New problems for OKC's National preception

[Midtowner]

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.

[bretthexum]

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?

[Moondog]

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