She stated quite clearly that she holds up the bible as her standard for morality, and uses it as an excuse to deny marriage to homosexuals. However, the bible is incredibly explicit about marriage, and it simply is not possible to read it as being not okay for two men to marry, but okay for a woman to remarry 4 times.
I don’t believe in the bible. I think it’s a terrible guide to morality, and I have no problem with someone remarrying 4 times. However, if that person says, “My holy scripture says that men cannot get married to other men” and uses that as a cudgel to infringe on people’s rights, then pointing out that her holy scripture has a rather dim view of divorce as well shows clearly that she is a hypocrite.
Let’s be clear here. My problem is not that she got married 4 times. It’s that she got married 4 times while espousing a set of values that clearly forbid that.
Well, I’m glad we agree that the Bible is an absolutely shitty source of consistent morality, and that any christian who appeals to it is a massive hypocrite. But I’m not doing that. I’m not criticizing her for not following the bible, I’m criticizing her for claiming to follow the bible and then completely failing. You completely ignored my comparison, which illustrates the nonsensical folly in this argument. If I claim that my holy book says that gays and idiots should be burned at the stake, and use the latter clause to nearly get you lynched, then get caught blowing a male prostitute, it doesn’t matter whether or not you think gay people or idiots should be lynched, I’m still a hypocrite.
Technically, no. Her “come to Jesus” moment was in 2010 which was after all the divorces. And from one perspective, living with her fourth husband is not currently living in sin.
In Matthew 19:9, Jesus arguably says that adultery is a legitimate basis for a valid divorce. Davis committed adultery in the first marriage, so there’s a reasonable argument that the first marriage is null and void. Unless there was adultery in the second marriage, then, the second divorce would be invalid. The third divorce and remarriage to the second husband, then, would be immaterial – by Matt. 19:9 she was still married to her second husband in the eyes of God.
How do the people getting marriage licenses unsigned and inscribed “pursuant to court order” feel about these physical licenses? Is it a mark of honor (“Kim Davis tried to stop us”) or an annoyance? If the latter, I hope they complain to the judge and get the asshole Davis thrown back into jail.
… And there’s Huckabee, “Presidential candidate”, supporting the bitch. America’s GOP really has become self-parody.
My frustrations come less from any seeming hypocrisy in re divorce and remarriage–I’m totally down with the born-again forgiveness tip–and more from the fact that Ms. Davis swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.
I know what the Bible has to say about marriage, divorce, and homosexuality.
I also know what it has to say about oathbreaking. That shit ain’t pretty.
.
The problem is that the statute delegates the authority to specify what the form looks like to the Department for Libraries and Archives, and their administrative code rule requires the clerk’s name. It also requires an authorization statement of the clerk (versus the other requirements that specify “or deputy clerk”). This isn’t a gold fringe problem; it’s a genuine issue of administrative law.
That’s a reason for someone to divorce her; it’s not a reason for her to divorce someone.
I’m not digging through 25 pages of this thread to find out who it was that point out that her literalism requires her to be hanging with hubby #1, but that’s already been mentioned in this thread. I don’t know of any perspective, other than the self-serving one, that has the perspective you mention.
It’s difficult for them to understand because it invalidates their talking point (which is, essentially “no, you’re the hypocrite!”), and insincere talking points are all they have. The fact that their arguments are mostly variants of “I’m rubber, you’re glue…” is very telling. If they had better arguments, they’d use them.
Amen. Like the newest dumb person in this thread, bobwhatever, an effort is actually made to *NOT *understand something. Or, even more dishonestly, to make an effort to pretend to not get it. Stupefying, it is, but only to the practitioner.
He said, while using the Bible to insult a woman for getting remarried. Sure, you don’t believe in the Bible, hypocrite, which is why you’re constantly using it to impugn this person’s morality.
Then perhaps liberals should stop using the Bible to comment endlessly on Christians’ morality. They’re the ones claiming that “follow every word of the Bible or else” is an acceptable barometer for someone else’s (and never their own) morality, and then they cry when hoisted on their own retards.
Why? They’re the ones claiming they know what is moral and what is not, because the bible tells them so. Seem fair to point out when they are misinformed.
bosbfdsfd, you are truly the worst internet troll I’ve seen this decade. You don’t even understand what it is you think you’re trolling against (or for) nor do you understand the posts you’re replying to. It’s pathetic and sad; I feel sorry for you.
But I’m not doing that. I’m not criticizing her for not following the bible, I’m criticizing her for claiming to follow the bible and then completely failing. You completely ignored my comparison, which illustrates the nonsensical folly in this argument. If I claim that my holy book says that gays and idiots should be burned at the stake, and use the latter clause to nearly get you lynched, then get caught blowing a male prostitute, it doesn’t matter whether or not you think gay people or idiots should be lynched, I’m still a hypocrite.