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

How do you call the sources I quote in my last post an opinion? Each fact is documented.

How can you explain people that turn from the homosexual lifestyle? If they are "born" that way then they cannot change, right? Take this an an example: here. (http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/sports_roy_simmons.aspx)


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

After all this conversation do you seriously think I drink? I have never had alcohol and I have no desire to try alcohol.

bkm,
Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. Look, there's nothing wrong with admitting your interpretation of the bible outweighs factual data to support your arguments. You have none. As far as I can tell, the "gay agenda" is to not be discriminated against in employment, and the ability to share partner benefits like property and health insurance. If you honestly believe that -- or even, gasp, a civil marriage ceremony -- is a bigger threat to our society than terrorism, then you must lead a very sheltered life.

You come across as a bigot, and someone who is willfully ignorant of facts and cogent discussion. This has become tiresome to the extreme and your opinions are not swaying anyone here. Your viewpoints would be a better fit for Laramie, Wyoming than Oklahoma City. Perhaps the social values of Amarillo or Laramie are a closer fit for your own. All of this diversity and change in OKC must be very threatening to you. Seriously.

OK, if I respond again to this thread I'm just as much a part of the problem. We get your point. Let's move on.

After all this conversation do you seriously think I drink? I have never had alcohol and I have no desire to try alcohol.


Maybe you should give it a try.

Although it has been said that if you drink alcohol you will become gay. But, I am going to guess that you believe that alcohol is also a sin.

How do you call the sources I quote in my last post an opinion? Each fact is documented.

How can you explain people that turn from the homosexual lifestyle? If they are "born" that way then they cannot change, right? Take this an an example: here. (http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/sports_roy_simmons.aspx)



After all this conversation do you seriously think I drink? I have never had alcohol and I have no desire to try alcohol.

You do realize that having an alcoholic drink is NOT a sin??? I am a steadfast Christian and have a huge problem with what Kern said. 50-60 years ago people (Christians) had the same attitude toward black people. I really hope in 50 years that being gay is not an issue anymore. Pointing the finger at gay people is also a sin as far as I believe. If you believe it goes against the bible, as I do fine, but let he without sin cast the first stone. I have sinned and still do but hey in the end we all make mistakes no matter how hard we try not to. I strive everyday to be a better person but I do not do that everyday. I fall victim to envy, jealousy and various other sins, who am I to kick a gay person. I need to deal with my own issues.

50-60 years ago people (Christians) had the same attitude toward black people.

Not all Christians... to be sure, my Church has had and continues to have within its members some people that are racists (from all races) / but as a matter of policy, it has had and continues to have congregations that are of mixed and/or prominently 'black', 'hispanic' etc since it's inception in the mid 1800's... Our Conference Chairman is of African descent (via Jamaica).
(Church of God-Seventh Day)

She isn't being thrown in jail for saying what she said, nor is she being fined. If the will of the people dictates that she experience a career change, her "free speech" has consequences.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want to say sans consequences. Imagine what would have happened to the President if he had been taped in the wake of Katrina making pejorative references (along racial grounds) regarding the blacks left behind in New Orleans. Do you think his "free speach" might have had consequences?

Great points. People sometimes forget that the Constitution only shields legitimate speech from governmental punishment. "The people," your family and your neighbors may decide you are an idiot and natural consequences flow from that.

bkm,
Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. Look, there's nothing wrong with admitting your interpretation of the bible outweighs factual data to support your arguments. You have none. As far as I can tell, the "gay agenda" is to not be discriminated against in employment, and the ability to share partner benefits like property and health insurance. If you honestly believe that -- or even, gasp, a civil marriage ceremony -- is a bigger threat to our society than terrorism, then you must lead a very sheltered life.

My argument is becoming weaker, you are simply becoming unreasonable. I have provided you with facts and you still do not wish to accept them. Where are your facts? Even if you give me facts, I can do the same thing you are doing and just throw them out.

Are you saying that gays are not pushing for the right to be leally married? I have said before that I do not care what people do, just as long as society does not condoe the action. If insurance companies wish to insure gay couples together they are more than welcome, but they will not becuase it is not in their best interest. As I said before if society crumbles from within then we will not have to worry about terrorism.



You come across as a bigot, and someone who is willfully ignorant of facts and cogent discussion. This has become tiresome to the extreme and your opinions are not swaying anyone here. Your viewpoints would be a better fit for Laramie, Wyoming than Oklahoma City. Perhaps the social values of Amarillo or Laramie are a closer fit for your own. All of this diversity and change in OKC must be very threatening to you. Seriously.

I do not care if you call me a bigot, that is your opinion and I don't really care. But I am not ignoring facts, because you have presented no facts for your side.

Are you saying that everyone in a city has to have opinions and beliefs? I agree that we need and NBA team, I support the C2S project, and the list goes on. This always has been a conservative city, and it will largely remain that way. It is a fact that conservatives are more likely to get married and have childern than liberals. The childern of the conservatives mainly turn out to be conservative also, so therefore it is next to impossible to take a conservative city and make it liberal.



OK, if I respond again to this thread I'm just as much a part of the problem. We get your point. Let's move on.

I agree that we have beaten this topic to death. But, one of us is right and the other is wrong. If I am right than this country is in for a painful fall, if you are right then it will all be alright. I prefer to take the more sure route to keep this county for the next generation.



You do realize that having an alcoholic drink is NOT a sin??? I am a steadfast Christian and have a huge problem with what Kern said. 50-60 years ago people (Christians) had the same attitude toward black people. I really hope in 50 years that being gay is not an issue anymore. Pointing the finger at gay people is also a sin as far as I believe. If you believe it goes against the bible, as I do fine, but let he without sin cast the first stone. I have sinned and still do but hey in the end we all make mistakes no matter how hard we try not to. I strive everyday to be a better person but I do not do that everyday. I fall victim to envy, jealousy and various other sins, who am I to kick a gay person. I need to deal with my own issues.

I never said that drinking was a sin, just that I choose not to drink.

Are you saying that a society that we should allow gay marriage to be accepted? This is a different argument than racism. Racism had to deal with a persons skin color. Homosexuality is forbidden by God multiple times in the Bible, as I am sure that you are aware. In the verse that you quoted John 8:7 Jesus was telling the people not to follow the old law since He was there to establish the new law. If you read the whole story she was forgiven from her sin and we assume that she never committed the sin again. She was judged, just simply not punished.

I am going to assume that you say that we should never point out another mans sins, correct? That theory comes from Matt 7:1 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged." That is a nice theory, but it creates quite a mess in the world if we cannot tell someone when they did something wrong. If you read the whole context of the verse you will find that Jesus says in verse 5: "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Jesus says that once you have solved your own problem then you can judge the other person to help them. I am not perfect by any means, but I do not struggle with feelings of homosexuality. So therefore I am not being a hypocrite by telling the homosexuals they are wrong.

I've never been a big fan of the Greater OKC Chamber of Commerce. Now before anyone jumps to any conclusions, the reason for my animosity toward that organization dates back long before, and has nothing to do with their role in the resent election.

Nevertheless, having criticized them for positions adopted, and actions taken on past issues, I feel compelled to commend Roy Williams, and the Chamber, for their position regarding Rep. Sally Kern and the statements she made.

In response to an E-Mail sent to Mr. Williams asking if the Chamber supported Rep. Kerns statements, his response was this, "In no way do we support Rep. Kerns statements. We never have, and we never will". For that they deserve, and should recieve their just credit

People sometimes forget that the Constitution only shields legitimate speech from governmental punishment. "The people," your family and your neighbors may decide you are an idiot and natural consequences flow from that.

Yea, verily. By "legitimate," of course, is meant that which is not libelous, not slanderous, and, if the Supreme Court ever could come up with a sensible definition thereof, not "obscene."

We should be grateful for our freedom of speech, especially our freedom of offensive speech; the Canadians right now are roiling over the sudden discovery that their so-called "Human Rights Commissions" are empowered to slap you down for making people the slightest bit uncomfortable.

The Chamber, for its part, did the right thing in distancing itself from the Kern kerfuffle without suggesting that anyone needed to be silenced.

I never said that drinking was a sin, just that I choose not to drink.

Are you saying that a society that we should allow gay marriage to be accepted? This is a different argument than racism. Racism had to deal with a persons skin color. Homosexuality is forbidden by God multiple times in the Bible, as I am sure that you are aware. In the verse that you quoted John 8:7 Jesus was telling the people not to follow the old law since He was there to establish the new law. If you read the whole story she was forgiven from her sin and we assume that she never committed the sin again. She was judged, just simply not punished.

I am going to assume that you say that we should never point out another mans sins, correct? That theory comes from Matt 7:1 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged." That is a nice theory, but it creates quite a mess in the world if we cannot tell someone when they did something wrong. If you read the whole context of the verse you will find that Jesus says in verse 5: "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Jesus says that once you have solved your own problem then you can judge the other person to help them. I am not perfect by any means, but I do not struggle with feelings of homosexuality. So therefore I am not being a hypocrite by telling the homosexuals they are wrong.

I just like to be careful and not point fingers at others. I agree that homosexuality is a sin, but is it ANY different than ANY of mine or your sins? I do not think that it is, therefore I do NOT judge people. I can ask a homosexual to come with me to church and see what happens, but I stop there. I am NEVER going to support someone or something like what Kern said.

I've never been a big fan of the Greater OKC Chamber of Commerce. Now before anyone jumps to any conclusions, the reason for my animosity toward that organization dates back long before, and has nothing to do with their role in the resent election.

I can't resist pointing out your Freudian slip:)

I just like to be careful and not point fingers at others. I agree that homosexuality is a sin, but is it ANY different than ANY of mine or your sins? I do not think that it is, therefore I do NOT judge people. I can ask a homosexual to come with me to church and see what happens, but I stop there. I am NEVER going to support someone or something like what Kern said.

I understand what you are saying, I have heard many people that they think Jesus said that we are not to judge. It is simply impossible not to judge, if there was no judgement then there would be no such thing as crime.

I suggest reading this article: Stand to Reason: Scoop on Judging (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6071). It is by a man named Greg Koukl who is a very intellectual man from California. I have meet him and it is not easy to find someone who can think so critically about these types of issues like he does. I also suggest his book "Relatives: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air".

I am sure that everyone will be running out to get your books, thanks for the suggestions.

My argument is becoming weaker, you are simply becoming unreasonable. I have provided you with facts

No, I am becoming more reasonable, as I'm trying to reason with you. You, on the other hand, are now lying. Lying? Yes. You are lying by claiming that you have provided facts to support your argument.

You have not provided a single, provable fact to support your arguments. You have stated opinions, hypotheses and beliefs, but no facts.

Midtowner was nice enough to provide you a definition of what a fact is (something I would expect you would understand as a collegiate), but you still provide no facts.

Your fears may seem overwhelming to you given your interpretation of the bible, but that still doesn't make fact.

Strangely, you also conveniently ignore the most incendiary part of Sally's rant as you defend her -- namely, that gays are just as dangerous to our society as terrorists. Why do you ignore this? Several people in this thread have brought it up to you, yet you shift the subject or simply ignore it.

In doing so, you are ignoring the central part of what made Sally come across as such a depraved, sniveling, frightened idiot.

Either you are not very smart (I think you actually are smart, just closed minded), or you are a sophist who simply enjoys arguing.

We're not getting anywhere, and we can't possibly get anywhere until you learn to a) use facts to support your argument, and/or b) you start being honest with us and yourself.

No, I am becoming more reasonable, as I'm trying to reason with you. You, on the other hand, are now lying. Lying? Yes. You are lying by claiming that you have provided facts to support your argument.

You have not provided a single, provable fact to support your arguments. You have stated opinions, hypotheses and beliefs, but no facts.

Midtowner was nice enough to provide you a definition of what a fact is (something I would expect you would understand as a collegiate), but you still provide no facts.

Your fears may seem overwhelming to you given your interpretation of the bible, but that still doesn't make fact.

Strangely, you also conveniently ignore the most incendiary part of Sally's rant as you defend her -- namely, that gays are just as dangerous to our society as terrorists. Why do you ignore this? Several people in this thread have brought it up to you, yet you shift the subject or simply ignore it.

In doing so, you are ignoring the central part of what made Sally come across as such a depraved, sniveling, frightened idiot.

Either you are not very smart (I think you actually are smart, just closed minded), or you are a sophist who simply enjoys arguing.

We're not getting anywhere, and we can't possibly get anywhere until you learn to a) use facts to support your argument, and/or b) you start being honest with us and yourself.

Ok I think you need to go back and read this post: here. (http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/12315-new-problems-okcs-national-preception-5.html#post133947) I actually did provide facts, the page I linked to in that post provided you with links to very reputable sources (like the government). I did not sit and try to find all the sources my self because I do not have the time. Do not forget that this is a two-way street and that no one else has presented facts for the other side. But, then again we could each provide countless facts for each side and we would be hear until we die.

Sally did not say that gays where as bad, or worse, than terrorist, she said the gay agenda was worse. If she really does mean that gays are equal to terrorist than I 100% disagree, but I do not belive she said or meant that. Let me put it like this, I assume that everyone here is against communism, so I say that the communist agenda is just as bad a terrorist, I think most would agree. I am not saying that people of the communist party are necessarily going to try to kill us all, but that their form of government they are trying to push is very bad. There is a very big difference in an idea/agenda and the people that hold the idea or are push the agenda.

I am sure that everyone will be running out to get your books, thanks for the suggestions.

I was actually referring the book to oklanole. But if you want to buy it you would certainly learn about the problems with the post-modern ideas that govern much of society.

I was actually referring the book to oklanole. But if you want to buy it you would certainly learn about the problems with the post-modern ideas that govern much of society.

The Christian Taliban - Theocracy - Radical Christianity -- (take your pick) is alive and well. You clearly want a government based on your religious beliefs - exactly as they have in Iran. I oppose that with with everything I have. While your thoughts may still have some adherents, your sect is much smaller than it was in 1982 at the height of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. Oklahoma though (being Oklahoma) still has its densely populated bastions of far-right religious terror from which you and your brethren spread the gospel of theocratic extremism. I consider you and your fellow warriors a true threat to freedom and democracy. No hyberbole, I honestly believe that.

1. Just wondering, where exactly is this "gay agenda" posted? Is it on a website? Is it on display in a building somewhere, tucked safely under protective glass? Seriously, could someone tell me? As a gay person, I'd sure like to know.

2. Why don't Christians condemn people for eating shellfish, wearing polyester, or touching pigskin? That's in the bible, too. Selling your daughter into slavery is condoned in the bible. So what about that? Why doesn't the bible mention dinosaurs? Oh, and doesn't this same book claim the earth was created in a single week? And why is Christianity the only "true" path? I mean, if this is so, then I feel sorry for all the Hindus, Buddhists, etc. I also feel for all those savages who lived on our continent prior to the white man's discovery of the new world. They're toast!

3. Gay marriage/civil unions are recognized in Canada, UK, Holland...Those countries haven't fallen apart. If two people are going to enter into a committed relationship, purchase a home together, etc, then why shouldn't they be subjected to the same tax laws, benefits as a hetero couple?

4. Frankly, I don't care if someone doesn't accept my "lifestyle." (Maybe I don't accept of yours!) But I do care when the rhetoric of hateful people like Kern give others license to harass, discriminate and yes, even kill people like me. I think of the high suicide rate of gay teens. I think of the 15-year old boy who was shot to death by a classmate because he "seemed" gay. I think of the lesbian couple who was tortured and murdered in Oregon, just because they were lesbians. I think of Matthew Shepherd. He did nothing to deserve what was done to him.


The rhetoric of mouthbreathers like Kern empower people into thinking "hey hatin' queers is ok. Let's kill em!"

People like her and even some of the folks on here are nothing better than Nazis. Hateful words empowers people into undertaking hateful actions.

So, if there is a gay agenda, it's this: we just want to be left alone! Fine, controlling Christians don't approve.

I just can't help but wonder... Could Oklahoma be more embarrasing? Bottom of the barrel in health, roads, schools, income, teen pregnancy, meth... And yet we have Sally Kern and the Bible thumpers worried about people like me: college-educated, well-mannered, productive member of society. It just doesn't make sense .

I've complained a lot about this state in the past. But I've also defended it to other people countless times. I grew up here, so there's a lot of love in my heart for this state. When I served my country in the, I always defended Oklahoma to my colleagues who thought it was nothing but some poor, trashy state. But I won't come to Oklahoma's defense any longer. This is a vile place populated by hateful yet "Christ-like" people who get off on keeping people down, or at least those people who aren't like them. Oklahoma can score all the NBA teams, skyscrapers, and chain stores in the world, but it will still be that place all my navy buddies thought it to be.

Thank you, Sally Kern, ignorant bigots, et al. Up until now, I was considering staying in Oklahoma, but you've done a great job of helping me change my mind! I'll be taking my degree to a modern state, one that exists within the confines of the 21st century. And I'll be sure to tell all the people I meet just what kind of place Oklahoma truly is.

What pride in the state I did have has gone sweeping' down the plain!

I can't resist pointing out your Freudian slip:)Well... I guess it could have been a Freudian slip. But a more likely reason is that I don't spell very well.

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")

Ah, so the "gay agenda" as presented by a religious think tank.

Bravo for choosing an unbiased source. Focus on the Family, are you kidding me? Since you're into fallacy naming, you call this one "attacking the source." I am not finished though. But really, presenting the word of professional opinion-writing organizations as "fact" is beyond silly.

To have an agenda, you would have to have some sort of cohesive unit like a political party which could write such a thing. To my knowledge, there are quite a few homosexual political activist groups, however, those groups have a diverse set of values and a wide range of strategies. There is no 'velvet hand' controlling and setting the 'gay agenda.' Heck.. most homosexual groups will probably tell you that they're in favor of 'family values.'


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.

Unresponsive. Of course I have a mother and a father. Having a mother and a father is not a "value." It's just a biological necessity... or at least it will be until we can start cloning children sans-sperm.



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)

Read it. It's a pure opinion piece. Every citation and footnote in the piece is to other peoples' opinions. There's not an ounce of scientific fact in the whole article. It makes vague references to "reputable studies" and to other statistics, e.g., FBI statistics seemingly linking homosexuality to bad things, yet forgetting the all-important maxim, "causation does not equal correlation."


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) )

I read that study, it has nothing to do with monogamous couples. If two gay men were in a monogamous relationship (or women), unless one of them acquired HIV elsewhere, the virus isn't spontaneously generated, so this entire study is meaningless for that group of individuals.

That said, any person, gay or straight who engages in unprotected sex is at risk, and yes, if anal intercourse, gay or straight is what is chosen, the risk is higher due to certain biological factors. That fact alone, or together with anything else doesn't have a thing to do with the moral aspect of homosexuality, or whether, for example, homosexuals should be allowed to be protected from discrimination based upon their sexual orientation.

Again, you're fixating on the sexual aspects of homosexuality (why is that?). I'm not sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China, let alone homosexual rights, Sally Kern, the law, or anything else.


3. 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.)[quote]

The risk of the same sort of infection is likely identical with heterosexual couples who engage in the same behavior, so as far as I can tell, you're throwing up a red herring.

[quote]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.

Now I can begin to understand why you're so fixated on the sexual aspect of these things.

Let's delve into the meaning of the word "wrong." How do you know that anal intercourse is wrong? What business is it of yours what two consenting adults (or more) do behind closed doors?


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?

Nope. That's just a warmer, fuzzier term, but equally meaningless. If my mother and father enjoyed the anal intercourse (no they didn't), would buttsecks be "traditional family values?"


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.

Do a google search for "New Testament" and "slavery." I did, there were numerous examples given. I'm not going to get into a scripture quoting battle.


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

No, it's called you reading a bit too deeply into the written word. Some Christians are thinking people, others are not. Who knows which one you are?

And oh.. yeah.. I know I'm wrong.. I sure am.. you win. (that is called sarcasm)


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.

And I'm sure you have something to back this up which doesn't come from Focus on the Family or a recently completed study by a sociology student at Liberty College?


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

Opinion =/= truth.

Oh, almost forgot... Gay agenda: another part of it is that we just want to live in a world where we don't have to worry about getting beaten to death by "Christians."

And to the poster who said gays can't be in families: Just because you say it doesn't make it so. My partner's family accepts me as their own, as does my family with him.

My gratitude goes out to all you OkcTalkers who represent the small minority of smart people in this state. Nice to know that not everyone here is a small-minded, insecure little person who desperately needs others to conform to their definition of what is "normal" and what constitutes a family.

Oh, almost forgot... Gay agenda: another part of it is that we just want to live in a world where we don't have to worry about getting beaten to death by "Christians."

And to the poster who said gays can't be in families: Just because you say it doesn't make it so. My partner's family accepts me as their own, as does my family with him.

My gratitude goes out to all you OkcTalkers who represent the small minority of smart people in this state. Nice to know that not everyone here is a small-minded, insecure little person who desperately needs others to conform to their definition of what is "normal" and what constitutes a family.

We need to go have a drink or two! I am 100% hetero but the best friends I have ever made are homosexual. My wife and I go out to Partners and Boom all the time with her coworkers.

Moondog, I can understand why you would want to leave. There are lots of people on this board that have considered leaving for larger cities. However, since you have defended Oklahoma in the past, that makes me think that you probably have some pride in it.

OKC has so much going for it right now. We need college-educated Oklahomans that can contribute so much to our community to stay and help fuel our progress. Our state has the same types of people every other state has. The ratios are just different.

The people in rural Oklahoma and in the most liberal cities in America both want what is best for our country, they just have different beliefs in what that is. The more geographical separation there is between these types of beliefs, the less likely we are able to understand each other and coexist.

The comments by Kern are as ridiculous as left-wing extremists calling Bush a terrorisit. People everywhere say stupid things. Unfortunatley, that will never change.

Tolerance is a two way street and the best way to lead is by example. Please consider adding to our community rather than subtracting from it.

Tolerance is a two way street and the best way to lead is by example. Please consider adding to our community rather than subtracting from it.


I agree, if you leave 'they' win.

And we all lose out.

We need people who think like you here!

I was actually referring the book to oklanole. But if you want to buy it you would certainly learn about the problems with the post-modern ideas that govern much of society.

No thanks, I will pass.

Okay this makes me sooooooo mad!!!!!

"The Rev. Steve Kern (http://www.newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Steve+Kern&CATEGORY=PERSON) says his marriage to his wife of 38 years has been bolstered despite the couple's receiving phone calls throughout the night "

"It's just drawn us even closer together,” he said"


"This Sunday is Easter, and the pastor said he takes comfort in recalling what Jesus Christ (http://www.newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Jesus+Christ&CATEGORY=PERSON) went through before His resurrection."

Trust me, Sally, you're not anywhere near being in the same league.

But, what makes me so upset, is that they are gloating over how strong their relationship is and how much this has bolstered their marriage.....

All the while condemning and denying others the same rights to a loving relationship!

How dare they gloat about the happiness of their union?

Are they truly this stupid and hypocritical?

Ahhhhhggg! (That's me screaming!)

The "gay agenda" is a Republican talking point created by Republicans to elect Republicans.

It's a bit like Invasion of the Body Snatches. "They have an agenda. They're coming to get us. Fear."

In previous elections, similar strategies were used involving blacks, communists, etc. It's a solid strategy for winning elections. No doubt, Sally is very proud of herself for her comments.

1. Just wondering, where exactly is this "gay agenda" posted? Is it on a website? Is it on display in a building somewhere, tucked safely under protective glass? Seriously, could someone tell me? As a gay person, I'd sure like to know.

See a few post back, it was published in a book in 1989 titled "After the Ball".



2. Why don't Christians condemn people for eating shellfish, wearing polyester, or touching pigskin? That's in the bible, too.

That is not in the New Testament, remember that Jesus set up the new law to replace the old law.



Selling your daughter into slavery is condoned in the bible. So what about that?

It is not condoned, it is simply a way of life. Slavery in Isreal was not like American slavery was, it is more of a way to pay debts. Just becuase God set up laws for slavery does not mean He condoned it, He was only protecting the civil rights of the people. And plus that is also found in the Old Testament.



Why doesn't the bible mention dinosaurs? Oh, and doesn't this same book claim the earth was created in a single week?

That is a very common misunderstanding. Take a look at Job 40:15-24:

40:15
"Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox.
40:16
"Behold now, his strength in his loins And his power in the muscles of his belly.
40:17
"He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together.
40:18
"His bones are tubes of bronze; His limbs are like bars of iron.
40:19
"He is the first of the ways of God; Let his maker bring near his sword.
40:20
"Surely the mountains bring him food, And all the beasts of the field play there.
40:21
"Under the lotus plants he lies down, In the covert of the reeds and the marsh.
40:22
"The lotus plants cover him with shade; The willows of the brook surround him.
40:23
"If a river rages, he is not alarmed; He is confident, though the Jordan rushes to his mouth.
40:24
"Can anyone capture him when he is on watch, With barbs can anyone pierce {his} nose?

Let's review the qualities of the behomoth, it is strong, its tail is like a cedar, bones are like tubes of bronze, limbs are bars of iron, it is herbivorous, it is amphibious, and he cannot be captured. Some will say that it is a hippo or elephant, when is the last time you saw the tail of a hippo or elephant that had a tail that looked like a cedar tree? Some say it is a crocidle, when was the last time you saw a croc with limbs that are like bars of iron, and when the croc stop eating meat? So man and dinos did exist together only a few thousand years ago. Dinos were made on the same day as animals.



And why is Christianity the only "true" path? I mean, if this is so, then I feel sorry for all the Hindus, Buddhists, etc. I also feel for all those savages who lived on our continent prior to the white man's discovery of the new world. They're toast!

The main thing all Christians agree on is that the Bible is the true Word of God. The reason that Christanity is the only true way is based in John 14:6 where Jesus said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." That is a belief and a fact, but I cannot not prove that until we are all dead. So I'll tell you if I am right in about 70-75 years.



3. Gay marriage/civil unions are recognized in Canada, UK, Holland...Those countries haven't fallen apart. If two people are going to enter into a committed relationship, purchase a home together, etc, then why shouldn't they be subjected to the same tax laws, benefits as a hetero couple?

That's nice, it has not always been like that and they will fall before we fall. If everyone is jumping off a cliff does that mean you should do it also?



4. Frankly, I don't care if someone doesn't accept my "lifestyle." (Maybe I don't accept of yours!) But I do care when the rhetoric of hateful people like Kern give others license to harass, discriminate and yes, even kill people like me. I think of the high suicide rate of gay teens. I think of the 15-year old boy who was shot to death by a classmate because he "seemed" gay. I think of the lesbian couple who was tortured and murdered in Oregon, just because they were lesbians. I think of Matthew Shepherd. He did nothing to deserve what was done to him.

The rhetoric of mouthbreathers like Kern empower people into thinking "hey hatin' queers is ok. Let's kill em!"

There are crazy people out there, if people want to kill they will kill. They just use that as an excuess. What about all the people that are killed for other reason, like Kevin Underwood, he was just a freak.



People like her and even some of the folks on here are nothing better than Nazis. Hateful words empowers people into undertaking hateful actions.

Did you hear anyone say we should open up consentration camps and put gays in there? I didn't say that, and Kern didn't say that. There is a big difference.



So, if there is a gay agenda, it's this: we just want to be left alone! Fine, controlling Christians don't approve.

We do not try to push your agenda on America. Don't try and be allowed to be married, just have your lifestyle behind closed doors.



I just can't help but wonder... Could Oklahoma be more embarrasing? Bottom of the barrel in health, roads, schools, income, teen pregnancy, meth... And yet we have Sally Kern and the Bible thumpers worried about people like me: college-educated, well-mannered, productive member of society. It just doesn't make sense .

I am pretty sure we took care of the meth problem. Income is not that low, there is simply a lower cost of living. Only the inner city schools are bad, Edmond, Moore, and Norman schools are all good. Teen pregnancy is caused by society moving away from Bibical truth. There are problems in Oklahoma, but we are not dealing with those issues in this topic, we are dealing with the Gay agenda.



I've complained a lot about this state in the past. But I've also defended it to other people countless times. I grew up here, so there's a lot of love in my heart for this state. When I served my country in the, I always defended Oklahoma to my colleagues who thought it was nothing but some poor, trashy state. But I won't come to Oklahoma's defense any longer. This is a vile place populated by hateful yet "Christ-like" people who get off on keeping people down, or at least those people who aren't like them. Oklahoma can score all the NBA teams, skyscrapers, and chain stores in the world, but it will still be that place all my navy buddies thought it to be.

Thank you, Sally Kern, ignorant bigots, et al. Up until now, I was considering staying in Oklahoma, but you've done a great job of helping me change my mind! I'll be taking my degree to a modern state, one that exists within the confines of the 21st century. And I'll be sure to tell all the people I meet just what kind of place Oklahoma truly is.

What pride in the state I did have has gone sweeping' down the plain!

If you want to leave that is your choice. I hear that SF is full of gays, maybe they would be more accepting. But, they are nothing like the kindness that you will find here. Why is it good to be a "modern" state? The modern movement is wrong, and Oklahoma will be better off staying with the traditional values.



Ah, so the "gay agenda" as presented by a religious think tank.

Bravo for choosing an unbiased source. Focus on the Family, are you kidding me? Since you're into fallacy naming, you call this one "attacking the source." I am not finished though. But really, presenting the word of professional opinion-writing organizations as "fact" is beyond silly.

Actually they referred to "After the Ball", if you would like to buy the book and prove to me that it does not say that, go right ahead. They do not have the book in the Metro library or at the UCO library, and I am not going to waste my money on the book.




Are you saying that there are gay activist groups that do not want gay marriage? I would say that the gay agenda I quoted is broad enough that most the groups would agree with all six points. They probaly do support their new kind of family values, but they do not support tradational family values.

[QUOTE=Midtowner;134124
Unresponsive. Of course I have a mother and a father. Having a mother and a father is not a "value." It's just a biological necessity... or at least it will be until we can start cloning children sans-sperm.

We are set up to have a family, that is why we have a mother and father. It is the mother and fathers job to raise the child, creating a family unit.



Read it. It's a pure opinion piece. Every citation and footnote in the piece is to other peoples' opinions. There's not an ounce of scientific fact in the whole article. It makes vague references to "reputable studies" and to other statistics, e.g., FBI statistics seemingly linking homosexuality to bad things, yet forgetting the all-important maxim, "causation does not equal correlation."


I read that study, it has nothing to do with monogamous couples. If two gay men were in a monogamous relationship (or women), unless one of them acquired HIV elsewhere, the virus isn't spontaneously generated, so this entire study is meaningless for that group of individuals.

That said, any person, gay or straight who engages in unprotected sex is at risk, and yes, if anal intercourse, gay or straight is what is chosen, the risk is higher due to certain biological factors. That fact alone, or together with anything else doesn't have a thing to do with the moral aspect of homosexuality, or whether, for example, homosexuals should be allowed to be protected from discrimination based upon their sexual orientation.

And the facts for your side are what?



Again, you're fixating on the sexual aspects of homosexuality (why is that?). I'm not sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China, let alone homosexual rights, Sally Kern, the law, or anything else.

How does the sexual aspects not affect the argument? The sexual aspects are facts, don't try and ignore them.



The risk of the same sort of infection is likely identical with heterosexual couples who engage in the same behavior, so as far as I can tell, you're throwing up a red herring.

It would be the same with hetrosexual couples, but we have already covered the topic that it is unsafe in hetrosexual relations also. It is not a red herring becuase we are dealing with homosexuality.



Now I can begin to understand why you're so fixated on the sexual aspect of these things.

Do you want me to start quoting the Bible to prove it to you? The sexual aspect is something that you understand.



Let's delve into the meaning of the word "wrong." How do you know that anal intercourse is wrong? What business is it of yours what two consenting adults (or more) do behind closed doors?

Anal intercourse is more danagers than ******l, that is a fact. We will find out one day if it is truly a sin.



Nope. That's just a warmer, fuzzier term, but equally meaningless. If my mother and father enjoyed the anal intercourse (no they didn't), would buttsecks be "traditional family values?"

I have defined traditional family values.




Those examples are all taking the words out of context. If you read the whole context you will see that it is not condoned.

[QUOTE=Midtowner;134124]
No, it's called you reading a bit too deeply into the written word. Some Christians are thinking people, others are not. Who knows which one you are?

How can you read too deeply into the Bible? If you just read the surfact, or one verse, is when the bible is misinterpreted.



And I'm sure you have something to back this up which doesn't come from Focus on the Family or a recently completed study by a sociology student at Liberty College?

I am sure that you are can quote someone from the New York Times. Each are on opposite ends, but it takes both sides to find the truth.




Opinion =/= truth.

Actually it can, think about all the medial things we can do now. All the new ideas started as an opinion that it would work and it turned out that they had found the truth.

All of you know there will never be a meeting of the minds on this argument, and neither side will bend. Both sides of this know they are right and that will not change.

As far as what Sally Kerns said, I really don't care. She was speaking to a group of people, for the most part, that had something in common with her, and she's free to say what she wants. But someone with another agenda recorded it and released it, I guess that their right. I didn't hear anyone say to kill or beat up anyone so I really don't think its hate speech. I really dislike that term.

As just another citizen out here I don't really listen to either group, and that's not to say I dislike anyone in either group. Your life style is your own and I really don't like being dragged into either one. It sounds to me that both sides have complaints that need to be addressed and insulting other peoples beliefs is not helping the situation. As for Sally Kern, it's pretty much up to the voters in her district as to weather they want to keep her around.

I've been trying like heck to stay out of this thread, but hey, it's my lunch hour, so here goes.


The main thing all Christians agree on is that the Bible is the true Word of God. The reason that Christanity is the only true way is based in John 14:6 where Jesus said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." That is a belief and a fact, but I cannot not prove that until we are all dead. So I'll tell you if I am right in about 70-75 years.

You just contradicted yourself. Something cannot be a fact unless it can be proven. Thus far, no one has been able to prove that when Christians die they go to Heaven. It is a construct that was written in their Holy book. Just like there are other constructs in other Holy books that are just as valid to those who believe in them.

Therefore, this is just a belief. You make it a fact because you want it to be so. If it is indeed a fact, then please prove it.

Faith =/= fact.


That's nice, it has not always been like that and they will fall before we fall. If everyone is jumping off a cliff does that mean you should do it also?

How do you know that these other countries will fall? Can you base this in fact? No, you cannot. You can only espouse a faith-based opinion. If anything, I believe these countries with their tolerant views have a greater chance of survival because they choose to stay impartial in their politics and religion and do not push their way of thinking on other countries. When was the last time Holland, the UK or Canada were threatened by terrorists? Hmmmm, have to think on that one I guess. I don't see Al Queda or other groups attacking these countries. No, Al Queda and other extremists attack us because of our exclusionary politics and our stance on Israel and other parts of the Middle East (discussion for another thread, so let's not veer too off topic here). These Muslim extremists say they want to kill all of the Infidels, but really, the only infadels they have chosen to go after are those whose politics - not religion - are a threat to their existence and beliefs. To get too deep into this is a topic for another thread entirely.


We do not try to push your agenda on America. Don't try and be allowed to be married, just have your lifestyle behind closed doors.

This statement makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course you don't try to push [their - the gays] on America, but you sure try to infiltrate your own in every nook and cranny of our existence. Gays don't want to be allowed to be married just to have their lifestyle behind closed doors. They want to be allowed be married so they can attain the same LEGAL rights as others who are in heterosexual marriages. Things like "power of attorney," insurance benefits, death benefits, and other issues that so many of us take for granted. They want others to see them and recognize them for who they are - as human beings - regardless of the fact they were born with some sort of physiological difference that causes them to be attracted to members of the same sex.


Teen pregnancy is caused by society moving away from Bibical truth. HAHAHA!!! This is so laughable I can't even respond. Please talk to me about the rising rate of STD's due to abstinence-only education, then we'll talk.


Actually it can, think about all the medial things we can do now. All the new ideas started as an opinion that it would work and it turned out that they had found the truth.

These medical things were based upon hypotheses. They might have been "opinion," but those opinions were based upon scientific precedence that came about from vast amounts of experimentation. Opinion might indeed become "truth" in the mind of the person who believes it, but it is not always based on fact, or reality.

Actually they referred to "After the Ball", if you would like to buy the book and prove to me that it does not say that, go right ahead. They do not have the book in the Metro library or at the UCO library, and I am not going to waste my money on the book.

You can still get it through the interlibrary loan program. UCO can arrange to have it shipped in from numerous other libraries.

If the book is that obscure, however, I fail to see how it can be credited with being the onus of any sort of political movement. I also fail to see how the author(s) can be credited with naming the agenda and methods for a great many individuals and groups.

In other words, you are pointing out that two things are similar. You are then jumping to the conclusion that because they are similar, they must be related... and in fact, because they are similar, the older similar thing must be credited as creating the later similar thing.

That individuals and groups of diverse nature and origin understand how to manipulate public opinion is hardly shocking, nor is it the evidence of any vast conspiracy. Are there individuals and groups out there with agendas? No doubt. Is there some central doctrine or control? If the best you have is an obscure book from 1989 that cannot be found in the UCO or OKC metro library systems, then you're trying pretty hard to find something.


Are you saying that there are gay activist groups that do not want gay marriage? I would say that the gay agenda I quoted is broad enough that most the groups would agree with all six points. They probaly do support their new kind of family values, but they do not support tradational family values.

I don't know. It'd be impossible to prove something like that. There are a lot of homosexual groups out there. There are folks out there which are opposed to the institution of marriage in general, objecting that it is archaic, favors the wealthy, etc.. Those people may indeed have a club at Dartmouth College, meeting on the second Monday of every month to talk about that. I don't know.

You seem to be arguing that there is some sort of "velvet hand" which is coordinating these groups. There is not. There are a lot of people out there who would argue that gays are being denied equal protection under the 14th Amendment because they can't marry (I would disagree since they all have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex). They all have the right to pursue, through whatever means constitutionally and legally available whatever agenda they would like to. If the result of homosexual groups and individuals exercising their free speech is that more and more of America agrees with them, then that's fine. Do you have something against using constitutionally protected speech to win public sentiment?


We are set up to have a family, that is why we have a mother and father. It is the mother and fathers job to raise the child, creating a family unit.

So I suppose you think less of single-parent households, grandparents who are heads of the households, foster parents, adoptive parents, etc.? While, assuming both parents are decent people, it is generally accepted that a two-parent household where mom and dad stay together is probably ideal, that sort of situation is not, nor has it ever been what many children in America have learned to call "family." I don't see how you could possibly create a society where single-parent households don't exist (unless you want to institute something akin to Sharia law, wherein women are expected to maintain the household, remain covered in public, not work, etc.).

So let's just assume you value "family values", or "traditional family values" as you put it. Let's say that entails valuing the two parent household. Great. What then? What exactly is the aim of your "traditional family values," to prevent homosexuals from raising children? Sorry, it happens.

Currently, with homosexual households, there is, unfortunately, a great deal of inequity when it comes to separation/family issues. As you well know, the courts have a complex framework for determining custody and visitation in a heterosexual dispute. Not so for homosexual couples. Whichever parent whose name happens to appear on whatever paperwork exists wins regardless of which of those parents, whether that parent raised the child from infancy or not, loses without the benefit of being able to put on evidence or otherwise make a case.


And the facts for your side are what?

That anuses are generally the same and that heterosexual vs. homosexual anal sex is essentially the same anatomically. Further, lesbians, especially monogamous lesbians have the lowest rate of STD transmission of any group out there as a whole, although some say that the "safeness" is often mitigated by the fact that women generally do not take any extra steps in ensuring safety.

Also, homosexual sex never results in pregnancy. That has to be a plus for many people.


How does the sexual aspects not affect the argument? The sexual aspects are facts, don't try and ignore them.

There's a difference between ignoring something and treating it as a small part of the whole issue (which it has to be, because if your whole argument is based upon what two people of the same sex do behind closed doors when people of the opposite sex do the same thing would render your argument very weak).


It would be the same with hetrosexual couples, but we have already covered the topic that it is unsafe in hetrosexual relations also. It is not a red herring becuase we are dealing with homosexuality.

It is because you wouldn't make it illegal for heterosexual couples who engage in that sort of sex-play to get married, raise children, etc.


Anal intercourse is more danagers than ******l, that is a fact. We will find out one day if it is truly a sin.

And without knowing, you'd make it illegal?


I have defined traditional family values.

No, you added more fuzzy words to what was already an unclear fuzzy word.


Those examples are all taking the words out of context. If you read the whole context you will see that it is not condoned.

What.. the part where it says "Servants, honor thy masters," how is that taking anything out of context? That's telling slaves to be good slaves, not to talk back, etc.


How can you read too deeply into the Bible? If you just read the surfact, or one verse, is when the bible is misinterpreted.

And you're now a Biblical expert as well? Well hot damn.. now you can sew together the 4000+ different Christian sects who all find the Bible says something different although many of them claim theirs is the literal truth.


I am sure that you are can quote someone from the New York Times. Each are on opposite ends, but it takes both sides to find the truth.

No, without fact, both sides are opinion.


Actually it can, think about all the medial things we can do now. All the new ideas started as an opinion that it would work and it turned out that they had found the truth.

Those things were opinions until they were facts.

Wow... reading this is like nails on a chalkboard. I don't even know if I want join the conversation. :)

Those 165 million year old dinosaurs are only a few thousand years old? Boy, someone sure screwed up that carbon dating didn't they?

We do not try to push your agenda on America. Don't try and be allowed to be married, just have your lifestyle behind closed doors.

Yeah...OK I'll do that! But only if you do the same. Keep your relationship with your wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend... whatever behind closed doors. It's a two way street my friend.

My "agenda" is to live my life in peace. It doesn't involve me coming into your home and "making" you and your family "gay." Whatever. (My eyes can only roll so far back into my head.) Seriously, how would that be possible?

By the way, I've never heard of "The Ball."

For the record, I am not "active" in the gay community. My partner and I live very normal lives. We are men, and I mean MEN. We don't dress in drag, or dance all night at the gay clubs. I have owned a truck, drank cheap beer and listened the The Twister. My family is pretty redneck-ish, however, they all accept me, and I think they do because I'm just me... not a stereotype. They're good people; they love me.

People usually assume I'm not gay. I'm not fashionable. I listen to classic rock, drink beer, cuss like a sailor (I was in the navy) and burp 'n fart just like any guy. I hate Cher and musicals and fluffy little dogs.

Hell, I actually can't stand the "gay" community. I don't go to pride. I loathe gay bars. I'm not a promiscuous, drug using type. I'm just not the stereotype.

Maybe the gay community is to blame (somewhat) for the hatred that it has received from the conservative-minded folks. I don't know.

It's been a while since I've been to this site. I'm not gonna post on this topic anymore. But I'll be damned if anyone tells me to keep my life behind closed doors. You don't have the right.

Goodbye:)