AJ Philips:

You seem rather confused about why you provide the links. I didn’t ask you to quit the links – I asked you why you need to do both things. You said you would quit if I liked and then said that you did it to save time for others. If you are doing it for others why would you quit just because I asked you? Then after saying you would quit you sarcastically said that because of the argument I promoted that perhaps continuing the links would not hurt.

It seems to me that you are patronisingly suggesting that only those who are well versed in the mechanics of argument have the right to present arguments. Everyone on this forum has a right to present an argument no matter how lacking in the correct mechanics it is unless you are advocating some kind of censorship.

Of course if you are not being patronising (playing the man instead of the ball) then you have nothing to defend.

WmTrevor:

Bullying is about the use of power. The only power Kim Davis has in the situation is the power to refuse to do her job and suffer the consequences for her principles.

The same-sex couples have the complete weight of the law behind them and that can be abused. Using a power when there is no point in doing so when it will cause trouble for someone else is bullying.

Toni Lavis:

I know what contempt means but it is only invoked when necessary. In this case it was not necessary to have a marriage licence (it never is) therefore there was no need to push the point in order to reach the stage where the rule of law about contempt needed to be invoked.

WmTrevor "Someone who ignores the oath they took in accepting their office"

Except that when they took that oath, there were no gay marriage licenses, nor in their wildest dreams did they ever expect there to be.

Should someone's entire career be sacrificed due to an only-just majority decision by a court (not even law created by parliament!) after 26 years working for that county?

Why does *this* couple need *this* clerk to sign *this* document in *this* county?
After the court's decision, there should be plenty of counties and clerks to go to.
They're just petulant prissy princesses.

The American constitution is also supposed to support freedom of religion.

But apparently that has been forgotten or can be flippantly ignored since leftists despise religion.
(They also hypocritically despise "the law" when it doesn't further their agenda or suit their personal lifestyle: pass the reefer).

"Gay marriage" is the worst thing that's ever happened for queer people.
The hostility it is generating will set back all the gains made since Stonewall.

phanto,

Why o’ why do I need to keep re-quoting you?

<<You seem rather confused about why you provide the links. I didn’t ask you to quit the links – I asked you why you need to do both things.>>

Wrong. Here’s what you said:

“Why do you insist on linking to Wikipedia pages on the theory of arguments and then proceed to tell me what is wrong with my argument? I really only need one or the other.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6993#213916)

Nothing there about why I need to do both.

Predictably, though, you are getting back to your amateur psychoanalyses, and as someone who is somewhat qualified in psychology, I can assure you that you’re really bad at it.

<<You said you would quit if I liked and then said that you did it to save time for others. If you are doing it for others why would you quit just because I asked you?>>

Because it annoyed you either way. I’m sorry for not wanting to annoy you.

<<Then after saying you would quit you sarcastically said that because of the argument I promoted that perhaps continuing the links would not hurt.>>

Correct. You clearly didn’t understand what the argumentum ad populum was so I reconsidered my position. You see, my first drafts are on the spot. I respond as I read. So when I first wrote that I wouldn’t provide links for your benefit, I meant it.

<<It seems to me that you are patronisingly suggesting that only those who are well versed in the mechanics of argument have the right to present arguments.>>

Not at all. I hope the above clears up this little misunderstanding.

<<Everyone on this forum has a right to present an argument no matter how lacking in the correct mechanics it is…>>

Absolutely. I’ve never suggested otherwise.

<<…unless you are advocating some kind of censorship.>>

That is a very creative interpretation of what I was saying.

<<Of course if you are not being patronising (playing the man instead of the ball)…>>

That’s not what patronising means.

Obviously some here do not believe in the freedom of belief, that is a belief that has established Western society for at least 5,000 years. That marriage is not a registration by the State that began 2,000 years ago by the Church but a committed relationship between a man and a woman. The licence is only the agreed and signed contract, the relationship between the man and woman is the actual marriage.

The bullying is ocurring by the ill informed Judges because homosexuals want their relationship considered equal to heterosexuals. There is a vast biological difference that will never make homosexual relationships equal to a heterosexual.

//In this case it was not necessary to have a marriage licence (it never is)//

It is if you want to get married.

I need a licence just to go fishing. If I went to renew my licence and the clerk told me 'sorry, I'm a committed vegan so I won't renew your licence', I'd kick up a stink. He's just there to take my money and exchange it for my new fishing licence: it isn't his place to assign moral judgement to my choices, and it certainly isn't his place to deny me my lawfully entitled fishing licence because has strong moral views on the evils of fishing.

//therefore there was no need to push the point in order to reach the stage where the rule of law about contempt needed to be invoked.//

No, there really wasn't. If Kim had accepted that her duty as an American citizen to respect and abide by the laws of her country, and her duty as an employee to do her job, she'd never have been locked up.

But she felt that her interpretation of God's will was more important than the law of the land. She's not alone and she's certainly not the worst, because once we allow 'it's God's will' as a defence for contempt of court, where will the madness end?

//Obviously some here do not believe in the freedom of belief, that is a belief that has established Western society for at least 5,000 years.//

Absolute nonsense. Haven't you heard the good word, Josephus? The world was created in 42BC by the Great Rooster (known to primitive people as the 'Giant Cock'), and all so-called historical evidence which appears before that time has been ejaculated by the Great Rooster to test our faith.

Live long and prosper, Joe :)

Josephus " There is a vast biological difference that will never make homosexual relationships equal to a heterosexual."

Maybe not equal to you Josephus, but it will be LEGAL for gay people to get married in Australia sooner than you think , and not a damned thing will change for anyone else.
So take a deep breath, have a bex and a lay down, and just deal with it.