intended to offend like you said with "Bible Thumper". It's still derogatory, it's still an attack, and it's still oppression of many people's religious choice who have done NOTHING to actively oppress GLBA. It's a pure double standard (first world problems), the typical liberal BS that offends people who don't otherwise give a damn about the issue.

  You have to be in power to oppress. Hence, it is not an oppression the gay rights movement to use offensive language in reference to their oppressors.
  
  Oppression, a noun
  

  noun1.
  the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjustmanner.

  
  It was not an oppression when Macolm X decried "whities" like it was when the white oppressive establishment decried "n******." Plenty of white people were in support of Civil Rights but the non-derpy could understand why Malcolm X would denigrate "whities" generally. Non-Derpy Christians who are supportive of gay rights understand this as well.
  
  You're a smart guy and the difference is not that hard to understand but I think your contempt for liberals and SJW's who are affiliated with the Gay Rights movement is preventing you from seeing the obvious.
  
  (Again - I don't really think using derogatory language is the best political tactic).
• BoatShoes

  HitsRus;1748656 wrote:Be careful not to generalize here... No Doubt there are some assholes that are as you say, but that would be an incorrect interpretation. Many Christian sects openly accept gays... Even the pope.
  While "gayness" is a sin in the eyes of Christians, we are ALL sinners in the eyes of The Lord. Their sin should not be construed to be worse than anyone else's. The difference here, concerning Josh Duggar, is that Josh Duggar is not trying to institutionalize his sin.
  Many Christians would be okay with Gay civil unions, recognizing that we live in a secular society with a constitution that guarantees the practice of many religions or non religions. What they object to is the co-opting and equivocating of the term "marriage", which they view to be a union between a man and a woman accordingly, an affront to their religion.
  So much wiser it would have been, to have just called it a civil union, and sidestepped the issue with Christians.... But that's not how politics works with the left, does it?

  And this is the classic cop-out that reveals the hypocrisy. Divorce, Pre-Marital Sex, Pornography, infidelity, mass anti-christian consumerism and materialism, websites that promote and encourage infidelity -these things are already institutionalized and there is no organized Christian opposition to their institutionalization!
  
  These are all "sins" that have been institutionalized. Divorced people trying to get married and having it sanctioned by the state is the institutionalization of "sin." The 90-99% of people who bang before marriage and then seek to get married in churches is the institutionalization of "sin." No-fault divorce is the "institutionalization of "sin." Pornography and strip clubs are the institutionalization of "sin."
  
  Josh Duggar's "sins" are already institutionalized and there is no organized Christian opposition against it. Where are the christians trying to make websites like Ashley Madison illegal because it is an "affront to their religion" to use your language?
  
  Oh right, they will suddenly be all for liberal and free government then (because they know the battle is lost) but will continue to be authoritarians when it comes to gays.
  
  

  So much wiser it would have been, to have just called it a civil union, and sidestepped the issue with Christians.... But that's not how politics works with the left, does it?

  We have discussed this in the past.
  
  "So much wiser it would have been,, to have just called it "balloting" instead of "voting," and sidestepped the issue with all those cantankerous men who didn't think women should vote....But that's not how politics works with the left, does it?"
• HitsRus

  

  With that said it is not hard to see who is in the persecuted class when they do not have the equal protection of the law. Indeed, African-Americans sitting at Whites Only lunch counters and getting the shit kicked out of them was "behaving badly" and not being held to the "same laws and standards as everyone else" - laws and standards crafted to oppress and persecute a minority.

  ... And this is 2015 not 1960. Things have changed in 55 years.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1748658 wrote:I was just about to say something like. Liberals are always saying "don't generalize" or "that GROUP of violent protestors" aren't representative, but then they're always talking about INDIVIDUALS like Duggar or that KY County Clerk to demagogue Christians.
  
  It's hard to take anything they say as serious and well-thought out. The more desperate they get, the more absurd the arguments become. I realize only the radicals tend to get heard, but that doesn't make them any less extreme or ridiculous.

  Now, now you are a smart guy so let's try a little harder to understand the point. I am not saying that Josh Duggar or the County Clerk are representative of Christians. I am not generalizing their individual behavior to the whole.
  
  What I am saying is the problem is that other "institutionalized sinful behavior" like Josh Duggar's does not get the condemnation or massive organized protest from the modern Christian movement that gay marriage does.
  
  Basically, the only "sins" the modern Christian movement seems to care about are homosexual sex and abortion.
  
  They hide behind the "institutionalization" argument saying that gay marriage legalization will "institutionalize" the "sin of gay sex." and that legalized abortion "institutionalizes" the "sin" of murder.
  
  The problem is we do not see similar arguments applied to other "sinful" behavior that is already institutionalized and faces no organized Christian opposition. In these cases God and the congregation always provides forgiveness. In these cases it is always a temporary bout of "sinfulness" (despite a demonstrable, repeated history of living this way) but gay people can't help that they are attracted to people of the same sex are "unrepentant sinners."
  
  When I see Christians out front of Walgreens protesting oral contraception; out front of correctional facilities protesting the death penalty; when I see Christians protesting in the streets and marching on washington citing Luke 15:17 asking how many have food to spare while others starve to death like Father James Renshaw Cox; When I see Christians trying to hand people Bible's on my way into Christie's or Larry Flynts - I might consider their virulent opposition to gay marriage to be a little more coherent and sincere.
  
  And so, the problem is that you don't see Christians jumping on the cross in the face of other "sins" - just gay marriage. Let's see a Clerk refuse to issue licenses to people who have been divorced. I got married last year and when you get a marriage license they ask you if you have ever been previously married. Let's see a clerk refuse to issue a license because somebody has previously been married in the name of Christianity.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1748655 wrote:
  And most people when they're getting a cake don't say "oh, I've been divorced" or "oh, I've had premarital sex". Besides being rather obvious when two men or two women get married, many activist GLBA tend to make a point of letting you know it, either because they enjoy being offended or because they're looking for a bigoted reaction to post and share to score points with their activist friends.

  A virtuous Christian Cake Baker might ask if the people wanting to get married have been previously married, no? Seeing as how they want to honor Christ and lift him and his commandments in all that they do?
  
  Also, when you get a marriage license the clerk asks you if you have previously been married. Where are the good Christ-like Clerks denying marriage licenses to divorced people in the name of Christ?
  
  If you are going to appeal to your religious creed do it consistently please if you want to stand on a soapbox.