New problems for OKC's National preception

[Caboose]

1) The factor that holds the nation together is called the Constitution. And it is a document based on the idea that a limited form of government based on democracy is the best way to provide and protect the civil liberties of the citizens which it governs. The country is not held together by families, it is held together by an ideal of individual freedom. You are FREE to from a family, but you are not required to do so in any way and your rights as a citizen are not and should not be based on doing so.

2) The Gay "agenda" does not destroy families in any way. Divorce does. Intolerance towards the beliefs and lifestyles of family members can destroy the family. I do not have any gay people that I know of in my family, but I do know that if any one of them were gay, that fact alone would NOT in any way make them less family to me and I would love them just as much and support them in their life choices. THAT is what a family is.

The truth is that Sally Kern and her movement are the biggest threat to this country because they want to replace our liberal government with a rigid theocracy that bases people's rights on their adherence to a lifestyle dictated by personal mystical beliefs (of course, it is always about their mysticism and not someone else's) and use government assets to indoctrinate the citizens with their beliefs. That is not freedom. That is not America. And, if you really want to be honest here, that is the EXACT model for governance that religious extremist groups believe in, some of which of used terrorist acts to attack our culture,. In that sense, Sally Kern is closer in ideals to Islamic terrorists than any part of the so-called gay agenda is.

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.

[OU Adonis]

Not really constructive.

[bkm645]

The factor that holds the nation together is called the Constitution. And it is a document based on the idea that a limited form of government based on democracy is the best way to provide and protect the civil liberties of the citizens which it governs. The country is not held together by families, it is held together by an ideal of individual freedom. You are FREE to from a family, but you are not required to do so in any way and your rights as a citizen are not and should not be based on doing so.

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 governement the Constitution formed, his answer was "A republic, if you can keep it."

2) The Gay "agenda" does not destroy families in any way. Divorce does. Intolerance towards the beliefs and lifestyles of family members can destroy the family. I do not have any gay people that I know of in my family, but I do know that if any one of them were gay, that fact alone would NOT in any way make them less family to me and I would love them just as much and support them in their life choices. THAT is what a family is.

When did men start giving birth?

The truth is that Sally Kern and her movement are the biggest threat to this country because they want to replace our liberal government with a rigid theocracy...

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.

And, if you really want to be honest here, that is the EXACT model for governance that religious extremist groups believe in, some of which of used terrorist acts to attack our culture,. In that sense, Sally Kern is closer in ideals to Islamic terrorists than any part of the so-called gay agenda is.

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

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

I know I am in the minority, I always am, but no battle is easy to win.

[Karried]

Kern and I have the same agenda; to keep this country strong as long as we can.

Keep this Country strong? Is it strong?

I don't think so at all. I think it's a mess.

And I don't think the idea of a strong country equals a certain group of people convinced they have the right to judge/condemn others based on a book written 3500 years ago.

I'm not picking on you specifically... I just find it hard to stay silent about an issue like calling gay people terrorists, (especially from being an elected public official, standpoint).

Believe it or not, they don't fly planes into buildings.. they don't try to recruit your 2 year olds into a militant army and they certainly don't need any of us to worry about who they love or don't love.

It doesn't affect me or alter my life in any way and I don't see how it affects Sally Kern whatsoever.

I'm definitely not worried or threatened about our society 'drying up' ....Believe it or not, gay people can still have babies if they want to. And there are plenty of unwanted babies to be adopted, so this really is a non issue.

And if that bothers you, then take a look at all the wonderful examples of the parenting in this strong country we have today... dare I even mention the damage that divorce does to children or worse, countless examples of horrific child abuse and murder of children by heterosexual couples? This is what we should be worried about.

Seriously, what's the real danger here, people?

Have some tolerance. You don't have to embrace the lifestyle, but you don't have to make others who may be gay feel horrible about it either (like Sally).

I'll never forget watching a documentary on couples going on an alternative lifestyle cruise with their children... they get to a port that was being picketed by some ignorant nuts with signs that start yelling horrendous insults at these poor kids and their parents, telling them their parents were going to hell or something along those lines .. the kids were scared to death and started crying. It was one of the saddest things I've ever seen.

Moral compass?

How about, Treat others as you would want to be Treated. That's pretty simple. I don't need a book to tell me that I woudn't want to be murdered or ostracized, judged or gossiped about, so I try not do it to someone else.

I personally don't like to be labeled, I'm neither right nor left, athiest or agnostic..... I prefer to be thought of as someone who cares about people, the underdog usually, and that's about it.

I don't want to judge people, especially two consenting adults, based on who they fall in love with ... I'm just me.

[Karried]

When did men start giving birth?

They couldn't handle it.

That's why we have women.

Woman are gay too. And gay men can still be parents without actually being in a sexual relationship with a woman. Artificial insemination anyone? Adoption?

[OU Adonis]

They couldn't handle it.

That's why we have women.

Woman are gay too. And gay men can still be parents without actually being in a sexual relationship with a woman. Artificial insemination anyone? Adoption?

This thread is a microcosm on why America is in decline. Its a shame that I will have to live through its decline.

[Karried]

You've been living through it since you were born.

It's always been there, people are just tired of hiding it and would rather be free and risk opening themselves up to judgement and criticism than hide any longer.

They want to live a life just like you and I.... and have some freedoms and rights, just like women, and African Americans, minorities and abused children.

How does it hurt you?

Another documentary I watched was about a gay couple adopting physically abused older children that no one wanted. You know, abused by their biological heterosexual moral parents.

This couple took them in and nurtured them and loved them and didn't try once to turn them gay... they ended up straight as a board, loved and happy. What a threat.

[OU Adonis]

You know I wanted to stay out of this conversation because obviously no ones minds will change but you are putting forward your opinion so here is mine.

First off. Adoption or artificial pregnancy. Well thats great for individual couples.

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.

If you think its normal behavior then I ask you this. If the population went 100% gay, would it change society at all?

If the answer is yes, then obviously its not normal behavior.

I am really done with this thread.

[Caboose]

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.

This is getting a bit off the main topic, but I find that type of thinking to be quite flawed.

Sure, you have the choice on who you share you bed with but you do not have the choice on who you want to choose your bed with.

You choose your actions, you do not choose your desires.

As a heterosexual male you no doubt have a preference as to what type of female you are attracted to. It may be blondes, brunettes, short chicks, buxom girls, BIG girls, or whatever. Whatever that preference is, it is not something you chose. It is something you have come to realize. It is something ingrained deep into your psyche.

In the same way, people don't dont choose to be gay, they realize they are gay.

[OU Adonis]

In the same way, people don't dont choose to be gay, they realize they are gay.

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

[soonerguru]

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.

[Caboose]

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.

[Karried]

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.

[OU Adonis]

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.

[soonerguru]

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.

[BDP]

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

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

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.

[Caboose]

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.

[bkm645]

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.

[okcpulse]

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.

[soonerguru]

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.

[soonerguru]

[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.

[bkm645]

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.

[Bob&Frank&Ted&Bob&Alice]

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.

[okclee]

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]

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.