Same Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional in OK

[yermom]

http://newsok.com/article/3923784


U.S. Senior District Judge Terence Kern ruled Tuesday that Oklahoma’s ban on marriage equality is unconstitutional.

The ruling is stayed pending appeal, meaning marriages will not occur immediately in Oklahoma.


from Judge Kern. heh. I bet Sally loves that.

[badger]

My support on this matter is directly aligned with whether or not I get wedding invites :P

[KantoSooner]

Gay weddings always have better hors d'oerves and champagne.

Always.

[DrZaius]

Yes! another win for people....

[Turd_Ferguson]

lmao...weirdo's.

[ouwasp]

75% of Oklahomans oppose this...another win for the courts.

Sad to say, I'm not surprised.

[olevetonahill]

I went to a Gay bar back in 1980.


The Homophobes wouldnt let me in.

[okiewaker]

Who gives a schlitz. But, this does give a whole new meaning to the term/movie "Wedding Crashers"

[FaninAma]

I could give a **** if gays want to get married or not. I do have trouble with a lone, fallible judge overturning the will of 75% of the voters in the state. It makes a mockery of the principle of self-determination.

Is every decision made by the majority the right decision? No. But it is immoral to think it appropriate that the results of a vote by "we the people" should be of such little consequence that the results can be struck down by a single equally fallible person who has the same human failings the rest of us do.

this type of judicial tyranny creates societal divisions that last generations and are very destructive to the cohesiveness of the society.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

and win for libertarians and a blow to cultural conservatives.

and thanks to all those who swore to defend and uphold the constitution, which includes the 14th amendment.

[KantoSooner]

Fanin, that's the role of judges. And, yes, if other lawyers and judges feel that their ruling was nutso, it gets reviewed and overturned. Finally reviewed, by not one, but nine.

Mobs are not always correct.

Interestingly, we have a neat historical comparison: the American Rev vs. the French Rev. Ours produced a system that includes judges who can overrule popular idiocy. The French Rev went in the direction of enthroning the will of the people. Which one turned out better?

[badger]

I really wish that the Supreme Court would hurry up and rule on this. Take it up and make your decision already. State-by-state on something like this that should apply to an entire country just isn't working. Lawsuits, statewide questions, more lawsuits, local judges making rulings with stays attached, more lawsuits...

Just be supreme and court, already.

[KantoSooner]

The reticence of the SC is by design. They typically tend toward limited judgements, on technical grounds, until such time as the issue is 'ripe'. We're getting there, and it's pretty obvious that even this court will make gay marriage legal, but they haven't found the right case, yet. It's possible that they might take, and combine, Utah's case and ours. The fact patterns are similar and it would be shooting down two of the most conservative states in the union simultaneously, just to make it emphatic. (and thus to hopefully prevent more AG's like our Scotty from wasting tax payer money attempting to relitigate settled issues. Think of it as a public service to taxpayers in states with morons for AGs.)

[FaninAma]

Kanto, even IF the SCOTUS strikes down the ban I still question their wisdom. In this day and age the country is tearing itself in two on cultural and moral issues. Forcing a significant segment of the population to accept a moral judgement they vehemently disagree with serves only to shred what little civility remains in this country.

the prime example is the Roe v. Wade decision. Instead of allowing individual states to decide for themselve, Blackmon et, al substituted their judgement for the will of the people and as a result we have had 40+ years of dealing with a devisive and damaging issue.

The FF's knew what they were doing when they emphasized states' rights as a way to allow the people to change their views on moral issues in a way that would not be divisive and destructive. They knew the heavy-handed way the judiciary has dealt with these issue would only undermine confidence in our system of government.

As an aside, I don't think the FF's ever conceived of the notion that the courts would become as powerful as they are today. I think it was their intention to make the judiciary the weakest of the 3 branches of government with the legislative branch being the strongest. The problem is that the more concentrated the power of a branch of government is in the hands of a few people the greater the liklihood that outside forces will use that power to thwart the will of the people. This has led to regulatory capture of the executive branch which in tutn appoints partisan idealogs to the bench. The lifetime appointment of judges without much oversight by the legislature was also a flaw in the FF's design.

[KantoSooner]

I'd argue strongly that lifetime appointment for judges is absolutely necessary. And that the three branchs need to be more or less equal in power. It breaks out kind of cool:

1. Legislative. The yahoo branch. Filled with people of no particular skill save getting their even more disorganized and emotional brethren to make a stop in their busy days once every few years to pull a lever or scratch their mark on a piece of a paper. Made up of more than 500 people now. Flighty, political, largely void of coherent thought.

2. Judicial. Pretty much restricted to lawyers. Well, at least they're literate. Nine, now. Less overtly political, tend to stay out of things for as long as possible awaiting sanity to break out, as it usually does, given time, amongst the general public. Slow, technically oriented, largely apolitical in ways that mortal understand. (I mean, seriously how far can you parse standards of duty?)

3. Executive. Nothing but political. But, in a wonderful irony, the one branch that actually requires strategic thinking. That's why its professional staff is the largest of the three. One guy, with a plan. All politics, generally somewhat coherent.

The branchs are supposed to counterbalance each other.

If the SC issues a ruling that 'tears us in two' it is generally after a long period and because there are a rump remnant of dead enders who need no longer obstruct the rest of the country. Integration was a good example of this. And, today, we see the same thing in gay marriage and abortion rights. There are those who simply are not going to allow their fellow citizens their natural rights. At some point, they are simply bypassed and left to grumble in the corner.

It would be nice if states took up divisive issues, but sadly, it seems that neither they, nor the legislature wants to touch hot issues....or when they do, do so in ways that display a pitiful lack of understanding of the Constitution and recent (very recent) prescendent.

It's entirely appropriate for the SC to address this.

[FaninAma]

I'd argue strongly that lifetime appointment for judges is absolutely necessary. And that the three branchs need to be more or less equal in power. It breaks out kind of cool:

1. Legislative. The yahoo branch. Filled with people of no particular skill save getting their even more disorganized and emotional brethren to make a stop in their busy days once every few years to pull a lever or scratch their mark on a piece of a paper. Made up of more than 500 people now. Flighty, political, largely void of coherent thought.

2. Judicial. Pretty much restricted to lawyers. Well, at least they're literate. Nine, now. Less overtly political, tend to stay out of things for as long as possible awaiting sanity to break out, as it usually does, given time, amongst the general public. Slow, technically oriented, largely apolitical in ways that mortal understand. (I mean, seriously how far can you parse standards of duty?)

3. Executive. Nothing but political. But, in a wonderful irony, the one branch that actually requires strategic thinking. That's why its professional staff is the largest of the three. One guy, with a plan. All politics, generally somewhat coherent.

The branchs are supposed to counterbalance each other.

If the SC issues a ruling that 'tears us in two' it is generally after a long period and because there are a rump remnant of dead enders who need no longer obstruct the rest of the country. Integration was a good example of this. And, today, we see the same thing in gay marriage and abortion rights. There are those who simply are not going to allow their fellow citizens their natural rights. At some point, they are simply bypassed and left to grumble in the corner.

It would be nice if states took up divisive issues, but sadly, it seems that neither they, nor the legislature wants to touch hot issues....or when they do, do so in ways that display a pitiful lack of understanding of the Constitution and recent (very recent) prescendent.

It's entirely appropriate for the SC to address this.

Spoken like a true lawyer.

Tell me Kanto, what is the practice of law based on? Is there anything other than subjective opinion? Isn't it true you can find any number of precedent opinions to back up your opinion? Why is an attorney's opinion more valid than the opinion of 75% of the voters in a state even if that attorney happens to be a judge?

IMHO, the practice of law is about on the smae level as belonging to a cult. You simply pledge your loyalty to a cultish set of legalistic rules and your various high priests(judges). Nothing you do is based on the objective scientific method.....nothing. And most federal judges don't even have to answer to the people they rule through judicial fiat.

[KantoSooner]

I laugh. Did I **** you off that much?

Law is at root a methodology rather than any body of empirical facts. In that sense, it's closer to biology than most other things I can think of. And, not surprisingly, bio majors tend to do really well. There are things that are said in laws, but its vritually impossible to know what the writer really meant in all cases....or what the others who voted that law into effect thought it meant. So, you argue by analogy and you argue according to what other groups of lawyers and judges have arrived at in similar circumstances.

Contradictory precedent can indeed be found, but it's a common mistake that you can find precendent to support anything. Bad lawyers will certainly try to shoehorn facts into beneficial precedent, but mostly get shot down. And it's not all that arcane: Juries tend to do a very good job of separating real analogy from BS.

If you find that whole process irritating, join the club. It's one reason why I don't practice. I find it all a bit stylized for my taste. If you want something more fact-based, I'd suggest Civil Law as practiced in France. It actually allows you to question legislators as to their intent (if they're still alive).

As to why a lawyer's opinion is more important than that of other citizens: it isn't. A judge's may be and a jury's almost always is. And why should that be so? Because people, when not put on the spot, tend to offer emotional, ill-thought conclusions. (witness chat boards). And, in the case of judges, because they have, in the opinion of their peers and of those authorized to appoint them (who are, in turn, elected by us citizens), put in the time and displayed particular wisdom in the application of our laws and navigation of the adversarial system of inquiry we use to attempt to balance fairness/self-interest/public interest/predictability and all of the other things at stake when a serious dispute breaks out.

Having our 'Judge-made' law may be irritating, but I'm tempted to follow Churchill and call it the worst, except for maybe all the other systems out there.

[ouwasp]

Gay weddings always have better hors d'oerves and champagne.

Always.

I'll never know.

Kanto, we don't agree on this issue, but I do appreciate your cogent explanations. In fact, I'm going to re-read your responses so I can try to matter-of-factly tell my elderly Dad why our country is headed to Hell in a hand basket. How we got to this point is... exasperating. Some (many) will say it is exhilarating. And never the twain shall meet. Guess I'll go grumble in my corner...

[KantoSooner]

It all started when gays finally were unafraid to be publicly known as gay and stopped being murdered for being born attracted to the same sex. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time until enough people had actually met gay people, known them to be so and found them to be entirely normal otherwise. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time until it started to seem incredibly mean spirited to deny them the same pair bonding-rights as everyone else.
Or at least it seems that way to me.
Really a triumph for the esential kindness and spirit of equality that characterize Americans and are remarked upon by outsiders who visit here.

[FaninAma]

Kanto, please explain to me again the scientific method that goes into practicing and creating law especially laws that deal with the moral and ethical conduct of a society. You cannot.

I see a purpose for criminal law. I see a purpose for some aspects of business law(although I would contend powerful interest groups have co-opted most aspects of business law).

I see no purpose for courts to be legislating from the bench and that is exactly what the lowly federal district judge who struck down the will of the electorate is doing. He voided the will of the voters and substituted his own judgement/opinion for theirs.

And no, you did not **** me off. But go back and reread your post of 2:21 pm. Does it not come off as sounding more than a bit arrogant and elitist? Are you really going to tell me that judges never act politically or are any less fallible than the general electorate? If so, please explain all the reversals we see of court opinions including the SCOTUS reversing its own earlier rulings. And please don't assert that the way the court handled the Roe v. Wade ruling was a positive for this country.

[Ton Loc]

Awesome news. Maybe we won't be the last backward *** state.
Now, on to things that will actually affect my life...

Can we get Judge Kern to rule on 3 point beer and medical marijuana while he's at it?

[FaninAma]

Awesome news. Maybe we won't be the last backward *** state.
Now, on to things that will actually affect my life...

Can we get Judge Kern to rule on 3 point beer and medical marijuana while he's at it?
Kanto, the above post proves my point.

[Ton Loc]

Kanto, the above post proves my point.

You really never made a point.

Unless it was were going to hell in a hand basket. Or perhaps holding onto a vote that is ten years old that the majority of the state didn't vote on and would surely be reversed today. At this point, we are only delaying the inevitable. The court will continue to overrule unconstitutional decisions. The gays are going to get married.

[okie52]

Invest in anal lube futures...

[okie52]

Awesome news. Maybe we won't be the last backward *** state.
Now, on to things that will actually affect my life...

Can we get Judge Kern to rule on 3 point beer and medical marijuana while he's at it?

Gay marriage....society at its zenith. A real measuring stick for "progress".

[Soonerjeepman]

It all started when gays finally were unafraid to be publicly known as gay and stopped being murdered for being born attracted to the same sex. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time until enough people had actually met gay people, known them to be so and found them to be entirely normal otherwise. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time until it started to seem incredibly mean spirited to deny them the same pair bonding-rights as everyone else.
Or at least it seems that way to me.
Really a triumph for the esential kindness and spirit of equality that characterize Americans and are remarked upon by outsiders who visit here.

interesting....because I haven't seen ANY scientific proof 100% of this...where is it?

[KantoSooner]

Fanin,
Courts are required to decide on matters of social policy when one group or another feels their rights are being abused. Things like slavery enjoyed strong public support. Should they have been perpetuated due to said public support? On a more picayune level, it was long accepted that you were simply going to have to suck it up and breath someone else's toxic emissions (smoke) if you wanted to go outside your own home. The courts decided that, no, it was permissible to limit the areas in which smoking could be enjoyed.
So, it is wrong to portray 'social' court rulings as being either somehow illegitimate or outside the historical ambit of judicial power.

And, yes, on matters of law, courts and jurists are far superior to the average duck in determining points of law. Not especially so with points of fact (note my comments about juries). They simply have a lot more experience working with laws than the rest of society. If the fuel injectors on your car were screwed, would you, a) take it to a mechanic who had worked on fuel injectors on your model car before, or, b) hand it off to your bro in law who was real eager to 'he'p you out'?

What has happened in the Oklahoma case is that the writers of the amendment and the voters attempted to put into force something that violates the US Constitution....according to Judge Kern (we'll see on appeals). Now it's up to the Oklahoma AG to either appeal or to drop it. And to the people of Oklahoma to either drop it or to craft a new amendment or law that succeeds in depriving a subset of the Oklahoma population of a common right without violating the state or federal constitutions.

It's real simple, and not at all out of the norm of either theoretical or historical judicial practice as experienced in this country for over 230 years.

[KantoSooner]

interesting....because I haven't seen ANY scientific proof 100% of this...where is it?

Read, Jeep, Read. It's been accepted in the bio communitiy for over a generation that a low percentage of virtually all mammalian species display 'homosexual' behavior. In humans, this is somewhere around 10%. Seems to have been constant across all populations and for as long as indicative records exist. (Famous cases such as Alexander The Great's bi-sexualuality, the gay corps in Greek Armies, Japanese bawdy stories from the late BCE era, traditions of gays as berdache medicine men among the plains Indians and so forth and so on. This issue is done and only being fought by Russian Rightists and American religioius extremists. Hell, even the Pope finally got the memo.

And, no, I' m not obligated to do your research for you on this any more than I am to support my wild claim that the sky appears to be blue on a clear day.

[Ton Loc]

Gay marriage....society at its zenith. A real measuring stick for "progress".

In twenty years people will look back at this an wonder what the hell we were thinking wasting time, money, and effort on such an inconsequential issue. Ever see an old picture of separate water fountains for whites and blacks and just laugh at how stupid people were back then? It'll be like that.

[KantoSooner]

Invest in anal lube futures...

Personally, I'm toying with the idea of ultra high end sex toys. I'm thinking a 'resin-rich' surface of possibly Ultem. We'd want Bluetooth and possibly iPhone remote controllability (think about being able to send your GF a little morning pick me up on wearable models!). We'd want proximity rechargeability, recessed star bolt fasteners, probably a grey-scale color scheme that would highlight the visible graphite fibre reinforcement contrasted with electropolished stainless steel. Very Georg Jensen styling. Maybe get some big league industrial company to sign off on it. U.S. Steel? Krupps? Hell, New Holland might go for it in a jokey way.
I'm seeing a sell point around $400 a unit with a GP of around 90%. We can get most of the components domestically and then do the assembly on an Indian res to avoid state tax. Probably some incentives available from somewhere. Put your lawyer on it. Break out at next year's Oscars with one in each invitee's swag bag and then get, hmmm, maybe Frank Ocean and Sofia Vergara to do a little ad number. We're off to the races.

[Ton Loc]

Personally, I'm toying with the idea of ultra high end sex toys. I'm thinking a 'resin-rich' surface of possibly Ultem. We'd want Bluetooth and possibly iPhone remote controllability (think about being able to send your GF a little morning pick me up on wearable models!). We'd want proximity rechargeability, recessed star bolt fasteners, probably a grey-scale color scheme that would highlight the visible graphite fibre reinforcement contrasted with electropolished stainless steel. Very Georg Jensen styling. Maybe get some big league industrial company to sign off on it. U.S. Steel? Krupps? Hell, New Holland might go for it in a jokey way.
I'm seeing a sell point around $400 a unit with a GP of around 90%. We can get most of the components domestically and then do the assembly on an Indian res to avoid state tax. Probably some incentives available from somewhere. Put your lawyer on it. Break out at next year's Oscars with one in each invitee's swag bag and then get, hmmm, maybe Frank Ocean and Sofia Vergara to do a little ad number. We're off to the races.

You're late to the game. A lot of that stuff already exists. Regardless, I'll back anything you get Sofia Vergara signed on to.

[okie52]

In twenty years people will look back at this an wonder what the hell we were thinking wasting time, money, and effort on such an inconsequential issue. Ever see an old picture of separate water fountains for whites and blacks and just laugh at how stupid people were back then? It'll be like that.

Oh, I agree that it is really a dumb thing to cause all of this furor. It's really an insignificant issue, whether a state approves of gay marriage or not. I don't think polygamy is allowed in any states either and there is no reason that it shouldn't be allowed. But in the overall scheme of things, neither amount to a hill of beans and I could care less if a state allows it or not nor do I use it as a measuring stick for guaging a state or culture.

[okie52]

Personally, I'm toying with the idea of ultra high end sex toys. I'm thinking a 'resin-rich' surface of possibly Ultem. We'd want Bluetooth and possibly iPhone remote controllability (think about being able to send your GF a little morning pick me up on wearable models!). We'd want proximity rechargeability, recessed star bolt fasteners, probably a grey-scale color scheme that would highlight the visible graphite fibre reinforcement contrasted with electropolished stainless steel. Very Georg Jensen styling. Maybe get some big league industrial company to sign off on it. U.S. Steel? Krupps? Hell, New Holland might go for it in a jokey way.
I'm seeing a sell point around $400 a unit with a GP of around 90%. We can get most of the components domestically and then do the assembly on an Indian res to avoid state tax. Probably some incentives available from somewhere. Put your lawyer on it. Break out at next year's Oscars with one in each invitee's swag bag and then get, hmmm, maybe Frank Ocean and Sofia Vergara to do a little ad number. We're off to the races.

I can see you've given this some thought....

[KantoSooner]

You're late to the game. A lot of that stuff already exists. Regardless, I'll back anything you get Sofia Vergara signed on to.

Story of my damn life....

[KantoSooner]

I can see you've given this some thought....

I'm just that old fart on the aFib medicine ad, I'm always looking for a way to 'up my game'...

[okie52]

I'm just that old fart on the aFib medicine ad, I'm always looking for a way to 'up my game'...

heh heh...

[OU68]

It all started when gays finally were unafraid to be publicly known as gay and stopped being murdered for being born attracted to the same sex. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time until enough people had actually met gay people, known them to be so and found them to be entirely normal otherwise. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time until it started to seem incredibly mean spirited to deny them the same pair bonding-rights as everyone else.
Or at least it seems that way to me.
Really a triumph for the esential kindness and spirit of equality that characterize Americans and are remarked upon by outsiders who visit here.

Sorry, but I'll never be convinced that a guy sticking his u-know-what up another guys u-know-where is normal - JMHO

[KantoSooner]

How about a guy stickinig his u-know-what into his lady friends u-know-where? Or into her mouth? Or having her use her hands or a toy to achieve the desired result. Or any of the other broad array of sex play that's virtually universal in human behavior. And, if you haven't engaged in more than a bit of that, Good Lord, get off the couch and get with it! It's fun, Jack and can make your lady friend quite happy, as well. None of that results in potential pregnancy either. So it should all be off limits?

Just be thankful that no one is making you, or I, engage in such things and let those that do wish to go do what they want.

And, if they develop a long term commitment to another like minded person, it seems a relatively small thing to allow them to be 'married' and thus inherit from each other, visit each other in hospital, enjoy joint ownership of assets, insurance etc. None of that affects our hetero-marriages in any way at all. Gayness is not 'catching' Even in gay friendly places like San Francisco, once the gays 'came out', that was about it. They were out. It wasn't as though there was a giant wave of otherwise straight people who suddenly said, "Damn! That sure looks like fun, I think I'll go be gay!" it just isn't that attractive to straight people, as you've pointed out.

[ouwasp]

I have seen female students participating in what I call "experimental lesbianism" (next thing you know they have a boyfriend). Would not have seen that a few yrs ago. Still haven't seen guys publicly doing such...but who knows...soon there will be nothing taboo.

America's new motto: If It Feels Good, Do It.

[okie52]

How about a guy stickinig his u-know-what into his lady friends u-know-where? Or into her mouth? Or having her use her hands or a toy to achieve the desired result. Or any of the other broad array of sex play that's virtually universal in human behavior. And, if you haven't engaged in more than a bit of that, Good Lord, get off the couch and get with it! It's fun, Jack and can make your lady friend quite happy, as well. None of that results in potential pregnancy either. So it should all be off limits?

Just be thankful that no one is making you, or I, engage in such things and let those that do wish to go do what they want.

And, if they develop a long term commitment to another like minded person, it seems a relatively small thing to allow them to be 'married' and thus inherit from each other, visit each other in hospital, enjoy joint ownership of assets, insurance etc. None of that affects our hetero-marriages in any way at all. Gayness is not 'catching' Even in gay friendly places like San Francisco, once the gays 'came out', that was about it. They were out. It wasn't as though there was a giant wave of otherwise straight people who suddenly said, "Damn! That sure looks like fun, I think I'll go be gay!" it just isn't that attractive to straight people, as you've pointed out.

This is really about heirships, benefits and right to be considered family in hospital rooms, etc... The marriage issue never needed to be accepted by the state as there are plenty of churches that would marry gays (even in OK) if they wanted the church's blessing.

[Ton Loc]

Oh, I agree that it is really a dumb thing to cause all of this furor. It's really an insignificant issue, whether a state approves of gay marriage or not. I don't think polygamy is allowed in any states either and there is no reason that it shouldn't be allowed. But in the overall scheme of things, neither amount to a hill of beans and I could care less if a state allows it or not nor do I use it as a measuring stick for guaging a state or culture.

My measuring stick for gauging a state is based on common sense. We're lacking that in many aspects. Gay marriage or unions or whatever name it is given should have been an easy one.

[Turd_Ferguson]

My measuring stick for gauging a state is based on common sense. We're lacking that in many aspects. Gay marriage or unions or whatever name it is given should have been an easy one.

You wouldn't know common sense if ya ****'n tripped over it...

[KantoSooner]

This is really about heirships, benefits and right to be considered family in hospital rooms, etc... The marriage issue never needed to be accepted by the state as there are plenty of churches that would marry gays (even in OK) if they wanted the church's blessing.

I think it's about both. The gay couples (few, I admit) who I've heard say anything about this are concerned about the legal ramifications, but are equally concerned with being 'fully' married. None of them wanted to be church married, however. Having a clergyman who hated them (envied them?) pronounce some words didn't seem to be a big deal. Rejoice, the gays aren't going to invade your church anytime soon.

[okie52]

My measuring stick for gauging a state is based on common sense. We're lacking that in many aspects. Gay marriage or unions or whatever name it is given should have been an easy one.

Oh, we certainly have our shortcomings which I would say would be more on upgrading our schools, reducing divorce and teen pregnancies. But then I look at places like New York, NJ, California, Washington, et al, where they do real economic harm to their citizens through ridiculous regulations like fracking bans, no offshore drilling, banning guns, mandating union labor, giving illegals instate tuition rates, along with regulating the size of soft drinks, mandating 4 and 5 year olds choose which bathrooms they want to use regardless of their sex, etc...and I feel our common sense is just fine by comparison.

[Soonerjeepman]

Read, Jeep, Read. It's been accepted in the bio communitiy for over a generation that a low percentage of virtually all mammalian species display 'homosexual' behavior. In humans, this is somewhere around 10%. Seems to have been constant across all populations and for as long as indicative records exist. (Famous cases such as Alexander The Great's bi-sexualuality, the gay corps in Greek Armies, Japanese bawdy stories from the late BCE era, traditions of gays as berdache medicine men among the plains Indians and so forth and so on. This issue is done and only being fought by Russian Rightists and American religioius extremists. Hell, even the Pope finally got the memo.

And, no, I' m not obligated to do your research for you on this any more than I am to support my wild claim that the sky appears to be blue on a clear day.

blah blah blah...behavior is as mental as physical. I'm pretty sure if there was pure BIOLOGICAL proof it'd be out there....nice comment you can be an a$$ sometimes...

[KantoSooner]

Read E.O. Wilson, any of his books and revisit your comment on the voluntary nature of behavior. Never pictured you as a Stephen J. Gould guy....

[SoonerBBall]

I have seen female students participating in what I call "experimental lesbianism" (next thing you know they have a boyfriend). Would not have seen that a few yrs ago. Still haven't seen guys publicly doing such...but who knows...soon there will be nothing taboo.

America's new motto: If It Feels Good, Do It.

Hahahahaha. Are you kidding me? Experimental lesbianism has been around for a long long time, it is just more acceptable to talk about in mixed company where before you would be condemned and possibly black-balled in your professional and friend groups.

[Ton Loc]

blah blah blah...behavior is as mental as physical. I'm pretty sure if there was pure BIOLOGICAL proof it'd be out there....nice comment you can be an a$$ sometimes...

Why do you need biological proof? What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

You aren't going to stop it.

[okie52]

I think it's about both. The gay couples (few, I admit) who I've heard say anything about this are concerned about the legal ramifications, but are equally concerned with being 'fully' married. None of them wanted to be church married, however. Having a clergyman who hated them (envied them?) pronounce some words didn't seem to be a big deal. Rejoice, the gays aren't going to invade your church anytime soon.

Hell, I think my church (Episcopalean) would marry them...they have nationally already...probably my local church has already too. I don't know if they even care if it was legal here in OK...of course they couldn't give them a marriage license.

[OU68]

How about a guy stickinig his u-know-what into his lady friends u-know-where? Or into her mouth? Or having her use her hands or a toy to achieve the desired result. Or any of the other broad array of sex play that's virtually universal in human behavior. And, if you haven't engaged in more than a bit of that, Good Lord, get off the couch and get with it! It's fun, Jack and can make your lady friend quite happy, as well. None of that results in potential pregnancy either. So it should all be off limits?

Just be thankful that no one is making you, or I, engage in such things and let those that do wish to go do what they want.

And, if they develop a long term commitment to another like minded person, it seems a relatively small thing to allow them to be 'married' and thus inherit from each other, visit each other in hospital, enjoy joint ownership of assets, insurance etc. None of that affects our hetero-marriages in any way at all. Gayness is not 'catching' Even in gay friendly places like San Francisco, once the gays 'came out', that was about it. They were out. It wasn't as though there was a giant wave of otherwise straight people who suddenly said, "Damn! That sure looks like fun, I think I'll go be gay!" it just isn't that attractive to straight people, as you've pointed out.

The counter argument is to always use the "long term committed" gay couple who are happily poking each other for decades -- I have a one word response: AIDS. And spare me the "but what about all the heteros who beat their wives/kids/dogs, divorce, blah, blah, blah.

[ouwasp]

Hahahahaha. Are you kidding me? Experimental lesbianism has been around for a long long time, it is just more acceptable to talk about in mixed company where before you would be condemned and possibly black-balled in your professional and friend groups.

I teach at a middle school....my point was that some of our students are now willing to openly flaunt their experimenting, whereas before it would have been contained to their sleepovers, et al. Or the notion never entertained to begin with. To be sure, this is still mostly done by girls on the fringe of school society. But it's there... they are choosing it. It is not choosing them.

Of course, us old guys just watch them go by in the hallways....shaking our heads at what the younger generation is devolving into. I guess our teachers back in the 70s probably shook their heads at us.

[FaninAma]

You really never made a point.

Unless it was were going to hell in a hand basket. Or perhaps holding onto a vote that is ten years old that the majority of the state didn't vote on and would surely be reversed today. At this point, we are only delaying the inevitable. The court will continue to overrule unconstitutional decisions. The gays are going to get married.

If you consider making a one sentence quip and throwing out ad hominem insults at those you disagree with as making a point then, no, I do not make those kind of points. I will try harder to keep my posts brief and simple for your benefit. Actually, I will post an original post then have a Cliff note version for you.

[yermom]

The counter argument is to always use the "long term committed" gay couple who are happily poking each other for decades -- I have a one word response: AIDS. And spare me the "but what about all the heteros who beat their wives/kids/dogs, divorce, blah, blah, blah.

only gay people get AIDS?

or gays getting married spreads AIDS?

what are you trying to say here?

[Skysooner]

Hell, I think my church (Episcopalean) would marry them...they have nationally already...probably my local church has already too. I don't know if they even care if it was legal here in OK...of course they couldn't give them a marriage license.

I'm certain they would. I think Bishop John Spong already has done that. I know my former church (United Church of Christ) would. Of course I'm agnostic/atheist now, so it doesn't really matter. Most that I know just want the legal things settled, so they aren't messed around with estates, etc.

[Turd_Ferguson]

only gay people get AIDS?

or gays getting married spreads AIDS?

what are you trying to say here?

Gay = AIDS

[Tear Down This Wall]

Look, there is no scientific proof that anyone was "born that way." In fact, if you understand evolutionary biology at all, you know that there is no possible way for any type of "gay gene" to be passed along because organisms must be able to reproduce over a period of millions of years for traits to arise.

This is evolution. Gays and lesbians - surprise, surprise - still cannot reproduce themselves. Anal sex still does not produce conception. Neither does cunnilingus, dildoes, strap-ons, and what have you. It's really no more simple than that.

The anus is part of the digestive system. The penis is part of the reproductive systems. This will never change. Lesbians don't have penises, so...neither type of homosexual is, nor have they ever, been in the evolutionary chain.

As to HIV, you look at the CDC statistics in any given year. The vast majority of new HIV cases are still in the male homosexual community. Almost the entire remainder are filled in with bisexuals and drug users.

In short, people who abuse their bodies continue to be the only people outside of those who get it via blood transfusion who contract HIV.

But, we are not in an era where we can argue science and homosexuality. We are now emotionally and legally arguing it. The result is, you will have gay marriage. The 10th Amendment is gone. And, science in this area is simply ignored.

[OU68]

only gay people get AIDS?

or gays getting married spreads AIDS?

what are you trying to say here?

Oh please, really? Yes I'm aware that AIDS has spread to the entire populace, but we both know that the bath houses in San Fran were significant incubators of the disease.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Sadly, people who mistake the anus as a sexual organ have a psychological problem. That's the real shame.

We spend decades telling people about the dangers of smoking, for example, and do the best we can to keep people who have a psychological need for nicotine from continuing to smoke. We do all we can to try to get them to change their behavior for their own good.

With homosexuals, we do the opposite now: we do our best to sweep aside their psychological problem that attracts them to the anus as a sex organ, despite knowing full well that it is bad, and possibly deadly, to their health.

It's truly pathetic.

[KantoSooner]

"Look, there is no scientific proof that anyone was "born that way." In fact, if you understand evolutionary biology at all, you know that there is no possible way for any type of "gay gene" to be passed along because organisms must be able to reproduce over a period of millions of years for traits to arise."

TDTW, what you propose is utterly wrong. When you run the numbers on heredity, you have to factor in that you are not only related to your parents and kids but also to your siblings and to your parents siblings (and to a lesser extent to their kids as well). Keeping things inside the nuclear family, where 'relatedness' is strongest, you share 1/4 of your genes with your sibs and 1/8 with their kids. 1/2 with your own offspring. Depending on survival and reproduction rates, it can make very good genetic sense for some proportion of the society to forego their own reproduction and devote themselves to the reproduction of their siblings. You can actually see more of 'your' genes moving on to the next generation.

Think of the advantages of having a high priest or admired artist or great magician as an aunt or uncle and you can see what this might do for one's marriage chances. Think about the addition of another adult's excess production and what it might do for early childhood survival. Think about wolf packs and the fact that only the alpha pair breed while the entire pack takes care of the puppies.

The number in any given society moves within a range, but centers around 10% of the population. This is precisely what we see in our society...and is very close to what is seen among Papua New Guinea hill tribes. And it seems to track Classical Eastern Mediterranean societies and Plains Indians. The lesson here is that it's utterly natural and arises through the same evolutionary forces that developed the rest of our traits.

Ever wonder why gay friends have a tendency to bring presents to your kids, and that many of these presents are clothing, educational or food? I'd suspect that there are some very deep biological drivers at work there.

[Ton Loc]

If you consider making a one sentence quip and throwing out ad hominem insults at those you disagree with as making a point then, no, I do not make those kind of points. I will try harder to keep my posts brief and simple for your benefit. Actually, I will post an original post then have a Cliff note version for you.

How did my one sentence quip prove your point (that you never made)?


...In short, people who abuse their bodies continue to be the only people outside of those who get it via blood transfusion who contract HIV.

Everyone knows male homosexuals contract and pass AIDS at a much higher rate. It's common sense. Doesn't stop AIDs from being a serious problem in African nations. I'm pretty sure that's not all gay dudes.

Regardless of the other ridiculousness you've written - it won't matter. Gays will be married.

[okie52]

I'm certain they would. I think Bishop John Spong already has done that. I know my former church (United Church of Christ) would. Of course I'm agnostic/atheist now, so it doesn't really matter. Most that I know just want the legal things settled, so they aren't messed around with estates, etc.

Pretty sure if you have an ordained gay bishop the church isn't going to worry about gay weddings.

[okie52]

"Look, there is no scientific proof that anyone was "born that way." In fact, if you understand evolutionary biology at all, you know that there is no possible way for any type of "gay gene" to be passed along because organisms must be able to reproduce over a period of millions of years for traits to arise."

TDTW, what you propose is utterly wrong. When you run the numbers on heredity, you have to factor in that you are not only related to your parents and kids but also to your siblings and to your parents siblings (and to a lesser extent to their kids as well). Keeping things inside the nuclear family, where 'relatedness' is strongest, you share 1/4 of your genes with your sibs and 1/8 with their kids. 1/2 with your own offspring. Depending on survival and reproduction rates, it can make very good genetic sense for some proportion of the society to forego their own reproduction and devote themselves to the reproduction of their siblings. You can actually see more of 'your' genes moving on to the next generation.

Think of the advantages of having a high priest or admired artist or great magician as an aunt or uncle and you can see what this might do for one's marriage chances. Think about the addition of another adult's excess production and what it might do for early childhood survival. Think about wolf packs and the fact that only the alpha pair breed while the entire pack takes care of the puppies.

The number in any given society moves within a range, but centers around 10% of the population. This is precisely what we see in our society...and is very close to what is seen among Papua New Guinea hill tribes. And it seems to track Classical Eastern Mediterranean societies and Plains Indians. The lesson here is that it's utterly natural and arises through the same evolutionary forces that developed the rest of our traits.

Ever wonder why gay friends have a tendency to bring presents to your kids, and that many of these presents are clothing, educational or food? I'd suspect that there are some very deep biological drivers at work there.

Just to stir the pot...what about those sneaky bisexuals? Born a switchhitter? And trannys?...well, that may be a bridge too far.

[olevetonahill]

Yall some strange folks.Hell Ive been known to put my dick in a Lot of places.
Who amongst Has never enjoyed a warm Melon on a summer evening just the two of you, alone with maybe a 6 pack er 3???

What about taking a stroll thru the feed lot and stopping to enjoy a BJ from a Nursing Calf?
Who has Never tried to Talk his wife into lettin him PIIHB?
I rest my case. we just a bunch of whorn dogs.

[KantoSooner]

Just to stir the pot...what about those sneaky bisexuals? Born a switchhitter? And trannys?...well, that may be a bridge too far.

Biology's squishy. I'm pretty convinced there's a spectrum of behavior with Freddy Mercury at one end and James Bond at the other. Somewhere in there there's room for people who's wires got a little tangled.

[KantoSooner]

MMMMmmmm calf tongue....

[olevetonahill]

MMMMmmmm calf tongue....

:smiley_simmons::very_drunk:

[ouwasp]

Looking at this issue through a purely secular lens, there is not much reason to curb homosexual unions. Our pop culture has more or less embraced homosexuality with some sense of normalcy...(Seinfeld's NTTATWWI was a harbinger). So there it is. It is upon us.

Evangelical Christians have a different viewpoint. That is undoubtedly why, in 2004, Oklahomans overwhelmingly supported marriage as being defined as being between a man and a woman. I'm guessing if the vote were held today, the vote would still be in the 70% percent range. I think it was 76% back in '04.

But, as a nation, our values are changing very quickly. I like to be engaging with others. And tolerance is a virtue, imo, when applied properly. Still, there are lines...

Isaiah 5:20 says "Woe to those who call evil, good and good, evil..." From a Christian perspective, that is exactly where we are in 2014 America. Look at what is being celebrated...and what is being castigated.

So, for a humanist, these are good days indeed. For a Christian, it is something else. But it is not surprising

The Moral Compass of our nation is now Secular Humanism.

[OU68]

Yall some strange folks.Hell Ive been known to put my dick in a Lot of places.
Who amongst Has never enjoyed a warm Melon on a summer evening just the two of you, alone with maybe a 6 pack er 3???

What about taking a stroll thru the feed lot and stopping to enjoy a BJ from a Nursing Calf?
Who has Never tried to Talk his wife into lettin him PIIHB?
I rest my case. we just a bunch of whorn dogs.

Dayum hijacker!!

[olevetonahill]

Dayum hijacker!!

:excitement::very_drunk:

[KantoSooner]

Wasp, hopefully there is room for you to practice your faith without such practice being diminshed by allowing others to live their lives in the manner they see fit.
As I understand the teachings of your prophet, he was all about a focus on the spiritual and the internal as opposed to the material and political. And tolerance of others.
At least that's the portion of the teaching that I chose to think of as 'authentic' (vs, say Leviticus or Revelation)

[ouwasp]

Thanks Kanto.....Chuck Missler, a favorite Bible teacher of mine, once said "The greatest gift God ever gave us is our own sovereignty. Now what should we do with it? Give it back to Him."

In a large measure, that's how I try to live my life. I'm in service of Someone much greater than me. When I fail, I continue to strive and live life that best reflects my Savior. I am saddened when I see people rejecting Christian values, but am well aware they must find their own way. The Bible speaks to this repeatedly.

The old adage goes like this: Silence is consent. I do not agree with the gay rights movement and refuse to sit idly by and allow my country to enthusiastically embrace a path I consider dangerous. But, if this is what the citizens and our courts prefer, so be it. I can pray their eyes be opened and hearts be softened, but like you said...they have to live their lives in a manner they see fit.

Thanks for your civil discourse, Kanto.

[Soonerjeepman]

Thanks Kanto.....Chuck Missler, a favorite Bible teacher of mine, once said "The greatest gift God ever gave us is our own sovereignty. Now what should we do with it? Give it back to Him."

In a large measure, that's how I try to live my life. I'm in service of Someone much greater than me. When I fail, I continue to strive and live life that best reflects my Savior. I am saddened when I see people rejecting Christian values, but am well aware they must find their own way. The Bible speaks to this repeatedly.

The old adage goes like this: Silence is consent. I do not agree with the gay rights movement and refuse to sit idly by and allow my country to enthusiastically embrace a path I consider dangerous. But, if this is what the citizens and our courts prefer, so be it. I can pray their eyes be opened and hearts be softened, but like you said...they have to live their lives in a manner they see fit.

Thanks for your civil discourse, Kanto.

but that's not what the libs say...EVERYONE has a right to do/say/believe what they want....and fight for those rights. Except those that disagree with them~

[Soonerjeepman]

FWIW Kanto, I've got homosexuals in my family, immediate and extended...both sides (of my parents) both male/female. It's an issue I've been around for a very long time and personally have seen what the mind can justify as "normal"..acceptable behavior but in reality it's so much deeper, psychologically speaking. Believe that the 10% you speak of makes it "born that way"...I tend to believe our minds and emotions are so much more powerful and involved in this issue. Agree to disagree.

Do I think MOST gays go and say "I WANT to be gay..." no. Obviously with society's expanding acceptance some will gravitate because of a million reasons, not one being they are born that way.

[Tear Down This Wall]

"Look, there is no scientific proof that anyone was "born that way." In fact, if you understand evolutionary biology at all, you know that there is no possible way for any type of "gay gene" to be passed along because organisms must be able to reproduce over a period of millions of years for traits to arise."

TDTW, what you propose is utterly wrong. When you run the numbers on heredity, you have to factor in that you are not only related to your parents and kids but also to your siblings and to your parents siblings (and to a lesser extent to their kids as well). Keeping things inside the nuclear family, where 'relatedness' is strongest, you share 1/4 of your genes with your sibs and 1/8 with their kids. 1/2 with your own offspring. Depending on survival and reproduction rates, it can make very good genetic sense for some proportion of the society to forego their own reproduction and devote themselves to the reproduction of their siblings. You can actually see more of 'your' genes moving on to the next generation.

Think of the advantages of having a high priest or admired artist or great magician as an aunt or uncle and you can see what this might do for one's marriage chances. Think about the addition of another adult's excess production and what it might do for early childhood survival. Think about wolf packs and the fact that only the alpha pair breed while the entire pack takes care of the puppies.

The number in any given society moves within a range, but centers around 10% of the population. This is precisely what we see in our society...and is very close to what is seen among Papua New Guinea hill tribes. And it seems to track Classical Eastern Mediterranean societies and Plains Indians. The lesson here is that it's utterly natural and arises through the same evolutionary forces that developed the rest of our traits.

Ever wonder why gay friends have a tendency to bring presents to your kids, and that many of these presents are clothing, educational or food? I'd suspect that there are some very deep biological drivers at work there.

Nothing you wrote even remotely touches on the fact that there is no "gay gene." Science is science. You can't reproduce another human organism by sticking your penis into another man's anus. Sorry.

It doesn't matter how many gifts you give to your nephews and nieces. It doesn't change the fact that organisms must be able to reproduce themselves to evolve. Believing the anus is a sexual organ is a terrible psychological disorder that has led to an awful, incurable disease.

Worse than that, since you go ahead and bring children into the discussion, billions of dollars have now been wasted on HIV/AIDS research, when the cure is as simple as keeping your penis out of other men's anuses. Meanwhile, you have St. Jude's and other outfits which treat kids who contract cancer out begging for funds.

It's a tragedy. Innocent kids contracting cancer through no action of their own, but billions of cancer research dollars diverted for the sake of the mentally afflicted who cannot understand the correct physiological use of their anuses and penises.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Oh, we certainly have our shortcomings which I would say would be more on upgrading our schools, reducing divorce and teen pregnancies. But then I look at places like New York, NJ, California, Washington, et al, where they do real economic harm to their citizens through ridiculous regulations like fracking bans, no offshore drilling, banning guns, mandating union labor, giving illegals instate tuition rates, along with regulating the size of soft drinks, mandating 4 and 5 year olds choose which bathrooms they want to use regardless of their sex, etc...and I feel our common sense is just fine by comparison.All that horsesh*t you enumerated is nothing short of inexcusable, and completely lacking in common sense. Yet, we have plenty of cross-wired brains that approve of that nonsense.

[KantoSooner]

TDTW, Go back and study genetics some more. Until you do, you won't be able to understand the science at a population level. I'd suggest looking at studies of naked mole rats for one of the starkest cases in mammals. Of course, hive insects offer the classic cases.

[Skysooner]

Nothing you wrong even remotely touches on the fact that there is no "gay gene." Science is science. You can't reproduce another human organism by sticking your penis into another man's anus. Sorry.

It doesn't matter how many gifts you give to your nephews and nieces. It doesn't change the fact that organisms must be able to reproduce themselves to evolve. Believing the anus is a sexual organ is a terrible psychological disorder that has led to an awful, incurable disease.

Worse than that, since you go ahead and bring children into the discussion, billions of dollars have now been wasted on HIV/AIDS research, when the cure is as simple as keeping your penis out of other men's anuses. Meanwhile, you have St. Jude's and other outfits which treat kids who contract cancer out begging for funds.

It's a tragedy. Innocent kids contracting cancer through no action of their own, but billions of cancer research dollars diverted for the sake of the mentally afflicted who cannot understand the correct physiological use of their anuses and penises.

BS on this. It is called recessive genes. Very few people have cystic fibrosis, but many people are carriers.

[olevetonahill]

Ima thinkin a good chunk of Yall are worryin way to much about where another man puts his Dick!
I aint Ghey but I aint skeered of em either.

[okie52]

Vet, I don't want to know where you put your dick:rolleyes:

[KantoSooner]

Thank you, Okie, for getting that out there. I'm still half asleep this morning and had utterly missed the mortal danger in which we were idling our time away.

[okie52]

We were at the edge of the precipice...

[FaninAma]

Despite the attempt to side track the discussion into a debate of the evils or non-evils of homosexuality the real debate should focus on whether citizens in this country will be afforded the right of self-determination about the direction of their society or will they be over-ruled by the type of despicable elitist like the one described in my signature.

Society should be allowed to evolve and progress on social issues through changes of heart and mind not through the heavy-handed use of power by a small group of elitists.

Cliff note version for Ton-Loc:

Self-determination and personal growth of the electorate: good
Usurping the above process by a an elitist who thinks his opinion is more enlightened even if he destroys the right of self-determination: bad.

[olevetonahill]

Wernt never a Swabbie neither But I did agree that Any Port in a storm :very_drunk:

My whole point being. These "Christians" that are preaching the Morality of this. Unless they ONLY have sex with their Wives in the Missionary position and then ONLY to Procreate Are Just as Guilty Of sexual deviancy in Some folks eyes as those they are condemning.

Personally Id Just as soon the Gheys STFU and go about their Bidness and the Loud mouth Christians STFU and lead their "Godly" lives.
Think Ill get durnk tonight and Find me a Harlot to have Ungodly sex with. If I cant find one then I got a Melon I can warm up.:smiley_simmons::very_drunk:

[KantoSooner]

Cliff note version for Ton-Loc:

Self-determination and personal growth of the electorate: good
Usurping the above process by a an elitist who thinks his opinion is more enlightened even if he destroys the right of self-determination: bad.

here's another one:

Mob Rule: Bad
Rule Of Law: Good

[FaninAma]

here's another one:

Mob Rule: Bad
Rule Of Law: Good
Decisions made by democratic, electoral process outlined in statutory law is mob rule? So viewing the opinion and wishes of 75% of your fellow Oklahomans as mob rule is not elitist? OK. I think describing the activist federal judges in this country as a mob is more appropriate.

[soonerhubs]

Mob rule by democratic, electoral process outlined in statutory law is mob rule? So viewing the opinion and wishes of 75% of your fellow Oklahomans as mob rule is not elitist? OK. I think describing the activist federal judges in this country as a mob is more appropriate.

Denying a certain population of Oklahomans equal rights is not elitist?

[FaninAma]

Denying a certain population of Oklahomans equal rights is not elitist?
I think you need to review the definition of elitist. Moral behavior is dictated by states in many, many areas of our daily lives. Personally I think gays should be able to marry and there are several states where that is allowed. I also feel society has the right to decide what moral standards are appropriate and voters should be allowed the right to grow and change their minds via education and personal growth....not judicial legislation.

Legislating from the bench weakens the democratic process which weakens the power of we the people which weakens our ability to reign in and control the excesses of government.Who's to say that in the very near future an activist peon district federal judge won't strike down laws against polygamy, prostitution, prohibitions against the use of various addictive drugs? Or they decide to throw out propositions that are passed to lower taxes and cut back government services? How about when they intervene to tell us where we can send our kids to school?

[KantoSooner]

Decisions made by democratic, electoral process outlined in statutory law is mob rule? So viewing the opinion and wishes of 75% of your fellow Oklahomans as mob rule is not elitist? OK. I think describing the activist federal judges in this country as a mob is more appropriate.

I don't really care if you have 99% If they make unconstitional decisions, then they get slapped back into line. That's one reason I, cattily, said that we're going to have to wait for an appeal ... or for legislators here to find a constitutional way to deprive some of their fellow citizens of common rights.

Let me give you a simple example. A massive majority of Oklahomans could pass a law or amendment decreeing that Habeas Corpus no longer held sway in Oklahoma. Would that law stand? No, it would be swatted down by the first Federal Court that caught wind of it. And it would stay swatted. Likewise if the good people of this state decided to reinstate slavery or to declare that you couldn't vote if you were a registered Catholic or any of a whole raft of other things that 'The People' have tried to do at one time or another in one or another states.

One reason we have courts, a legal system and a constitution is to keep the lynch mob impulse at bay. It works pretty much like it worked in this case. Oklahoma passed a ridiculous law, a Federal court said, 'Nice try, but it's unconstitutional.'

The system worked. Perfectly. And exactly as it was designed to.

[olevetonahill]

Kanto, If I remember from way back in the early part of Last century , It was taught as
"CHECKS AND BALANCES"

[Ton Loc]

Despite the attempt to side track the discussion into a debate of the evils or non-evils of homosexuality the real debate should focus on whether citizens in this country will be afforded the right of self-determination about the direction of their society or will they be over-ruled by the type of despicable elitist like the one described in my signature.

Society should be allowed to evolve and progress on social issues through changes of heart and mind not through the heavy-handed use of power by a small group of elitists.

Cliff note version for Ton-Loc:

Self-determination and personal growth of the electorate: good
Usurping the above process by a an elitist who thinks his opinion is more enlightened even if he destroys the right of self-determination: bad.

Point made. I even agree with your premise of elitist *******s. Just don't think it applies this time. Probably just because I agree with the decision...

[SoonerorLater]

Denying a certain population of Oklahomans equal rights is not elitist?

Who is being denied equal rights? The law applies to every person in Oklahoma.

[FaninAma]

Kanto, where is sexual orietation mentioned in the Constitution? I see where discrimination based on race, sex and religion are prohibited. Activist judges are pulling their sexual orientation rulings out of their collective asses. Their activism undermines not only the legislative process but also respect for the judiciary.

[okie52]

Kanto, where is sexual orietation mentioned in the Constitution?

I believe it was the Cornholio amendment.

[FaninAma]

I believe it was the Cornholio amendment.

I know that they point to the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment. This clause is vague and poorly written and basically gives any activist judge carte blanche to strike down what ever ****ing law or statute he wants to based on nothing but personal opinion.

[okie52]

You're right about the crappy interpretation of the "equal protection" language. It's forcing the. American taxpayers to pay for illegals education and benefits.

[yermom]

Kanto, where is sexual orietation mentioned in the Constitution? I see where discrimination based on race, sex and religion are prohibited. Activist judges are pulling their sexual orientation rulings out of their collective asses. Their activism undermines not only the legislative process but also respect for the judiciary.

where was race mentioned before? you act like the laws we have now haven't changed since Thomas Jefferson

there have been gays since the Bible was written. it's not a new thing.

on the flip side, if you don't follow or believe the Bible, then why should you have to follow its rules? (i'm pretty sure THAT made it to a pretty early version of the laws we have) there is not some universal notion that gays are bad. if you can make a real argument against gay marriage without bringing up the Bible or God, i'd like to hear it.

[soonerhubs]

Who is being denied equal rights? The law applies to every person in Oklahoma.

Does this really need spelling out?

[SoonerorLater]

Does this really need spelling out?

yes

[Soonerjeepman]

Ima thinkin a good chunk of Yall are worryin way to much about where another man puts his Dick!
I aint Ghey but I aint skeered of em either.

the MOST overused idea...(homophobic)....not scared either..Didn't say you use it..the gays do.

Just don't agree with their connotation that it's "normal" (10% of the population is so it's normal...ummm no) or that they are born that way. Honestly if they want to get married, then get married but it's not something that has to be protected by law then forcing others to approve.

[yermom]

the law isn't so people don't have to approve the marriages. the law that was ruled on prohibits something like 10% of the population to marry the person they want to

i'm not sure what business that is of anyone's. people are otherwise free to be gay. even in the military. i think this ball started rolling in Texas in 2003 when the Supreme Court ruled that they couldn't criminalize sodomy anymore

[soonerhubs]

yes Yermom's post should be clear enough. Banning same-sex marriage is a violation of many citizens' civil rights.

It is equivalent to enforcing Jim Crow laws, and it needs to stop.

[SoonerorLater]

Yermom's post should be clear enough. Banning same-sex marriage is a violation of many citizens' civil rights.

It is equivalent to enforcing Jim Crow laws, and it needs to stop.

No it's not clear at all. There are all kinds of laws that prevent certain percentages of the population from doing all sorts of things. Jim Crowe laws have nothing to do with this. Being black is a genetically verifiable static state of existence. It has nothing to do with any behavioral attributes. Simply because somebody wishes to engage same gender sexual relations doesn't mean thousands of years of civilization, across broad cultural boundaries, should be stood on it's head because a small self-interested group thinks they have some non-existent right to legitimize that behavior.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...There are all kinds of laws that prevent certain percentages of the population from doing all sorts of things. Jim Crowe laws have nothing to do with this. (Being black is a genetically verifiable static state of existence) It has nothing to do with any behavioral attributes. Simply because somebody wishes to engage same gender sexual relations doesn't mean thousands of years of civilization, across broad cultural boundaries, should be stood on it's head because a small self-interested group thinks they have some non-existent right to legitimize that behavior.Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. It is a defined activity. It's not about love, or equal rights. Gays and 3-party unions already can be set up legally for economic rights.

There is a significant faction in the country who want to see legal changes made in order to try to force public approval of things that most people don't approve of, or think are nonsensical, as in this case.

[soonerhubs]

No it's not clear at all. There are all kinds of laws that prevent certain percentages of the population from doing all sorts of things. Jim Crowe laws have nothing to do with this. Being black is a genetically verifiable static state of existence. It has nothing to do with any behavioral attributes. Simply because somebody wishes to engage same gender sexual relations doesn't mean thousands of years of civilization, across broad cultural boundaries, should be stood on it's head because a small self-interested group thinks they have some non-existent right to legitimize that behavior.

The old, "...but we've always done it this way," argument? Really?

But hey! Keep denying basic human rights to pairs of citizens, as long as it keeps the status quo.

Keep trying to rationalize the act of bigotry, but enjoy being on the wrong side of history.

[yermom]

you can justify just about anything if you cite thousands of years of civilization across cultural boundaries

[soonerhubs]

you can justify just about anything if you cite thousands of years of civilization across cultural boundaries

Exactly! That logic can keep "traditions" such as witch burnings, human slavery, and public stonings alive and well.

People act like heterosexual monogamous relationships have always been the norm and that marriage is a monolithic unchanging arrangement. If they actually cracked open a book or two, they'd read about western movements toward monogamy, back in the middle ages, that were based on economic conditions of the time.

Heck! Take the old testament literally, and respect polygamy. To outlaw it turns thousands of years of tradition on its head.

[FaninAma]

The old, "...but we've always done it this way," argument? Really?

But hey! Keep denying basic human rights to pairs of citizens, as long as it keeps the status quo.

Keep trying to rationalize the act of bigotry, but enjoy being on the wrong side of history.

And know this how? You are so sure that in 50 years when every alternative to traditional marriages and families is accepted and encouraged this society won't face the same demographic black hole other western societies are facing who have done exactly that?

You are arrogant, short-sighted and stupid if you think there are no repurcussions to de-emphasizing traditional marriage and families within a culture and society. Putin and Russia understand this. That is why a country that 50 years ago was doing all it could do de-emphasize traditional families is now on the oppositie tract. They understand where traditional Russian society and culture were headed under the old communist social policies.

I could care less about traditional families and marriages based on religious reasons. There has to be some recognition and encouragement of societal structure that help to propagate and strengthen that society and culture. If our society is going to commit demgraphic suicide then I prefer that the electorate at least be allowed to make that decision for themselves.

BTW, you sound like an emotional college freshman when you pull out the strawman arguments comparing this issue to slavery and witchburning.

[soonerhubs]

And know this how? You are so sure that in 50 years when every alternative to traditional marriages and families is accepted and encouraged this society won't face the same demographic black hole other western societies are facing who have done exactly that?

You are arrogant, short-sighted and stupid if you think there are no repurcussions to de-emphasizing traditional marriage and families within a culture and society. Putin and Russia understand this. That is why a country that 50 years ago was doing all it could do de-emphasize traditional families is now on the oppositie tract. They understand where traditional Russian society and culture were headed under the old communist social policies.

I could care less about traditional families and marriages based on religious reasons. There have to be some recognition and encouragement of societal structure that help to propagate and strengthen that society and culture. If our society is going to commit demgraphic suicide then I prefer that the electorate at least be allowed to make that decision for themselves.

BTW, you sound like an emotional college freshaman when you pull out the strawman arguments comparing this issue to slavery and witchburning.

Yep. Just a young freshman. I must've gotten inspired by a professor last fall in one of my intro courses. Good stuff!

I don't think it's the government's job to ensure "traditional" family forms. But I'm just an arrogant punk 19 year old, in your small mind, so my opinion is naught.

Also, you're using another fallacy with your slippery slope rebuttal. I think I learned that in Public speaking 101 last week.

[FaninAma]

Yep. Just a young freshman. I must've gotten inspired by a professor last fall in one of my intro courses. Good stuff!

I don't think it's the government's job to ensure "traditional" family forms. But I'm just an arrogant punk 19 year old, in your small mind, so my opinion is naught.

Also, you're using another fallacy with your slippery slope rebuttal. I think I learned that in Public speaking 101 last week.

Why don't you experience life for another 30 years or so and look around at the society you live in at that point.....then get back to me if I am still around.

Nobody can teach you anything. You'll just have to learn from experience......if you are one of the small group of individuals that has that capability. Good luck, you will need it.

BTw, do you mind if I send you the $252,000 bill for my and my wife's share of the national debt? There's a pretty good chance we won't be working when the bill comes due. And don't expect future generations to pick up the tab like my generation did to yours......there won't be enough of them around who have well-paying taxable jobs to carry the load.

And oh, thank you for agreeing to be responsible for the financial excesses of the previous 3 generations that preceeded yours.

[soonerhubs]

Why don't you experience life for another 30 years or so and look around at the society you live in at that point.....then get back to me if I am still around.
Read Marriage, A History by Stephanie Coontz, then get back to me
Nobody can teach you anything. You'll just have to learn from experience......if you are one of the small group of individuals that has that capability. Good luck, you will need it.
Experience has taught me over the years, that there are many "seasoned" individuals who know **** regarding critical thinking skills.

BTw, do you mind if I send you the $252,000 bill for my and my wife's share of the national debt? There's a pretty good chance we won't be working when the bill comes due. And don't expect future generations to pick up the tab like my generation did to yours......there won't be enough of them around who have well-paying taxable jobs to carry the load.

And oh, thank you for agreeing to be responsible for the financial excesses of the previous 3 generations that preceeded yours.

1) What the hell does this have to do with affording civil rights? 2) Since you brought it up, same-sex marriages will provide a new boon of taxable revenue.

Since you were all of the place with this post, I responded to the above points in bold.

[olevetonahill]

Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. It is a defined activity. It's not about love, or equal rights. Gays and 3-party unions already can be set up legally for economic rights.

There is a significant faction in the country who want to see legal changes made in order to try to force public approval of things that most people don't approve of, or think are nonsensical, as in this case.

From Webster's 1913

Webster's 1913 Dictionary

Mar´riage
n. 1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.
Marriage is honorable in all.
- Heb. xiii. 4.
2. The marriage vow or contract.
3. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king which made a marriage for his son.
- Matt. xxii. 2.
4. Any intimate or close union.
5. In pinochle, bézique, and similar games at cards, the combination of a king and queen of the same suit. If of the trump suit, it is called a royal marriage.
Marriage brokage
a - The business of bringing about marriages
b - The payment made or demanded for the procurement of a marriage.
Marriage favors
knots of white ribbons, or bunches of white flowers, worn at weddings.
Marriage settlement
(Law) a settlement of property in view, and in consideration, of marriage.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Funny that the various governments mostly didn't choose the pinochle definition for the purpose of marriage laws, huh, Vet?

[olevetonahill]

Funny that the various governments mostly didn't choose the pinochle definition for the purpose of marriage laws, huh, Vet?

Heh. Ya mean the one that says "Of the Same Suit" ? :excitement:

[okie52]

Yermom's post should be clear enough. Banning same-sex marriage is a violation of many citizens' civil rights.

It is equivalent to enforcing Jim Crow laws, and it needs to stop.

Is this a high priority issue with you?

[diverdog]

I think Vet should be able to marry any kind of critter he wants to....or not! :very_drunk:

[soonerhubs]

Is this a high priority issue with you?

Explain your vague question. What do you mean by high priority?

[diverdog]

Explain your vague question. What do you mean by high priority?

I think he is asking if you are gay. Maybe inferring is more accurate.

We have gay marriage here in Delaware and so far the sun still rises in the east and the world did not come to an end. It really is not a big deal.

[olevetonahill]

I think Vet should be able to marry any kind of critter he wants to....or not! :very_drunk:

I Like the "Or Not" part best.

[soonerhubs]

I think he is asking if you are gay. Maybe inferring is more accurate.

We have gay marriage here in Delaware and so far the sun still rises in the east and the world did not come to an end. It really is not a big deal.


No, I'm happily married to my wife of 12 years.

I'm just against folks legislating their cafeteria-version of the Bible, especially when it denies equal protection under the law.

[olevetonahill]

No, I'm happily married to my wife of 12 years.

I'm just against folks legislating their cafeteria-version of the Bible, especially when it denies equal protection under the law.

Yer Lying to us, yer only 19 Remember?

[okie52]

Explain your vague question. What do you mean by high priority?

Was that unclear? Does gay marriage rank as a top issue with you when compared to the economy, foreign policy, Syria, energy, AGW, immigration, etc...?

[diverdog]

Was that unclear? Does gay marriage rank as a top issue with you when compared to the economy, foreign policy, Syria, energy, AGW, immigration, etc...?

Okie:

The problem is gay marriage is one of those wedge issues that keep a lot of work from being done. I wish we would spend half the time we spend talking about gay marriage or abortion on things like energy policy, job creation, immigration and foreign policy.

[yermom]

One could ask you the same thing. Why are our legislators wasting time on this when it is obvious how the supreme court is going on it?

Surely there is something else to worry about in this state

[okie52]

Okie:

The problem is gay marriage is one of those wedge issues that keep a lot of work from being done. I wish we would spend half the time we spend talking about gay marriage or abortion on things like energy policy, job creation, immigration and foreign policy.

Well that's the the crux of the matter..whether its states fighting gay marriage or rushing to approve it...just a lot of time wasted on an insignificant issue.

[soonerhubs]

Was that unclear? Does gay marriage rank as a top issue with you when compared to the economy, foreign policy, Syria, energy, AGW, immigration, etc...?

Yes it was unclear.

I've never put it in a rank-order. I think that's silly. Working on one thing while ignoring the other is not a logical pathway, in my opinion. Do I think the economy issue is more urgent? Perhaps. That's why there are different departments like the treasury, defense, and justice. I find it disturbing that so many folks are against two consenting adults' rights to equal protection under the law.

I do see the attorneys general in 2 states making it a top priority, as they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax-payer money defending violations of civil-rights.

[okie52]

One could ask you the same thing. Why are our legislators wasting time on this when it is obvious how the supreme court is going on it?

Surely there is something else to worry about in this state

No, to be clear, gay marriage is at the bottom of my priorities...how about you?

[diverdog]

No, I'm happily married to my wife of 12 years.

I'm just against folks legislating their cafeteria-version of the Bible, especially when it denies equal protection under the law.

For some reason one of Delaware's beach resort towns became a mecca for gay vacationers from the DC/Baltimore/Philadelphia/NYC areas. Over the years gays developed businesses in Rehoboth and became part of the community. The business were not only nice but very successful. The amount of money that was brought in surprised a lot of people. Most of the gay men were extremely affluent and they demanded nice restaurants and shops. As time moved on they became a very powerful political force in Delaware not only because of their numbers but their wealth and influence. It was a struggle to pass a gay marriage law but it eventually happened. I was neutral on the change and to be honest now that some time has passed there is not much in the press about it. In fact, I would say when it was all said and done the fight over banning smoking in public was much more brutal than passing gay marriage.

[soonerhubs]

No, to be clear, gay marriage is at the bottom of my priorities...how about you?

Fine, so write your governor's office and ask them to quit wasting tax money in litigation that attacks same-sex marriage.

[okie52]

Yes it was unclear.

I've never put it in a rank-order. I think that's silly. Working on one thing while ignoring the other is not a logical pathway, in my opinion. Do I think the economy issue is more urgent? Perhaps. That's why there are different departments like the treasury, defense, and justice. I find it disturbing that so many folks are against two consenting adults' rights to equal protection under the law.

I do see the attorneys general in 2 states making it a top priority, as they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax-payer money defending violations of civil-rights.

Heh, yeah, that's a waste of time, just like 3 or 4 states passing laws that let a 4-5 old decide which bathroom they want to use regardless of gender.

[okie52]

Fine, so write your governor's office and ask them to quit wasting tax money in litigation that attacks same-sex marriage.

It's not that important to me...or don't you understand that?

[diverdog]

Fine, so write your governor's office and ask them to quit wasting tax money in litigation that attacks same-sex marriage.

Holy smokes you are in Utah? That has to be political hell for you.

[olevetonahill]

This thread aint no Fun. I cant stir nothin up.:cat:

[soonerhubs]

It's not that important to me...or don't you understand that?

Oh I understand that. That's why it's amusing that you are okay with your tax money being wasted on this "low-priority issue.

[soonerhubs]

Holy smokes you are in Utah? That has to be political hell for you.

It's a give and take. If I get a hankering for more liberty, we take road trips to nearby Nevada. :)

[diverdog]

It's a give and take. If I get a hankering for more liberty, we take road trips to nearby Nevada. :)

Out of curiosity are you Mormon?

[soonerhubs]

Out of curiosity are you Mormon?

Yes.

[Curly Bill]

This thread aint no Fun. I cant stir nothin up.:cat:

You're doing it wrong! Pick a side: pro-gay or anti-gay, argue your side vociferously enough and I assure you you'll stir people up on the opposite side and you can argue & stir it up til your heart's content!

[diverdog]

Yes.


Thanks. I have a lot of Mormon friends through scouting and they are great people and excellent parents. Mormons seem to get pigeon holed politically and I have found that there is a fairly broad spectrum of political beliefs in the church.

On the lighter side one of my friends has tried to get me to convert several times but I grew up Irish Catholic and it is somewhat of a lifestyle. Like being Jewish.....it is an identity thing. So I have never entertain conversion. But I am polite and always listen to him.

[FaninAma]

So Soonerhubs must be from the Harry Reid wing of the Mormon church. BTw, I am glad to learn you're not going to be honest in your assertions during the discussions on this board.

[FaninAma]

You're doing it wrong! Pick a side: pro-gay or anti-gay, argue your side vociferously enough and I assure you you'll stir people up on the opposite side and you can argue & stir it up til your heart's content!
Again, that's not the issue. The issue is whether a judicial oligarchy or a majority of voters will make all of the important social decisions for the country.

[soonerhubs]

So Soonerhubs must be from the Harry Reid wing of the Mormon church. BTw, I am glad to learn you're not going to be honest in your assertions during the discussions on this board.

Do you care to explain your personal attack? Honest in my assertion?

You're so dense in that you think that I'm a Democrat because your dichotomous mind can't process libertarianism.

[soonerhubs]

Again, that's not the issue. The issue is whether a judicial oligarchy or a majority of voters will make all of the important social decisions for the country.

More dichotomous thinking.

[soonerhubs]

Thanks. I have a lot of Mormon friends through scouting and they are great people and excellent parents. Mormons seem to get pigeon holed politically and I have found that there is a fairly broad spectrum of political beliefs in the church.

On the lighter side one of my friends has tried to get me to convert several times but I grew up Irish Catholic and it is somewhat of a lifestyle. Like being Jewish.....it is an identity thing. So I have never entertain conversion. But I am polite and always listen to him.

It's interesting to hear some folks consider me less Mormon when I side with libertarian views, particularly same-sex issues.

[okie52]

Oh I understand that. That's why it's amusing that you are okay with your tax money being wasted on this "low-priority issue.

My tax money is being wasted on a lot of things...gay marriage is small potatoes by comparison.

Aren't you interested in the civil rights of trannies?

And it's silly to prioritize issues? So when you vote for a candidate (maybe youve never voted) gay marriage ranks right up there with how he handles energy, the economy, foreign policy, etc...? Please explain how you see through this silly prioritization.

[FaninAma]

More dichotomous thinking.
Explain. I think I've been pretty consistent throughout the thread. I feel this is an issue left best to the individual states to decide but that there are legitimate, non-religious reasons to not support gay marriage. However, if the people of a state vote to allow gay marriage I support that decision.

BTW, I think the real dichotomy here is the fact that you feel you are libertarian yet apparently support a statist's views regarding the rights of the voters and state's rights. You are only a libertarian in so far as you support the will of the people as long as it agrees with your opinion.

In other words you are just another elitist statist. You are no libertarian.

[Curly Bill]

Again, that's not the issue. The issue is whether a judicial oligarchy or a majority of voters will make all of the important social decisions for the country.

Oh! Well, that's already been determined - the federal judiciary has already won! I don't like it, but it is what it is.

[FaninAma]

Oh! Well, that's already been determined - the federal judiciary has already won! I don't like it, but it is what it is.

I agree and like all elitist oligarchs they continue to undermine the confidence of the people in the institution they serve by continually substituting their will for the will of the people.

[Curly Bill]

I agree and like all elitist oligarchs they continue to undermine the cofidence of the people in the institution they serve by continually substituting their will for the will of the people.

I'm totally in agreement with that.

On the one hand we have the judicial oligarchy, and on the other we have the Obammy autocracy. Doesn't leave much for We the People!

[diverdog]

It's interesting to hear some folks consider me less Mormon when I side with libertarian views, particularly same-sex issues.

I think your Mormonism will be decided between you and God.

I have always liked this conversation in the movie Kingdom of Heaven:


Hospitaller: I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What god desires is here[points to head]
Hospitaller: and here
[points to heart]
Hospitaller: and what you decide to do every day, you will be a good man - or not.


.

[soonerhubs]

Getting through to bigots is exhausting. The idea that the government should define marriage in a way that alienates the rights of a certain population is wrong.

Continue trying to obfuscate to your hearts content.

So far you've given no legitimate research-based secular argument that supports the same-sex marriage ban.

[soonerhubs]

I think your Mormonism will be decided between you and God.

I have always liked this conversation in the movie Kingdom of Heaven:

Excellent quote! Thanks for sharing.

[FaninAma]

Getting through to bigots is exhausting. The idea that the government should define marriage in a way that alienates the rights of a certain population is wrong.

Continue trying to obfuscate to your hearts content.

So far you've given no legitimate research-based secular argument that supports the same-sex marriage ban.

A feeling of moral superiority. One of the signs of a narcissist and an elitist.

Hell, screw what 75% of people in Oklahoma think....they're just a bunch of bigoted rubes.

hubs, read my signature. It applies to you.

[diverdog]

So Soonerhubs must be from the Harry Reid wing of the Mormon church. BTw, I am glad to learn you're not going to be honest in your assertions during the discussions on this board.

Fanin:

I believe you fired the first shots in this exchange. Hubs postings were not something a college student would post and the fact that flew straight over your head gave me a good laugh. Hubs had fun at your expense.

BTW all sides have their elitist. Look in the mirror.

[soonerhubs]

A feeling of moral superiority. One of the signs of a narcissist and an elitist.

Hell, screw what 75% of people in Oklahoma think....they're just a bunch of bigoted rubes.

hubs, read my signature. It applies to you.

Well when you have the critical thinking skills of a bull gnat, perhaps your (FaninAma) vote shouldn't count.

I'm done with this thread. Enjoy staying content with your rudimentary understanding of checks and balances.

[FaninAma]

Well when you have the critical thinking skills of a bull gnat, perhaps your (FaninAma) vote shouldn't count.

I'm done with this thread. Enjoy staying content with your rudimentary understanding of checks and balances.
Thanks for participating. I look forward to our next discussion.

[FaninAma]

Fanin:

I believe you fired the first shots in this exchange. Hubs postings were not something a college student would post and the fact that flew straight over your head gave me a good laugh. Hubs had fun at your expense.

BTW all sides have their elitist. Look in the mirror.

I fully admit my elitist leanings DD. However, I am also fully willing to abide by the decisions of a majority of the people I share a community with. If I disagree with them I don't advocate running to a friendly judge to over turn their wishes.

You want to legalize gay marriage by a vote of the people? Fine.
You want to legalize pot by a vote of the people? Fine.
You want to have abortion legal up until the 40the week via a vote oft he people? Fine

if I disagree I will join a group that plans to overturn those decisions through education and the LEGISLATIVE process.

I do think it's very altruistic how you are standing up for hubs, however.

[diverdog]

I fully admit my elitist leanings DD. However, I am also fully willing to abide by the decisions of a majority of the people I share a community with. If I disagree with them I don't advocate running to a friendly judge to over turn their wishes.

You want to legalize gay marriage by a vote of the people? Fine.
You want to legalize pot by a vote of the people? Fine.
You want to have abortion legal up until the 40the week via a vote oft he people? Fine

if I disagree I will join a group that plans to overturn those decisions through education and the LEGISLATIVE process.

I do think it's very altruistic how you are standing up for hubs, however.


To be fair me calling you an elitist is like the pot calling the kettle black.

There are issues that I am completely against that are supported by gays like trying to silence DD and A&E. That is an agenda that is overbearing. On the other hand I support gay marriage because I have seen it is a nonissue for me. And yes I am all over the chart on this and I admit it is not a consistent message. You are right to call me out on it.

As for the majority they are not always right. That is why we have checks and balances. This will get heard at the SCOTUS level and the ruling will set the law of the land. That is our political system for better or worse.

My support of Hubs stems from the fact that we are closer politically. You and I go at it all the time. Do not take that as a sign that I do not respect your opinion. Clearly you have a lot of life experiences to bring to the table. I also think we both have axes to grind based on our own experiences. Having said that I would still buy you a beer. I am thinking that might be remote possibility for Hubs being Mormon and all. :)

[soonerhubs]

To be fair me calling you an elitist is like the pot calling the kettle black.

There are issues that I am completely against that are supported by gays like trying to silence DD and A&E. That is an agenda that is overbearing. On the other hand I support gay marriage because I have seen it is a nonissue for me. And yes I am all over the chart on this and I admit it is not a consistent message. You are right to call me out on it.

As for the majority they are not always right. That is why we have checks and balances. This will get heard at the SCOTUS level and the ruling will set the law of the land. That is our political system for better or worse.

My support of Hubs stems from the fact that we are closer politically. You and I go at it all the time. Do not take that as a sign that I do not respect your opinion. Clearly you have a lot of life experiences to bring to the table. I also think we both have axes to grind based on our own experiences. Having said that I would still buy you a beer. I am thinking that might be remote possibility for Hubs being Mormon and all. :)

I'd buy you both beers. :)

[okie52]

I'd buy you both beers. :)

Can you buy beer at 19?

[soonerhubs]

Can you buy beer at 19?

No, but I'm many pounds increased and many hairs removed from 19.

I turn 35 next month. :D

[okie52]

No, but I'm many pounds increased and many hairs removed from 19.

I turn 35 next month. :D

Ahhh...

[soonerhubs]

Ahhh... Some days, I feel like saying, "Aaaggghhhh!" ;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So Soonerhubs must be from the Harry Reid wing of the Mormon church. BTw, I am glad to learn you're not going to be honest in your assertions during the discussions on this board.heh

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Do you care to explain your personal attack? Honest in my assertion?

You're so dense in that you think that I'm a Democrat because your dichotomous mind can't process libertarianism.Libertarians do have some things in common with the democrats. the drug thing, and at least partial agreement on things military, and maybe, as above, playing the stupid card.

Certainly more in common with traditional Republicans on the economy and politics that apply to economic activity.

[FaninAma]

To be fair me calling you an elitist is like the pot calling the kettle black.

There are issues that I am completely against that are supported by gays like trying to silence DD and A&E. That is an agenda that is overbearing. On the other hand I support gay marriage because I have seen it is a nonissue for me. And yes I am all over the chart on this and I admit it is not a consistent message. You are right to call me out on it.

As for the majority they are not always right. That is why we have checks and balances. This will get heard at the SCOTUS level and the ruling will set the law of the land. That is our political system for better or worse.

My support of Hubs stems from the fact that we are closer politically. You and I go at it all the time. Do not take that as a sign that I do not respect your opinion. Clearly you have a lot of life experiences to bring to the table. I also think we both have axes to grind based on our own experiences. Having said that I would still buy you a beer. I am thinking that might be remote possibility for Hubs being Mormon and all. :)

I respect but disagree with your and hubs' opinion that it is appropriate for social issues to be decided by a handful of federal judges. When that happens they fester as divisive contentious issues that allow partisans of both parties to divert attention from the really important problems facing this country.

Okie52 is right. Gay marriage is not a high priority issue in and of itself but it will continue to be a point of division as long as federal judges prevent the people from deciding the issue themselves.

That's why these issues should be settled through a legislative process of convincing your fellow citizens of the merits of your opinion.....not turning the courts into a shortcut that is used by every special interest group in the country. We the people are supposedly the wellspring of all authority in this country, not a group of judges appointed for life.

I hate seeing these things becoming long standing divisive issues like abortion has.

[Curly Bill]

I respect but disagree with your and hubs' opinion that it is appropriate for social issues to be decided by a handful of federal judges. When that happens they fester as divisive contentious issues that allow partisans of both parties to divert attention from the really important problems facing this country.

Okie52 is right. Gay marriage is not a high priority issue in and of itself but it will continue to be a point of division as long as federal judges prevent the people from deciding the issue themselves.

That's why these issues should be settled through a legislative process of convincing your fellow citizens of the merits of your opinion.....not turning the courts into a shortcut that is used by every special interest group in the country. We the people are supposedly the wellspring of all authority in this country, not a group of judges appointed for life.

I hate seeing these things becoming long standing divisive issues like abortion has.

But look on the bright side: once all these divisive issues have turned the country into something the founders wouldn't recognize, we can go the way of the Romans and be done with it. ;)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

When do we start whippin' our wieners out? Let's get the gay all over this thing.

Then we can finally get married and have *** babies.

[olevetonahill]

When do we start whippin' our wieners out? Let's get the gay all over this thing.

Then we can finally get married and have *** babies.

Mines ALWAYS out.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Mines ALWAYS out.

vet, the thread's about same sex marriage, not self sex.

[olevetonahill]

vet, the thread's about same sex marriage, not self sex.

:smiley_simmons:

[Turd_Ferguson]

No, but I'm many pounds increased and many hairs removed from 19.

I turn 35 next month. :D

You're younger that I thought, Dr. Hubs...

[Tulsa_Fireman]

It's the *** babies. They pack on the pounds. Trust me.

[diverdog]

I respect but disagree with your and hubs' opinion that it is appropriate for social issues to be decided by a handful of federal judges. When that happens they fester as divisive contentious issues that allow partisans of both parties to divert attention from the really important problems facing this country.

Okie52 is right. Gay marriage is not a high priority issue in and of itself but it will continue to be a point of division as long as federal judges prevent the people from deciding the issue themselves.

That's why these issues should be settled through a legislative process of convincing your fellow citizens of the merits of your opinion.....not turning the courts into a shortcut that is used by every special interest group in the country. We the people are supposedly the wellspring of all authority in this country, not a group of judges appointed for life.

I hate seeing these things becoming long standing divisive issues like abortion has.

Fanin:

Have you ever worked a bill through legislative process? I can assure you the will of the people can be held hostage by a single committee chairman.

[soonerhubs]

You're younger that I thought, Dr. Hubs...

It's been a good 35. Here's to 50 more! :)

[OU68]

But look on the bright side: once all these divisive issues have turned the country into something the founders wouldn't recognize, we can go the way of the Romans and be done with it. ;)

Well we've got the bath houses and the gladiators (MMA) - now that the gay issue is soon to be legitimized I'm assuming kids (pedophilia) are next (those really are screams of pleasure).

[SoonerorLater]

Hey while we're at it, what about inter-species marriage? Whose to say marrying the family dog is wrong? (as long as Fido is over 18 in dog years)

[olevetonahill]

Hey while we're at it, what about inter-species marriage? Whose to say marrying the family dog is wrong? (as long as Fido is over 18 in dog years)

I never turned Nothing down but a Messican and I turned Him face down!

[OU68]

Hey while we're at it, what about inter-species marriage? Whose to say marrying the family dog is wrong? (as long as Fido is over 18 in dog years)

Matlock will write the brief for you!

[KantoSooner]

Just curious, but how do you get from marriage between consenting adults to bestiality or pedophilia? No statistics, but, if approximately 10% of the population is gay and 90% is straight, it would be probable that the majority (at least) of those engaging in animal sex or pedophilia would be, officially at least, straight, no?
I mean the guy who kidnapped the three girls in Ohio was very straight, right? He just liked holding underaged girls in a sex dungeon.
Given the choice between having him babysit my daughter or the two male CPA's who live down the block and have the kick *** begonia's, I think I know which way I'm going.

[SoonerorLater]

Just curious, but how do you get from marriage between consenting adults to bestiality or pedophilia? No statistics, but, if approximately 10% of the population is gay and 90% is straight, it would be probable that the majority (at least) of those engaging in animal sex or pedophilia would be, officially at least, straight, no?
I mean the guy who kidnapped the three girls in Ohio was very straight, right? He just liked holding underaged girls in a sex dungeon.
Given the choice between having him babysit my daughter or the two male CPA's who live down the block and have the kick *** begonia's, I think I know which way I'm going.

I think you are missing my point. Since the definition of marriage is now open for interpretation we need to get this ironed out once and for all. We need to broaden the conversation so we don't have to re-visist this issue year after year. Wouldn't it be intolerant to limit or define marriage as just man-woman, man-man or woman-woman? How about three men or three women? Come to think of it why not a fivesome say, 3 men 2 women? Kind of a Fleetwood Mac sort of thing. Who's to say what should define marriage? Not the people of Oklahoma apparently so I think we just need to find a judge somewhere who can settle this once and for all.

[OU68]

Just curious, but how do you get from marriage between consenting adults to bestiality or pedophilia? No statistics, but, if approximately 10% of the population is gay and 90% is straight, it would be probable that the majority (at least) of those engaging in animal sex or pedophilia would be, officially at least, straight, no?
I mean the guy who kidnapped the three girls in Ohio was very straight, right? He just liked holding underaged girls in a sex dungeon.
Given the choice between having him babysit my daughter or the two male CPA's who live down the block and have the kick *** begonia's, I think I know which way I'm going.

Just going with Curly as being on the road to Rome - and we all know how that ended...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I think you are missing my point. Since the definition of marriage is now open for interpretation we need to get this ironed out once and for all. We need to broaden the conversation so we don't have to re-visist this issue year after year. Wouldn't it be intolerant to limit or define marriage as just man-woman, man-man or woman-woman? How about three men or three women? Come to think of it why not a fivesome say, 3 men 2 women? Kind of a Fleetwood Mac sort of thing. Who's to say what should define marriage? Not the people of Oklahoma apparently so I think we just need to find a judge somewhere who can settle this once and for all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4HlOnA9NgQ

[soonerhubs]

Slip slip slippery slope... One more fallacy to add to the collection.

[KantoSooner]

I think you are missing my point. Since the definition of marriage is now open for interpretation we need to get this ironed out once and for all. We need to broaden the conversation so we don't have to re-visist this issue year after year. Wouldn't it be intolerant to limit or define marriage as just man-woman, man-man or woman-woman? How about three men or three women? Come to think of it why not a fivesome say, 3 men 2 women? Kind of a Fleetwood Mac sort of thing. Who's to say what should define marriage? Not the people of Oklahoma apparently so I think we just need to find a judge somewhere who can settle this once and for all.
Not sure I'm missing your point, but, again, it seems every time gay marriage comes up, someone jumps on the board and wants to equate that with marrying your cocker spaniel or raping a child. I really don't get how anyone makes that leap unless they're simply really bad at debating.
As to plural marriage, it would seem that the Morms have reopened that one without any help from the gay community.
And, seriously, it's a big surprise that we settle legal issues by resort to the legal system? Who was surprised to find out that the constitution limited the legislature's (and the citizenry's) law making authority?

[olevetonahill]

I Love My Bread Machine. Can I marry it?

[SoonerorLater]

Slip slip slippery slope... One more fallacy to add to the collection.

No we just once and for all need to decide what the defintion of marriage is and who will be allowed to participate so we can avoid these diasagreements. If some person, persons or group aren't allowed to be legally married then I think it will require an explanation, you know as not to be bigoted or on the wrong side of history. Seems only fair.

[SoonerorLater]

Not sure I'm missing your point, but, again, it seems every time gay marriage comes up, someone jumps on the board and wants to equate that with marrying your cocker spaniel or raping a child. I really don't get how anyone makes that leap unless they're simply really bad at debating.
As to plural marriage, it would seem that the Morms have reopened that one without any help from the gay community.
And, seriously, it's a big surprise that we settle legal issues by resort to the legal system? Who was surprised to find out that the constitution limited the legislature's (and the citizenry's) law making authority?

See above. Need to define marriage once and for all.

[SoonerorLater]

I Love My Bread Machine. Can I marry it?

Hey to each his own. Who are any of us to pass judgement on what you do with your bread machine.

[olevetonahill]

Hey to each his own. Who are any of us to pass judgement on what you do with your bread machine.

Im so Happy, Think Ima organize a Parade and wave a Bread sack flag around.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I Love My Bread Machine. Can I marry it?My Lew's Speed Stick said "YES"! I'm beside myself!

[SoonerorLater]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4HlOnA9NgQ

Absoutely Rush. This is the kind of hip, progressive thinking I'm talking about. This whole thinking just in the "gay marriage" box is so 2013. We need to explore all of our options and potential as a society with regard to the institution of marriage. This is the kind of dialog we need. Right on!

[KantoSooner]

No, vet, you can't marry a machine.

You can, however, have sex with it.

Or at least with the soft, warm dough that comes out of it.

[KantoSooner]

See above. Need to define marriage once and for all.

Why? I'm wiling to go with 'Two consenting adults'. If someone can make the argument for plural marriage, that probably flies, as well. Hell, we all know about men who are married and keep a little someone on the side, as well. She might as well get rights to the estate for her trouble. And it would be amusing to watch the 60 year old local car dealer have to explain to his wife why it was a good idea to 'expand' their marriage rather than just renting an apartment and buying his secretary a nice car.

[olevetonahill]

No, vet, you can't marry a machine.

You can, however, have sex with it.

Or at least with the soft, warm dough that comes out of it.

OOOOOOHHH Ima go put some on now so it be Nice and ready in a Little while.

[soonerhubs]

Requiring consenting adults seems reasonable.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Requiring consenting adults seems reasonable.At what age does a purebred dog reach adulthood? a mongrel?(NTTAWWT) What about scorpions? Must we limit the number in any type of party?...THAT AIN'T RIGHT!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Why? I'm wiling to go with 'Two consenting adults'. If someone can make the argument for plural marriage, that probably flies, as well. Hell, we all know about men who are married and keep a little someone on the side, as well. She might as well get rights to the estate for her trouble. And it would be amusing to watch the 60 year old local car dealer have to explain to his wife why it was a good idea to 'expand' their marriage rather than just renting an apartment and buying his secretary a nice car.Now, we're talking!

[SoonerorLater]

At what age does a purebred dog reach adulthood? a mongrel?(NTTAWWT) What about scorpions? Must we limit the number in any type of party?...THAT AIN'T RIGHT!

I don't think that's what he meant. I think he is saying as long as they are adult and consenting then the gender and number of participants don't matter as long as everybody is cool with it.

[Wishboned]

OOOOOOHHH Ima go put some on now so it be Nice and ready in a Little while.

Be careful not to get a yeast infection.

[olevetonahill]

Be careful not to get a yeast infection.

Heh

I done did decided Ima Marry Myself, That be same sex, Besides I seem to be the only person who can put up with me.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Heh

I done did decided Ima Marry Myself, That be same sex, Besides I seem to be the only person who can put up with me.

I bet you kick your own *** ever once in a while...:)

[olevetonahill]

I bet you kick your own *** ever once in a while...:)

Well DUH, Some ones gotta Keep me in line:very_drunk:

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I Love My Bread Machine. Can I marry it?

No, the blood test said you have the bêtes. Worse than incest.

[olevetonahill]

No, the blood test said you have the bêtes. Worse than incest.

Well ****!

[OU68]

Not sure I'm missing your point, but, again, it seems every time gay marriage comes up, someone jumps on the board and wants to equate that with marrying your cocker spaniel or raping a child. I really don't get how anyone makes that leap unless they're simply really bad at debating.
As to plural marriage, it would seem that the Morms have reopened that one without any help from the gay community.
And, seriously, it's a big surprise that we settle legal issues by resort to the legal system? Who was surprised to find out that the constitution limited the legislature's (and the citizenry's) law making authority?

And why do you continue to ignore the multiple partner/AIDS connection?

[KantoSooner]

Because being gay implies multiple partners no more than being hetero does. You're aware that the majority of AIDS transmission these days is through hetero sex, aren't you? (probably because there are simply more hetero's around than gays, but AIDS stopped being a 'gay' disease twenty years ago or more.)

[Curly Bill]

The room's spinning....cause of all the gayness!

[olevetonahill]

The room's spinning....cause of all the gayness!

Yup, This Thread Is da Ghey!

[KantoSooner]

Thinking about gay stuff makes your head spin?

I'm not sure that's a good sign, big guy.

[Curly Bill]

Thinking about gay stuff makes your head spin?

I'm not sure that's a good sign, big guy.

I'm not sure you're familiar with pop culture and the movie Talladega Nights.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Why would AIDS stop being a gay disease?

[Curly Bill]

Why would AIDS stop being a gay disease?

They shouted it into submission perhaps? Seems what they try to do with every other issue that confronts em.

[KantoSooner]

Never saw Talledega Nights.

AIDS stopped being 'gay' when there were more people who were straight with it and when more transmission was between straight rather than between gay people. No idea whether that's 'official' or not. Pretty sure it was never 'officially' gay. If I recall rightly, the current best guess was that human AIDS sprang from an ape disease that jumped to human 'bush meat' hunters (probably open wounds on their hands as they butchered carcasses) and then entered wide spread transmission in the African commercial sex trade.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Because being gay implies multiple partners no more than being hetero does. You're aware that the majority of AIDS transmission these days is through hetero sex, aren't you? (probably because there are simply more hetero's around than gays, but AIDS stopped being a 'gay' disease twenty years ago or more.)

Really? So, the CDC is lying:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

No. Looks like you are lying. The CDC isn't a religious organization or a conservative think tank, as you know.

Right out of the box:
"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.

In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 20082.

Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2"

You'll note that they don't even have a column for White Heterosexual Men. Why? Because the vast majority of White Heterosexual Men are not confused about the anus being the final organ in the digestive system and the penis being part of the reproductive system.

I am truly sorry that the CDC exposes your claim as a lie. So...quit lying. HIV/AIDS is a disease is, has, and always will be a disease of the queer in America.

[yermom]

you do realize that most of the AIDS problems aren't in the US, right?

and maybe if the gays get married they will stop sleeping around. works for heteros...

[Tear Down This Wall]

Why would AIDS stop being a gay disease?

It hasn't. He lying. Anyone who ever says that is lying. The Center For Disease Control keeps track.

It is pure fantasy that HIV/AIDS is a threat to anyone but gay, bisexual, intravenous drug users. You abuse the body sexually, and it will react poorly.

That is the story of HIV/AIDS. And, the reason it is not being told now is that it is being drowned out by gay marriage advocates. Truth is not on their side in the HIV/AIDS realm, so they brush it aside and cast the whole issue are "fairness" and "rights" in marriage.

There isn't a slimier group out there than gays and gay rights advocates. No amount of truth about HIV/AIDS will quell them. The facts are easily accessible...and roundly ignored.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Never saw Talledega Nights.

AIDS stopped being 'gay' when there were more people who were straight with it and when more transmission was between straight rather than between gay people. No idea whether that's 'official' or not. Pretty sure it was never 'officially' gay. If I recall rightly, the current best guess was that human AIDS sprang from an ape disease that jumped to human 'bush meat' hunters (probably open wounds on their hands as they butchered carcasses) and then entered wide spread transmission in the African commercial sex trade.

So, somebody was pookie poke'n the monkeys?

[olevetonahill]

So, somebody was pookie poke'n the monkeys?

well **** a duck
screw a Ginny
monkey ***** is as good as any!

[Tear Down This Wall]

you do realize that most of the AIDS problems aren't in the US, right?

and maybe if the gays get married they will stop sleeping around. works for heteros...

I don't care. I live in the United States.

You still miss the point about the problem - anal sex is not safe. Yet, anal sex is the method of sex queers use. It is the cause of the vast majority of HIV/AIDS transmissions.

You are smart enough to understand what the proper uses for various parts of the body are. Gays misuse their bodies to the detriment of their health, and to those stupid enough to climb into bed with them.

There is no explosion of HIV/AIDS cases with white, heterosexual males. Why? You can figure it out pretty easily: they are using the parts of their body for the purpose for which they were intended...and, with females, not other males.

This is science, but it isn't rocket science. You are an adult. You can understand it...even though you may choose not to accept it.

Just be honest and say: "Fine. I don't care that queers misuse their bodies and it causes a horrible disease they'll have to treat over the span of their lifetime. I still want them to be able to marry." It would be the perfect libertarian thing to say.

That's far better than lying by saying, "There's no difference between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex." Or, to really lie - as has been done in this thread - and say, "Now, more heterosexual get it than homosexuals." Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Turd_Ferguson]

well **** a duck
screw a Ginny
monkey ***** is as good as any!

Well, "I'll be a monkeys uncle", never made since until now...

[olevetonahill]

Well, "I'll be a monkeys uncle", never made since until now...

Heh

I think TDTW just mite be a Liar his own self. He trying to say he never wants his wife to let him PIITB!

[Turd_Ferguson]

Heh

I think TDTW just mite be a Liar his own self. He trying to say he never wants his wife to let him PIITB!

That's nasty. The wolf jaw is where it's at...

[olevetonahill]

That's nasty. The wolf jaw is where it's at...

yea to each his own, Bet he dont think gettin a BJ is right either.

[yermom]

I don't care. I live in the United States.

You still miss the point about the problem - anal sex is not safe. Yet, anal sex is the method of sex queers use. It is the cause of the vast majority of HIV/AIDS transmissions.

You are smart enough to understand what the proper uses for various parts of the body are. Gays misuse their bodies to the detriment of their health, and to those stupid enough to climb into bed with them.

There is no explosion of HIV/AIDS cases with white, heterosexual males. Why? You can figure it out pretty easily: they are using the parts of their body for the purpose for which they were intended...and, with females, not other males.

This is science, but it isn't rocket science. You are an adult. You can understand it...even though you may choose not to accept it.

Just be honest and say: "Fine. I don't care that queers misuse their bodies and it causes a horrible disease they'll have to treat over the span of their lifetime. I still want them to be able to marry." It would be the perfect libertarian thing to say.

That's far better than lying by saying, "There's no difference between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex." Or, to really lie - as has been done in this thread - and say, "Now, more heterosexual get it than homosexuals." Nothing could be further from the truth.

you sure think a lot about penises in anuses

you aren't going to get rid of gays or gay sex. i'm not sure what any of this has to do with marriage.

[olevetonahill]

you sure think a lot about penises in anuses

you aren't going to get rid of gays or gay sex. i'm not sure what any of this has to do with marriage.

Thats what I been sayin bro
I aint got the Ghey But the ones who do dont bother me.

[Curly Bill]

Never saw Talledega Nights.

AIDS stopped being 'gay' when there were more people who were straight with it and when more transmission was between straight rather than between gay people. No idea whether that's 'official' or not. Pretty sure it was never 'officially' gay. If I recall rightly, the current best guess was that human AIDS sprang from an ape disease that jumped to human 'bush meat' hunters (probably open wounds on their hands as they butchered carcasses) and then entered wide spread transmission in the African commercial sex trade.

Oh wow! You owe it to yourself to do so!!

[olevetonahill]

Oh wow! You owe it to yourself to do so!!

What is it?

[Curly Bill]

What is it?

Comedy with Will Ferrell as a racecar driver who has a wreck and loses his edge. It's good ol redneck humor!!

[olevetonahill]

Comedy with Will Ferrell as a racecar driver who has a wreck and loses his edge. It's good ol redneck humor!!

a movie?

[Curly Bill]

a movie?

Yep. Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

[Turd_Ferguson]

Yep. Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

Chip, I'm gonna come at you like a spider monkey!

[KantoSooner]

Really? So, the CDC is lying:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

No. Looks like you are lying. The CDC isn't a religious organization or a conservative think tank, as you know.

Right out of the box:
"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.

In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 20082.

Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2"

You'll note that they don't even have a column for White Heterosexual Men. Why? Because the vast majority of White Heterosexual Men are not confused about the anus being the final organ in the digestive system and the penis being part of the reproductive system.

I am truly sorry that the CDC exposes your claim as a lie. So...quit lying. HIV/AIDS is a disease is, has, and always will be a disease of the queer in America.

I'm talking world, dude. Don't bag Thai hookers without triple bagging.

Seriously.

[KantoSooner]

So, somebody was pookie poke'n the monkeys?

Possibly. They also could have gotten it through contact with cuts on their hands, for instance. Don't rule out that jungle boogie, however.

[KantoSooner]

Oh wow! You owe it to yourself to do so!!

It's on my netflicks line up.

[Curly Bill]

Chip, I'm gonna come at you like a spider monkey!

We need to have a screening of Talladega Nights at the Hideout! Get us a projector, hang a sheet from the wall for a screen, popcorn & OVJ....

[Curly Bill]

It's on my netflicks line up.

Sweet! Give us a critique after you're done.

[Curly Bill]

Chip, I'm gonna come at you like a spider monkey!

Oh Granny, Not my prison shank!

[OU68]

I'm talking world, dude. Don't bag Thai hookers without triple bagging.

Seriously.

So gay marriage is legal everywhere else in the world except OK?

[olevetonahill]

This thread is Hilarious.

Ima Buy me a Dozen Donuts and have an Orgy.

[yermom]

you know, everywhere except for the bastions of morality like Saudi Arabia or Somalia

[Curly Bill]

This thread is Hilarious.

Ima Buy me a Dozen Donuts and have an Orgy.

While watching Talladega Nights!

[olevetonahill]

While watching Talladega Nights!

Heh
Whats it rated? The Library may have it

[KantoSooner]

So gay marriage is legal everywhere else in the world except OK?

over the 199 countries of the world, or however many there are, the majority are probably 'no gay marriage' countries. If you wanted to cut it across, say, Europe? I think a rising percentage, but still minority. Lots of places have more live and let live policies in which gays just live together and are treated as married. Like a lot of things, it seems once it happens that it's a big nothing. No social breakdown, no lightning bolts, no wave of abused kids.

[Turd_Ferguson]

over the 199 countries of the world, or however many there are, the majority are probably 'no gay marriage' countries. If you wanted to cut it across, say, Europe? I think a rising percentage, but still minority. Lots of places have more live and let live policies in which gays just live together and are treated as married. Like a lot of things, it seems once it happens that it's a big nothing. No social breakdown, no lightning bolts, no wave of abused kids.

But, lot's of cornhol'n, AIDS, insurance to keep the alive for more corn hol'n, monkey's getting pooky poked, more gay pride parades and more corn hol'n...

[Curly Bill]

Heh
Whats it rated? The Library may have it

PG-13

[olevetonahill]

PG-13

They should have it then, Ill check if I can remember the next time I go.

[olevetonahill]

But, lot's of cornhol'n, AIDS, insurance to keep the alive for more corn hol'n, monkey's getting pooky poked, more gay pride parades and more corn hol'n...

Dayum Turd, I bet you would pay to watch a Monkey **** a football

[Curly Bill]

They should have it then, Ill check if I can remember the next time I go.

You'll like it. Hell, us posse guys coulda been extras in it!

[olevetonahill]

You'll like it. Hell, us posse guys coulda been extras in it!

:very_drunk:

[Curly Bill]

Dayum Turd, I bet you would pay to watch a Monkey **** a football

Turds being awfuly mean and hateful to teh gheys!