New problems for OKC's National preception

[Karried]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[bkm645]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bob&Frank&Ted&Bob&Alice]

Did you just move here recently??

[bkm645]

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

[Bob&Frank&Ted&Bob&Alice]

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

[bkm645]

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

[dismayed]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bkm645]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[soonerguru]

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

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

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

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

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

[okcitian]

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

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

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

[metro]

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

[bkm645]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bornhere]

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

[Karried]

How have I not given info based on fact?

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

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

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

[Midtowner]

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

Let me help you out here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely. Some are.

[redland]

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

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

[bornhere]

and the parts don't fit

Are we going to start banning Fords, then?

[bkm645]

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

The Gay Agenda:

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

(source: CitizenLink: Q&A: The Homosexual Agenda and "After the Ball")


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

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

You might like to read Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues

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 )

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

And the list goes on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely. Some are.

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

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

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

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

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

[Easy180]

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

[okclee]

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

[bkm645]

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.

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.

[soonerguru]

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.

[okclee]

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.

[oklanole]

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.



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.

[mburlison]

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)