Gay Marriage Debate - Oklahoma City, OK

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Oklahoma City, OK.

Do you support gay marriage?

Oklahoma City opposes
Oppose
 
319
Support
 
283

Vote now in Oklahoma City:

antiatheist

Seminole, OK

#2374 Mar 28, 2013
its not my interpretation. Its very plain and simply English that even a 10 yr old could understand.

You really want a man to marry a man? How about 2 men marrying one woman? Honestly, where do you draw the line...or do you.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#2375 Mar 28, 2013
antiatheist wrote:
its not my interpretation. Its very plain and simply English that even a 10 yr old could understand.
You really want a man to marry a man? How about 2 men marrying one woman? Honestly, where do you draw the line...or do you.
"its not my interpretation. Its very plain and simply English that even a 10 yr old could understand."
A) This would explain why there are many theologians whom my bet is are much more schooled in the Bible than you that says the bible was not interperted correctly when the origional text was translated...
It would also explain the many different churches, and denominations which interpret the passages differently... who believe in ssm... support ssm.... but your "interpretation" is the only correct one... right

B) Still it does not matter as we are STILL not a theocracy.
antiatheist

Seminole, OK

#2376 Mar 28, 2013
if you can show me one verse in Gods word that is in favor of homosexuality then I will gladly take a look at it. Go to your little atheists websites and maybe you can twist a verse around enough to at least give me an example. That goes for your and heart. Back up your claims that God is fine with your lifestyle choice.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#2377 Mar 29, 2013
antiatheist wrote:
if you can show me one verse in Gods word that is in favor of homosexuality then I will gladly take a look at it. Go to your little atheists websites and maybe you can twist a verse around enough to at least give me an example. That goes for your and heart. Back up your claims that God is fine with your lifestyle choice.
Your not listening... Yes the Bible says that.. however it does not mean the words were translated correctly.... a good example is the word father when refering to God. The most accurate translation of the word "Abba" is "Daddy", but the translators of the King James Bible felt that the term "Daddy" was not reverent enough, and so, although the CORRECT translation of "Abba" is "Daddy", in the Bible you will read "Father". Now since the word homosexual was not around whenKJV was written, much less when the origional transcripts were translated, there is no reason not to suspect that is was misinterpreted.

But again it REALLY does not matter. Our country never has done a bible check on our laws. We do not send our laws to biblical review to make sure they meet with the Bibles "message" . We are not a theocracy so it does not matter what you, me or anyone else believes the Bible says.
antiatheist

Seminole, OK

#2378 Mar 29, 2013
daddy, abba, father are all the same thing. So how do you think homosexual was innaccurately translated? You are reaching just like most gays do when it comes to God because they know they are wrong. Either it was translated wrong or we are interpreting it wrong lol Unbelievable.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#2379 Mar 29, 2013
antiatheist wrote:
daddy, abba, father are all the same thing. So how do you think homosexual was innaccurately translated? You are reaching just like most gays do when it comes to God because they know they are wrong. Either it was translated wrong or we are interpreting it wrong lol Unbelievable.
So how could it be translated correctly if the word did not exist.

Look you and I could go back and forth on this.. I can show the misinterpretations... example the word "abomination", but the cold hard fact of this is IT DOES NOT MATTER.

Believe the bible says it is wrong if it comforts you. We are not a theocracy... so it REALLY does not matter what you believe your bible says...
antiatheist

Seminole, OK

#2380 Mar 29, 2013
Come on now, you sound like Obama. Thinking Christians look for "comfort" in their bibles and guns. Can you not just accept that millions of people think its wrong? I'd be okay with a state by state basis. California can have their gay marriage and the states that don't want it won't be forced. Let me guess, this isn't enough for you.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#2381 Mar 29, 2013
antiatheist wrote:
Come on now, you sound like Obama. Thinking Christians look for "comfort" in their bibles and guns. Can you not just accept that millions of people think its wrong? I'd be okay with a state by state basis. California can have their gay marriage and the states that don't want it won't be forced. Let me guess, this isn't enough for you.
I understand people think it is "wrong".. I also understand that this is not a voting issue... it is a civil rights issue. Why should two u.s. citizens be denied what two other citizens get
antiatheist

Seminole, OK

#2382 Mar 29, 2013
then how can a group marriage be denied? If you allow gays to marry then how would you stop 5 men and 1 woman from marrying? That will shortly follow I guarantee you. Pretty soon marriage will mean even less than it does now.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2383 Mar 29, 2013
’m gay, and I oppose gay marriage
BY DOUG MAINWARING
Wed Mar 27, 2013 09:29 EST
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/im-gay-and-i...

In our sometimes misguided efforts to expand our freedom, selfish adults have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop. That’s why I am now speaking out against same-sex marriage.

By the way, I am gay.

A few days ago I testified against pending same-sex marriage legislation in Minnesota’s Senate Judiciary and House Civil Law Committees.

The atmosphere at these events (I’ve also testified elsewhere) seems tinged with unreality—almost a carnival-like surrealism. Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions.

Pure sophistry is pitted against reason. Reason is losing.

Here’s the problem: The national discussion of same-sex marriage treats the issue like a game of checkers, where opponents can quickly gain each other’s pieces without much forethought about the consequences. This unreflective view of the discussion has prevented any real debate.

In years past, defenders of marriage found it easy to win the battle on the checker board. Appeals to religion and tradition won hands down almost effortlessly. While same-sex marriage advocates argued for a more thoughtful consideration of the topic, they were mostly just bulldozed over.

The tide has turned. Same-sex marriage proponents now have all the “kings” on the board, and rule it. One only needs to consider media headlines from the last few weeks. We are bombarded with approvals of same-sex marriage. To the casual onlooker, not steeped in this issue, it would seem that conservatism has embraced same-sex marriage. Each day brings fresh news of Republican political elites, Fortune 500 companies, NFL members, and even Dirty Harry himself, Clint Eastwood, throwing their support behind genderless marriage.

The game we are actually playing is chess, not checkers. This sounds confusing, because chess and checkers are played on the exact same sixty-four square game board. Checkers is easy and it’s fast. It’s one of the first games children learn how to play. Chess is hard, requiring thought about the intended and unintentional consequences of every single move that may or may not be made....
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#2384 Apr 4, 2013
antiatheist wrote:
then how can a group marriage be denied? If you allow gays to marry then how would you stop 5 men and 1 woman from marrying? That will shortly follow I guarantee you. Pretty soon marriage will mean even less than it does now.
polygamy has already been addressed by both congress and the supreme court.

the law, known as the morrill anti-bigamy act signed by lincoln in 1862 addressed polygamy. this is the law that the mormons filed suit against as they proclaimed it as restricting their religion. this case went before the supreme court - reynolds v. united states in 1878.

the law was further amended in 1882 by the edmunds act and in 1887 by the edmunds-tucker act.

additionally, another case in 2007 (again from utah) where rodney holm was convicted of bigamy. he appealed...and lost. his attornies tried to reference the lawrence v. tx case saying that holm's rights were denied. Llwyers for holm were hopeful that a majority of justices would see his case as an opportunity to extend the holding in lawrence v. tx to protect polygamist relationships from state prosecution in cases where all the parties were aware of and approved of the practice. SCOTUS refused to hear his case.

furthermore, the mormons banned polygamy in 1890 in order to become a state in 1890.

the question of polygamy is dead, legally speaking, from all aspects - federal laws, SCOTUS and even the church that initially brought it to our shores have all agreed and banned it's practice.
got that yet, anti? it's dead and gone.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#2385 Apr 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
’m gay, and I oppose gay marriage
BY DOUG MAINWARING
Wed Mar 27, 2013 09:29 EST
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/im-gay-and-i...
In our sometimes misguided efforts to expand our freedom, selfish adults have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop. That’s why I am now speaking out against same-sex marriage.
By the way, I am gay.
A few days ago I testified against pending same-sex marriage legislation in Minnesota’s Senate Judiciary and House Civil Law Committees.
The atmosphere at these events (I’ve also testified elsewhere) seems tinged with unreality—almost a carnival-like surrealism. Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions.
Pure sophistry is pitted against reason. Reason is losing.
Here’s the problem: The national discussion of same-sex marriage treats the issue like a game of checkers, where opponents can quickly gain each other’s pieces without much forethought about the consequences. This unreflective view of the discussion has prevented any real debate.
In years past, defenders of marriage found it easy to win the battle on the checker board. Appeals to religion and tradition won hands down almost effortlessly. While same-sex marriage advocates argued for a more thoughtful consideration of the topic, they were mostly just bulldozed over.
The tide has turned. Same-sex marriage proponents now have all the “kings” on the board, and rule it. One only needs to consider media headlines from the last few weeks. We are bombarded with approvals of same-sex marriage. To the casual onlooker, not steeped in this issue, it would seem that conservatism has embraced same-sex marriage. Each day brings fresh news of Republican political elites, Fortune 500 companies, NFL members, and even Dirty Harry himself, Clint Eastwood, throwing their support behind genderless marriage.
The game we are actually playing is chess, not checkers. This sounds confusing, because chess and checkers are played on the exact same sixty-four square game board. Checkers is easy and it’s fast. It’s one of the first games children learn how to play. Chess is hard, requiring thought about the intended and unintentional consequences of every single move that may or may not be made....
brian, just as there are devout heterosexuals who absolutely don't want to ever get married - there's homosexuals that hold the same opinion. the point is, we should all, as legal adults and citizens of america, be allowed to marry another non-related single adult of our choosing, without hindrances from the laws. you and other people may feel differently. you may believe differently. you may think differently. but the law cannot disciminate.
antiatheist

Seminole, OK

#2386 Apr 4, 2013
polygamy is not the same thing as a group marriage.

I'm surprised you wouldn't be fighting for polygamy anyway. How is that different from gay marriage? If 6 men and 3 women all claim to love one another, which is what gays use as one of their justifications, then why can they not get married as well? It will only be a matter of time before this country goes down that road and sinks even deeper into an immoral, Godless society which is doomed to fail.
antiatheist

Seminole, OK

#2387 Apr 4, 2013
"devout heterosexual" lol. You make it sound like a religion. You have watched one too many Rachel Maddow programs.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#2388 Apr 4, 2013
antiatheist wrote:
polygamy is not the same thing as a group marriage.
I'm surprised you wouldn't be fighting for polygamy anyway. How is that different from gay marriage? If 6 men and 3 women all claim to love one another, which is what gays use as one of their justifications, then why can they not get married as well? It will only be a matter of time before this country goes down that road and sinks even deeper into an immoral, Godless society which is doomed to fail.
if you want to discuss group marriage or even polygamy, then by all means do so. it's not the topic of this thread so you'll need to dedicate an entire thread to that topic.

same sex marriage is about any combination of genders marrying one non-related adult at a time.

so you can read the future just like you can minds and hearts. hope you're better at any of those skills that what you've demonstrated in this and other threads anti.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#2389 Apr 4, 2013
antiatheist wrote:
"devout heterosexual" lol. You make it sound like a religion. You have watched one too many Rachel Maddow programs.
for some people, it appears to almost be a religion - that of being heterosexual.

and i never watch ol' rachel. again, you're making incorrect assumptions about internet strangers.
antiatheist

Seminole, OK

#2390 Apr 4, 2013
oh so you don't wanna discuss group marriage...not surprising. We both know it weakens your argument because it will eventually happen once those doors are open. You seem hypocritical.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#2391 Apr 4, 2013
antiatheist wrote:
oh so you don't wanna discuss group marriage...not surprising. We both know it weakens your argument because it will eventually happen once those doors are open. You seem hypocritical.
again, trying to read minds. and failing miserably.
we both know you have no ability in accomplishing this feat.

if you start a thread, and make interesting points, i may join in the discussion. it really depends upon the comments made with in the thread.

i "seem" all sorts of things to you....yet you don't know anything, not even my gender. i keep it that way on purpose my friend. i could say that "you seem to be an ass"....and for all i know i could be wrong or right. but it doesn't matter what i personally think of you as i am a stranger to you.
antiatheist

Seminole, OK

#2392 Apr 4, 2013
you know why I don't know your gender? Because you don't even know it.

Group marriage will happen if gay marriage does. Anyone with any common sense will acknowledge this. Bill O'Reilly even commented on it recently. He knows any type of marriage will happen in the future.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#2393 Apr 5, 2013
antiatheist wrote:
you know why I don't know your gender? Because you don't even know it.
Group marriage will happen if gay marriage does. Anyone with any common sense will acknowledge this. Bill O'Reilly even commented on it recently. He knows any type of marriage will happen in the future.
i assure you, i pick the right bathroom every time i go. do you?

group marriage is not part of either the current court cases, have not been mentioned in any of the presentations before the bench nor is it a component of this thread discussion.

move along to the topic at hand.

....and bill o'reilly? another journalist with another opinion but no facts. riiiiighty-o. opinions, i'm sure you're well aware of, everyone has. some based upon fact, others upon falsities - which lead folks down ill informed rabbit holes. then again, that's your prerogotive.:) just don't expect the judicial branch to gasp in amazement in the validity of your points or arguments.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Oklahoma City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
snapchat usernames! (Nov '13) 1 hr Liliane 204
Ronson Williams 3 hr Laughing at Truth 16
Real Freedom of Speech 21 hr anonymous 12
Obama's followers are either COMMUNIST or QUEERS Wed geez 45
anti-american business: public beware (May '13) Wed geez 220
Gosha Group Wed Douche 5
Embassy suites good time Tue Whatever 2
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]