I'm sure William F. Buckley is rolling over in his grave, hearing the comments of the "conservatives" here. You apparently know very little about what it means to be a conservative. If you believe in pushing theocratic government philosophy (and government concerning itself with the private actions of individuals) is conservative, you're sorely mistaken. Read a little history.

Another thing that blows my mind is that so-called conservatives actually believe they are the only true Christians. Most modern liberal beliefs, from civil rights to social justice for the poor, are rooted in Protestant Christianity.

You can say the same about necrophilliacs. They aren't hurting anyone. We still don't think its normal behavior though.

I am really out of this thread though now :)

I am not making a judgment about if they are hurting anyone or anything, I am simply pointing out the problem with that line of reasoning. I challenge you to come up with one thing that you chose to like or dislike. Be it women, brunettes, jelly beans, or 10 inch johnsons, it is appealing to you (or not) regardless of whether you want it to be.

I like brunette, dark-skinned women... whether I want to or not. I can't decide not to.
I can decide to not sleep with any, but I cant decide to not want to.

And for the record, necrophiliacs (if they are corpse-humping without the prior consent of the corpse owner) are hurting someone. They are disrespecting the deceased as well as causing considerable grief for the deceased's family. Same with pedophiles or whatever other analogy is commonly thrown in here.

I am really done with this thread.

Okay. Well, in case you care to read my last thoughts....

Let's agree to disagree. We will never change each either's mind.

But I don't like people to be treated this way and my greatest hope is that people (even if they don't agree with this lifestyle) won't be cruel to others if they choose to admit that they are gay.

Okay. Well, in case you care to read my last thoughts....

Let's agree to disagree. We will never change each either's mind.

But I don't like people to be treated this way and my greatest hope is that people (even if they don't agree with this lifestyle) won't be cruel to others if they choose to admit that they are gay.

I would like to add(jumping in this one last time promise) that I don't want anyone to be mistreated/abused because of their orientation.

I just wanted to clear that up. :)

I agree with OU Adonis on one point: "this country is in decline." Let's examine that statement further. OU Adonis believes, apparently, that gay people being able to have a job and go to "Gay Day" at Disneyland is destroying this country.

I tend to believe that our decline relates to a mountain of federal debt, a sagging national infrastructure, a government that has been politicized and hollowed out to the point that we can't get water and food to drowning New Orleanians, a looming recession, a once-proud manufacturing economy being reduced to McJob service-based economy, a once-strong dollar being devalued like a South American currency, a debased and clouded foreign policy lacking any clarity or coherency, mired in a war without an exit strategy or clear definition of victory, double digit inflation on basic needs like milk, eggs and fuel, a coarsened political discourse lacking civility, a near plutocratic dominance of our national agenda by corporations that lack even basic patriotism. I could go on, but according to Adonis, all of the above problems pale in comparison to "Gay Day" at Disneyland.

Strong argument.

How is what you just said any less intolerant than what Kern said? Why is tolerance a one way street for the modern liberal? Why are conservatives, rednecks, white-trash, hillbillies, Midwesterners, Christians, etc fair game for satire, mockery, scapegoating, and all out hate speech? For the past 7 years we have heard on a daily basis that GW Bush is a terrorist, conservatives are fascists, Christians are worse than nazis, rednecks are sub-human genetic disasters, and that conservative christian rednecks are destorying the country. Why are Kern's comments unacceptable in contrast to the daily drum-beat of modern liberalism?

The only thing worse than intolerance is pretending to be tolerant when you clearly are not. To the modern liberal tolerance seems to mean "anything that is in line with our agenda is tolerated... anything else will be demonized and squashed as ignorance or hate-speech"

And for the record, I am neither a Christian nor a conservative. I also am not anti-gay by any means. I just find the general hypocrisy of the left to be as disgusting (if not more so) as Kern's statements.

You're right. It isn't tolerant. I am openly intolerant to anti-freedom agendas, especially by government representatives and their legislative agendas, that is, the "agendas" that actually mean something.

Look, liberalism means, among other things, a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties. That's what I am talking about here. I have no problem with someone saying that I am intolerant of sentiments that work against that, because that's basically what modern liberal societies are all about.


Where does the Constitution say this is a democracy? Is that the same place that the phrase "seperation of church and state" is found? Take a look at Article 4 Section 4. Also Ben Franklin was asked this what kind of government the Constitution formed, his answer was "A republic, if you can keep it."

Good point. It is a republic with democratically elected representatives. That in now way changes it's emphasis, especially in the bill or rights, on civil liberty and limited government. The republic was formed to provide and protect the civil liberties of its citizens.


When did men start giving birth?

Sooo, giving birth is a requirement for being in a family? So men can not inherently be part of a family and all adopted children are not a part of their adoptive families? If my wife gives birth to a gay son or daughter, are they no longer part of my family?


You said that Constitution was a limited government and now you are saying that the government is liberal. Which is right, a limited government or a liberal governemnt? You can't have both. Liberals want a large government, not a limited government.

This confuses a lot people. A Liberal party may want a large government, but that is not liberalism per se... (lower case 'l'). You can go around the world and "Liberal" parties may want different things, but the fact that our government and society stresses individual and economic freedom, through statutory limitations on government found in our bill of rights, makes it a "liberal" society. As a contrast, theocracy and communism are "illiberal" forms of government. This may help you:

liberalism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism)

And as for a political interpretation of the Liberal agenda in the United States, one could easily argue that while it often calls for the expansion of government's role in economic regulation, it more often than not also stresses the strict limitation of the government's role in civil liberty except as an instrument of protection of those civil liberties.



Yea you better watch Kern and I, we may just strap bombs to ourselves and kill everyone. Give me a break!

I don't believe that at all and my statement in no way said that (and I don't honestly think you thought I said that). What I said is that her ideals of using government as an instrument of her faith parallels that of other religious extremists, some of which are terrorists.

But also don't kid yourself. Christian terrorism is not without precedent:

Christian terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism)

But just so you know and you don't twist what I said again. I DO NOT THINK YOU OR SALLY KERN ARE TERRORIST OR EVEN HARBOR THE POTENTIAL TO BE.



This board is extremely left leaning BKM, they pretty much jump on any conservative view point here. You are just fighting an uphill battle.

That's pretty sad. BKM is as much a part of this board as me or anyone else. Also, none of the liberal ideals of which I speak are exclusive of the left. In fact, the modern conservative movement also stresses individual liberty, i.e. liberalism, especially when it comes to what you do in your own home. Traditionally it is combined with a more stringent liberal policy when it comes to economics (again, not the Left, but liberalism. See above definition if still confused.) It is decidedly nonconservative to feel that any of Kern's views should be legislative policy, the recent hijacking of the conservative movement by religious extremists notwithstanding, as that would be a de facto increase in the role of government in everyday American life.

You're right. It isn't tolerant. I am openly intolerant to anti-freedom agendas, especially by government representatives and their legislative agendas, that is, the "agendas" that actually mean something.

Look, liberalism means, among other things, a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties. That's what I am talking about here. I have no problem with someone saying that I am intolerant of sentiments that work against that, because that's basically what modern liberal societies are all about.


That illustrates my point exactly. There is nothing tolerant about liberalism. Much like a religion, the liberal agenda is to indoctrinate liberal ideas. This is done while destroying every opposing point of view under the guise of tolerance.

If you truly supported freedom and civil liberty, as you just claimed, you would support Kern's right to express her thoughts on homosexuality, even if they are completely wrong.

But that is not the case. You are admittedly only tolerant of those who walk lock-step with your ideology. That isn't tolerance and it isn't liberty. It is just another form of authoritarianism in disguise.

I am not pushing a theocracy. The only country that has had a theocracy is Israel and the screwed that up a long time ago. I do not care if men want to have intercourse with men or women with women. They are free adults and may do what they wish. But, society should not endorse sinful acts. A Constitutional amendment is needed to define marriage is between a man and women because the Constitution requires states to accept other states licenses. Alternatively, they could even make an amendment where states are not required to accept homosexual marriages; then it would be up to the states.

How can someone say that people are born gay? Human anatomy is not designed for homosexual relations; it is designed for heterosexual relations. Being homosexual is more of an addiction than a way a person is born.

Okay, let me chime in here, since no one here in Texas has changed there mind whatsoever about their views of Oklahoma's culture. Many here think it's a nice state. Some don't like Oklahoma for the fact that they are die hard Texans. So Sally Kern made some remarks that got people upset. Life goes on. Gay people have been attacked and murdered across this country. To single out Oklahoma or even worrying about Oklahoma being singled out should be the least of anyone's problems.

Here are some solid, tangible facts upon which I base my opinion when it comes to social issues like this. Whatever philosophical, moral or political opinion people have of the gay community is ultimately inconsequential. People believe it is not normal behavior. People believe that gays are born gay. People believe that the gay agenda is a threat to this country.

In any case, those of us who aren't gay have no way of knowing or understanding the basis of homosexuality. But really, does it matter? We all have consequences for our actions, good and bad. And someone else's consequences are not my call. My job as a human being is to treat others with the dignity and respect they are entitled to.

As a legislator, it is a person's duty to find solutions to ensure a state has a thriving economy and is competitive with the rest of the country. I have a real problem when religious issues make it to the Senate and House floor. Homosexuality isn't costing ANY state economically or socially. What IS costing every state economically and socially are divorce, poor public education and the gradual erosion of maturity and responsibility on behalf of adults in general.

Divorce and selfishness is costing us in ways we cannot imagine. The direct effect is on the children. Divorce changes who they are, and how it effects them ultimately finds its way into our economy in the way of instability and poor work ethics. Granted, not every child is effected the same way, but we are seeing the effects of bad marriages coming full circle. These children were deprived and robbed of the guidance, love and the tools they needed to flourish in life all because the parents were more concerned about seeking greener pastures so that their self needs can be met.

In the end, when these children from broken homes, foster homes and substituted childhoods become adults, they struggle in the real world as adults. Some shine and turn their life around. Others fail, and it costs us. Companies are finding it more difficult to attract and maintain quality employees. Many walk off the job, don't want to work or refuse to get a good education.

Americans are getting heavier, and it's taxing the hell out of our health care system. A few months ago, here in Texas while waiting for my wife to pick up reflux medication for our children, I watched a morbidly obese woman struggle her way to her vehicle, holding a bag FULL of prescriptions, smoking a cigarette. Once she climbed inside, she began eating a fast food meal she bought from Wendy's. See what I am getting at?

THIS is what people should be concerned with. Unfortunately, this country is obsessed with political correctness and personal political and religious agendas to stop worrying about what isn't costing us and begin worrying about what is.

If you truly supported freedom and civil liberty, as you just claimed, you would support Kern's right to express her thoughts on homosexuality, even if they are completely wrong.

Caboose, your reading comprehension appears limited. He said she has the right to say what she wants, but that he would call her an idiot. That is also his right. Welcome to America.

[QUOTE]The only country that has had a theocracy is Israel [/QUOTE

Say what? You really need to get out a little more often. What about Iran, which is ruled by Shi'ite clerics? What about Spain during the Crusades. Ever heard of the Church of England? Even American history yields evidence of theocracy, such as the puritans' City on the Hill during the Colonial era.

You know next to nothing about history, apparently, and your myopia and ignorance of basic history give rise to your narrow interpretation of our Constitutional government, the definition of "conservative," freedom of speech and religion, and America's religious pluralism.

You probably wouldn't recognize a theocracy if it were in front of your face.

Barry Goldwater, the modern father of conservative, would decry your views wholeheartedly.

Say what? You really need to get out a little more often. What about Iran, which is ruled by Shi'ite clerics? What about Spain during the Crusades. Ever heard of the Church of England? Even American history yields evidence of theocracy, such as the puritans' City on the Hill during the Colonial era.

You know next to nothing about history, apparently, and your myopia and ignorance of basic history give rise to your narrow interpretation of our Constitutional government, the definition of "conservative," freedom of speech and religion, and America's religious pluralism.

You probably wouldn't recognize a theocracy if it were in front of your face.

Barry Goldwater, the modern father of conservative, would decry your views wholeheartedly.


I am talking about an actual theocracy. I know about Iran, the Crusades, and the Church of England, but those were/are not theocracies. They are simply men running the country and calling it a theocracy. The only country that was actually run by God was Isreal from the Exodus to Saul. A theocracy is defined as "government of a state by immediate divine guidance." God does not tell Iran to try and destroy America, God did not tell Crusaders to destroy lives, and the list goes on.

Well I'm in heaven now. Nothing like a little Barry Goldwater to get things going. Or William Buckley. He did so much for so many.

I like how Oklahoma is supposed to be the "Bible Belt" and everyone and their dog go to church and carry a bible. There is also a church on every street corner and more being build every day.

However Oklahoma is also at or near the top state in divorce, teen pregnancy, high school dropouts, lack of education, poverty, alcohol abuse and drug abuse.

I am glad that I now know the reason, thank you for pointing this out Ms. Kern. If we can rid our entire state of all homosexuals Oklahoma will be paradise and Jesus will rejoice.

I am so proud to be an Oklahoman.

Sally Kern for President 2008!!

Caboose, your reading comprehension appears limited. He said she has the right to say what she wants, but that he would call her an idiot. That is also his right. Welcome to America.

No. That is not what he said, at least not in the post he addressed to me. Try again.

Wow! The Five Reactionary Posters on this board have been busy defending Sally Kern this week. This must be very important to them. Could they be Republican politicians?

But you know what? The behavior is abnormal. "I am born that way" is a cop out. Everyone makes decisions in their lives on how they act and make their own choices. I have ALWAYS had the choice on who I shared my bed with.

So just out of curiosity, if I were to ask you how many women you have slept with and whether you were married to all of them.... and I was then to ask you about your contribution to the moral decay of society, how would your statement be similar to or different from what you have voiced about the gay issue?

How can someone say that people are born gay? Human anatomy is not designed for homosexual relations; it is designed for heterosexual relations. Being homosexual is more of an addiction than a way a person is born.

Also just out of curiosity... since we are in Oklahoma I will assume you have been around animals at least a time or two. Growing up around them, something that I noticed was that male dogs, or horses, or whatever, will often have sex with one another. What's your take on that?

I've been attracted to women since childhood. Hell, I never even went through a "Ewwwww...Girls have COOOTIES!" stage. I was stealing kisses on the playground by the first grade.

There was never a decision, there was never a debate or internal struggle on the matter either. I like women, always have. So who am I to say that it's any different for a gay man? The ONLY reason it's deemed "abnormal" is because your parents or a preacher told you so. Guess what? Your parents were wrong about a great many things, and we won't get into how many things the church has been dead wrong about over the course of their colorful history.

However...WHAT DOES IT MATTER? Who cares if it's something they decided to do? As far as I can tell, the only time being a gay person hurts anything is when people try and change them due to their own preconceived notions on what's right and wrong...And projection of morality never ends well. Neither does basing law on the bible in a country with a guarantee in it's constitution concerning the freedom of religion.

This entire topic really shows how uneducated Oklahoma really is. I would expect to find this mindset from Ms. Kern in the backwoods of Oklahoma but I am surprised it is thriving here in the metro.

Ms. Kern's homophobic mindset must eat at her each and every day and her heart seems to be filled with a hate for all things homosexuals. I actually feel sorry for her and the people that think like her.

okclee,

This is deliberate scapegoating, and it works especially well on uneducated people, many of whom are faithful churchgoers who are struggling economically. The message is, "Hey, the reason you lost your job is because of the Mexican immigrant or the gay guy, not because we eliminated your job and opened a new factory in China."

This scapegoating seems to grow in intensity the more incompetent our government becomes. There is not one single shred of rational evidence to indicate that gays are harming our society. By contrast, history is rife with examples of religious extremists causing harm to numerous societies.

Sally's angry rhetoric is really very similar in nature to the rhetoric of extremist Muslims, substituting "gays" for "infidels" or "The Great Satan." It is designed to fire up her ignorant followers and deflect from the failures of her party to effectively govern, all cloaked under the mantle of moral purity.

It is designed to fire up her ignorant followers


Mission accomplished.

Some of the comments on the news boards are so ridiculous, I can't even read them without cringing. I actually had to stop reading.. the bubbas of the world came out in full force spewing their hateful judgements on one hand and quoting the Bible on another.

It's actually pretty amazing, the amount of intolerance here in OK, considering it's supposed to be the Bible Belt.. it's so ironic to me.

Hatred cloaked in teachings from the ultimate book of love.

But one sad thing I have unfortunately learned from living here .... hypocrisy is pretty commonplace.

Honestly, if it weren't for this board, I probably would have moved a long time ago.

Thankfully, most of the members here are intelligent, tolerant and accepting. You are the ones that give me hope for OK.

Like I stated earlier, I really do feel sorry for these types of people (Ms. Kern and the like), not only for being uneducated but also for living in fear and being filled with hate.

Honestly, if it weren't for this board, I probably would have moved a long time ago.

No need to leave, Kari. There are more of us than there are of them, they're just a lot bigger loudmouths. OKC is actually quite progressive, certainly compared to the rest of the state (and even Tulsa). Only Norman is as progressive as OKC is all told.

Most of the gaybashers and Christian Taliban have not lived or even visited elsewhere. They don't get the point of this site, which is to see the continued forward, progressive momentum of our city. Their viewpoints are antithetical to that pursuit.

As you know, having come here from somewhere else, their viewpoints are very offputting to people (and companies) who are not from Oklahoma. Yet, they wear their views like a badge of honor. "Who cares what someone from California thinks about OKC," they say.

Then, they claim to want to see our economy grow, but cannot understand the connection to their primitive views and companies choosing to bypass OKC for other markets.

There is a connection. Texas nearly lost an Apple Computer location because of a small-town's obsessive anti-gay views. That a significant part of Apple's human resources are gay was lost on the bigots.

I have seen this city change remarkably in the last ten years. The Sally Kern's of the world are now viewed as freaks, not mainstream thinkers.

Wow! The Five Reactionary Posters on this board have been busy defending Sally Kern this week. This must be very important to them. Could they be Republican politicians?

I can tell you that I am not a politian, I am a sophomore at UCO and have part time job as a court house runner.


Also just out of curiosity... since we are in Oklahoma I will assume you have been around animals at least a time or two. Growing up around them, something that I noticed was that male dogs, or horses, or whatever, will often have sex with one another. What's your take on that?

I have never personally seen that, but I will take your word for that. There is a difference been man and animals. Animals have no souls (sorry kids, all dogs dont' go to heaven), but man was created in the image of God and has a soul. Man can distingush between right and wrong. A dog only knows what they have been tought.


This entire topic really shows how uneducated Oklahoma really is. I would expect to find this mindset from Ms. Kern in the backwoods of Oklahoma but I am surprised it is thriving here in the metro.

Ms. Kern's homophobic mindset must eat at her each and every day and her heart seems to be filled with a hate for all things homosexuals. I actually feel sorry for her and the people that think like her.

Kern is not an uneducated woman she has a degree in Sociology from UT. Many think that all Christians are uneducated, well many are, but the new emerging church does not help society's view of Christians.

Kern does not hate the homosexuals, only their actions. She says that the gay AGENDA is destroying the nation, not the gays themselves.


Mission accomplished.

Some of the comments on the news boards are so ridiculous, I can't even read them without cringing. I actually had to stop reading.. the bubbas of the world came out in full force spewing their hateful judgements on one hand and quoting the Bible on another.

It's actually pretty amazing, the amount of intolerance here in OK, considering it's supposed to be the Bible Belt.. it's so ironic to me.

Hatred cloaked in teachings from the ultimate book of love.

But one sad thing I have unfortunately learned from living here .... hypocrisy is pretty commonplace.

Honestly, if it weren't for this board, I probably would have moved a long time ago.

Thankfully, most of the members here are intelligent, tolerant and accepting. You are the ones that give me hope for OK.

You belive that Kern and I are intolerant? What is your definition of tolerant? I am going to guess that it goes something like this: "all views are equal and none should be better than another." Correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that is close. I make the statement: "the gay lifestyle is sinful and that the gay agenda could destroy this nation." You say that I am being intolerant by saying that the gay lifestyle is wrong. But, my view is that the gay lifestyle is wrong, and therefore by making the statement that I am intolerant, you are being intolerant. By saying that my view is not as equal as your view.

I call that a logical fallacy, therefore your statement that I am intolerant is void.

I am not tolerant by your view of tolerance. I am tolerant in that I am civil, I am not going to say we should round up all homosexuals and have a big bonfire. I am enduring your view, but I do not agree with your view.

She says that the gay AGENDA is destroying the nation, not the gays themselves.

That's a shallow reading of the content of her message. She equates the gay "AGENDA" (your emphasis) with terrorism. That is not a hate the sin, love the sinner type of comment.

Perhaps she is educated, but she isn't very smart to make such an ill-informed, inflammatory comment that even the Daily Oklahoman has decried.

Speaking of logical fallacies, can you give one rational explanation for how gays are destroying this nation? Just one.

Some of the comments on the news boards are so ridiculous, I can't even read them without cringing.




You belive that Kern and I are intolerant? What is your definition of tolerant?


I don't believe anything about you... I wasn't even referring to you or your comments. I was referring to NewsOK comments.

But I'm not intolerant of someone having a different thought process than mine..

I'm intolerant of a hypocrite like Sally Kern calling gay people a threat, worse than terrorists.

And I don't publicly profess to be a Christian and then spout off hateful comments all the while blabbing away about ancient laws in a book written 3500 ago and touched by human hands countless times ..... the hyprocrisy just kills me.

Words can hurt, especially when words can turn to action as in hate speech can equal hate crimes.

That's a shallow reading of the content of her message. She equates the gay "AGENDA" (your emphasis) with terrorism. That is not a hate the sin, love the sinner type of comment.

Perhaps she is educated, but she isn't very smart to make such an ill-informed, inflammatory comment that even the Daily Oklahoman has decried.

I would not call that a shallow interperation of her comments. I just relistended to the entire thing on YouTube and she was talking about the gay agenda.


Speaking of logical fallacies, can you give one rational explanation for how gays are destroying this nation? Just one.

I belive I already have, but I will say it again. The most basic form of government is found in the home, with a family, homosexuals are not a family. When we start recognizing homosexuals as families then the most basic form of government is gone. When you tear down the foundation the whole building will fall.

If people want to live with one another that's their problem. But it should not be endorsed by society.

I'm intolerant of a hypocrite like Sally Kern calling gay people a threat, worse than terrorists.

People or agenda? I never heard her make statements about people, only about the agenda. She introduced the topic by taking about the gay agenda.



And I don't publicly profess to be a Christian and then spout off hateful comments all the while blabbing away about ancient laws in a book written 3500 ago and touched by human hands countless times ..... the hyprocrisy just kills me.

How has the Bible been touched by human hands countless times? There has been new translaitons, but the meaning is still the same. Some Bibles are not as accurate, but we can still go and look at the Greek and Hebrew text.



Words can hurt, especially when words can turn to action as in hate speech can equal hate crimes.

When did she say to commit crimes? If people commit crimes based on her words then they do not follow the same agenda as she does. I know she would say that we should not commit crimes against homosexuals.

I never heard her make statements about people, only about the agenda.

Wrong again. You're ignoring her comments that equate gays with terrorists. Keep trying.

FWIW, are you without sin? Is Sally Kern?

The irony of your comments about family is astonishing. Half of all marriages -- including fundies like yourself -- end in divorce. How is that the fault of gays? Wouldn't that be more fertile ground for you and Sally to get all worked up into a lather?

Heterosexual marriage is in trouble considering how many of them fail. What are you and Sally doing about that? This "government" that you speak of is in serious trouble, and gays have nothing to do with it.

By the way, what about all the Christian leaders who are in the closet? What about them? There is rank hypocrisy in fundamentalist Christianity, but I'm sure it's all the gays' fault in your eyes.

What about all of the domestic abuse in our families? What about all of the sexual abuse in our families. Your vision of family is very limited, yet you ignore all of the problems with families in our culture.

My gay neighbors are the nicest people on my block, and I would go to the mat to defend them from extremists like you.

And furthermore, if you don't believe dehumanizing people with words leads to violence, you aren't paying attention. You obviously don't know anyone in law enforcement who deals with gay bashing and other hate crimes all of the time. Knuckledraggers hear things like dear old Christian Sally says and think it gives them license to physically assault people. Why not, she said they're as bad as terrorists, and terrorists kill people, so.....

Finally, do you have any progressive values? Do you believe in equal protection under the law? The Bill of Rights? What is your vision for our city? Would progress in your mind consist of a church on every corner? Pardon me if I don't see what you get about visiting this board, which is by nature a board dedicated to progress and positive change for our city.

Wouldn't you be more at home on a Christian fundamentalist board? No offense, just curious.

I belive I already have, but I will say it again. The most basic form of government is found in the home, with a family, homosexuals are not a family. When we start recognizing homosexuals as families then the most basic form of government is gone. When you tear down the foundation the whole building will fall.

If people want to live with one another that's their problem. But it should not be endorsed by society.

As a member of society, a free society...Don't you DARE tell me what to endorse. I mean really. Kiss my grits on that one. Especially if you're using a book that IS NOT LAW as your argument hammer. It's only that book that tells you that homosexuals are not a family. If it weren't for that book, you'd be a blathering bigot by "society" at large instead of just the relative few of us loudmouths that will throw it back in your face for what it is. Bigotry. The LAW in this land says freedom of religion. This means I don't have to follow the bible to stay within my right of the pursuit of happiness.

Screw tolerance. Seriously. When people like you want to keep law abiding members of society from having any rights simply because of a religion that I don't have to abide by according to federal law...yeah, I'm going to get downright intolerant. Because the next things you'll go after in the name of "family" are my rights to bump uglies outside of wedlock, "let" my woman go in public without her head covered, or wear a cotton shirt with gabardine trousers.

By the way, splitting hairs, parsing text, and reciting quotes without the context of the original statement when trying to bring your point across is a sign of a weak, weak argument.

FAIL.

I have never personally seen that, but I will take your word for that. There is a difference been man and animals. Animals have no souls (sorry kids, all dogs dont' go to heaven), but man was created in the image of God and has a soul. Man can distingush between right and wrong. A dog only knows what they have been tought.

Since your original argument was of a biological nature, basically that "the parts don't fit," I guess you are now agreeing that this line of argument is not a valid one? Just so that I am clear, you are shifting your views from one of a biological/naturist view, in which man and animal are the same and part of a natural biological set of forces that dictate what is 'natural', to one where man and animal are completely different and the onus is on the thinking human to overcome their natural urges. Did I summarize that correctly?

I'm just trying to figure out if you have a rationalization for all of this, or if you have a viewpoint and are struggling to find a rationalization that fits it....

Wrong again. You're ignoring her comments that equate gays with terrorists. Keep trying.

As I said before she is talking about the agenda, not the person.



FWIW, are you without sin? Is Sally Kern?

No, it is a doctrine called total depravity. All men have fallen and come short of the Glory of God. Did Kern or I ever say we have never sinned? I can be a mean dictator, just ask my newspaper class from high school. But how does the affect this argument?



The irony of your comments about family is astonishing. Half of all marriages -- including fundies like yourself -- end in divorce. How is that the fault of gays? Wouldn't that be more fertile ground for you and Sally to get all worked up into a lather?

Did I blame divorces on gays? I know that there are lots of divorces, I spend much of my day at the Oklahoma County Court Clerks SC/CS/FD counter, I know how bad the divorce problem is now. The attitue of people when they file in their divoces is disgusting. There are lots of problems in this nation and we can't let the gay agenda be another problem.



By the way, what about all the Christian leaders who are in the closet? What about them? There is rank hypocrisy in fundamentalist Christianity, but I'm sure it's all the gays' fault in your eyes.

I know there is hypocricy in the chruch, I have seen it all my life. What they do is wrong, but the only thing I can defintly change is what I do. The problems in the church are caused by the church members and the influnce of the world getting to them.



What about all of the domestic abuse in our families? What about all of the sexual abuse in our families. Your vision of family is very limited, yet you ignore all of the problems with families in our culture.

As I said before I know there are problems. Man will sin, again that is the doctrine of total depravity.



My gay neighbors are the nicest people on my block, and I would go to the mat to defend them from extremists like you.

I know gay people, I have lived near gay people, and I am even related to a gay man. They are nice people to know, but what they do is wrong. I have never threatend to kill them, nor will I ever do such a thing.



And furthermore, if you don't believe dehumanizing people with words leads to violence, you aren't paying attention. You obviously don't know anyone in law enforcement who deals with gay bashing and other hate crimes all of the time. Knuckledraggers hear things like dear old Christian Sally says and think it gives them license to physically assault people. Why not, she said they're as bad as terrorists, and terrorists kill people, so.....

If someone commits a crime then they should be prosecuted for their crimes. Kern was only speaking against their acitons, not the people. If someone misinterprest her words, she cannot be held responsible.



Finally, do you have any progressive values? Do you believe in equal protection under the law? The Bill of Rights? What is your vision for our city? Would progress in your mind consist of a church on every corner? Pardon me if I don't see what you get about visiting this board, which is by nature a board dedicated to progress and positive change for our city.

Well the word progressive is very broad. I do not agree with Teddy Roosevelt's progressive ideas or anything like his progress ideas. I 100% support the Bill of Rights, it is just to bad that some of them have been silently over turned. I belive in moving this city forward. It is like what was discussed this morning on Flash Point, city politics should be partisan. I voted yes on March 4th, I would have voted yes for MAPS if I would have been old enough. I think that it is great to see what this city is doing. I have lived here all my life and I have been downtown all my life. This city is going in the right direction except for some social issues. I do not call letting society accpet homosexual marriage as progress, it is a backwards step.



Wouldn't you be more at home on a Christian fundamentalist board? No offense, just curious.

I make my way around the web sometimes. I am around people all day long that are not like minded, but we still get along. I am here because I love to see the progress in this city.

As a member of society, a free society...Don't you DARE tell me what to endorse. I mean really. Kiss my grits on that one. Especially if you're using a book that IS NOT LAW as your argument hammer. It's only that book that tells you that homosexuals are not a family. If it weren't for that book, you'd be a blathering bigot by "society" at large instead of just the relative few of us loudmouths that will throw it back in your face for what it is. Bigotry. The LAW in this land says freedom of religion. This means I don't have to follow the bible to stay within my right of the pursuit of happiness.

Screw tolerance. Seriously. When people like you want to keep law abiding members of society from having any rights simply because of a religion that I don't have to abide by according to federal law...yeah, I'm going to get downright intolerant. Because the next things you'll go after in the name of "family" are my rights to bump uglies outside of wedlock, "let" my woman go in public without her head covered, or wear a cotton shirt with gabardine trousers.

By the way, splitting hairs, parsing text, and reciting quotes without the context of the original statement when trying to bring your point across is a sign of a weak, weak argument.

FAIL.

When did I say that gays have no rights? They have equal rights as members of this society. They simply do not have a right to married to one another.

And when did I use a quote out of context? None of my arguments are illogical.


Since your original argument was of a biological nature, basically that "the parts don't fit," I guess you are now agreeing that this line of argument is not a valid one? Just so that I am clear, you are shifting your views from one of a biological/naturist view, in which man and animal are the same and part of a natural biological set of forces that dictate what is 'natural', to one where man and animal are completely different and the onus is on the thinking human to overcome their natural urges. Did I summarize that correctly?

I'm just trying to figure out if you have a rationalization for all of this, or if you have a viewpoint and are struggling to find a rationalization that fits it....

Actually you are going off course because you are changing the subject from humans to animals. I simply gave you an explanation of the fundamental difference between human and animals.
I have a rationalization that fits my views perfectly, if I did not I would not be posting. If I had no rational explanation I would not be posting as I would making a fool of myself logically.

Actually you are going off course because you are changing the subject from humans to animals. I simply gave you an explanation of the fundamental difference between human and animals.
I have a rationalization that fits my views perfectly, if I did not I would not be posting. If I had no rational explanation I would not be posting as I would making a fool of myself logically.

You said:


How can someone say that people are born gay? Human anatomy is not designed for homosexual relations; it is designed for heterosexual relations.

You brought anatomy into the argument and our biological design as a basis for your rationalization. I merely pointed out that this is in fact the case with the rest of the animal kingdom as well, which is where scientists look when comparing our anatomy and how it is designed, and that homosexual behavior has been observed in animals (which also were not designed for homosexual relations). When I pointed that out you dropped your argument in favor of the 'we are more than animals' argument. So I didn't change the argument, I just showed you that your original statement wasn't entirely logical when you compare what you said to the rest of the animal kingdom, and instead of defending that argument you switched the argument from one of anatomy to one of higher brain function and reasoning.

But since we are having such an interesting conversation here, I will ask you the same things that I asked in another thread....

Right now, today, it is perfectly fine and legal for two non-Christians or even atheists to get married. How is that any different philosophically from gay marriage, or is it?

Why should the government even care about who is having sex with whom?

Do you support a return to the old 'blue laws' of yesteryear that would make pre-marital sex, adultery, etc. a crime?

Has the number of sexual partners you have had in your lifetime negatively influenced society? Is that even a concern? How is this question similar or different at its core from the questions that Sally is bringing up?

Do you think the war in Iraq is more or less important than modifying the Constitution to ban gay marriage? What about nuclear proliferation in Iran and other places? Is it more or less important than preventing terrorism around the globe and here at home? If you had the power of the Congressional checkbook at your fingertips and you were given the chance to divert significant funding from any of the above issues and instead fund a campaign to ban gay marriage, and the result meant that a US city would be destroyed but you would in fact get the gay marriage ban approved, would you do it?

I belive I already have, but I will say it again. The most basic form of government is found in the home, with a family, homosexuals are not a family.


See, things like this coming out of someone's mouth especially a Christian's is just so disturbing to me.

Just think of all the gay people who in loving family units who might read these hurtful words.

I think it is so presumptious of people to dictate what a 'family ' is or isn't.

When my mom got the courage to leave an abusive marriage and became a single mom, the church ladies ostrasized her and pretty much threw her to the curb because we no longer fit their image of a perfect family ( and probably because they were worried about their Christian husbands hitting on a single woman) ....

What do you say to Grandparents raising their grandchildren.. you're not a family? How about stepfamilies? Single dads? Not a family?

why? Because it doesn't fit the idea of a mom, dad, two kids and a dog?

A family is a family if your heart tells you it is.

You don't have the right to say it's not.

See, things like this coming out of someone's mouth especially a Christian's is just so disturbing to me.

Just think of all the gay people who in loving family units who might read these hurtful words.

I think it is so presumptious of people to dictate what a 'family ' is or isn't.

When my mom got the courage to leave an abusive marriage and became a single mom, the church ladies ostrasized her and pretty much threw her to the curb because we no longer fit their image of a perfect family ( and probably because they were worried about their Christian husbands hitting on a single woman) ....

I agree with all you wrote, Karrie. My wife and I were discussing some bigotry we heard the other day and I told her my thinking on this and she said she had never heard this before - so I'll say it here and see what happens. I originally posted this in the Sally Kern thread. As strange as I guess this may sound, I honestly believe that it's clearly genetic and is part of the vast ecosystem of life that allows for human population control. A fascinating part of human evolution, if you will. Meaning --- it's in the genes.That doesn't mean someone with the gene will become gay, but the predisposition is there - just like with many other genetic traits. Maybe that's crazy - maybe it's not; but I know we must get past the hate.

Another problem with our national perception is that most think we can't spell or use grammar properly. The title of this thread should be perception not preception.

As strange as I guess this may sound, I honestly believe that [B]it's clearly genetic and is part of the vast ecosystem of life that allows for human population control. A fascinating part of human evolution, if you will.

Solitude, I dont think its that far-fetched of an idea. Not that I believe it to be fact, but I have had the same thoughts before. I do believe there are natural population controls (disease, disasters) and this could be another, just a much more complicated one.

I honestly believe that it's clearly genetic and is part of the vast ecosystem of life that allows for human population control. A fascinating part of human evolution, if you will. Meaning --- it's in the genes


I think you are on to something.... I'm all for anything that will offer some population control .... I just wish it was designed so that child abusers, abusive criminals and repeat offenders would be the ones unable to create life.

I'm not worried about gays having children at all! Probably some of the most well adjusted people would come of that.

It's not like gay people produce gay children anyway.

If gays are turned gay by society - nurture (which is why Sally Kern is so adamant that the gay agenda stay away from the toddlers! gasp!) then how do you explain all of the millions of gay people born to straight people and raised in a straight nuclear household family unit?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You know I was thinking of this... a lot of the negative attitudes toward gay people have a lot to do with perceptions of things seen in the media.

Just like OK, people haven't visited it, they only see or hear the bad news and make presumptions based on hearsay.

If you are thinking of gay families based on some of the outlandish flamboyant scenes you may have seen at a gay parade or on TV, then yes, you will probably think.. uh, uh, not a great family environment.

But you have to realize that is the exception, not the rule.

It's no secret I was born and raised in the Bay Area of California.. yeah,yeah, bleeding heart liberal... a few things I've been called.. but I've seen and met and known and have had many, many friends who are gay yet don't fit the stereotype of gay people.

Believe it or not, they are just like us, but I've found them to be even kinder and more accepting because they know how it feels to be mistreated and considered not normal and to be teased and picked on ... they have empathy and compassion.


Think about a time when as a child you were bullied or imagine your own small child being picked on and harrassed and shamed.

Then look at a gay person and call them a terrorist.

It's all about walking in another person's shoes for me... and trying to imagine why people act the way they act and try not to judge or condemn them for it.

You brought anatomy into the argument and our biological design as a basis for your rationalization. I merely pointed out that this is in fact the case with the rest of the animal kingdom as well, which is where scientists look when comparing our anatomy and how it is designed, and that homosexual behavior has been observed in animals (which also were not designed for homosexual relations). When I pointed that out you dropped your argument in favor of the 'we are more than animals' argument. So I didn't change the argument, I just showed you that your original statement wasn't entirely logical when you compare what you said to the rest of the animal kingdom, and instead of defending that argument you switched the argument from one of anatomy to one of higher brain function and reasoning.

Actually my original comments were not dealing with anatomy, but rather family. No animals should have homosexual relations, but aniamls do not have souls. Since an animal has no soul then it is not sin, but it still is not correct.

The whole argument is not based souly on anatomy, socity, or religion, but rather on all of them.



Right now, today, it is perfectly fine and legal for two non-Christians or even atheists to get married. How is that any different philosophically from gay marriage, or is it?

Becuase having hetrosexual relations is not a sin, but homosexual relations is a sin.



Why should the government even care about who is having sex with whom?

Becuase government set up the laws to allow marriage to be a legal union between a man and woman. If the government had never set up such laws and marriage was only a symbalism then the government would have no business in this issue.



Do you support a return to the old 'blue laws' of yesteryear that would make pre-marital sex, adultery, etc. a crime?

I say do what you want, just as long as society does not embrase the sin.



Has the number of sexual partners you have had in your lifetime negatively influenced society? Is that even a concern? How is this question similar or different at its core from the questions that Sally is bringing up?

Yes that is an issue, but if people want to sleep around then they will face the consequences. It is a similar social issue found in the gay agenda, but it goes against the basic form of marriage which is monogamy.



Do you think the war in Iraq is more or less important than modifying the Constitution to ban gay marriage? What about nuclear proliferation in Iran and other places? Is it more or less important than preventing terrorism around the globe and here at home?

I think the protection of this country from outside sources is just as important as protecting it from corruption within. I also made a proposal that we not make the amendment ban gay marriage, but rather allow each make the decision themselves.



If you had the power of the Congressional checkbook at your fingertips and you were given the chance to divert significant funding from any of the above issues and instead fund a campaign to ban gay marriage, and the result meant that a US city would be destroyed but you would in fact get the gay marriage ban approved, would you do it?

When did I say that congress should fund anti-gay funds? If I had the congressional checkbook I would just pass the amendment and allow the majority of the states pass the amendment, not costing the tax payers a penny.


See, things like this coming out of someone's mouth especially a Christian's is just so disturbing to me.

Just think of all the gay people who in loving family units who might read these hurtful words.

How am I being hateful? Am I screaming at them saying that I would rather see them dead than walking the streets? No, I am saying that what they are doing is wrong.



I think it is so presumptious of people to dictate what a 'family ' is or isn't.

Why? Look at history, what has a family always been?



When my mom got the courage to leave an abusive marriage and became a single mom, the church ladies ostrasized her and pretty much threw her to the curb because we no longer fit their image of a perfect family ( and probably because they were worried about their Christian husbands hitting on a single woman) ....

I am sorry that happened. That is not the Christian responce.



What do you say to Grandparents raising their grandchildren.. you're not a family? How about stepfamilies? Single dads? Not a family?

Grandparents are a family, there is man and woman. Step families are the same way. Single parrents and no family are caused by extenuating circumstance.



You don't have the right to say it's not.

Why don't I have that right? You are saying that I am wrong, why can't I say they are wrong? I have found what is right and wrong through the logical and reason given to all man. If you say that I do not have the right to say what is right and wrong, than you are being hypocritical by saying that I am wrong.

Did you just move here recently??

Who? Me? I have lived here all my life. My family has been here since the land run.

That land run was a rip roaring success wasn't it?

Well without it we would not be talking. This land would probaly be more like the Dakotas, rather than the coming up city we are today. What does that have to do with the topic?

The whole argument is not based souly on anatomy, socity, or religion, but rather on all of them.

So let me try to restate what I think your position is. I will embellish it a bit so that you can see where I am diverging from you. Homosexuality is a sin because it is not natural and we were not designed in such a manner, even though it appears that it is seen in nature and a behavior that is designed into some animals. Regardless of this some religions say that this is a sin in humans because they have a conscience and are "choosing" to do it anyway. This is causing the destruction of the family unit, even though there doesn't appear to be any evidence that this is the case. Because it is a sin it may have a negative impact on society, and because of this impact it should be banned, even though religion and law are not necessarily one and the same. Other things which are also having a negative impact on society, such as divorce, pre-marital sex, etc. should remain legal because... homosexuality is a more severe sin?


Becuase having hetrosexual relations is not a sin, but homosexual relations is a sin.

The Bible says that a Christian should stay with his own kind and should not marry non-believers. This is a sin. Why is it legal for a Christian and a non-Christian to be married? How is this different than your argument?

Rather than starting from the standpoint of religion you should be starting the argument from the standpoint of the Law and explaining to my how your position doesn't violate the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution....


Becuase government set up the laws to allow marriage to be a legal union between a man and woman. If the government had never set up such laws and marriage was only a symbalism then the government would have no business in this issue.

Yes but if you will do some research on why the government ever got involved in marriage in the first place you will find it had nothing to do with religion. It really was all about ownership rights, sovereignty, shared assets, etc. That's right... it's about MONEY. Surprise!

That being the case, I don't see how any of today's modern arguments are logical in any sense whatsoever from a governance standpoint. Feel free to try to change my mind.


I say do what you want, just as long as society does not embrase the sin.

To allow something is different than supporting it. Lots of people do things that are distasteful in this world. That doesn't mean our society is supporting it. The only way you can ever have this type of society would be to create some kind of puritanical government that passes laws on absolutely everything of a moral nature. Drinking, smoking, over-eating (e.g. gluttony), and so on should all be banned by this logic. "Why should government "support" smokers, fat people, etc...."


Yes that is an issue, but if people want to sleep around then they will face the consequences. It is a similar social issue found in the gay agenda, but it goes against the basic form of marriage which is monogamy.

So how come it is okay to allow this legally, which by your definition would be a tacit support of a sinful behavior, but in the example above we must ban the act to prevent the moral decay of society? Aren't both equally destructive to society? Isn't society tacitly supporting this act too? Why are you judging one sin to be of a greater nature than the other... isn't that for God to decide?


When did I say that congress should fund anti-gay funds? If I had the congressional checkbook I would just pass the amendment and allow the majority of the states pass the amendment, not costing the tax payers a penny.

You didn't. But you are supporting what good old Sally has said, and what she said was that the homosexual agenda was a far more important issue than the terrorism issue we now face. You went on to second this, saying that decay from within is at least as important as guarding against decay from external sources, in fact in one post you said it was more important an issue. So now I am proposing a hypothetical question to you.... You are a senator and it is time to put your money where your mouth is and prove which of these issues is more important. You can spend all of your time trying to push forward anti-gay agenda legislation, or you can spend all of your time in the senate pushing forward anti-terrorism measures and war bills. [Money won't even come into the equation this time]. If you spend all your time on the anti-gay legislation, then one year from now the gay agenda will be completely irradicated but a lot of people will have died in Iraq, Iran, or wherever. On the other hand if you spend all your time trying to help along the war far fewer people will die and in fact maybe you end the war, but at the same time one year from now gays will be allowed to legally marry. What do you do?

I'm asking this question in all seriousness because I really don't think anyone who would say that the 'homosexual agenda' is more important than these other issues is fully grasping what they are saying.

Anyway, after your next post I think I will know exactly where you are coming from. I don't know that any more on this issue needs to be said after that because I suspect you have your opinions which will not change, and I have mine.

So let me try to restate what I think your position is. I will embellish it a bit so that you can see where I am diverging from you. Homosexuality is a sin because it is not natural and we were not designed in such a manner, even though it appears that it is seen in nature and a behavior that is designed into some animals. Regardless of this some religions say that this is a sin in humans because they have a conscience and are "choosing" to do it anyway. This is causing the destruction of the family unit, even though there doesn't appear to be any evidence that this is the case. Because it is a sin it may have a negative impact on society, and because of this impact it should be banned, even though religion and law are not necessarily one and the same. Other things which are also having a negative impact on society, such as divorce, pre-marital sex, etc. should remain legal because... homosexuality is a more severe sin?

You are a bit off of what I said. First homosexuality is not designed into any animals. Animals do weird things, but men hava soul, which makes us different. Homosexuality is more like a behavior or habit, some my be more predisposed to it than others. Why is it that some people smoke and others don't? Why is it that people choose to chew their finger nails and others don't? It is simply a behavior, for all we know it may a predispostion built into our dna, but we do not have to give into the wrong.
When did I ever say that homosexuals should be banned. If I said that you could call that hate speech. That would be like saying let's burn them all at the stake. I simply do not want society to accept sinful behavior, but people can still what they want.
A sin is a sin, but you cannot ban all sins. This is not a theocracy, and cannot be a theocracy. I am disgusted with divorces, as I said earlier, but I think it should become more difficult to get divorced and to get married. Maybe that would solve some of the divorce problem.



The Bible says that a Christian should stay with his own kind and should not marry non-believers. This is a sin. Why is it legal for a Christian and a non-Christian to be married? How is this different than your argument?

There is a fine line between legistating religion and morality. I have never said that should legistate religion, but we have to legistate morality. If we did not legistate morality then it would be fine for me to kill you because there is no moral rule to base the law. If one party is truly a Christian then they would not marry a non-Christian. Imagine if I married someone with similiar beliefs as yours, we would kill each other after a few months. Christians and non-Christians being married is far from my arugment against gay marriages because there is nothing immoral in hetrosexual marriages, even though it may be a sin.



Rather than starting from the standpoint of religion you should be starting the argument from the standpoint of the Law and explaining to my how your position doesn't violate the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution....

My position does not violate the equal protection clause. Gays are proteted under the law just the same as I am. They can say what they want, they can practice what religion they want, and they can even have homosexual relations. They cannot be married becuase a marriage is between a man and women, when that equation is not met then they cannot be married. They are not being deprived of any Constitutional rights.



Yes but if you will do some research on why the government ever got involved in marriage in the first place you will find it had nothing to do with religion. It really was all about ownership rights, sovereignty, shared assets, etc. That's right... it's about MONEY. Surprise! -

The federal government has never been involved in marriges, only that states have to accept other state licences. The Constitution never says anything about marriage. I have not done extensive research into the beginnings of government and marriage. This weekend I will try and do some more research on the topic of government and marriage. I know what the founding fatheres of this nation would have said on this issue, and I will side with them.



That being the case, I don't see how any of today's modern arguments are logical in any sense whatsoever from a governance standpoint. Feel free to try to change my mind.

Would you agree to only have an amendment that allowed the states to decide if they accept gay marriages? I would support that amendment, I am 100% beind letting the states have the rights to choose if they will accept gay marriages from other states or allow gay marriges in that state.



To allow something is different than supporting it. Lots of people do things that are distasteful in this world. That doesn't mean our society is supporting it. The only way you can ever have this type of society would be to create some kind of puritanical government that passes laws on absolutely everything of a moral nature. Drinking, smoking, over-eating (e.g. gluttony), and so on should all be banned by this logic. "Why should government "support" smokers, fat people, etc...."

Agreed. But by allowing gay marriages the government is supporting the gay agenda.



So how come it is okay to allow this legally, which by your definition would be a tacit support of a sinful behavior, but in the example above we must ban the act to prevent the moral decay of society? Aren't both equally destructive to society? Isn't society tacitly supporting this act too? Why are you judging one sin to be of a greater nature than the other... isn't that for God to decide?

I never said we should ban anything except the marriages. They can do what they wish. In society we do judge one sin greater than another. If you kill someone, or if are a child abuser you will get different punishments, eventhough they are both sins. That is just how society works.



You didn't. But you are supporting what good old Sally has said, and what she said was that the homosexual agenda was a far more important issue than the terrorism issue we now face. You went on to second this, saying that decay from within is at least as important as guarding against decay from external sources, in fact in one post you said it was more important an issue. So now I am proposing a hypothetical question to you.... You are a senator and it is time to put your money where your mouth is and prove which of these issues is more important. You can spend all of your time trying to push forward anti-gay agenda legislation, or you can spend all of your time in the senate pushing forward anti-terrorism measures and war bills. [Money won't even come into the equation this time]. If you spend all your time on the anti-gay legislation, then one year from now the gay agenda will be completely irradicated but a lot of people will have died in Iraq, Iran, or wherever. On the other hand if you spend all your time trying to help along the war far fewer people will die and in fact maybe you end the war, but at the same time one year from now gays will be allowed to legally marry. What do you do?

The question is not really fair. Both can be done within the session. But to go with your theory the terrorist that are at our door step should be delt with first. I really think that it would be better to allow the states to decide this issue anyway. The states do not have to worry about the terrorist, that is the federal governments responsibility.



Anyway, after your next post I think I will know exactly where you are coming from. I don't know that any more on this issue needs to be said after that because I suspect you have your opinions which will not change, and I have mine.

I know that I am not going to change your mind, and you know that you are not going to change mine. But you are not my target audience. It is like in a debate, you try to persuade the audience, not the person you are debating. I know that lots of people have looked at this thread and I want to se my side. I think that a good healthy debate is always good for our mind. Agreed?

bkm, what you speak of is rooted in BELIEF, not facts. I prefer to live in the world of facts. Sorry, you were unable to provide a single provable fact that gays are a detriment to society. What you provide is a series of opinions, which are founded on your interpretation of scripture and your FEAR that if gays are given rights our society will crumble. And yet again, you can provide no facts to support your flimsy thesis.

I live in the reality-based community. You live in the faith-based community, and your beliefs are so set that no facts will change them.

Do us all a favor and recognize that we don't abide your beliefs, and are more comfortable making decisions to condemn entire segments of the population based on facts, and facts alone.

I'll take the US Constitution, thank you very much. You will hope for enough Sally Kerns to get elected that we will amend the Constitution. Not bloody likely.

I wish you the best of luck at UCO this semester. Perhaps as your life evolves, you will allow yourself the luxury of considering facts alongside your deeply held beliefs. I won't be holding my breath.

I really like your points Karried. Yes, one problem is the sterotypes seen in the media really have an effect on how people view gays. I've met some gay people through college and high school and noticed how they are just like everyone else. These sterotypes originating from the media causes many things on how people view others from co-cultures.

I question myself if this has anything to do with HB 1804 which has caused another bad perception of Oklahoma recently. First off, i've been to Mexico City numberous times and one thing i've noticed is that there is these perceptions such as how religious, education attainment, and even number of kids people have in mexico and there is proof that people there have 2.5 kids, and 20% have a bachelors, and high percentages are agnostics and athiests while they are only catholic by name. Plus, civil unions and abortions are legal. At the same time though, many parts of Mexico are not like this. Its kinda the same as looking at the majority of the population political and social ideologies compared from oklahoma to california.

Calling homosexuals terroists is pretty bad. I don't see them walking around the state causing acts that constitute as being terrorists. It just tells you how much Kern is a bigot. It really makes me sick that there are people out there like this.

I wonder how this ordeal is going for her and her husbands church's outreach program.

bkm, what you speak of is rooted in BELIEF, not facts. I prefer to live in the world of facts. Sorry, you were unable to provide a single provable fact that gays are a detriment to society. What you provide is a series of opinions, which are founded on your interpretation of scripture and your FEAR that if gays are given rights our society will crumble. And yet again, you can provide no facts to support your flimsy thesis.

I live in the reality-based community. You live in the faith-based community, and your beliefs are so set that no facts will change them.

Do us all a favor and recognize that we don't abide your beliefs, and are more comfortable making decisions to condemn entire segments of the population based on facts, and facts alone.

I'll take the US Constitution, thank you very much. You will hope for enough Sally Kerns to get elected that we will amend the Constitution. Not bloody likely.

I wish you the best of luck at UCO this semester. Perhaps as your life evolves, you will allow yourself the luxury of considering facts alongside your deeply held beliefs. I won't be holding my breath.

How have I not given info based on fact? The gay agenda destroys family values, it is unhealthy to have homosexual relations, and the parts don't fit. There is a religions aspect also to the argument, but there are also facts.

I do not appreciate that your comments are insinuating that I am an ignorante idiot who follows blindly a 2000 year old religion. There are Christians that look at faith as a blind leap, but I look at faith in its original meaning, trust. I have studied the Bible and found what it says to be true by reason and logic. There are many Christians that follow blindly, but I am not one.

I hope that you will eventually see that many Christians are actually very intellectual people.

I think everyone picked up right away on how intellectual you are.

How have I not given info based on fact?

The gay agenda destroys family values, it is unhealthy to have homosexual relations, and the parts don't fit.



No, no, no... those are your beliefs based on a lifetime of living in Oklahoma. There's a bigger world out there.

Give one example, just one fact or statistic that shows what you say above is fact.

How have I not given info based on fact? The gay agenda destroys family values, it is unhealthy to have homosexual relations, and the parts don't fit. There is a religions aspect also to the argument, but there are also facts.

Let me help you out here.


fact /fækt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt] –noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.


o·pin·ion /əˈpɪnyən/ [uh-pin-yuhn] –noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

First off, to have a fact, you're going to have to start identifying some of these amorphous concepts you have wrangled into your argument. Please define "the gay agenda," and please define "family values."

Then, consider that you are fixating on the sexual aspects of the homosexual relationship as if that's all it was [regarding the health argument]. That point of view is clearly erroneous. How do you tell a monogamous homosexual couple of 35 years that their relationship is de facto "unhealthy."

Further, regarding the "health" issue, since you seem to fixate on the sexual aspects, what are your feelings regarding heterosexual fellatio/cunnilingus, heterosexual anal intercourse, or heterosexual sex play involving 'props'? Clearly, by your standard, even assuming a married relationship, all of those things would be "unhealthy," yes? Are we to assume you've never received a BJ?

I don't see how you can have any sort of fact whatsoever regarding anything harming "family values" as "family values" is a political word used to give us warm fuzzies because it's a purely subjective term. Have you ever met a politician who claims to be against family values? Try a little intellectual honesty. It's good stuff.


I do not appreciate that your comments are insinuating that I am an ignorante idiot who follows blindly a 2000 year old religion. There are Christians that look at faith as a blind leap, but I look at faith in its original meaning, trust. I have studied the Bible and found what it says to be true by reason and logic. There are many Christians that follow blindly, but I am not one.

Which parts of the Bible do you trust? The New Testament condones slavery, so I guess that's a-ok in your book, then? It's fine to have a religious argument, but do try and be consistent, won't you?


I hope that you will eventually see that many Christians are actually very intellectual people.

Absolutely. Some are.

How have I not given info based on fact? The gay agenda destroys family values, it is unhealthy to have homosexual relations, and the parts don't fit.

How enlghtening to reduce this argument to body parts.
I assume that you are heterosexual. As such you became aware in your sexual development of your attraction to women. You did not sit down one day and CHOOSE to be heterosexual; it was just as you would probably say "natural." Can you not understand that in the wonderful diversity of God's creation there are some people who at the time of their sexaul maturity become aware of their attraction to their own sex. They do not CHOOSE it (why would they when they will be subjected to the kind of abuse you and your ilk heap upon them?). I choose to follow the loving message of Jesus.---yes, now that IS a choice.

and the parts don't fit

Are we going to start banning Fords, then?

First off, to have a fact, you're going to have to start identifying some of these amorphous concepts you have wrangled into your argument. Please define "the gay agenda," and please define "family values."

The Gay Agenda:

"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible."
"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
"Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
"Make gays look good."
"Make the victimizers look bad."
"Get funds from corporate America."

(source: CitizenLink: Q&A: The Homosexual Agenda (http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm) and "After the Ball")


Family values is simple, do you have a mother? father? I know the answer is yes, so therefore they are your family. Family has always been a mother and father, not a mother and mother, or father and father.



Then, consider that you are fixating on the sexual aspects of the homosexual relationship as if that's all it was [regarding the health argument]. That point of view is clearly erroneous. How do you tell a monogamous homosexual couple of 35 years that their relationship is de facto "unhealthy."

You might like to read Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1034938/posts)

These are some that make even monogomous homosexuality unhealthy.

8. Psychological health problems including multiple drug use, partner violence, history of childhood sexual abuse, and depression interface to sharply increase high-risk sexual behavior and HIV infection rates among homosexual and bisexual men in the U.S. (L. Linley, R. Stall, G. Mansergh, "New CDC Studies Shed Light on Facts Underlying High HIV Infection Rates Among Gay and Bisexual Men." CDC Media Relations: Press Release (http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r020710.htm) )

13. The bacteria contacted during anal intercourse include Shigella, Entamoeba, Giardia (causes chronic diarrhea), and the bacteria that cause hepatitis A (severe liver damage which can kill), and hepatitis B. Of course, the mostly deadly of all, HIV, is more easily transmitted through anal sex. ("When Kids don’t Have a Straight Answer" [Departments: Health and Fitness]. NEAToday on-line.)

And the list goes on.



Further, regarding the "health" issue, since you seem to fixate on the sexual aspects, what are your feelings regarding heterosexual fellatio/cunnilingus, heterosexual anal intercourse, or heterosexual sex play involving 'props'? Clearly, by your standard, even assuming a married relationship, all of those things would be "unhealthy," yes? Are we to assume you've never received a BJ?

Anal intercourse is wrong even in a hetrosexual relation for the same reason as homosexual relations. Sex play involving props can be wrong depending on the prop, because it can be unhealthy. And yes you are to assume I have never received a BJ, since I am not married.



I don't see how you can have any sort of fact whatsoever regarding anything harming "family values" as "family values" is a political word used to give us warm fuzzies because it's a purely subjective term. Have you ever met a politician who claims to be against family values? Try a little intellectual honesty. It's good stuff.

You are correct that people use family values as a subjective term. Maybe it would be better if I used the term tradational family values, does make more sence?



Which parts of the Bible do you trust? The New Testament condones slavery, so I guess that's a-ok in your book, then? It's fine to have a religious argument, but do try and be consistent, won't you?

Where does the NT condone slavery? Slavery is taken as a part of life, but it is not condoned. I have always been consistent in my arguments, give me one time that I have changed my stance.



Absolutely. Some are.

That is called an ad hominem, you are attacking me, not my arguement. That is a sign of a knowing you are wrong.


How enlghtening to reduce this argument to body parts.
I assume that you are heterosexual. As such you became aware in your sexual development of your attraction to women. You did not sit down one day and CHOOSE to be heterosexual; it was just as you would probably say "natural." Can you not understand that in the wonderful diversity of God's creation there are some people who at the time of their sexaul maturity become aware of their attraction to their own sex. They do not CHOOSE it (why would they when they will be subjected to the kind of abuse you and your ilk heap upon them?). I choose to follow the loving message of Jesus.---yes, now that IS a choice.

You are right, I did not choose to be heterosexual, because that is the way that all men are designed. You choose to be the homosexual because it is the opposite of what is natural. It is like when you get up in the morning, you do not choose to lay in bed because you are already there and gravity is holding you there. There are no muscles that have to be moved to lay in bed, but rather you must choose to get up and start your day.

What abuse have I done do to homosexuals? I am only stating the truth.

Becoming a Christian is a choice because of total depravity, if you are truly a Christian you will be familiar with that doctrine. By doing nothing man will remain in sin since that is the way we are born. But, we choose to go to Christ.

Definitely entitled to your opinions, but I'm hoping you realize they are just that and none of your posts includes facts of any kind

I prefer to take the word of every single homosexual of why they are the way they are over what a guy with an 800 number soliticing donations tells me

Silly college kid, drinking too much again, as did I .