Dear Nazi's and Domestic Terrorists

[soonerhubs]

...who oppose Proposition 8 in California.


Do the world a favor and become suicide bombers in the Salt Flats. :mad:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,451846,00.html


I've never heard so much Bull **** in my life. The voice of the people voted to Ban same sex marriages Twice, and instead of respecting the voice of the people in a democracy, these morons are attacking churches. Hey cowards, why don't you stop picking on senior citizens? Stomping an old lady's cross, are you kidding me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q

I know there are folks who oppose Proposition 8 in a civilized manner, and I respect that, but what some folks are doing are giving numerous innocent people a bad name.

[olevetonahill]

They should MOVE to Yankee land .;)

[soonerhubs]

They should MOVE to Yankee land .;)
I say if they want to play with powder that we send them to club Gitmo with the terrorists they try to emulate.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Wow that's really gay.

[SoonerTerry]

That big bastards parents missed a terrific opportunity to drown him at birth

[Ardmore_Sooner]

That big bastards parents missed a terrific opportunity to drown him at birth

So you are saying that abortion is ok in some cases? ;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

I think I should stay away from this thread.

"Voice of the people," indeed...:rolleyes:

[Ardmore_Sooner]

I think I should stay away from this thread.

"Voice of the people," indeed...:rolleyes:

No seriously, what's you opinion on Prop. 8? :D

I keed I keed!

[SCOUT]

...who oppose Proposition 8 in California.


Do the world a favor and become suicide bombers in the Salt Flats. :mad:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,451846,00.html


I've never heard so much Bull **** in my life. The voice of the people voted to Ban same sex marriages Twice, and instead of respecting the voice of the people in a democracy, these morons are attacking churches. Hey cowards, why don't you stop picking on senior citizens? Stomping an old lady's cross, are you kidding me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q

I know there are folks who oppose Proposition 8 in a civilized manner, and I respect that, but what some folks are doing are giving numerous innocent people a bad name.

It's all about tolerance...Unless of course your opinion is different... If it isn't politically correct then you should be shouted down. That type of opinion just isn't tolerated. I mean accepted or allowed. I mean you should be more tolerant. :rolleyes:

[Sooner_Havok]

It's all about tolerance...Unless of course your opinion is different... If it isn't politically correct then you should be shouted down. That type of opinion just isn't tolerated. I mean accepted or allowed. I mean you should be more tolerant. :rolleyes:

One opinion strips the rights from a certain group of people away, the other opinion makes people feel uncomfortable that the state isn't agreeing with what their religion teaches them.

Just saying.

If California can strip rights away from a certain group of people, I can think of a few more rights I wouldn't mind stripping away from a few more certain groups of people. :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

Especially when, in the case of California, a Constitutional Amendment is passed with a simple majority instead of a 2/3 vote.

The Founders were smart in creating the 2/3 vote. It protected the minority from mob rule. It was done on purpose in the case of the U.S. Constitution.

Then combine in the fact that the INCREDIBLY HYPOCRITICAL Morman Church was behind nearly 80% of the funding for YES on Prop 8 and sent it in from out of state...you're bound to get some blow back and some anger.

Combine that with the face that they didn't properly file for the amendment and tried to circumvent the State Legislature (which a lawsuit is now pending to correct that and overturn Prop 8) and you've got PLENTY of outrage. Just as you guys would be angry as Hell if a bunch of Cali Libz started funding and forced through an Amendment ALLOWING Gay Marriage in OK.

Personally I'm glad the people supporting NO on Prop 8 are finally getting angry. Anger is what helped fuel the Civil Rights movement in the 60's which helped Blacks gain equality. It's about time that this injustice is met head on...and with a healthy dose of anger. And I think it's gonna get a lot worse before it gets better out here.

Whoops...there I go posting in this thread. LOL. I couldn't help myself.

[Sooner_Havok]

Especially when, in the case of California, a Constitutional Amendment is passed with a simple majority instead of a 2/3 vote.

The Founders were smart in creating the 2/3 vote. It protected the minority from mob rule. It was done on purpose in the case of the U.S. Constitution.

Then combine in the fact that the INCREDIBLY HYPOCRITICAL Morman Church was behind nearly 80% of the funding for YES on Prop 8 and sent it in from out of state...you're bound to get some blow back and some anger.

Combine that with the face that they didn't properly file for the amendment and tried to circumvent the State Legislature (which a lawsuit is now pending to correct that and overturn Prop 8) and you've got PLENTY of outrage. Just as you guys would be angry as Hell if a bunch of Cali Libz started funding and forced through an Amendment ALLOWING Gay Marriage in OK.

Personally I'm glad the people supporting NO on Prop 8 are finally getting angry. Anger is what helped fuel the Civil Rights movement in the 60's which helped Blacks gain equality. It's about time that this injustice is met head on...and with a healthy dose of anger. And I think it's gonna get a lot worse before it gets better out here.

Whoops...there I go posting in this thread. LOL. I couldn't help myself.

You forgot this

http://sfist.com/attachments/SFist_Brock/prop%208%20hot%20guy.jpg

[AlbqSooner]

So you are saying that abortion is ok in some cases? ;)

That is not an example of abortion rights at all. Let the mean bastage be born and THEN kill him.:D

[soonerhubs]

Especially when, in the case of California, a Constitutional Amendment is passed with a simple majority instead of a 2/3 vote.

The Founders were smart in creating the 2/3 vote. It protected the minority from mob rule. It was done on purpose in the case of the U.S. Constitution.

Then combine in the fact that the INCREDIBLY HYPOCRITICAL Morman Church was behind nearly 80% of the funding for YES on Prop 8 and sent it in from out of state...you're bound to get some blow back and some anger.

Combine that with the face that they didn't properly file for the amendment and tried to circumvent the State Legislature (which a lawsuit is now pending to correct that and overturn Prop 8) and you've got PLENTY of outrage. Just as you guys would be angry as Hell if a bunch of Cali Libz started funding and forced through an Amendment ALLOWING Gay Marriage in OK.

Personally I'm glad the people supporting NO on Prop 8 are finally getting angry. Anger is what helped fuel the Civil Rights movement in the 60's which helped Blacks gain equality. It's about time that this injustice is met head on...and with a healthy dose of anger. And I think it's gonna get a lot worse before it gets better out here.

Whoops...there I go posting in this thread. LOL. I couldn't help myself.

I'm going to over look your accusations of hypocrisy for a moment and say that I'm more than okay with the protests. It's certainly what makes the democracy what it is. It's the domestic terrorism and assault that I take issue with. I'm assuming you're not ok with the sending of mysterious envelopes with white powder to various Temples either. It's cowardice, and chicken **** and you know it.

[soonerhubs]

Then combine in the fact that the INCREDIBLY HYPOCRITICAL Morman Church was behind nearly 80% of the funding for YES on Prop 8 and sent it in from out of state...you're bound to get some blow back and some anger.

You just lost me when you decided to attack my church. I'm sure you don't care, but I believe this is the last time I shall ever read one of your posts. :(

[LilSooner]

I don't think he was necessarily attacking your church. Its a known fact that the temples in LA were behind much of the fund raising for prop 8. Now there is nothing wrong with them raising money for a cause they believe in.

There are just a lot of people angry about this prop on both sides.

[LilSooner]

Also I don't think it's cool to call some one a Nazi just because they don't particularly agree with your views. Nazi's are people who brutally killed millions of innocent people because they were a particular religion, not people who support the right for gay marriage.

[AggieTool]

Has anyone considered that the reason prop 8 passed was because black males at a 70/30 margin voted for it, and that is why it passed?

The Mormons couldn't have done it alone regardless of the money they spent.


Maybe black people don't agree that sexual behavior is the same thing as skin color when we're talking about civil rights.

[OUHOMER]

Also I don't think it's cool to call some one a Nazi just because they don't particularly agree with your views. Nazi's are people who brutally killed millions of innocent people because they were a particular religion, not people who support the right for gay marriage.

What would you call a group of people who, knock a cross out of a little old ladies hands and stomp on it. scare the **** out of her, intimidate the hell out of her because she express her opinion? Did you see the look on the reporters face, I guarantee she was scared as hell.

[soonerhubs]

Also I don't think it's cool to call some one a Nazi just because they don't particularly agree with your views. Nazi's are people who brutally killed millions of innocent people because they were a particular religion, not people who support the right for gay marriage.

Would Gestapo have been a more appropriate term to describe the smashing of some poor old lady's cross, or perhaps storming a church would qualify for the label. http://wluctv6.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=220613
Or perhaps if that isn't enough evidence, I believe Nazi's burned books as well.
http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_10964515?source=commented-news

I think you miss the point that you don't attack a group violently or with terror, even when you disagree with their stance, and a few folks out there are actually doing this.

The powder was found in a Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah. Far away from California.

The Temples are not what fund anything other than the ceremonies that take place inside of them, and it goes to show how little people actually know about this "Hypocritical Church". :rolleyes: Perhaps we need the elite in Hollywood to enlighten us with their wisdom. I hear they read books and stuff there, when they're not burning them.

[OUHOMER]

Can you imagine the outrage if it would have been he other way around. heterosexuals attacking gays.

but gays attacking little old ladies seems to be, OK

I think anybody can protest anything, I am not against protesting, but attacking folks and sending white powder just crosses the line.
It is an act of terrorism

[mrssoonerhubler]

I really don't think anyone knows how much money was funded by THE MEMBERS of the LDS Church. I've heard many different reports. 77%, 80%, 6 Million, 20 million, 50 million.
There are over 11 million members of the LDS faith worldwide, so if we all chip in one or two bucks--you got your 20 million. Is it a crime to give money to something you believe in?

Considering people of a certain religion-or race-or Christian belief are being singled out--that is what I think is crap. Go ahead and protest and wave your hateful banners, but don't terrorize people. Everyday on the news I hear more about "no on prop. 8" supporters being arrested. "NO on Prop 8" Leaders in California has even made a statement asking these people to stop.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/leaders-of-no-on-8-campaign-issued.html

[mrssoonerhubler]

Can you imagine the outrage if it would have been he other way around. heterosexuals attacking gays.

but gays attacking little old ladies seems to be, OK

I think anybody can protest anything, I am not against protesting, but attacking folks and sending white powder just crosses the line.
It is an act of terrorism


I think you are being hypocritical...The fact you think people have a right not to live in fear....That's insane. :P

[Okla-homey]

Let's face it. Homerseckshuals got some work to do in the black and hispanic communities.

Interestingly but explicably, gheys aren't protesting or attempting to intimidate black congregations in Cali. Why? Because they know such a thing would set them back even further with that demographic and those congregations are part of the coalition they need to achieve their goals.

So what if the LDS spent money helping bankroll Prop 8? That's the American Way. You put your money where your mouth is. Being critical of that is akin to being critical of the millions who gave BHO ten bucks over the innerweb.

And for the record, I have no problem with ghey marriage. It would mean a lot more divorce work for my colleagues...as long as churches aren't somehow compelled to officiate and/or recognize same. I'm fairly certain that won't be the case because of the so-called "separation of church and state" (which does not appear in the Constitution) the Left likes to wave around all the time.

[yermom]

i could understand why teh gheys in California might be upset that some church is organizing **** from Utah for this?

sure, violence and intimidation are wrong, but i can understand this leading to anger

why does the LDS give a crap about some gay dudes in California?

and for the record, i think most churches are pretty hypocritical, not just that one ;)

[Okla-homey]

i could understand why teh gheys in California might be upset that some church is organizing **** from Utah for this?

sure, violence and intimidation are wrong, but i can understand this leading to anger

why does the LDS give a crap about some gay dudes in California?

and for the record, i think most churches are pretty hypocritical, not just that one ;)

Cali has an enormous LDS population. Probably second only to Utah's.

[yermom]

i guess more than teh gheys

you'd think they would want the government out of the marriage business so they could start up polygamy again :D

[soonerhubs]

i guess more than teh gheys

you'd think they would want the government out of the marriage business so they could start up polygamy again :D

You said it. Everyone else was thinking it. However, the church banned polygamy over 100 years ago.

Yes there are still splinter groups who are excommunicated the second they are discovered, but technically the same could be said for certain fundamental groups all over the country, including my home county named for Sequoyah. Whoops, I was wrong. Adair county was the correct location.

[yermom]

i know. i watch Big Love ;)

but seriously, i don't see the problem with that either. heck it's all over the Bible. when did that become an issue?

[SCOUT]

One opinion strips the rights from a certain group of people away, the other opinion makes people feel uncomfortable that the state isn't agreeing with what their religion teaches them.

Just saying.

If California can strip rights away from a certain group of people, I can think of a few more rights I wouldn't mind stripping away from a few more certain groups of people. :D

It sure seems like shouting down and intimidating someone for having a different opinion at least toes the line of limiting free speech.

It is funny how the slippery slope argument can be used here, but when it is brought up on the other side of the gay marriage argument it is considered ludicrous.

[C&CDean]

Whatever happened to "just let us **** whoever we want in the privacy of our own bedrooms??"

Gay marriage is.......gay? Besides being stupid, wrong on many counts, and seriously ****ed up. Have your secks. Live together. Bake your partner cookies while he changes the oil in your SUV with the rainbow flag. Nobody will give a ****.

Now, on the whole protest thing. Yes, by all means protest. ****ing morons do it every day for some cause or another. However, the minute you attack a person or their property during your protest, you are fair game. If somebody sntaches a cross from my momma's hand and stomps on it or threatens her in a physical manner then all bets are off.

[NormanPride]

If the money came from within California I don't see what the big deal is... But if it was funded from other places as well... I dunno.

Regardless, behavior like this is unforgivable, and may be setting back the gay rights movement quite a bit.

[badger]

You forgot this

http://sfist.com/attachments/SFist_Brock/prop%208%20hot%20guy.jpg

I think that African-American (let's just say BLACK) rights and Women's Rights have been issues fought WAAAAAAAAAAAY longer than gay rights. That doesn't I support any of them more or less (perhaps women's rights more, because I'm a chick) but I'm just saying. You're protesting "this crap" because marriage rights is a NEW ISSUE.

[C&CDean]

Oh yeah, anybody who argues the "Civil Rights of the 60's with blacks" argument is a clueless dumbass. Being born black does not = wanting to butt**** another man. DOH.

How's that Veritas?

[Veritas]

Personally I'm glad the people supporting NO on Prop 8 are finally getting angry. Anger is what helped fuel the Civil Rights movement in the 60's which helped Blacks gain equality. It's about time that this injustice is met head on...and with a healthy dose of anger. And I think it's gonna get a lot worse before it gets better out here.
Many black American's ancestors were trapped in cages, rounded up like cattle, and sent across an ocean. If they survived, they were subjected to brutal labor conditions. Children were taken from their mothers and sold to the highest bidder. Eventually this horror was outlawed, but this group of people was still treated as second class citizens. They were forced to use different facilities, sit in different areas of public transportation, and in certain areas of the country murdered for sport. It took years of legislation and a paradigm shift in the thinking of the populace before these injustices were rectified.

I have a difficult time buying into the attempt by the gay rights activists to associate their struggle with the struggles of blacks in America. It seems insulting and somewhat minimizing to the black civil rights movement due to the suffering and mistreat summarized above.

[TMcGee86]

I'm still waiting to hear the "right" that gays are denied.

It pisses me off that this gets coined a religion vs. gays issue. I'm against gay marriage, but it has nothing to do with religion. I don't even go to church.

I'm just curious as to what exactly they are trying to accomplish.

[badger]

I'm not trying to portray the gay lifestyle as easy by any means. It drives kids to suicide and there will be taunts and protests and cruelty to them and their families for the rest of their lives (if their families haven't already shunned them).

But yeah... this is a new issue. It took until 1934 for all women to have full equal rights to vote. It took until the 1960s for blacks to have equal rights to live. Those groups fought for, what? Nearly 200 years in this country? No comparison. Sorry :(

[TMcGee86]

I'm not trying to portray the gay lifestyle as easy by any means. It drives kids to suicide and there will be taunts and protests and cruelty to them and their families for the rest of their lives (if their families haven't already shunned them).

But yeah... this is a new issue. It took until 1934 for all women to have full equal rights to vote. It took until the 1960s for blacks to have equal rights to live. Those groups fought for, what? Nearly 200 years in this country? No comparison. Sorry :(


Not to mention those were people fighting for the right to not be treated as common property (in both cases).

This is nothing even remotely similar to that.

[NormanPride]

What percentage of the benefits granted by "marriage" can be accomplished through things like Power of Attorney or the like?

[TMcGee86]

What percentage of the benefits granted by "marriage" can be accomplished through things like Power of Attorney or the like?

100%

[1890MilesToNorman]

They should MOVE to Yankee land .;)

Vet, you send em up my way I'll take care of'em, then I'm coming looking for you!!





Have the OVJ ready and we'll celebrate. :P

[badger]

Ok, how bout a compromise :D

As a Lutheran, I know all about that, tee hee. When Martin Luther wanted to change the Catholic church by nailing stuff on their door and all, he got excommunicated. So, he didn't change the Catholic Church... but he did start a new religion, Lutheranism :D

Episcopalians - they disagreed with the Catholic Church over priests being able to marry. Once again, it didn't change the Catholic Church, but it started a new religion.

So, protesters of California, here's what you should do: Start something new. Don't try to change marriage, because it's something many people are too clingy to and will never let go, much like the traditions of Catholicism among Catholics. Ask voters for something new, whether you call it Civil Unions, or Spousal Unity, that can be up to you, but make it new and make it different from the term "marriage."

You will still be seeking all legal rights granted by marriage, like sharing property, being able to make medical decisions like a close family member and the personal knowledge of knowing that you are legal binded together as a common-law marriage (again, without the M-word).

However, you will not be seeking "marriage" itself, but just the legal right to practice it in a different way, namely, between simply two people instead of two people of the opposite sex.

[yermom]

let's leave civil unions to the state and marriage to the church...

[OklahomaRed]

Here's my issue, it doesn't stop there.

The dude holding up the sign:

Check - Women's Rights
Check - African American's Rights
Check - Homosexual Rights

Okay, now we can stop? Someone said it earlier?
Check - Polygmist's Rights (I want to marry 6 women)
Check - Pedophilia Rights (I want to marry a 14 year old girl)
check - Beastility Rights (I want to marry my cat)
Check - Incest Rights (I want to marry my sister)

The right for the state to impose who can marry who is legal. You have to establish those principles on some moral absolutes. If those moral absolutes are Judao/Christian values then that's what we've (USA) ran with for over 200 years. Now you have a militant group of left wingers who want to run all that in the ground? I can promise you it will not stop with #3. With that said, some rights are to be protected. Just as Dean said, I can't choose my skin color or what sex I'm born. The others I listed here are choices. Science can attempt to prove that homosexuality is inherited? So is alchoholism, but it's still a choice. Dean said it a little more agressively, but I can choose not to dip my wick in some other man's rear end. Do we allow DWI? The people have the right to vote what is acceptable and what is not in the public square.

[Veritas]

let's leave civil unions to the state and marriage to the church...
Amen. :)

[JohnnyMack]

I think that the concept of marriage has been hijacked by religion. Back even before the middle ages the Christian church and several others "outlawed" it when the original concept of marriage wasn't a religious one or one that any specific religion could lay claim to being the founder of.

I think that civil unions are fine, I'm all for them in fact. However I predict a long, uphill struggle before "marriage" as it's been bastardized by the church is allowed between people of the same sex in these here United States of America.

[yermom]

Here's my issue, it doesn't stop there.

The dude holding up the sign:

Check - Women's Rights
Check - African American's Rights
Check - Homosexual Rights

Okay, now we can stop? Someone said it earlier?
Check - Polygmist's Rights (I want to marry 6 women)
Check - Pedophilia Rights (I want to marry a 14 year old girl)
check - Beastility Rights (I want to marry my cat)
Check - Incest Rights (I want to marry my sister)

The right for the state to impose who can marry who is legal. You have to establish those principles on some moral absolutes. If those moral absolutes are Judao/Christian values then that's what we've (USA) ran with for over 200 years. Now you have a militant group of left wingers who want to run all that in the ground? I can promise you it will not stop with #3. With that said, some rights are to be protected. Just as Dean said, I can't choose my skin color or what sex I'm born. The others I listed here are choices. Science can attempt to prove that homosexuality is inherited? So is alchoholism, but it's still a choice. Dean said it a little more agressively, but I can choose not to dip my wick in some other man's rear end. Do we allow DWI? The people have the right to vote what is acceptable and what is not in the public square.

you lose me when you get away from consenting adults. DWI puts the public in danger, how does that compare with gay dudes seeing each other in the hospital and fighting over their things when they get divorced?

and being born gay isn't the same as inheriting it. i think it's more like being left-handed

in my various case studies, being gay isn't a choice. acting gay might be, but being gay isn't

[Tulsa_Fireman]

how does that compare with gay dudes seeing each other in the hospital and fighting over their things when they get divorced?

Who says there has to be constitutional language to "allow" either one?

If I'm a butt pirate and I want to see my first mate in the hospital because he's dying of a prolapsed rectum and the hospital disallows that, is not the HOSPITAL the focus of the concern? If I would like to go through nasty divorce-esque proceedings with my first mate when I find out he's been riding the ol' bologna pony of our neighbor Geraldo, could I not have entered a contract at the beginning of our relationship that defined ownership of goods? Could I not have purchased big ticket items like cars and a home with co-signees in the initial contract? Are there not existing legal constructs that can establish who my material possessions go to upon my death? Can I not name the executor of my estate in such a case?

It's an extremely small minority with an extremely loud voice and an extremely broad audience. Besides, people can be born with lots of issues. People can be born with a tendency to have chemical imbalances that cause depression. People can be born with predilection towards addictive behavior. People can be born with the genetic predisposition to be near-sighted. All of which are viewed as a medical issue. I have the ability to BE depressed, be addicted to whatever, or even be almost blind. It does NOT make me a protected class, does NOT ensure me specific rights and privleges as per our Constitution.

Lawrence v. Texas hit it right on the nose. You want to have buttsecks in the privacy of your home? Knock yourself out. But just because you're born with a predisposition to act a certain way doesn't mean it's 1) socially acceptable to the masses, 2) defines you as requiring protected class status under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 OR the Americans With Disabilities Act, or 3) right to have specific rights granted to you via legislation when your actions are already protected thanks to Lawrence v. Texas, the United States Constitution, and all the statutory and administrative laws of the land you enjoy protection under as a citizen of the United States, not because you enjoy stickin' your pecker in someone's buttcrack.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I'm going to over look your accusations of hypocrisy for a moment and say that I'm more than okay with the protests. It's certainly what makes the democracy what it is. It's the domestic terrorism and assault that I take issue with. I'm assuming you're not ok with the sending of mysterious envelopes with white powder to various Temples either. It's cowardice, and chicken **** and you know it.I'm NOT okay with the seding of "mysterious envelopes" to anyone. That's common sense. Common sense would also dictate that it's probably some disturbed person acting alone and not the act of a covert group or majority of Prop 8 opponents. Wouldn't you concede that? As for the cross being knocked out of her hand, yeah...that sucks, but you tellin' me that some drunk Sooners fans haven't knocked Longhorn crap or Okie State crap out of people's hands before, and visa versa? Stupid people do stupid stuff. It sucks. It makes the whole group look bad, but it isn't indicitave of the whole.

As for your claim that my accusations of hypocricy regarding the Mormon Church in this instance is baseless, is it an attack to point out the obvious? Mormon's have NOT always believed that "Marriage is between one man and one woman and always has been." But that's what they were shouting at all their protests. They funded 80% of the campaign money for YES on Prop 8 in California with money from the state of Utah. Only 2% of the California population is Mormon, but they forced their will on an entire state in order to discriminate against a subset of Americans; in order to discriminate. They ran commercials that were filled with BLATANT lies. So, yes. They deserve the backlash they're getting. They deserve the anger that's being pointed towards them. And they deserve to be called out for being HORRIBLE hypocrites on this issue.

I'm sorry if I offend you, but you'll never see me vote to take away rights from you or your church the way your church just took basic American rights away from my sister.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Cali has an enormous LDS population. Probably second only to Utah's.Only 2% of California's population is Mormon.

And you guys obviously didn't hear about the 3 Mormons who were arrested for, I kid you not, running OUT of the Mormon Temple in LA and attacking 2 gay protesters then turning around and running BACK into the Temple grounds when the crowd turned and ran to help them. CHICKEN. ****.

And there is starting to be a HUGE backlash towards blacks out here, actually. And the opponents to Prop 8 have started protesting at various Black congregations and reaching out to leaders in the African American community. They're aware of how the huge turnout for Barak Obama actually ended up making Prop 8 pass.

But the money for the commercials filled with lies and hate and the money for all those ralleys and organization came from the Mormon Church OUT OF STATE. And it's B.S. that people in another state just imposed THEIR will on US. And it's B.S. that a CHURCH is being allowed to enforce its morality on people via the law.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Whatever happened to "just let us **** whoever we want in the privacy of our own bedrooms??"

Gay marriage is.......gay? Besides being stupid, wrong on many counts, and seriously ****ed up. Have your secks. Live together. Bake your partner cookies while he changes the oil in your SUV with the rainbow flag. Nobody will give a ****.I'm glad you're willing to "allow them" to ALMOST have all the same legal rights as you already posses. :rolleyes:

It's an issue of equality and legality and discrimination. Not public buttsex in the park.


Now, on the whole protest thing. Yes, by all means protest. ****ing morons do it every day for some cause or another. However, the minute you attack a person or their property during your protest, you are fair game. If somebody sntaches a cross from my momma's hand and stomps on it or threatens her in a physical manner then all bets are off.Agreed.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Oh yeah, anybody who argues the "Civil Rights of the 60's with blacks" argument is a clueless dumbass. Being born black does = being born gay.Fixed.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Many black American's ancestors were trapped in cages, rounded up like cattle, and sent across an ocean. If they survived, they were subjected to brutal labor conditions. Children were taken from their mothers and sold to the highest bidder. Eventually this horror was outlawed, but this group of people was still treated as second class citizens. They were forced to use different facilities, sit in different areas of public transportation, and in certain areas of the country murdered for sport. It took years of legislation and a paradigm shift in the thinking of the populace before these injustices were rectified.

I have a difficult time buying into the attempt by the gay rights activists to associate their struggle with the struggles of blacks in America. It seems insulting and somewhat minimizing to the black civil rights movement due to the suffering and mistreat summarized above.Tell that to:
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5017/mattring2zf0.jpg

It is in no way minimizing to see the similarities in discrimination and hate between the two. Nobody is saying that Gays have it as bad as Blacks HAD it, but there are some similarities: ie) laws banning their marriage, people quoting the Bible to show how their existence is "wrong," attacks and murders.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I'm still waiting to hear the "right" that gays are denied.

It pisses me off that this gets coined a religion vs. gays issue. I'm against gay marriage, but it has nothing to do with religion. I don't even go to church.

I'm just curious as to what exactly they are trying to accomplish.Nothing big. Just EQUALITY. :rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

100%WRONG.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Ok, how bout a compromise :D

As a Lutheran, I know all about that, tee hee. When Martin Luther wanted to change the Catholic church by nailing stuff on their door and all, he got excommunicated. So, he didn't change the Catholic Church... but he did start a new religion, Lutheranism :D

Episcopalians - they disagreed with the Catholic Church over priests being able to marry. Once again, it didn't change the Catholic Church, but it started a new religion.

So, protesters of California, here's what you should do: Start something new. Don't try to change marriage, because it's something many people are too clingy to and will never let go, much like the traditions of Catholicism among Catholics. Ask voters for something new, whether you call it Civil Unions, or Spousal Unity, that can be up to you, but make it new and make it different from the term "marriage."

You will still be seeking all legal rights granted by marriage, like sharing property, being able to make medical decisions like a close family member and the personal knowledge of knowing that you are legal binded together as a common-law marriage (again, without the M-word).

However, you will not be seeking "marriage" itself, but just the legal right to practice it in a different way, namely, between simply two people instead of two people of the opposite sex.I'm okay with all of that. And I've proposed similar things.

But it only works if Cali ALSO outlaws "marriage." Otherwise it's still "separate, but equal" and thus, still discrimination.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Here's my issue, it doesn't stop there.

The dude holding up the sign:

Check - Women's Rights
Check - African American's Rights
Check - Homosexual Rights

Okay, now we can stop? Someone said it earlier?
Check - Polygmist's Rights (I want to marry 6 women)
Check - Pedophilia Rights (I want to marry a 14 year old girl)
check - Beastility Rights (I want to marry my cat)
Check - Incest Rights (I want to marry my sister)

The right for the state to impose who can marry who is legal. You have to establish those principles on some moral absolutes. If those moral absolutes are Judao/Christian values then that's what we've (USA) ran with for over 200 years. Now you have a militant group of left wingers who want to run all that in the ground? I can promise you it will not stop with #3. With that said, some rights are to be protected. Just as Dean said, I can't choose my skin color or what sex I'm born. The others I listed here are choices. Science can attempt to prove that homosexuality is inherited? So is alchoholism, but it's still a choice. Dean said it a little more agressively, but I can choose not to dip my wick in some other man's rear end. Do we allow DWI? The people have the right to vote what is acceptable and what is not in the public square.
This post is wrong on SO many levels.

1) People are born gay. 2) Wanting to love and marry a person is totally different from having an addiction which destroys your body and your family and kills people. 3) "dipping your wick in some other man's rear end" being equated to a DWI is RE-FUGGIN-TARDED. 4) We are not a Christian Nation. Get over it. We never HAVE been. We're a nation with freedom of, and freedom from, religion. We have no official religion. Keep your religion out of my house and I'll keep all my gay friends out of yours.

And the "slippery slope" argument is one of the dumbest arguments ever, ESPECIALLY when it's used against legalizing Gay marriage. "Marry your cat," indeed. :rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

God damnit. You guys got me all riled up. And I've got a meeting to go to.

I need to just walk away from this thread. It just pisses me off to see people be so ignorant and so hateful.

[soonerscuba]

Don't worry, I'm sure once it's no longer politically acceptable for the Mormon Church to work so ardently to stop gays from getting married, God will magically reveal that's OK, like he has always done when the Mormons have their backs against the wall.

[badger]

This topic is another potential South Oval divider :(

Please be nice.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Let me be clear: I wouldn't be so damned pissed at the Mormon Church if they hadn't forced their morality upon my friends and family.

[Okla-homey]

I have a difficult time buying into the attempt by the gay rights activists to associate their struggle with the struggles of blacks in America. It seems insulting and somewhat minimizing to the black civil rights movement due to the suffering and mistreat summarized above.

Moreover, I'm not convinced ghey-ness is an immutable characteristic like race or gender. Immutability has heretofore been the judicial test for strict scrutiny of laws which abridge civil rights.

Notwithstanding the ghey lobby's vociferous arguments to the contrary, I maintain people can and do "turn ghey", and they can and do "turn straight." If ghey-ness were indeed embued en utero, it would be an identifiable strand on the DNA molecule. It ain't. Q.E.D.

That is not to denigrate our ghey friends. They have been, and are, repeatedly bashed and discriminated against. That is lamentable and people who engage in that sort of thing are a-holes. But to put their collective plight on par with racial minorities and women is simply absurd.

[C&CDean]

LAS never disappoints. EVAR. And like always, he's running at about a 40% clip.

Some things you can just take to the bank. The sun rising in the east and setting in the west, death, taxes, and LAS running point for his socal bros. Yeah, yeah, I know, you're the right wing nut job out there. Spare me.

FWIW, black dudes don't agree with your assertion that being black = being gay. Guess they're all wrong too huh? Go spin some Rush and polish up Neil's motorcycle or something. Meh.

[sooner_born_1960]

Let me be clear: I wouldn't be so damned pissed at the Mormon Church if they hadn't forced their morality upon my friends and family.Along with a majority of the voters. 98% of whom are not Mormon.

[soonerhubs]

Let me be clear: I wouldn't be so damned pissed at the Mormon Church if they hadn't forced their morality upon my friends and family.

I'm looking to see where they held a gun to people's heads at the ballot box. Force is a strong word LAS, and you know it. It's like saying the Democratic party "Forced" us to have Obama as the President, or anyone who backed a policy I'm against is forcing their oppression on me. This argument is asinine in so many ways.

[Dio]

But the money for the commercials filled with lies and hate and the money for all those ralleys and organization came from the Mormon Church OUT OF STATE. And it's B.S. that people in another state just imposed THEIR will on US. And it's B.S. that a CHURCH is being allowed to enforce its morality on people via the law.

You don't think Jim Roth got or Sally Kern's next opponent is going to get huge sums of money from outside Oklahoma? It might suck, but it's not illegal.

[olevetonahill]

Let me be clear: I wouldn't be so damned pissed at the Mormon Church if they hadn't forced their morality upon my friends and family.

Well Hell I wouldnt be so Pissed at the Loud Mouth Libs If they Hadnt forced their New Leader On the Rest of us either.:rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

LAS never disappoints. EVAR. And like always, he's running at about a 40% clip.

Some things you can just take to the bank. The sun rising in the east and setting in the west, death, taxes, and LAS running point for his socal bros. Yeah, yeah, I know, you're the right wing nut job out there. Spare me.

FWIW, black dudes don't agree with your assertion that being black = being gay. Guess they're all wrong too huh? Go spin some Rush and polish up Neil's motorcycle or something. Meh.Yeah. Because since they're black, they can't be wrong about issues of discrimination.

My 40% is your 100%.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I'll leave you guys to your hate. You're on the wrong side of history. Again.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Admit it.

You like man-secks. You sail the high seas of the Buttlantic Ocean in search of "booty".

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f102/lillieandjerry/jerrys/butt_pirate.gif

[soonerhubs]

I'll leave you guys to your hate. You're on the wrong side of history. Again.

:rolleyes: Wisdom for the ages. :rolleyes:

[C&CDean]

Please do. And don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you.

One more thing. I saw a license plate on the back of a very cool 55 Chevy the other day. It said "ULOOZ." Reminded me of somebody.

[olevetonahill]

I'll leave you guys to your hate. You're on the wrong side of history. Again.

Just declare your self winner . and Its Over .;)

[Pricetag]

It is in no way minimizing to see the similarities in discrimination and hate between the two. Nobody is saying that Gays have it as bad as Blacks HAD it, but there are some similarities: ie) laws banning their marriage, people quoting the Bible to show how their existence is "wrong," attacks and murders.
I think a big part of the reason why gays have had it "easier" than women and blacks over the years is because they are able to hide what it is that makes them different. There's no telling how things might have been in the past if gays had not been able to stay in the closet.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I win.

What do I win, Monty?

[Veritas]

Tell that to:
<pic of Matthew Shepard>
You cannot equate the case of one individual's murder with the subjugation of an entire race over a time period of two centuries.

[Chuck Bao]

I may be a dumbass, but I’m going to respond.

Civil unions do not offer the same rights as marriage. Are civil unions recognized outside of the state that they are issued? No. Are marriages? Of course.

It would be great if that were the case. I would like for the government both state and national to get out of religion and issue civil unions and leave the churches to proclaim marriages.

As it is, equal rights cannot be remedied by wills, power of attorney or insurance benefactors.

Does the US State Department recognize civil unions granted by any particular state? No.

I don’t understand the argument that the gay rights movement is dissimilar to the African American or women’s struggle for equality. It appears that some of you are saying that gays have not been discriminated enough against or struggled long enough or can easily hide in the closet. Seriously? There is in fact a very long history of violence, taunting, blackmail, entrapment and legal persecution.

Those engaging in acts of violence or threats should and probably will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, as I hope that those on the other side will be. But, the anger is real and justified in my opinion. Any religion that takes a political stance has to be prepared for criticism.

[soonerhubs]

They ran commercials that were filled with BLATANT lies. So, yes. They deserve the backlash they're getting. They deserve the anger that's being pointed towards them. And they deserve to be called out for being HORRIBLE hypocrites on this issue.


I concede that the folks getting violent are a small group, but I do feel that they should still be called out. I honestly want to know what lies you speak of that were ran.

I'm still waiting for your reply explaining how this was FORCED.

[SCOUT]

You cannot equate the case of one individual's murder with the subjugation of an entire race over a time period of two centuries.

You can when your desire to make a point is greater than your ability to make that point.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

http://uploads.abovetopsecret.com/ats7320_gay_thread.jpg

Haven't used this gem in about 3 years! :D

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Not to mention the fact that while the crime was engaged because of his homosexuality, is that any different than crime engaged because of someone else's social status or actions?

I was murdered and tortured because I'm rich with a safe full of my family's wealth. I was murdered and tortured because I'm Pakistani muslim on September 12th, 2001. I was murdered and tortured because I happened to be married to a psychopath. I was murdered and tortured because I was in North Tulsa in a KKK uniform. I was murdered and tortured because I'm an 11 year old lady who fell victim to a twisted pedophile. I was murdered and tortured because I happened to be in the bank when that group of thugs showed up to rob it.

Do ANY of those people deserve some kind of special consideration because of who they were when they lost their lives? Why they lost their lives? Do the offenders deserve a punishment above and beyond that which is deemed acceptable by society, any more of which would be considered cruel and unusual? Is it anything MORE than the fact that someone was cruelly murdered and tortured which should be punishable by the gravest of sentences REGARDLESS of the circumstances?

I find it sad (and amazingly silly) that one side of the mouth screams for rights and equality, yet uses examples of specificity to illogically argue to the general circumstance of some mandated standard of INequality such as hate crimes.

Murder is murder. Torture is torture. All of which are unacceptable by societal standards. The why of any given circumstance should only establish motive and evidence in effort to convict. To try and establish some ethereal concept of crime versus majority is less of a crime than crime versus a special interest group is not only stupid, but blatantly ignoring the VIII Amendment.


Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Murder is murder. Torture is torture. And Lady Justice is blind for a reason.

[Chuck Bao]

I concede that the folks getting violent are a small group, but I do feel that they should still be called out. I honestly want to know what lies you speak of that were ran.

I'm still waiting for your reply explaining how this was FORCED.

I think one of the most successful and commonly used lies is that by allowing equal rights to gays would include gay indocination of school children.

That is pretty bad, in my view.

The problem for me is that some people see gay rights as a bunch of butt pirates run amok or this thread is gay (see above posts). It isn't about teaching kids about butt pirates (get your mind off that), but it is about respect, human dignity and freedom to be who you are.


You can when your desire to make a point is greater than your ability to make that point.

I am pretty sure that there isn't only one case of gay bashing/deaths. I wish I was wrong.

[sooner_born_1960]

Tulsa Fireman,
While I agree that the very notion of hate crimes is ludicrous, aren't you off on a tangent?


Maybe this whole thread is on a tangent. Carry on.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Not in my opinion.

The case of Matthew Shepard was used to show how homosexuals are being oppressed as a case study into why they need to be included as a protected class. I countered that argument with my belief that crime is crime and does not by its nature establish protected classes, but instead is an affront to ALL liberty, which is reinforced by my belief that being a member of a certain social group, while being the root of a crime against you, only defines motive and provides evidence for conviction, not the allowance of some established special consideration or an increase in penalty because of said motive above and beyond existing penalties for a crime of the same stature taken upon someone not belonging to a sought out protected class.

[Veritas]

I don’t understand the argument that the gay rights movement is dissimilar to the African American or women’s struggle for equality.
The argument, of course, comes down to birth traits. This is why homosexual activists are intent on finding conclusive and inarguable scientific proof that their sexual predilictions are hereditary and/or genetic. The problem that all such studies have had to this point is the fact that correlation does not imply causality. Differences in the size of the hypothalamus of homosexual males who died of AIDS, for example, implied a correlation between hypothalamus size but established no causal relationship.

Black people are black. There is absolutely nothing that a black person can do to be anything other than black, unless of course that person is Michael Jackson.

Women are women and that never changes, unless of course they decide to undergo massive hormone treatments as well as surgery to create an obscenely large clitoris.

Homosexuality, however, affects no observable physiological difference. Expressed homosexuality requires that an individual must willfully engage in sexual behavior with members of the same gender. One could obviously argue that one can be a homosexual without sexual expression, but that brings us back to the problem of the lack of physiological difference. As a character in Sex and the City so eloquently put it, "You're not a dyke unless you eat *****."

For this reason, the "civil rights" angle is not going to be effective. Right or wrong, until there is conclusive and inarguable scientific proof of a causal physiological difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals, homosexuality will continue to be perceived by the majority as a lifestyle choice.

[Chuck Bao]

Not to mention the fact that while the crime was engaged because of his homosexuality, is that any different than crime engaged because of someone else's social status or actions?

I was murdered and tortured because I'm rich with a safe full of my family's wealth. I was murdered and tortured because I'm Pakistani muslim on September 12th, 2001. I was murdered and tortured because I happened to be married to a psychopath. I was murdered and tortured because I was in North Tulsa in a KKK uniform. I was murdered and tortured because I'm an 11 year old lady who fell victim to a twisted pedophile. I was murdered and tortured because I happened to be in the bank when that group of thugs showed up to rob it.

Do ANY of those people deserve some kind of special consideration because of who they were when they lost their lives? Why they lost their lives? Do the offenders deserve a punishment above and beyond that which is deemed acceptable by society, any more of which would be considered cruel and unusual? Is it anything MORE than the fact that someone was cruelly murdered and tortured which should be punishable by the gravest of sentences REGARDLESS of the circumstances?

I find it sad (and amazingly silly) that one side of the mouth screams for rights and equality, yet uses examples of specificity to illogically argue to the general circumstance of some mandated standard of INequality such as hate crimes.

Murder is murder. Torture is torture. All of which are unacceptable by societal standards. The why of any given circumstance should only establish motive and evidence in effort to convict. To try and establish some ethereal concept of crime versus majority is less of a crime than crime versus a special interest group is not only stupid, but blatantly ignoring the VIII Amendment.

Murder is murder. Torture is torture. And Lady Justice is blind for a reason.

The crimes you mentioned are indeed horrific and despicable. The difference is huge and may not be so apparent to you. Hate crimes are acts of terrorism not intended for a particular victim but a whole community.

For example, separatist Muslims in southern Thailand are killing and beheading Buddhists with the very clear objective of driving all Buddhists out and creating their own Muslim state.

Do you think that these crimes should be prosecuted as normal crimes or should they be given special status as hate crimes and essentially genocide?

Likewise, random violence against gays should be viewed as just random acts of crime or intended to eliminate gays?

I think a judge or jury can decide. If you are saying never, then I disagree with you.

[sooner_born_1960]

Hatred is just a motive for committing a crime. The punishment should be for the actual crime committed.

[Veritas]

Likewise, random violence against gays should be viewed as just random acts of crime or intended to eliminate gays?
I've got a friend from high school that we beaten so badly by some gay-bashers that he now functions with diminished mental capacity. The guys that beat him, when arrested and tried, never expressed intent beyond "we wanted to beat up a fag." What I'm saying is that the concept of "eliminating gays" was beyond them. They were just *******s.

[Chuck Bao]

The argument, of course, comes down to birth traits. This is why homosexual activists are intent on finding conclusive and inarguable scientific proof that their sexual predilictions are hereditary and/or genetic. The problem that all such studies have had to this point is the fact that correlation does not imply causality. Differences in the size of the hypothalamus of homosexual males who died of AIDS, for example, implied a correlation between hypothalamus size but established no causal relationship.

Black people are black. There is absolutely nothing that a black person can do to be anything other than black, unless of course that person is Michael Jackson.

Women are women and that never changes, unless of course they decide to undergo massive hormone treatments as well as surgery to create an obscenely large clitoris.

Homosexuality, however, affects no observable physiological difference. Expressed homosexuality requires that an individual must willfully engage in sexual behavior with members of the same gender. One could obviously argue that one can be a homosexual without sexual expression, but that brings us back to the problem of the lack of physiological difference. As a character in Sex and the City so eloquently put it, "You're not a dyke unless you eat *****."

For this reason, the "civil rights" angle is not going to be effective. Right or wrong, until there is conclusive and inarguable scientific proof of a causal physiological difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals, homosexuality will continue to be perceived by the majority as a lifestyle choice.


Okay, I accept the fact that you are not going to be convinced unless there is inarguable scientific proof. I don't doubt that that is the case for a lot of Americans and I don't doubt that they will never be convinced.

In truth, I think that a lot of Americans are scared of the gays. They are scared that their sons and daughters will be suddenly turned gay by recognizing that gays and lesbians have rights. That is why the brainwashing of children lies are so successful.

In truth, I also think that many gays stay in the closet and live a hetrosexual life because of family pressure. I think the whole issues revolves around that and not the nature versus nuture bogus debate.

But, what if someone who goes both ways finds a satisfying relationship in a same sex union? Is that a terribly bad thing?

[Chuck Bao]

I've got a friend from high school that we beaten so badly by some gay-bashers that he now functions with diminished mental capacity. The guys that beat him, when arrested and tried, never expressed intent beyond "we wanted to beat up a fag." What I'm saying is that the concept of "eliminating gays" was beyond them. They were just *******s.

So the "we wanted to beat up a fag" was intended as put down or beat up of only one particular gay guy. He was only just one fag.

I'm sure they were saying that they were generally okay with the other fags.

I don't believe you.

[tbl]

1) People are not born gay. I should know this since there isn't a single shred of scientific evidence to prove otherwise.

Fixed.

[stoopified]

So you are saying that abortion is ok in some cases? ;)I DON'T believe in abortion BUT I do believe in retroactive birtcontrol.I would say here is a case thta calls out for it.

[Veritas]

So the "we wanted to beat up a fag" was intended as put down or beat up of only one particular gay guy. He was only just one fag.

I'm sure they were saying that they were generally okay with the other fags.

I don't believe you.
My point is that I doubt that those who commit acts of violence against homosexuals (or any other group of people different from them) have the intelligence or awareness to see their activities as working to diminish that group of people.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

The crimes you mentioned are indeed horrific and despicable. The difference is huge and may not be so apparent to you. Hate crimes are acts of terrorism not intended for a particular victim but a whole community.

For example, separatist Muslims in southern Thailand are killing and beheading Buddhists with the very clear objective of driving all Buddhists out and creating their own Muslim state.

Do you think that these crimes should be prosecuted as normal crimes or should they be given special status as hate crimes and essentially genocide?

Likewise, random violence against gays should be viewed as just random acts of crime or intended to eliminate gays?

I think a judge or jury can decide. If you are saying never, then I disagree with you.


Grandiose examples of plain and simple crime.

Crime is, by its very definition, a violation of accepted societal norms. Intent and/or motive, both are used in every known circumstance to determine guilt, which in turn is used to determine the level of punishment fitting the crime within established societal constraints. Intent and/or motive does NOT determine punishment outside of the legal definition of the crime commited.

Case in point.

My intent is to burn down my entire neighborhood because I'm being oppressed by property taxes. I'm gonna dance in the flames and laugh like a mad man. I start by setting an incendiary device in my kitchen, which in turn, catches my house on fire. Thankfully for the neighborhood, firefighters stop the flames within the home, protect the evidence, and a trained investigator gathers said evidence along with my statement where I admit my intent to watch the entire neighborhood become consumed in flame. I'm easily convicted of 1st Degree Arson (having intentionally, with willful disregard, set fire to an occupied structure) where my statement and the gathered evidence essentially wraps the noose around my neck. Yet I'm only convicted and sentenced to 1st Degree Arson for MY home. Not the neighborhood. Even though my intent was to burn each and every home.

Intent is a moot point in regards to sentencing. Period.

I want to kill all homosexuals. I kill one with the intent of eventually killing 'em all. I'm arrested for the murder of that homosexual. Intent is a moot point. Intent doesn't commit crime. Intent is NOT a crime. Intent is not a violation of the law. I want to bang all hot chicks. I rape a woman. I'm charged with the rape of that woman. Intent doesn't make me responsible for the rape of every hot chick on the planet. I'm responsible for my ACTIONS.

The day you punish for intent is the day you establish a gestapo-esque, jackbooted police state. The day you crack the glass shell of liberty we enjoy. I disagree with the guy that cuts me off on the highway. I intend to drive next to him and shout "**** YOU" through my closed window and run him off the road. I never catch up to his car.

Arrest me, Mr. Gestapo Police Man. Charge me with assault and attempted murder with a deadly weapon, or even worse, vehicular manslaughter. It sure was my intent. Never happened, but by cracky, we're charging and prosecuting by intent now, not by actual crime.

[Chuck Bao]

Fixed.

There is some evidence in identical twins being raised apart.

http://worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

Besides that, there are many, many gays who recoginized that they were attracted to the same sex when they were young kids and had no idea about sex. In many cases, their parents recognized it too.

[Half a Hundred]

In truth, I think that a lot of Americans are scared of the gays. They are scared that their sons and daughters will be suddenly turned gay by recognizing that gays and lesbians have rights. That is why the brainwashing of children lies are so successful.


Yes and no. I think its more that they're afraid that if it does become more socially acceptable, it would deny their ability to be willfully ignorant of their child's sexual orientation, even if it is fairly obvious to everyone. It's sad, but there are parents that place their own social status over their children's happiness practically every time.

It's not that they're afraid that their kid's gay, they're afraid of being the parents of the gay kid, and what that means to their social standing.

[JohnnyMack]

My point is that I doubt that those who commit acts of violence against homosexuals (or any other group of people different from them) have the intelligence or awareness to see their activities as working to diminish that group of people.

:rolleyes:

Srsly?

[NormanPride]

Why didn't the gay community get this thing passed? If 2% of the state can drive enough revenue while being backed by freaking Utah, then why can't the California elite bring out the star power to combat it? Nobody was forced into anything, and now the gay populace is mad because they got beat at politics. Get better at it, everyone else had to.

[Frozen Sooner]

Hatred is just a motive for committing a crime. The punishment should be for the actual crime committed.

Any number of crimes have differences in how they're charged based on motive.

[Frozen Sooner]

Intent is a moot point in regards to sentencing. Period.

Incorrect.

Murder in the first degree generally receives a different sentence than manslaughter.

[Frozen Sooner]

Oh, yeah, and of course it's wrong for a person to mail white powder to anyone, and it's also wrong to commit battery against someone simply because you don't agree with them on a political issue.

[Chuck Bao]

Grandiose examples of plain and simple crime.

Crime is, by its very definition, a violation of accepted societal norms. Intent and/or motive, both are used in every known circumstance to determine guilt, which in turn is used to determine the level of punishment fitting the crime within established societal constraints. Intent and/or motive does NOT determine punishment outside of the legal definition of the crime commited.

Case in point.

My intent is to burn down my entire neighborhood because I'm being oppressed by property taxes. I'm gonna dance in the flames and laugh like a mad man. I start by setting an incendiary device in my kitchen, which in turn, catches my house on fire. Thankfully for the neighborhood, firefighters stop the flames within the home, protect the evidence, and a trained investigator gathers said evidence along with my statement where I admit my intent to watch the entire neighborhood become consumed in flame. I'm easily convicted of 1st Degree Arson (having intentionally, with willful disregard, set fire to an occupied structure) where my statement and the gathered evidence essentially wraps the noose around my neck. Yet I'm only convicted and sentenced to 1st Degree Arson for MY home. Not the neighborhood. Even though my intent was to burn each and every home.

Intent is a moot point in regards to sentencing. Period.

I want to kill all homosexuals. I kill one with the intent of eventually killing 'em all. I'm arrested for the murder of that homosexual. Intent is a moot point. Intent doesn't commit crime. Intent is NOT a crime. Intent is not a violation of the law. I want to bang all hot chicks. I rape a woman. I'm charged with the rape of that woman. Intent doesn't make me responsible for the rape of every hot chick on the planet. I'm responsible for my ACTIONS.

The day you punish for intent is the day you establish a gestapo-esque, jackbooted police state. The day you crack the glass shell of liberty we enjoy. I disagree with the guy that cuts me off on the highway. I intend to drive next to him and shout "**** YOU" through my closed window and run him off the road. I never catch up to his car.

Arrest me, Mr. Gestapo Police Man. Charge me with assault and attempted murder with a deadly weapon, or even worse, vehicular manslaughter. It sure was my intent. Never happened, but by cracky, we're charging and prosecuting by intent now, not by actual crime.

You apparently still don't get it. You are still looking at it as a white male majority being disadvantaged some how.

It is not that at all. It is terrorism pure and simple if the intent is to terrorize and drive out the minority be they Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Asian- American, Africian American, Hispanic, Gay.

It is a great thing to have faith in our criminal justice system. But to think that these acts of violence intended to intimidate the minorities should be considered only on the case and let the minorities feel satisfied that future acts of intimidation are now and forever resolved is a bit naive.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Incorrect.

Murder in the first degree generally receives a different sentence than manslaughter.

Correct.

Murder I and Manslaughter are two differing crimes against society. Thusly they carry differing penalties, not due to intent, but due to premeditation, cause, et cetera.

Premeditation: Yes, I intended to murder Joe Bob. I planned it out and I did it, just like I wanted.

Cause: No, I didn't intend to kill that lady. I just had a lil' too much to drink.

Intent: I want to literally kill that son of a bitch for banging my wife.

Which brings two issues to bear, do you attempt to kill with malice aforethought and are simply unsuccessful? Or is your intent simply that? Intent? Intent is nothing without action.

I intended to mow the lawn today, dad. Just never got around to it. Is the lawn somehow mowed and therefore the son deserving of allowance for doing his chores? Again, intent is nothing without action. It is the action that establishes the crime, it is intent, evidence, motive, that establishes guilt.

[Frozen Sooner]

Uh-huh.

And killing someone (or assaulting them, or vandalizing their store) in an attempt to terrorize a specific class of people is a different crime than simply killing someone because they slept with your wife.

Taken from the other end, do you think that intent is never used to mitigate sentences?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

In my opinion, it shouldn't. Is it used? I'm sure it is (I honestly can't say), though wrongly, as that's why there are such things as tiered offenses. Why there's two separate charges for Attempted Murder and Murder. That's where I can not, nor will not agree with hate crime legislation.

Does the crime of rape somehow escape the terrorizing brand? What about serial rape? Is not the whole premise to terrorize and dominate one sexually? If I rape you, give you a hundred bucks and apologize, is it any less rape than me hiding in a dark alley and jumping an unsuspecting bystander with a knife at their throat? Being I'm not a homosexual and I exclusively rape women which are very much a protected class, should I see punishment beyond that which I'd receive should I have raped a caucasian male of legal age with no specific protected class status?


I burned Ho Ngyuen's Convenience Store because he's a dirty chink. Damn right I did. And I put a .45 in his head before I did it.

Is that somehow MORE of a murder/arson than any other? Someone's been murdered. Someone's a victim of arson. Society has defined the punishment for these crimes to which punishment above the societal accepted standard is considered cruel and unusual and therefore in violation of the VIII Amendment. To somehow tie intent and protected classes to that is an insult and an offense to those that have suffered these crimes and simply don't enjoy some magic protected class status.

In other words, murder is murder. Laws are in place to delineate between levels of offense through tiered offenses. NOT because of intent, not because of the class status of the victim. As I said, Lady Justice is blind for a reason.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

The biggest issue I see is that at least 80% of this country views being Gay as a choice. Now the Gay community can flap their arms and pull a Mike Gundy and yell "It Ain't True" but that isn't going to make perceptions change. Therefore the Gay community can't engage this political fight in the same manner as the blacks and women of this country. All this violence and mailing of anthrax letters is just endangering the lives of the gays in areas where it is considered more abnormal. If you are Gay in San Francisco...it may not effect you...but if you are Gay in Vian, OK..it might not go so well for you. This law is disturbing on a basic level for me. Since when is the Government's(local or federal) job been to deprive rights of citizens. I will say it one more time that the fact that the Gays can not get some form of marriage is complete and utter bull****. Marriage has a long history that has been everchanging. Used to be marriage was about acquiring wealth...then marriage was a means of creating a better class of peasants to work the fields...now marriage is just a sham for a VAST majority of the straight population.

[soonerhubs]

...now marriage is just a sham for a VAST majority of the straight population.

I suppose I would have to understand what you mean when you call marriage a sham for the vast majority.

[Vaevictis]

I suppose I would have to understand what you mean when you call marriage a sham for the vast majority.

50% of marriages end in divorce. There is no outcry to make it more difficult to divorce. Sham.

It's buffet Christianity, pure and simple. The parts of the Bible I like? IRONCLAD LAW OF GOD! The parts of the Bible I don't like? Oh, Jesus did away with that.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

50% of marriages end in divorce. There is no outcry to make it more difficult to divorce. Sham.

It's buffet Christianity, pure and simple. The parts of the Bible I like? IRONCLAD LAW OF GOD! The parts of the Bible I don't like? Oh, Jesus did away with that.

You must be reading a different Bible than I did, cause Jesus never did away with divorce. If anything he reinforced NOT doing it.

[yermom]

i'm thinking he's talking about things like sacrificing animals and not eating pork

[Vaevictis]

i'm thinking he's talking about things like sacrificing animals and not eating pork

Including, but not necessarily limited to.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Wait, I can't sacrifice animals either?

[NormanPride]

****, I've been doing this wrong for years, then.

[Chuck Bao]

You must be reading a different Bible than I did, cause Jesus never did away with divorce. If anything he reinforced NOT doing it.

I don't think that Jesus ever specificially spoke out about homosexuality. Sins of the flesh he did, but he spoke much more about hyprocrisy and clinging to wealth and not showing compassion.

It was more Paul in his letters to the churches that did. And, Paul wasn't too keen on marriage either, or at least he never married Why can't Catholic priests and nuns marry?

And, Paul wasn't too much on women speaking out in churches and I know a lot of women would feel that they are not second class in the eyes of their god.

So the New Testament is either inerrant or it should be seen in context of the times. Most people that are reading it as inerrant are still picking and choosing the verses that they want to abide by.

Camel through a an eye of a needle? Anyone want to thread that one?

[Frozen Sooner]

****, I've been doing this wrong for years, then.

You mix badger with pork all the time.

I feel bad about that one already.

[AlbqSooner]

I don't know if it is possible to take a gay or lesbian and turn them straight, but I do know that I lived with a straight woman for 11 months and she turned into a lesbian.;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't think he was necessarily attacking your church. Its a known fact that the temples in LA were behind much of the fund raising for prop 8. Now there is nothing wrong with them raising money for a cause they believe in.

There are just a lot of people angry about this prop on both sides.However, only the one side reacts violently to not getting their way through the democratic process.

[Vaevictis]

However, only the one side reacts violently to not getting their way through the democratic process.

Tell that to the people who work at abortion clinics that have been bombed.

[Chuck Bao]

However, only the one side reacts violently to not getting their way through the democratic process.


Like civil rights should ever be a 50%+ majority? Changing the constitution should be a 50%+ majority? LAS made this point before.

I am all for democracy and the right for people to decide. It should still be a little better system when a minority is involved. Where would our country be if civil rights were up to a simple majority?

[LosAngelesSooner]

No need to read the hate. I'm off for a 3 day deep sea SCUBA diving trip.

Hope you all have a good weekend.

[Chuck Bao]

I don't know if it is possible to take a gay or lesbian and turn them straight, but I do know that I lived with a straight woman for 11 months and she turned into a lesbian.;)

And...

Is she happy now? Maybe she wasn't ever really straight with you.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

No one could be happy with him ;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Tell that to the people who work at abortion clinics that have been bombed.Who TF is condoning bombing OR abortion? You are comparing just what to violence against supporters of the initiatives that passed against gay marriage?

[Vaevictis]

Who TF is condoning bombing OR abortion? You are comparing just what to violence against supporters of the initiatives that passed against gay marriage?

The point is that there are people of all political persuasions that resort to violence when they don't get what they want from a democratic process.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The point is that there are people of all political persuasions that resort to violence when they don't get what they want from a democratic process.and just what democratic process do you refer to that gave us legal abortion?(heh)

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

We elect the President who elects the Supreme Court...who ruled abortion was legal?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

We elect the President who elects the Supreme Court...who ruled abortion was legal?heh

[Vaevictis]

and just what democratic process do you refer to that gave us legal abortion?(heh)

The one whereby if you have a problem with the Supreme Court's ruling, you're welcome to override them via amendment.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The one whereby if you have a problem with the Supreme Court's ruling, you're welcome to override them via amendment.heh

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Does this mean we can void all Straight marriages until we can pass a people's mandate for it in every single state Rush...

[Okla-homey]

it was so much simpler in the 1970's when the APA categorized homosexuality as a mental condition and perversion. Nowadays, its merely a different sexual preference.

just sayin'

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

it was so much simpler in the when the Church categorized mental disabilities as demon possession and just killed them. Nowadays, its merely accepted and in fact we let them compete in their own Special Olympics.

just sayin'

[olevetonahill]

No need to read the hate. I'm off for a 3 day deep sea SCUBA diving trip.

Hope you all have a good weekend.

If you encounter Jaws , Be sure to Out talk him .;)

[Soonerfan88]

Civil unions do not offer the same rights as marriage. Are civil unions recognized outside of the state that they are issued? No. Are marriages? Of course.

Just to clarify:

No, all marriages are not. Kansas law specifically states that if any marriage sanctioned in another state does not meeting Kansas law, it will not be recognized i.e. under 16 or w/o parental permission 16-17, 1st cousin, etc.

[Boffingham]

nobody is born gay. if that were true, then the same scientists that can remove genes that cause other diseases would be researching the gay gene. i haven't heard any of that on the news.

[Okla-homey]

nobody is born gay. if that were true, then the same scientists that can remove genes that cause other diseases would be researching the gay gene. i haven't heard any of that on the news.

Good point. There would probably even be a special interest group whose focus would be the elimination of the disorder.

Along those lines however, I vaguely remember reading an article around fifteen years or so at about the time the human genome project was capturing the media's attention. There was an element in the homosexual community that was hoping against isolation of a "gay gene" because it was feared that many "breeder"* couples would abort a fetus if they learned it carried the gay gene. They are probably correct.

Anyhoo, DNA research never found one.

*a cute name some gay folks use referring to straight people

[Okla-homey]

Just to clarify:

No, all marriages are not. Kansas law specifically states that if any marriage sanctioned in another state does not meeting Kansas law, it will not be recognized i.e. under 16 or w/o parental permission 16-17, 1st cousin, etc.

Oklahoma has a similar statute, but OUrs just says Oklahoma won't recognize a marriage performed elsewhere if the parties were married outside of Oklahoma specifically because they couldn't marry within the state. That's why first cousins married in Texas can move to Oklahoma and still be married. However, if Oklahoma first cousins run off to Texas to get married, then return home to Oklahoma, the marriage may not be recognized.

43 O.S. sec. 2:

Marriages between ancestors and descendants of any degree, of a stepfather with a stepdaughter, stepmother with stepson, between uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews, except in cases where such relationship is only by marriage, between brothers and sisters of the half as well as the whole blood, and first cousins are declared to be incestuous, illegal and void, and are expressly prohibited. Provided, that any marriage of first cousins performed in another state authorizing such marriages, which is otherwise legal, is hereby recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of such marriage.

There is also a federal statute (Defense of Marriage Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738) that excepts gay marriage from the full faith and credit that states ordinarily must apply to marriages performed in other jurisdictions. That statute may be repealed by the next Congress, although I don't recall seeing such a proposal in the DNC platform this year.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1738C, which is part of DOMA, provides:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

[Rogue]

it was so much simpler in the 1970's when the APA categorized homosexuality as a mental condition and perversion. Nowadays, its merely a different sexual preference.

just sayin'

DSM II smack. Rare.
Technically it was a "disorder" and not a "perversion."


I think the gay marriage/civil union issue is indeed one of denying vs. affording legal rights to a minority group. I don't understand the irrational and emotional reactions from so many straight folk.

The mailing of white-powder to the marryin' and baptisin'-of-dead-people temples is wrong.

[85Sooner]

The argument, of course, comes down to birth traits. This is why homosexual activists are intent on finding conclusive and inarguable scientific proof that their sexual predilictions are hereditary and/or genetic. The problem that all such studies have had to this point is the fact that correlation does not imply causality. Differences in the size of the hypothalamus of homosexual males who died of AIDS, for example, implied a correlation between hypothalamus size but established no causal relationship.

Black people are black. There is absolutely nothing that a black person can do to be anything other than black, unless of course that person is Michael Jackson.

Women are women and that never changes, unless of course they decide to undergo massive hormone treatments as well as surgery to create an obscenely large clitoris.

Homosexuality, however, affects no observable physiological difference. Expressed homosexuality requires that an individual must willfully engage in sexual behavior with members of the same gender. One could obviously argue that one can be a homosexual without sexual expression, but that brings us back to the problem of the lack of physiological difference. As a character in Sex and the City so eloquently put it, "You're not a dyke unless you eat *****."

For this reason, the "civil rights" angle is not going to be effective. Right or wrong, until there is conclusive and inarguable scientific proof of a causal physiological difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals, homosexuality will continue to be perceived by the majority as a lifestyle choice.

Simply put. It is a behavior. If anyone cares to challenge that they are born that way and must act that way, I would point to the evolutionary theory that the male of the species is predispositioned to spread his seed in as many places and as often as possible to insure survival YET the western societies males for the most part do not follow the "behavior" that their genes designed for them.

[85Sooner]

There is some evidence in identical twins being raised apart.

http://worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

Besides that, there are many, many gays who recoginized that they were attracted to the same sex when they were young kids and had no idea about sex. In many cases, their parents recognized it too.

The problem I have with those studies is that they approach the subject in terms of male versus female rather than masculine traits vs feminine traits. Everybody is on a scale regardless of the reproductive organs they are born with.

[Okla-homey]

Simply put. It is a behavior. If anyone cares to challenge that they are born that way and must act that way, I would point to the evolutionary theory that the male of the species is predispositioned to spread his seed in as many places and as often as possible to insure survival YET the western societies males for the most part do not follow the "behavior" that their genes designed for them.

My favorite is the "just wanna be who I am" dealio. Sounds inocuous enough and evokes sympathy. But as you point out, lots of d00ds wanne "be" with multiple wimmens. I'm not even gonna get into those who want to "be" with little kids and what not. Where does it end?

I say let gay folks have civil marriages, recognized across the fruited plain for all legal purposes, which may only be dissolved by judicial decree, and lets get on with it.

I draw the line at requiring faith groups to recognize them.

[yermom]

is that what anyone is asking for? :confused:

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Yes...all gays want the Pope, Billy Graham, and the honorable Elijiah Mohammed's blessing!!!

[Frozen Sooner]

My favorite is the "just wanna be who I am" dealio. Sounds inocuous enough and evokes sympathy. But as you point out, lots of d00ds wanne "be" with multiple wimmens. I'm not even gonna get into those who want to "be" with little kids and what not. Where does it end?

I say let gay folks have civil marriages, recognized across the fruited plain for all legal purposes, which may only be dissolved by judicial decree, and lets get on with it.

I draw the line at requiring faith groups to recognize them.

Which faith group is being required to recognize them?

I guarandamntee that the vast majority of those pushing for marriage rights for homosexuals are good with civil marriages that are equal in every legal respect to anyone else's marriage.

[Vaevictis]

I say toss the legal concept of marriage, make an equivalent status that is a contractual relationship that can be entered into between any two consenting adults, and leave marriage to the individual's conscience.

[85Sooner]

Which faith group is being required to recognize them?

I guarandamntee that the vast majority of those pushing for marriage rights for homosexuals are good with civil marriages that are equal in every legal respect to anyone else's marriage.

In Conn they weren't. They had civil unions and still fought tooth and nail to get Gay Marriage. Just sayin

[Vaevictis]

In Conn they weren't. They had civil unions and still fought tooth and nail to get Gay Marriage. Just sayin

It's an application of "Separate but equal isn't equal."

[soonerboomer93]

Personally,

I've had drinks with Chuck, I've had an extremely open and out transvestite work for me, and I've worked with gay's. Some were in the closet, some were out, some where somewhere in between.

My opinion has changed, over the last several years. I don't have a problem with gay marriage any more. As someone who can be classified as a minority, I do have a problem with some of the comparisons that have been made.

[Stitch Face]

an obscenely large clitoris

Go on...

[Okla-homey]

Which faith group is being required to recognize them?

I guarandamntee that the vast majority of those pushing for marriage rights for homosexuals are good with civil marriages that are equal in every legal respect to anyone else's marriage.

Because I can see where this all might lead if we use the "m" word to describe civil unions. See, churches allow people to be wedded therein. That same church could someday find itself in deep dutch if it denies Joe and Larry's request to tie the knot therein if that same church would permit Joe and Sherry get married there.

Marriage is a sacramental act. I simply want to hold the line on keeping it that way.

Civil unions are legal proceedings; the final manifestation of the formation of a binding contract.

[olevetonahill]

Personally,

I've had drinks with Chuck, I've had an extremely open and out transvestite work for me, and I've worked with gay's. Some were in the closet, some were out, some where somewhere in between.

My opinion has changed, over the last several years. I don't have a problem with gay marriage any more. As someone who can be classified as a minority, I do have a problem with some of the comparisons that have been made.

No chit , What ever happened to Live and Let Live .
Now How In hell did this Thread degenerate to Gay rights ?
Hubler started it In protest Of the Gay rights supporters . Denying the religious folks Their Rights Of Freedom to assemble .:mad:

[1890MilesToNorman]

Come here Rover, I'm feeling frisky. Just put your paw print here so I can have half your treats.

[Sooner_Havok]

This topic is another potential South Oval divider :(

Please be nice.

Depends on what you mean by divide. I foresee a large number of folks agreeing with each other that a small number of folks are retarded, wrong, unpatriotic, godless heathens bent on bringing down the holy and righteous United States of America under God.

[Frozen Sooner]

In Conn they weren't. They had civil unions and still fought tooth and nail to get Gay Marriage. Just sayin

Civil unions do not equal marriages. Homey very carefully said "marriage," as I'm sure as he's aware of the Connecticut ruling.

[Frozen Sooner]

Because I can see where this all might lead if we use the "m" word to describe civil unions. See, churches allow people to be wedded therein. That same church could someday find itself in deep dutch if it denies Joe and Larry's request to tie the knot therein if that same church would permit Joe and Sherry get married there.

Marriage is a sacramental act. I simply want to hold the line on keeping it that way.

Civil unions are legal proceedings; the final manifestation of the formation of a binding contract.

Pish and tosh. Well settled that churches have the right to not allow a couple to be married therein for whatever religious reason they have.

Just try to get married inside a Mormon Tabernacle, for example.

See Constitution, Amendments, One, "Free Exercise."

[Sooner_Havok]

On a side note, I find it friggin hilarious that some of the same people saying that Obama doesn't have a mandate to govern from the left, and that despite his "narrow" victory, he needs to respect the rights of the minority of America the voted against him are the same ones cheering for stripping rights away from a group of people.

"This is a republic, not a democracy. Our founding fathers set up our government so that the majority could not vote away the rights of the minority." Sound familiar to anyone?

Heh, pick a side already! :D

[Sooner_Havok]

Pish and tosh. Well settled that churches have the right to not allow a couple to be married therein for whatever religious reason they have.

Just try to get married inside a Mormon Tabernacle, for example.

Damn it, I said change your avatar, not your name!

What, do you just like change the damn thing whenever you feel like it? :P

[Frozen Sooner]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[colinreturn]

FYI The Mormons didnt allow Black people into the church until the 1970s when the feds threatened to take away their non profit status.


go on.....

[soonerhubs]

FYI The Mormons didnt allow Black people into the church until the 1970s when the feds threatened to take away their non profit status.


go on.....

FYI ****** bags have been making up lies about the church for over a century and a half.

go on...

[soonerhubs]

Let's keep the record straight here:
1) I do NOT care if folks protest the church. It's a common theme outside every one of our semi annual general conferences. So putting these protests outside of our temples just gives others the conference experience as they attend the temple.
2) I understand that folks feel that Marriage versus Civil Union is a "Separate but Equal" issue.
3) I have my reasons for disagreeing with these folks, but I honestly feel that it doesn't involve hate. I don't hate these people at all.
4) I began this thread, because I feel that there are a groups, albeit small, of cowards who think they can intimidate folks when votes do not go in their direction. I feel that they should be called out, and that's what I was doing.
5) To say that a church "Forces" their beliefs is wrong when ultimately the folks have to make a choice at the ballot boxes.

[Vaevictis]

Re (4) Agree.

Re (5) Everyone who voted in favor of proposition 8, and everyone who supported it, is in the class of folks who are 'forcing' their beliefs on people. Just because it's democratic doesn't mean you're not forcing the majority's beliefs on the minority. It's just a little less onerous than one guy at the top of a military hierarchy doing it, that's all.

[Vaevictis]

Note that, to a certain extent, this forcing of beliefs in a society is unavoidable, because well, that's what law is: Somebody with the ability to force compliance thinks that things ought to be a certain way, and they're willing to use that ability to do so.

While democracy may be the least onerous way of deciding what way things ought to be, let's not pretend that there isn't any forcing going on.

[colinreturn]

FYI ****** bags have been making up lies about the church for over a century and a half.

go on...

From 1832 when the Church was founded, until 1848, there were no restrictions upon Black Mormons, and black Mormons worshipped on equal status with white Mormons in the Church. But from 1848 until June 8th, 1978, Black Mormons were "banned" from the priesthood (which all male Mormons over 12 hold), and from worshipping in Mormon Temples. This was called "The Priesthood-ban". During those 130 years (1848 to 1978) Mormon Church leaders taught, as official Church doctrine, that Negroes were the "cursed" children of Cain, that the Mark of Cain was a black skin, and that Negroes were "less valiant" in the War in Heaven (a battle between Jesus and Lucifer before this planet was created in which all human spirits were involved).

there are your lies

[Stitch Face]

The Mark of Cain? Wasn't that an old Playstation game?

[Vaevictis]

The Mark of Cain? Wasn't that an old Playstation game?

Legacy of Kain.

And it's awesome. And its sequels are incredible.

[soonerhubs]

there are your lies

No your lie, was that it was all about the Tax Exempt status. Put your religion out there big boy if you think yours is so sacrosanct.

[Stitch Face]

Legacy of Kain.

And it's awesome. And its sequels are incredible.

The vampire one? I don't remember any black Mormons in that game.

[colinreturn]

No your lie, was that it was all about the Tax Exempt status. Put your religion out there big boy if you think yours is so sacrosanct.

i know that the government was threatening to take action.

see, thats the problem with you. you just went completely blind on the fact that your church BLATANTLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BLACKS, but still proclaim your church as "christian"

[soonerhubs]

i know that the government was threatening to take action.

see, thats the problem with you. you just went completely blind on the fact that your church BLATANTLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BLACKS, but still proclaim your church as "christian"

Oh no, I agree that the church had a different stance. I'm still waiting for your source regarding the tax exempt status. I mean you're the one that brought it up. I'm not blind to it, and I openly admit that things have changed regarding blacks and the priesthood. You're the spineless idiot who won't back up his sources. So what is your "Christian" church or are you too afraid to make it known?

[colinreturn]

No your lie, was that it was all about the Tax Exempt status. Put your religion out there big boy if you think yours is so sacrosanct.

neg me all you want. all i did was bring up a known point about the mormon church.

[Vaevictis]

i know that the government was threatening to take action.

see, thats the problem with you. you just went completely blind on the fact that your church BLATANTLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BLACKS, but still proclaim your church as "christian"

Pfft, every religious sect and denomination over a certain age has been engaged in *********gery and varying grotesquerie. I don't see any point in calling any specific one out.

[Vaevictis]

The vampire one? I don't remember any black Mormons in that game.

He probably ate them all long before the game began.

[soonerhubs]

Pfft, every religious sect and denomination over a certain age has been engaged in *********gery and varying grotesquerie. I don't see any point in calling any specific one out.

Colinreturn won't put his out there though. Tough guy eh?

[soonerboomer93]

see, this is part of why organized religion is well, bull****

this "my church is better then your church" stuff is frankly crap

[soonerhubs]

So what is your "Christian" church or are you too afraid to make it known?



:pop:

[colinreturn]

:pop:

"While President Spencer W. Kimball's 1978 revelation that admitted black men to the priesthood was made part of the faith's Doctrine and Covenants"

hmm how convenient

I attend a church of christ

[soonerhubs]

"While President Spencer W. Kimball's 1978 revelation that admitted black men to the priesthood was made part of the faith's Doctrine and Covenants"

hmm how convenient

I attend a church of christ

No source, and again no spine. I'm waiting for the document about Tax Exempt. Of course, you can't find it, because it doesn't exist. Name your church.

[colinreturn]

see, this is part of why organized religion is well, bull****

this "my church is better then your church" stuff is frankly crap

exactly. i wasnt provoking that at all. he just started going HEY YOU SCARED. ARE YOU SCARED TELL US YOUR RELIGION ARE YOU SCARED.

its just changing the subject off of my point I made

[colinreturn]

http://www.lds-mormon.com/hinckley_5years.shtml

[colinreturn]

great. now he has negged me 6 times

[Vaevictis]

Colinreturn won't put his out there though. Tough guy eh?

What's the point? Is making fun of/pointing out the shortcomings in his denomination going to make yours look better by comparison? Is it going to make you feel better?

If your church works for you, wtf do you care what some random dude on the innartubes has to say? ;)

[soonerhubs]

What's the point? Is making fun of/pointing out the shortcomings in his denomination going to make yours look better by comparison? Is it going to make you feel better?

If your church works for you, wtf do you care what some random dude on the innartubes has to say? ;)
Honestly, it's the principle of glass houses. People are always quick to cast judgment on religions, but they are never brave enough to have their own religion fall under such scrutiny.

[LilSooner]

If stupid was an apple this thread would be an orchard.

[soonerhubs]

If stupid was an apple this thread would be an orchard.

How's it going Johnny Appleseed? ;)

[Stitch Face]

How's it going Johnny Appleseed? ;)

Zing?

[Czar Soonerov]

I may just lock this thread after I finish this drink.

:)

[LilSooner]

That would be fantastic. There is a lot stupid crap being spewed in this thread.

[JohnnyMack]

IBCzarGetsWasted

[Tulsa_Fireman]

PORKCHOP SAMMICHES

[colinreturn]

Negged me. For what? Thanks man.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Because you're wrong.

I belong to the LDS church and we banned black people because we're oppressive white men who fear the natural hardware gifted by the Creator to our african-american brethren.

You're so busted.

[TMcGee86]

WRONG.

How so?

[TMcGee86]

Nothing big. Just EQUALITY. :rolleyes:

"Equality" is a buzz word. Don't be lazy, define what exactly it is they want.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

They want to have teh secks on park benches and your front lawn.

[LilSooner]

Negged me 50+ times. For what? Thanks man.

Ha ha! I must have a big specker, I gave positive spek twice and your back in the green.


So all you slappys thinkin your gonna start messing with me, beware I'm short and have a big hammer :)

[Curly Bill]

I don't think anyone was negged 50+ times. I looked and he wasn't anywhere near the bottom of the barrel SPEK wise.

[TMcGee86]

I may be a dumbass, but I’m going to respond.

Civil unions do not offer the same rights as marriage. Are civil unions recognized outside of the state that they are issued? No. Are marriages? Of course.


Recognized by whom? The problem here is what are you really wanting, just the satisfaction of someone having to write down on a piece of paper that you are married? Or is it the ability to transfer property at death, and make medical decisions. Because all of that (100%) can be done with or without marriage. It just takes planning.


I would like for the government both state and national to get out of religion and issue civil unions and leave the churches to proclaim marriages.


Totally agree with this statement.

[colinreturn]

pardon me, he has negged me 26 times

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

To be fair...I did it once :P

[Curly Bill]

pardon me, he has negged me 26 times

You're back to red, may need to go recount. :P

[Vaevictis]

Recognized by whom? The problem here is what are you really wanting, just the satisfaction of someone having to write down on a piece of paper that you are married? Or is it the ability to transfer property at death, and make medical decisions. Because all of that (100%) can be done with or without marriage. It just takes planning.

Can you receive pension and social security payments like a spouse would?

[colinreturn]

You're back to red, may need to go recount. :P

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Vaevictis]

How about share the same group insurance plans like a spouse would?

[Vaevictis]

Can you file taxes as married filing jointly, and receive the same tax benefits?

[Curly Bill]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Don't roll your eyes at me, I didn't do it. :P

[colinreturn]

:
Don't roll your eyes at me, I didn't do it. :P

:gary: :gary:

[Vaevictis]

How about living in areas zoned for "families only?" Or the right to take on rental agreements in areas where there are special laws protecting renters (eg, say, rent control)?

[Vaevictis]

How about the right to sue someone for wrongful death and/or loss of consortium?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Whatever...you know it was either you or Me...and I know for a fact Hubler did it!!!

[Vaevictis]

What about the ability to claim marital communications privilege?

[Vaevictis]

Or the ability to receive death benefits from the state (eg, crime victim benefits)?

[Vaevictis]

How about the ability to receive special spousal consideration in immigration?

[Vaevictis]

So, no, you can't replicate the benefits of marriage with private party contracts. Sorry.

[LilSooner]

Has this become the thread to pad your post count?

[Vaevictis]

Has this become the thread to pad your post count?

Why would I want to do that?

[LilSooner]

I

[LilSooner]

Don't

[LilSooner]

Know.

[Vaevictis]

Truthfully, I was seeing if I could pull the BigRedJed Technique of Post-Timing Ruination with nearly as much skill and aplomb as he does.

I appear to have succeeded.

[LilSooner]

Indeed you have.

[Rogue]

What's going on in here?

[LilSooner]

Just some post padding, and thread jacking.

[mrssoonerhubler]

I say thread jack away. This thread has gotten completely off the subject.

[Veritas]

Locked at the request of thread starter.