Tattoos: Here we go again.

[Midtowner]

I think tattoos look okay on some people when they are young and they don't overdo it. The problem is that they don't go away. Don't think I wanna see gannie with a sexy tat just above her butt.

But I guess we are allowed to do alot of stupid things, why should tattoos be any different?

I bet it passes this time. The girls at the strip clubs will be so happy!

You can have tatoos removed by plastic surgeons. More $ changing hands will help the economy.

A better economy means more money for our schools.

Let's legalize tatoos for the children!!!

[okcpulse]

If the house passes the measure, then Oklahoma becomes the last (usually is) state to make tattoo parlors legal.

Hmmm??? Well, almost. Oklahoma was the 49th state to repeal prohibition in 1959. Mississippi was last in 1965. Oklahoma was the 49th state to legalize liquor by the drink in 1984. Kansas legalized it in 1986 (until then, Kansas enforced a 30% food requirement, no open saloons). Come to think of it, open saloons are still illegal in Utah.

Oklahoma was the 41st state to legalize the lottery. But yes, the last to legalize tattooing. Hell, even Utah allows that!!!!

[mranderson]

The bill is dead.

[Mydalmationis8]

Two things: First, tattooing IS legal in Oklahoma. We just call it "Cosmetic Micropigmentation." It's governed by Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes (I forgot the section number), which is the Title governing health matters (including drugs). The catch is this: it can only be done by a licensed medical provider and can ONLY be in the nature of permanent cosmetics. Designs with things such as numbers, animals, figures, etc., are expressly prohibited.

Secondly, Oklahoma really ought to pass a law allowing tattooing. Otherwise, someone is going to wise up and get an organization (like the ACLU) to join in a lawsuit against the state for violating the first amendment rights of Oklahomans who want to get a tattoo. In light of the statute which DOES allow tattooing only for cosmetic purposes, I'd say that there is an unconstitutional discrimination on our books. Fighting such a lawsuit could be costly.

[okcpulse]

Nope, actually, tattooing IS technically legal in Oklahoma, as recently ruled by a judge. Here's the catch- the law as written is virtually useless, as it applies to a "permanent, indeleble mark". Well, this is the 21st Century. Technological wonders never cease. Tattoos can now be removed.

Any town in Oklahoma that has a tattoo removal clinic can openly operate a tattoo parlor, but unregulated and unlicensed, of course. Most tattoo parlors in Oklahoma that are professional operate on their own standards.

Rep. Thad Balkman of Norman stresses that tattooing must remain illegal in Oklahoma, and believes that stricter penalties must be put in places for these so-called "illegal parlors".

I can't wait to meet Thaddy in person, so I can chew his a** out.

[Curt]

It's just amazing how they can stop you from getting a tattoo, but cant stop illegal aliens from comming across our borders everyday............maybe they should focus on that instead of telling people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

[windowphobe]

Which suggests a solution: everyone crossing a border gets an immediate tattoo.

[Curt]

Which suggests a solution: everyone crossing a border gets an immediate tattoo.

Yah..........of a target on their head

[Mydalmationis8]

"Nope, actually, tattooing IS technically legal in Oklahoma, as recently ruled by a judge. Here's the catch- the law as written is virtually useless, as it applies to a "permanent, indeleble mark". Well, this is the 21st Century. Technological wonders never cease. Tattoos can now be removed.

Any town in Oklahoma that has a tattoo removal clinic can openly operate a tattoo parlor, but unregulated and unlicensed, of course. "



Um... No. I do not know of any judge in Oklahoma who has ruled that tattooing is legal because a laser can remove it. If you know the name of the judge and/or the case number, please post it. I'd be eager to read the opinion.
The unattributed opinion sounds like a rumor I've heard a few times. Someone thinks that because a tattoo can (sort of) be removed, it is not permanent. Such reasoning is unsound. It's like saying your arm is not permanently attached to your torso because it could be torn off by farm machinery.
Furthermore, the statute is clear - only licensed medical providers may provide "cosmetic micropigmentation." Any application of a tattoo by an "unregulated and unlicensed" tattoo parlor is still, therefore, an illegal act. It is not "technically legal" unless you're a licensed medical provider specified in the statute.

[Subvertia]

Leviticus 19:28
You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.(English Standard Version)

The reason we haven't crawled out of the primordial ooze as a State is because of our lack of liberal voters who haven't served as a driving force, quite frankly, ever.
Just like the lottery, these people in the smaller communities would go to church on Sunday, listen to the preacher talk about sin in gambling, or tattooing, then hit the polls in masses on Tuesday. The Senior Citizen vote, always the majority is changing as we all get older. My grandfather would have never voted for tattoos or the lottery, but my mom will be first in line at either business.

I'm all for it. I have several friends that are artists locally, and am glad they're opening shops and fighting this, I will stand next to them and do my part.

[Jack]

Tattoo wasn't even a word when the Bible was written. Midtowner can tell you that.

[Midtowner]

Jack, it's a good thing that the Bible wasn't written in English, or that would actually be a valid argument. In reality though, it's not.

As to Leviticus, if that's the scripture people want to use, it also says that keeping slaves is okay so long as they aren't from neighboring countries, it also talks about kosher foods, that it's sinful to have sex (even with your wife) when she's on her period, etc. Leviticus is one of those books which modern Christians will refer to when they want to pick and choose which rules they want to consider to be moral.

My take on the book is that it is a decent guide to good hygeine in ancient times. Beyond that, it's pretty worthless.

[Subvertia]

I agree with you Midtowner lol
I believe the quote I heard originally said something to the effect of "not marring the skin or cutting the hair or trimming the beard" and actually, I think it's in Matthew, oh well, I memorized it years ago for maniacal ammunition.
I didn't realize this thread hadn't been a topic in a long time, I just saw it and had to add my opinion! lol

[Midtowner]

Subvertia, I'm reminded of something Marilyn Ferguson once said: "If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"

(said in jest, of course)

[Randy]

My take on the book is that it is a decent guide to good hygeine in ancient times. Beyond that, it's pretty worthless.

Again, you are terribly mistaken and misguided. The Bible is God's blueprint for our lives. It is also the #1 selling book and the most widely read.

Saying it is pretty worthless is about as blasphemist as you can get. You are a "catholic" and you think the Bible is worthless? I personally know many catholics, and they would not agree with you.

Just like I was telling everyone else on this forum, you don't care about religion or anyone else's beliefs. All you want to do is debate, and then give your self a pat on the back. Fortunately, the majority of those on this forum don't give you the satisfaction of a debate, and they don't fall in to your trap. Pitiful, simply pitiful.

I did no name calling, nor did I make any personal attacks, as usual. Just stating the facts.

BTW, your tantrum about the Bible took us off topic again (imagine that).

[Midtowner]

Randy, do you only eat kosher foods?

Do you keep slaves or at least think that it's okay to? The Bible contains extensive instructions on the care, beating, and acquisition of slaves in Deuteronomy, Exodus, and Leviticus.

Exodus states that an individual who works on the Sabbath should be put to death.. do you agree?

Leviticus says that if your sight isn't perfect, you may not "approach the alter of God," so if you need glasses, should you just stay home?

Leviticus also talks about how eating shellfish is extremely sinful (which speaks to my hygeine argument) -- in olden times, when such food wasn't prepared properly or stored correctly, it could be dangerous. It's in the Bible for that reason and has no applicability today.

As to this being off topic, we're discussing how such things in the Bible as a commandment that you should put no marks on your body is probably more of a rule for good hygeine than the description of a sin.

-- and Catholics, just FYI do not generally consider the Bible to be an infallible source of God's word. It's particularly useful and highly persuasive, but historically speaking, there are too many questions as to accuracy in copying, accuracy in translation, and whether whatever 'manuscripts' that exist are even believable. You put your faith in magic, I'll go with Occam's razor any day.

[sweetdaisy]

My take on the book is that it is a decent guide to good hygeine in ancient times. Beyond that, it's pretty worthless.

I thought you were referring to the book of Leviticus in this statement...

[Midtowner]

I am referring to Leviticus in that statement.

And then Randy said that the ENTIRE Bible was a guide for life, perfect and relevant in any way.

I then proceded to point out irrelevant passages that he probably doesn't follow himself as well as passages which promote something that today we would consider unconscionable (slavery).