100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Kentucky Clerk- Kim Davis Released | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I wanna know if Kim got some lady love while in jail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wanna know if Kim got some lady love while in jail.
Did 5 days in The Big House, get you some gentleman's love? Soooo... not funny 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
TMommy
on
Thu 09/10/15 09:05 AM
|
|
use of word sodomy
the word sodomy does not occur in the Bible, although it does originate from a place name in the Bible. The specific sin of Genesis 19 was forcible butt rape of a man by another man. anyone who knows the story knows that it was about the angels that were in danger of being raped by the townsmen so Lot offered up his virgin daughters to be raped instead so if this definition is to mean butt rape of one man by another then gay marriage of two women would not fall under this term nor would gay marriage of two consenting men sodomy according to webster: butt or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex which would mean any herosexual couple trying that would also fall under this term |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
TMommy
on
Thu 09/10/15 09:18 AM
|
|
how do I feel about this one...mmmmm
there are many people who hold professional jobs that deal with public on a daily basis many of them have all kinds of personal, religious views that you might not know of a doctor may not condone one of his patient's lifestyle or sexual choice but yet is still treating him a counselor may not approve of gay marriage but is still counseling a gay client who is having marriage problems a teacher may not approve of homosexuality but is teaching a class with some openly gay students if she feels this strongly about her religious convictions then she should face the consequences of her choice oh and as for my state? we were sitting here this past June MICHIGAN – On Mar. 21, 2014, a federal judge ruled Michigan's gay marriage ban unconstitutional. US District Judge Bernard Friedman wrote that "Today's decision... affirms the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail." Around 300 same-sex couples received marriage licenses before the US 6th Court of Appeals issued a stay on the decision on Mar. 22, 2014, making same-sex marriage illegal again in Michigan, pending the appeal process. On Mar. 28, 2014, US Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the marriages performed prior to the stay being issued would be recognized by the federal government: "These families will be eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages." On Nov. 6, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Friedman's ruling 2-1, thus upholding the state's gay marriage ban. An appeal to either the full bench of the court or directly to the US Supreme Court is expected. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am suppose to a be Christians. Because my parent are and well my cousin is a Jewish.And one aunt was a Catholic. Well to a be honest with you on here my opinion whole thing. I would never throw my religiousness belief down somebody throat or say your going to a hell for believing this or that. I have person that I know personally he is homosexual and well he does my hair.If he want to a get married to a man I am fine with it. But I would not shove my belief down his throat. You have Jehovah's Witnesses coming to your door and shoving their down your throat. I do not like them because it is hard to say will please leave. I am not interesting in it.It would be liked me saying to a my cousin that she should not married her husband because he is Jewish and not Christian. Yes she convert to being Jewish. I still would care about her. Beside it is just license it not ceremony. 
Tell the Jehovah's Witnesses that you are Jewish. That should get rid of them.
It actually works better, to throw holy water on the JWs. 
I had no idea that would work with JWS. I knew when we got bunch dogs at my mom house. They soon start to a avoid are house because as soon as they saw in window drive away or anywhere near house you hear bark and some growling fierce. The dogs would scared them. I just knew they stopped coming house as we got dogs. I did not go hungry I figure out away. I saw my cousin pull drive way. I lie to them. I told a doctor appointment. I told my cousin to a go as the saying goes. And we drove off. Too say the least I got away. We went to a Lees restaurant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am suppose to a be Christians. Because my parent are and well my cousin is a Jewish.And one aunt was a Catholic. Well to a be honest with you on here my opinion whole thing. I would never throw my religiousness belief down somebody throat or say your going to a hell for believing this or that. I have person that I know personally he is homosexual and well he does my hair.If he want to a get married to a man I am fine with it. But I would not shove my belief down his throat. You have Jehovah's Witnesses coming to your door and shoving their down your throat. I do not like them because it is hard to say will please leave. I am not interesting in it.It would be liked me saying to a my cousin that she should not married her husband because he is Jewish and not Christian. Yes she convert to being Jewish. I still would care about her. Beside it is just license it not ceremony.
Tell the Jehovah's Witnesses that you are Jewish. That should get rid of them.
It actually works better, to throw holy water on the JWs.
I had no idea that would work with JWS. I knew when we got bunch dogs at my mom house. They soon start to a avoid are house because as soon as they saw in window drive away or anywhere near house you hear bark and some growling fierce. The dogs would scared them. I just knew they stopped coming house as we got dogs. I did not go hungry I figure out away. I saw my cousin pull drive way. I lie to them. I told a doctor appointment. I told my cousin to a go as the saying goes. And we drove off. Too say the least I got away. We went to a Lees restaurant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
use of word sodomy the word sodomy does not occur in the Bible, although it does originate from a place name in the Bible. The specific sin of Genesis 19 was forcible butt rape of a man by another man. anyone who knows the story knows that it was about the angels that were in danger of being raped by the townsmen so Lot offered up his virgin daughters to be raped instead so if this definition is to mean butt rape of one man by another then gay marriage of two women would not fall under this term nor would gay marriage of two consenting men sodomy according to webster: butt or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex which would mean any herosexual couple trying that would also fall under this term I agree, the CURRENT use of the word sodomy is to refer to ANY **** sex' the term sodomy stemming from the story of SODOM , which was specifically about the attempted rape of men, however, the suggestion that the females be raped as well is inconsistent with the idea that non consent was the sin,,,, There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God" (Deuteronomy 23:17-18 here also, the context is referring to sex itself, comparing WHORE to SODOMITE its also not about consent,,,,but activity,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
use of word sodomy the word sodomy does not occur in the Bible, although it does originate from a place name in the Bible. The specific sin of Genesis 19 was forcible butt rape of a man by another man. anyone who knows the story knows that it was about the angels that were in danger of being raped by the townsmen so Lot offered up his virgin daughters to be raped instead so if this definition is to mean butt rape of one man by another then gay marriage of two women would not fall under this term nor would gay marriage of two consenting men sodomy according to webster: butt or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex which would mean any herosexual couple trying that would also fall under this term I agree, the CURRENT use of the word sodomy is to refer to ANY **** sex' the term sodomy stemming from the story of SODOM , which was specifically about the attempted rape of men, however, the suggestion that the females be raped as well is inconsistent with the idea that non consent was the sin,,,, There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God" (Deuteronomy 23:17-18 here also, the context is referring to sex itself, comparing WHORE to SODOMITE its also not about consent,,,,but activity,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 09/10/15 11:56 AM
|
|
how do I feel about this one...mmmmm there are many people who hold professional jobs that deal with public on a daily basis many of them have all kinds of personal, religious views that you might not know of a doctor may not condone one of his patient's lifestyle or sexual choice but yet is still treating him a counselor may not approve of gay marriage but is still counseling a gay client who is having marriage problems a teacher may not approve of homosexuality but is teaching a class with some openly gay students if she feels this strongly about her religious convictions then she should face the consequences of her choice oh and as for my state? we were sitting here this past June MICHIGAN – On Mar. 21, 2014, a federal judge ruled Michigan's gay marriage ban unconstitutional. US District Judge Bernard Friedman wrote that "Today's decision... affirms the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail." Around 300 same-sex couples received marriage licenses before the US 6th Court of Appeals issued a stay on the decision on Mar. 22, 2014, making same-sex marriage illegal again in Michigan, pending the appeal process. On Mar. 28, 2014, US Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the marriages performed prior to the stay being issued would be recognized by the federal government: "These families will be eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages." On Nov. 6, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Friedman's ruling 2-1, thus upholding the state's gay marriage ban. An appeal to either the full bench of the court or directly to the US Supreme Court is expected. I believe there is a stark difference between the above examples and the clerk the above examples are about SERVING people who engage in an activity the clerks situation is about actually SIGNING OFF APPROVAL of the activity as is often falsely attributed, in my opinion, to christians opposing ssm, its not about being against a PERSON, or not serving a PERSON, its about believing an ACTIVITY is wrong,,,and not catering the ACTIVITY all day long I can make a wedding cake for a CUSTOMER who is engaging in 'sins',, whatver they are but I cant make a cake in celebration of the sin itself,,, but I cant knowingly make a cake that i |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes I understand the distinction and why she stood up for her beliefs and it would have been nice if she were offered an opportunity to switch to another department if she held strong convictions about same sex marriage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kim Davis looks to be a Pentecostal . I am glad she refused , and I hope she stays strong , because giving in a t this point would undermine all she tried to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree that being a public servant makes one a slave with no say or no right to practice what they believe stepping aside from a job after years is not a reasonable response either once one has established a career, a retirement,,etc,, and a life that requires that income to sustain simple fact is there was a MAJOR change to what was expected in her job,, and a change well known to CONTRADICT religious belief,,there should have been some type of accomodation considered when this change went into effect for those whose values do not allow them to condone sodomy,,, let alone sign off on it,,, I think a simple compromise would be to have a simple GOVERNMENT STAMP that only indicates that the government has sanctioned it,, without any requirement for a personal endorsement from anyone,, Quite well said... Kudos on a fine post. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think if she can't do the job then she should resign the position. Issuing a license does not in any way acknowledge agreement. As a government employee she does have an obligation to follow the law. She is on her 4th marriage and now she wants to take the moral high road when it comes to who can marry?
What worries me is the precedent it sets. Do you want to go to the grocery store and have the clerk refuse to ring up your ham because it is against their religion? Condoms, alcohol... same thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree that being a public servant makes one a slave with no say or no right to practice what they believe stepping aside from a job after years is not a reasonable response either once one has established a career, a retirement,,etc,, and a life that requires that income to sustain simple fact is there was a MAJOR change to what was expected in her job,, and a change well known to CONTRADICT religious belief,,there should have been some type of accomodation considered when this change went into effect for those whose values do not allow them to condone sodomy,,, let alone sign off on it,,, I think a simple compromise would be to have a simple GOVERNMENT STAMP that only indicates that the government has sanctioned it,, without any requirement for a personal endorsement from anyone,, ok msharmony I understand your point but she works for the state as far as I know and with her came the new law ... so neither here nor there ... she did not follow the law of what she was required to do with her job... or there would have been no arrest ... I see it more that she broke the law ...not what really her agenda is ... by doing that ... and a personal decision she made on her own ... yes, but the 'law' should not be made that can stop someone from their religious practice,,, since that part of the constitution is there for a reason, I feel this law falls into a very slippery slope where that needs to be accomodated so as to not be a violation fine, let the 'law' dictate what is a marriage, but dont force people whose religion doesnt allow it to have to PERSONALLY cosign for it,,, Its not a law being made to allow the marriages, it's enforcing the denial of a LEGAL marriage. It's separating the States from ALL Religions which was one of the key differences between the U.S. and England. Religious Freedom AND Separation of Church and State. Even if she was a Catholic Cardinal she couldn't make the same LEGAL argument. Well, she could she'd just be wrong. She would have no more LEGAL power if she were a Cardinal so that the views and opinions of the CHURCH do not become STATE policy and practice. What she was doing wasn't just discrimination, it wasn't just breaking the Law, it was outright refusal to fulfill her LEGAL obligation to the Citizens of Rowan Co. KY ok, I'm sorry... She stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether {so as not to discriminate and be allowed to continue to break the Law after being compelled by the 6th Circuit}. So, cool right? Since these gay men want a marriage license and I can't just tell them no then it's no for anyone who wants a license gay lesbian transgender straight Christian Jew Muslim Hindu... Unfair is fair if I'm fairly unfair...? No. She's an elected official, making $80,000 a year.
Yep. $80K. And as an elected official in a LEGAL office, her obligation is LEGAL and can only be LEGAL in nature. If someone wants to marry a car, she can LEGALLY deny them. If someone wants to marry a minor, she can LEGALLY deny them. If someone wants to marry a dead person, she can LEGALLY deny them. If a Christian person wants to marry a Hindu person and she has RELIGIOUS convictions against that, she has no LEGAL authority to deny them the LEGAL document that allows them to be LEGALLY married. It's not a RELIGIOUS document. It's just like a Bill of Sale a Title or a Mortgage, they have to be LEGALLY attained for one to own possess or occupy LEGALLY. She also recently changed her religious beliefs, so that's not an excuse either. That's one of the reasons the General assembly won't convene on her behalf and the governor has no intention on making a Legal loophole for her. What she is trying to do is LEGALLY impose >her< RELIGIOUS belief in the name of ROWAN COUNTY KY.  She ran for PUBLIC (LEGAL) office by choice [part of me is screaming they ELECTED her!]. No one denied her the right to Legal marriages and Legal divorces. Someone other than herself had to sign those documents. She changed her faith which she has every right to do. That doesn't change her AUTHORITY. I honestly wouldn't drink any Koolaid within a 100 mile radius if she thinks she (and her new found faith) have more LEGAL AUTHORITY than the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. Sign here ____________
|
|
|
|
|
