The jailing of Kentucky clerk Kim Davis for failing to issue a marriage licence to a same-sex couple questions the values of those same-sex couples pursuing marriage licences.

Why would you want to pursue a course of action which gives you nothing of worth when there is the strong possibility that someone else could be hurt by that action?

Same-sex couples give many reasons why they want a marriage licence and yet none of those have any credibility when you consider that millions of heterosexual couples tell us that they are quite content to live together without a licence. Why is it that same-sex couples are prepared to cause so much disruption to society to pursue something that so many other human beings do not value at all?

It might be a right but it is a right that millions do not even bother taking up since they do not see it as worth anything. There are thousands of rights but we quite readily don’t bother pursuing them especially if they create problems for others. It is all a matter of importance. Why is marriage so desperately important to people that they are prepared to see someone go to jail for the sake of their rights. We are not talking freedom from slavery or apartheid but a marriage licence which gives you nothing.

The reasons that Kim Davis gave may not be good reasons but she is prepared to stay in jail for them. It is obviously causing her a great deal of stress. What kind of human being would willing pursue something that causes stress for a great many people when there is nothing to be gained by doing so? Unless it is a form of bullying in which the only way they can feel good about themselves is to cause pain for others.

If it is so important to have a marriage licence then tell us why and then we should ask all those couples who do not have one why it is so unimportant to them. One of these groups is not being honest.

Many homosexuals socially well adjusted recognise marriage is only for hetrosexuals who want to establish family; and are against recognising anal or digital sex as marriage.

phanto, The right to marry is only the beginning. They want total equality and it just won't happen, won't stop them trying.

phanto,

We had just finished briefly discussing the argumentum ad populum fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) on the other thread and now you’ve committed it here.

<<Same-sex couples give many reasons why they want a marriage licence and yet none of those have any credibility when you consider that millions of heterosexual couples tell us that they are quite content to live together without a licence.>>

So because millions of heterosexual couples tell us that they are quite content to live together in a defacto relationship, that invalidates any value that same-sex couples see in marriage?

You then base the rest of your claims on this premise to paint same-sex marriage advocates as bullies.

<<Why is it that same-sex couples are prepared to cause so much disruption to society to pursue something that so many other human beings do not value at all?>>

The obvious answer to your question is that they see value in it, but you have fallaciously appealed to popular opinion in an attempt to discount that as a possibility.

//There are thousands of rights but we quite readily don’t bother pursuing them especially if they create problems for others.//

Kim Davis was jailed for contempt of court, which according to wikipedia is 'the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies authority, justice, and dignity of the court'. Seems to me that people who get charged with contempt create problems for themselves.

Everybody has the right not to commit contempt of court. If a person thinks their religious views are more important than the laws of the country they live in they can - and often do - choose to ignore the law in favour of what they fervently believe to be right. The consequence of this choice is that they are liable to be prosecuted for breaking the law, which seems reasonable. We wouldn't accept people following Sharia law where it conflicts with Australian law and the Americans shouldn't be expected to accept people violating their laws and committing contempt of court because the Bible says it's OK.

//Many homosexuals socially well adjusted recognise marriage is only for hetrosexuals who want to establish family; and are against recognising anal or digital sex as marriage.//

I think it's safe to say that everybody is against recognising sex as marriage. Because that would be retarded. The law would have to recognise marriage between a Kiwi and his sheep, or a Catholic priest and his altar boys. And pretty much everyone would be guilty of bigamy.

Its all about 'love'. Only a fool would believe that.