US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Retiring

taf2002

in love affair with air conditioner
Messages
21,456
Ratings
15,589
@becca, divorce is terrible & your father's marriage is not recognized by the Church. But if a priest (a human man) said your father's previous marriage doesn't exist & you are a bastard then his marriage will be sanctified (is that the right word?). Wow, that does make a difference!

Both my cousin & her daughter carried babies that weren't viable & of course those babies died at birth. They knew from about the 3rd month what the outcome would be but neither had the option of abortion because of people like you. So what was the point of carrying them for 9 months?

I disagree with people who use abortion as birth control but ruling it out completely isn't right either. So how about letting adults decide what's best for their bodies & not try to run other people's lives? Especially since the people deciding for all of us are mostly old white men who aren't affected by the issue.
 

puglover

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,321
Ratings
1,938
No she doesn't. She's said as much. When her husband does it, it's justified because he's fighting back at his enemies.
Well, his enemies are becoming too many to mention. What countries can he even visit without fear of major embarrassing demonstrations? I know he has cancelled his trip to Ireland but is he still going to France? It seems even the U.S.'s closest historical allies feel bruised and bullied by him.
 

becca

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,260
Ratings
3,103
@becca, divorce is terrible & your father's marriage is not recognized by the Church. But if a priest (a human man) said your father's previous marriage doesn't exist & you are a bastard then his marriage will be sanctified (is that the right word?). Wow, that does make a difference!

Both my cousin & her daughter carried babies that weren't viable & of course those babies died at birth. They knew from about the 3rd month what the outcome would be but neither had the option of abortion because of people like you. So what was the point of carrying them for 9 months?

I disagree with people who use abortion as birth control but ruling it out completely isn't right either. So how about letting adults decide what's best for their bodies & not try to run other people's lives? Especially since the people deciding for all of us are mostly old white men who aren't affected by the issue.
It’s a tribunal and it is not all priests many include women.

No all cannon law is clear that children of annulled marriages are still legitimate because at least one of the parents was operating in good faith.

But yes this is my mother’s issue. I don’t care either way I am more concerned with my Dad soul than If I’m legitimate or not.
 

overedge

crying in the TSL bathroom
Messages
25,015
Ratings
19,644
Matthew 5:32. Luke 16:18 Mark 10:11.

Christ uses the words I hate divorce. To be honest in that’s position I think Jesus was answering the no fault divorced types not pastoral complicated situations. But it is serious and so I am married multiple times but gay marriage should be illegal is suspect. Christ was very hard on divorce.
The words "I hate divorce" do not appear in any of those sources.
 

snowbird

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,628
Ratings
804
I don't know if the people that are so incensed about Kavanough's appointment have ever read Rachel Mitchell's report which calls Ford's testimony seriously flawed and that she has no case.
 

VIETgrlTerifa

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,162
Ratings
44,499
I don't know if the people that are so incensed about Kavanough's appointment have ever read Rachel Mitchell's report which calls Ford's testimony seriously flawed and that she has no case.
Many of us watched Mitchell's performance and have mind of our owns to make a determination over her objectivity. I've seen so many cases that were brought forward to indictment with much less than what Dr. Ford gave.
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,448
Ratings
3,722
I don't know if the people that are so incensed about Kavanough's appointment have ever read Rachel Mitchell's report which calls Ford's testimony seriously flawed and that she has no case.
Maybe if the FBI was allowed to do a more thorough investigation she might have changed her mind. And it wasn't a "case" anyway.
 

Skittl1321

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,222
Ratings
9,088
@becca, divorce is terrible & your father's marriage is not recognized by the Church. But if a priest (a human man) said your father's previous marriage doesn't exist & you are a bastard then his marriage will be sanctified (is that the right word?). Wow, that does make a difference!

Both my cousin & her daughter carried babies that weren't viable & of course those babies died at birth. They knew from about the 3rd month what the outcome would be but neither had the option of abortion because of people like you. So what was the point of carrying them for 9 months?

I disagree with people who use abortion as birth control but ruling it out completely isn't right either. So how about letting adults decide what's best for their bodies & not try to run other people's lives? Especially since the people deciding for all of us are mostly old white men who aren't affected by the issue.
Being forced to carry a nonviable baby is inhumane. I know some women choose to, but the lack of choice is appalling. I hope the babies had peaceful deaths.

I'm very sorry for your families losses.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,460
Ratings
2,462
It's an act of discrimination on the basis that the two people getting married are same-sex. But for the fact that they were the same sex, he would have provided that service. That's explicit discrimination, and this is a classic public accommodation law issue. Yes, you feel strongly about being able to refuse them and giving religious folks the ability to strip away at gay people's dignity for religious reasons, but no matter how much one feels, they are in a state that protects same-sex people from discrimination in this manner. And it is the same as race in that many people strongly believed interracial marriage or intermingling of the races was against their religion. To them, they were serious as serious can be.

The reason why I'm equating race and sexual orientation is because in Colorado and like states, sexual orientation is treated just like race is with regard to discrimination. If a religious objector had a sincere objection to interracial marriage and refused to bake a cake for an interracial couple, the issue would be the same as Masterpiece.

I in no way called you a racist. I don't know where you got that from. I was equating how sexual orientation is protected as race is in those states. However, at least we know you think being racist is worse than being a homophobe and you don't mind discriminating against gay people but you find the idea of discriminating against someone due to their race is horrible. In some places, people don't mind discriminating against someone due to their race. A few decades ago, it was normal. Just like how some think it's normal to refuse service to someone based on their sexual orientation right now.

Honestly, I don't know how many times I have to say the same thing over and over again. For people who are not becca and caseyedwards, do you guys have trouble understanding what I'm writing? Seriously, I'm beginning to woner.
It is discrimination but it’s discrimination based on their religious beliefs which is allowed.
 

VIETgrlTerifa

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,162
Ratings
44,499
It is discrimination but it’s discrimination based on their religious beliefs which is allowed.
I'm done. One cannot have a discourse if you refuse to actually engage with what people are writing to you or are just seeking attention by trolling. I will say if you're serious, then you don't understand the law...at all. When it comes to religious exceptions to generally applicable laws, it depends. I always explained how it has worked with regard to businesses serving the general public and having to deal with public accommodation. Stay trolling and/or ignorant.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,460
Ratings
2,462
I'm done. One cannot have a discourse if you refuse to actually engage with what people are writing to you or are just seeking attention by trolling. I will say if you're serious, then you don't understand the law...at all. When it comes to religious exceptions to generally applicable laws, it depends. I always explained how it has worked with regard to businesses serving the general public and having to deal with public accommodation. Stay trolling and/or ignorant.
The law is not settled! You are acting like it is and it isn’t. There is a case with Washington florists like that of the Colorado bakers and they are not settled. The Washington judges actually ruled “providing flowers to a same-sex wedding would not serve as an endorsement of same-sex marriage”! Who are they rule on what is the domain of religions not the government? The government is deciding sin! Lol lol. Never! So you are acting like you have settled law on your side and that’s totally false.
 

VIETgrlTerifa

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,162
Ratings
44,499
The law is not settled! You are acting like it is and it isn’t. There is a case with Washington florists like that of the Colorado bakers and they are not settled. The Washington judges actually ruled “providing flowers to a same-sex wedding would not serve as an endorsement of same-sex marriage”! Who are they rule on what is the domain of religions not the government? The government is deciding sin! Lol lol. Never! So you are acting like you have settled law on your side and that’s totally false.
Even if the Court rules a certain way that goes against past precedent, your rationale is completely off and your general statements show you can't comprehend anything and I bet you it will be a very narrow ruling where people can't just use religious exception to discriminate against same-sex couples in an unlimited fashion. I bet you thought Masterpiece Cake Shop ruled in your favor until people explained what the opinion actually said.

With that, girl, bye!
 

becca

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,260
Ratings
3,103
Huh? You are responsible for your dad's soul? Your priority, anyone's priority, is for one's own soul.
God is responsible for souls, you don't need to take on that.
Your absolutely right. Which is why after one conversation, I left it alone with my Father and have said nothing about my feelings towards his remarriage. Honestly at the time he had just met her, and so I was concerned about the speed. So I had one conversation where I kindly said my concerns. And then guess what I shut up. I don't think its kindness to never express any concerns. But as mentioned after expressing my concerns I shut up for years. And honestly God meets people where they are at. Not for me to say it's not from God. She has him back going to Church.

He recently came to me about an annulment, and I encouraged him to pursue it, even though I knew my mother would be upset. Because I am concerned about his soul. (But not the judge) His asking about it was an answer to prayer. But no, I have not gone around saying guess what Dad I disagree with your marriage, I disagree with your marriage. I'm not like that.

Here I talk a lot about Catholic teaching and politics, because I'm trying to show the other side/other mindset. Liberals and Conservatives don't talk to each other.

However here I get you cannot be reasoned with, you don't care about sex abuse victims, you support Trump (didn't vote for him), and your views are bigoted.....

We have a serious problem in this country with people making this a zero sum game. And once you start saying the other side lacks reasoning, they are bigoted.... Well, it gets troubling.
 

overedge

crying in the TSL bathroom
Messages
25,015
Ratings
19,644
@becca The reason people here are saying you lack reason is not because of some "zero-sum political game". The reason people are saying it is because you keep repeating the same inaccurate information and ignoring the accurate information that is posted in response. Look in the mirror and think about your own actions before you start throwing around accusations of political bias.
 

becca

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,260
Ratings
3,103
@becca The reason people here are saying you lack reason is not because of some "zero-sum political game". The reason people are saying it is because you keep repeating the same inaccurate information and ignoring the accurate information that is posted in response. Look in the mirror and think about your own actions before you start throwing around accusations of political bias.
A lot of what is posted here is opinions.

When i point out for example, that this is He said she said. That the witnesses she mentions were there all say they don't remember? Which means the evidence is spotty. Is what I'm saying inaccurate?

we are inclined to believe what we want in the Ford and Kavanaugh debate but none of us where there so none of us can say with 100 certainity.

When I present how religious people feel about the Little Sisters of the poor, how is it inaccurate? It's how it comes across to us.

I never said I am perfectly unbiased. But I sit here and listen to what those of you, say and I never call anyone names, or say anyone's hateful. Ever.

I am trying to tell you how this whole thing is preceived by the other side. Because guess what I talk to those people. We talk amongst ourselves. So I know why folks are voting for Trump. And I'm trying to say look this is what's doing it. This is what is turning folks towards Trump.
 

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,368
Ratings
11,137
I don’t care either way I am more concerned with my Dad soul than If I’m legitimate or not.
I don't know how religious your father is Becca, but I can tell you that there plenty of people who don't want Evangelical/zealot Christians sharing concerns about their souls.

To me it really comes down to respect. I'm not a Christian (am Jewish although not practicing) and think the Christians should respect that - in which case, leave my soul alone please.

I have a Chinese acquaintance who was converted to Christianity by Jehovas Witnesses and her life subsequently became heavily focused on the Bible. Her living room is occupied by one huge table that she uses for hosting Friday night bible studies.

She was going to visit China one summer with the objective of converting her parents to Christianity. She was afraid that if her parents were not Christian they would not go to the afterlife, so she would not meet them there.

I don't know the outcome, but suspect that her parents did not appreciate her 'coming on' to them with Christianity.

This person also stated that Jews denied the existence of Jesus, assuming the position of being 'right' rather than respectfully recognizing that Jews had different views than Christians.

It sometimes seems too much to ask of zealous Christians that they respect and give space to others who do not share their beliefs. I get the whole evangelical thing, but nonetheless, have found it be disrespectful.
 
Last edited:

overedge

crying in the TSL bathroom
Messages
25,015
Ratings
19,644
@becca Thanks for proving my point so perfectly. You have gone on and on about this allegedly incomplete evidence, and many people have explained scientific facts - not opinions - to you about how traumatic events are remembered. And then you go on and on again about why doesn't Dr Ford remember some things.

If people want to vote for Trump because they aren't willing to listen to facts, that's not the "left's" fault.
 

becca

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,260
Ratings
3,103
@becca Thanks for proving my point so perfectly. You have gone on and on about this allegedly incomplete evidence, and many people have explained scientific facts - not opinions - to you about how traumatic events are remembered. And then you go on and on again about why doesn't Dr Ford remember some things.

If people want to vote for Trump because they aren't willing to listen to facts, that's not the "left's" fault.
In what post did I ask why can’t Ford Remember things.

I said she mentioned people who are there who all dont even remember being there. That is huge in his favor.

Which if it went to civil (preponderance of evidence) or criminal (reasonable doubt) he would likely win.

It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen but it’s not provable. None of us know what really happened and so I am iffy about playing Judge or jury.

And right now DNA testing is freeing a number of men whose victims were 100 percent sure he was their attacker. So memory isn’t perfect.

And we are talking 36 years later.

It is reasonable for Conservatives to have questions.
 

VIETgrlTerifa

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,162
Ratings
44,499
This why people question your logic. The DNA cases are usually freeing black men who were subjected to line-ups and where the attacker was led by police enforcement to name a specific suspect and where the victim did not know the attacker prior and can't really tell the suspects in the line-up apart. Memory is faulty, however, most people aren't mistaken when they name an attacker they were already acquainted with and knew socially.

As for it being 36 years later, same thing with victims of sexual abuse by members of the Catholic Church. But maybe you'll raise that argument in defending those members of the Catholic Church, so this may be a fair point to you.

As for what would happen if this case was tried in a civil court or criminal court, you can't say that you know what would most likely happen since the investigation was limited and impeded in a way it most likely would not have been if this was going through a criminal justice system rather than Trump's administration directing the FBI to severely limit its scope, and the FBI failed to interview about 50+ people, having the investigation limited by a week and it being done in less than that time, and the people on the jury being made up of politically-motivated Senators who were putting on a show for their respective political party. Plus, a full trial with witnesses and so forth did not occur so you have no idea how this whole thing would have looked like if this was just a criminal trial between private persons. Criminal cases often-times take a year or more before it even goes to trial.

It is reasonable to have questions, but many of the tactics used to put doubt into Ford (like thinking she was sexually assaulted but it had to be somebody else...and naming that person...and all the other crap they are throwing at her) were/are often times unreasonable and irrational but effective politically.

Also, some times you do present the other side's arguments as a benefit to exposing us to it, though many of us do come from backgrounds where we are not ignorant of such things, but you do adopt those positions once you get deeper into the conversation. I do think chatting with you is somewhat useful because it really shows that there's no need to expend so much energy in winning over ardent Conservatives as nothing will ever persuade them to join over the other side. It's time to rev up the actual base and GOTV to people that would actually be worthwhile to reach out to. I mean Trump's administration is abusing children and destroying families and psychologically torturing them right now and yet none of them are talking about it or think it's something that crosses a line for them to NOT support him and his Party who support his policies. In fact some have played mental gymnastics to justify it not caring about how it's a blatant human rights violation.
 
Last edited:

becca

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,260
Ratings
3,103
I have never defended the Church’s abuse. The Texas bishops announced they will release the names of people who were credibly accused as a statement of public trust. I welcome it.

None of those people said they saw Brett rape anyone or expose anyone. They can say he drank. Drank a lot. That’s immaterial he never denied drinking.

If someone saw him rape someoe they could have easily come forward lawyers were waiting with open arms.

Apparently Fords attorneys sent emails to her high school classmates no one came forward.

If Ford wanted a trial or a full investigation she could have come forward sooner. Like when he was becoming an appellate judge.

The Democrats knew about it in July. It could have been investigated months. They talked to the people Ford said were at the party. They talked to Ramirez and who SHE felt he should talk to.

The fact that he drank a lot was already established and none of those witnesses saw it. In fact his roommate who says he beliefs Ramirez and says he saw him drink admits that he never saw Kavanaugh sexually assault a woman. One person said he tended to focus on the men when he was drunk.

Once again I am not sure what more there is to investigate.
 
Last edited:

VIETgrlTerifa

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,162
Ratings
44,499
In a court of law, a judge or jury who believes that a witness is telling the truth can convict someone of a crime even without corroborating evidence, especially now when the majority of jurisdictions have gotten rid of the corroboration requirement in sexual assault cases after they realized it made convictions in these cases near impossible. This happens all the time outside of sexual assault. Given the reaction on social media, many people seem to believe her so it's not crazy to think a jury could have convicted Kavanaugh based on what they heard and were presented with despite this limited investigation. Before you say the people who believe her are biased towards sexual assault victims/women or are just liberals with an agenda, you can easily turn it around on the people who are "suspicious" of Ford and all the conservatives who ran to his defense.
 
Last edited:

becca

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,260
Ratings
3,103
In a court of law, a judge or jury who believes that a witness is telling the truth can convict someone of a crime even without corroborating evidence, especially now when the majority of jurisdictions have gotten rid of the corroboration requirement in sexual assault cases after they realized it made convictions in these cases near impossible. This happens all the time outside of sexual assault. Given the reaction on social media, many people seem to believe her so it's not crazy to think a jury could have convicted Kavanaugh based on what they heard and were presented with despite this limited investigation. Before you say the people who believe her are biased towards sexual assault victims/women or are just liberals with an agenda, you can easily turn it around on the people who are "suspicious" of Ford and all the conservatives who ran to his defense.
I never said that Conservatives aren’t biased but you really think if it was a Democrat there wouldn’t be similar from the liberals?

If all it takes is one person’s testimony to take a political figure out there could be easily way to target an opponent.

Heck Hilary just said believe all woman and then said Bills accusations were all political opponents.

And Conservatives are saying see her is saying no Due Process for Republicans.

So for me I am more I don’t know. But I think it’s dangerous to go on one testimony in politics.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,873
Ratings
13,448
That the witnesses she mentions were there all say they don't remember?
I'm telling you for the third time that there is no reason for them to remember the party. The brain only has a limited capacity (that is a scientific fact, not my opinion), so it does not remember insignificant things that happened 36 years ago. It can't because there are far more important things it has to remember.
The party was insignificant for everyone but Dr Ford. As I previously pointed out, I remember that the year I turned 15, my then best friend celebrated her birthday the night that Princess Diana died but I don't remember what I did for my birthday a week later and one could argue that my birthday would be more important than my best friend's. (And it wasn't even close to 36 years ago). But nothing extraordinary happened on my birthday. Something extraordinary did happen at my best friend's birthday though (and something that deeply moved me) and that is why it stuck. And that is how the brain works.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top