Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Giancarlo]

Gian:

You stated that Kinsey is not highly regarded among psychiatrists. That's going to take a citation needed.



Again, there are plenty of examples of it. Who is right, you or them?



All I stated is that some people claim that they have successfully changed. I said nothing about how. If, as you claim, it is immutable, then why are these other people claiming otherwise?



That's because you're not challenging any of my factual statements RE Kinsey.

If you don't have any proof of your assertion that Kinsey is not well regarded among psychologists, then you'd better fire up the helicopter.

Who is claiming other wise? Citation?

You are ridiculous. Kinsey is not credible these days. A lot of his work has been debunked.

And yes I am right. So where are your citations about these mysterious people who claim to change? I can't believe we are arguing about an inmate characteristic like sexual orientation. What year is it? 1955?

You talk on and on about people changing but you haven't backed yourself up once with any citation. You then proceed to insult me. Your argument is toast.

[Ben Kenobi]

Her office must issue them or face contempt.

Sure, but she is not required to do so.

Kentucky law has changed and she is obligated to follow it.

Kentucky law has not changed and she is obligated to follow it. You cannot arrest a person for following her oath. Well, you can, it just won't stick.

She was not appointed either.

Indeed, she's an elected official. Removing her would violate certain constitutional clauses.

If she violated US law she should be removed or impeached. You have no idea what is going on here, do you? What is your degree in?

I am aware of the situation. Probably better than you. If she were appointed the governor could remove her. She was elected, and checks and balances prevent the governor from removing her.

The state of Kentucky must follow US Supreme Court rulings. They do not have any other choice. Period.

Seems they found a way to protect Kim Davis' First Amendment rights. Which, last I checked, Oberfell is not greater law than the constitution.

It will be interesting if any of Oregon's intrusions make it up to the High Court which way the rulings will go.

[Ben Kenobi]

I hope you really do not teach history. Your understanding of government is hysterically wrong. It is almost facepalm embarrassing. Too embarrassing to read what you write. By the way, Eisenhower deployed troops because of a states refusal to follow federal law.

I encourage you to write to Obama and insist that he do the same - to remove an elected official from the state of Kentucky.

You are ridiculous. Kinsey is not credible these days. A lot of his work has been debunked.

You're going to have to provide a citation for that.

So where are your citations about these mysterious people who claim to change? I can't believe we are arguing about an inmate characteristic like sexual orientation. What year is it? 1955?

How would you define it, Gian?

You talk on and on about people changing but you haven't backed yourself up once with any citation. You then proceed to insult me. Your argument is toast.

Well, you've stated that it is immutable, we'd have to define it first in order to determine where to proceed. How would you define it, Gian?

[Giancarlo]

Sure, but she is not required to do so.



Kentucky law has not changed and she is obligated to follow it. You cannot arrest a person for following her oath. Well, you can, it just won't stick.



Indeed, she's an elected official. Removing her would violate certain constitutional clauses.



I am aware of the situation. Probably better than you. If she were appointed the governor could remove her. She was elected, and checks and balances prevent the governor from removing her.



Seems they found a way to protect Kim Davis' First Amendment rights. Which, last I checked, Oberfell is not greater law than the constitution.

It will be interesting if any of Oregon's intrusions make it up to the High Court which way the rulings will go.

You are just a babbling idiot and it is clear you do not understand what is going on. Kentucky law was changed by US Supreme Court ruling. Is that so hard to grasp? Their law was changed. Much the same way when Proposition 8 was gutted in California. You are just stupid... I get it now.

[Giancarlo]

By the way, if an elected state official commits ethics violations like Kim Davis did, they can indeed be removed. There goes the "check and balances" argument you attempted.

Seems I know more here... Sorry to say.

[Giancarlo]

I encourage you to write to Obama and insist that he do the same - to remove an elected official from the state of Kentucky.



You're going to have to provide a citation for that.



How would you define it, Gian?



Well, you've stated that it is immutable, we'd have to define it first in order to determine where to proceed. How would you define it, Gian?

Where are your citations then? I don't want another distorted statement on what Kinsey said. You keep saying people say they change, yet provide no citations.

Hypocrisy sucks. You religious folks are masters in hypocrisy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Kentucky law was changed by US Supreme Court ruling. Is that so hard to grasp? Their law was changed. Much the same way when Proposition 8 was gutted in California. You are just stupid... I get it now.

Kentucky law has not changed, then.

if an elected state official commits ethics violations like Kim Davis did, they can indeed be removed.

Following their oath is generally not considered to be an ethics violation. Violating their oath of office would be an ethics violation.

Where are your citations then? I don't want another distorted statement on what Kinsey said. You keep saying people say they change, yet provide no citations.

First, provide your definition of 'sexual orientation'. Since that is what we're discussing. It's a core part of your assertion that it cannot change.

[Giancarlo]

Kentucky law has not changed, then.



Following their oath is generally not considered to be an ethics violation. Violating their oath of office would be an ethics violation.



First, provide your definition of 'sexual orientation'. Since that is what we're discussing. It's a core part of your assertion that it cannot change.

But Kentucky law has changed. Sorry, but it has. I know that is hard for you to accept but it has.

She broke her oath and committed an ethics violation, ergo she can be impeached (which is in the works).

Sexual orientation is innate. I do not need to provide any definition. Go look it up.

[Giancarlo]

This idiot just keeps repeating the same stupid argument. Has he ever changed over the years? I am done here for now. His argument is toast.

[Ben Kenobi]

But Kentucky law has changed. Sorry, but it has. I know that is hard for you to accept but it has.

No, Kentucky law remains the same, one man and one woman.

She broke her oath and committed an ethics violation, ergo she can be impeached (which is in the works).

Have fun storming the castle!

Sexual orientation is innate. I do not need to provide any definition. Go look it up.

I will require a source for *your* definition as to what 'sexual orientation' comprises. Since, it is your assertion after all.

[rah]

Finally, someone starts to ask the real questions.

Hmm you said you'd treat a daughter not even born yet the same way, so it can't really matter what he did since your daughter hasn't done anything.
Typical diversion from the douche.

[QUOTE][/You're welcome to say whatever you want to say, it's a free country. Personally I'm amused by all the vitriol, over something that you know nothing about and would rather froth over asking questions. "Why is Ben totally unfazed by this?QUOTE]


You actually think this is about how you feel. You're clueless, but still a douche.

And a considerable amount of vitriol from you over not being thanked. Oh the horror. Call the cops.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hmm you said you'd treat a daughter not even born yet the same way, so it can't really matter what he did since your daughter hasn't done anything.
Typical diversion from the douche.

Most people would probably prefer to have the facts before calling someone a monster.

[Proteus_MST]

Your words, Gian. The First says precisely the opposite and states that people have the right to exercise their religion.


...

I would assume that the right of exercising a religion goes only so far as it doesn't collide with any laws.

Example:
If I were a believer in the aztec pantheon, I am sure that freedom of religion wouldn't allow me to ritually sacrifice virgins to Huitzilopochtli.
Not even if said virgins would consent to giving their lifes for their faith

[Ben Kenobi]

I would assume that the right of exercising a religion goes only so far as it doesn't collide with any laws.

Actually, Aztec sacrifice would now be legal in Canada with the consent of the Virgins. If the Virgins were disabled, all that would be required is the consent of the caregiver.

[Giancarlo]

No, Kentucky law remains the same, one man and one woman.



Have fun storming the castle!



I will require a source for *your* definition as to what 'sexual orientation' comprises. Since, it is your assertion after all.

No. Kentucky law isn't the same. It was basically gutted by the SCOTUS ruling. Read up on the law and civics please.

You are the one making bald assertions here. No hairline at all. No hair at all. No proof in other words. You are lying again. Not very Christian of you to be a compulsive liar.