Gay Marriage Debate - Tahlequah, OK

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Tahlequah, OK.

Do you support gay marriage?

Tahlequah opposes
Oppose
 
31
Support
 
20

Vote now in Tahlequah:

Comments
21 - 36 of 36 Comments Last updated -
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
tadpole

Arlington, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Feb 16, 2012
 
Bobbie028 wrote:
<quoted text>It's unacceptable for you! I see that it is your OPINION! I think opinions need to stay out of the issue. How dare YOU say what is or isn't ok for someone else! Is it hurting YOU? Me? The next guy? No!!! Being gay is not illegal so.....it's your business how?
yes it's my opinion, gay marriage is a break down of morals in society , every on has the same choice a man can mary a woman and a woman can Mary a man same for all.
aqua

Tahlequah, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Feb 22, 2012
 
Does not affect me.
Sean Ross

Keota, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Mar 3, 2012
 
It is an ABOMINATION before the LORD!
Leviticus 18:22; 20:13
kat

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Mar 4, 2012
 
Nellie wrote:
Gay Marriage is so wrong seems nasty to me.
so does porn, and that's legal.
kat

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Mar 4, 2012
 
tadpole wrote:
The word Rights is so overused ya people have rights but it doesn't mean you have right to do anything you see fit. Gay marriage is unexceptable and it's not going to happen so get over it!
Learn how to spell unacceptable first, then you can talk.
tadpole

Arlington, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Mar 4, 2012
 
kat wrote:
<quoted text>Learn how to spell unacceptable first, then you can talk.
don't matter you know what I meant.
ken Dion hill

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Feb 5, 2013
 
Yes I do
WhatSayYou

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Feb 7, 2013
 
JJ wrote:
Love is love, no matter the gender.
Really? Pedophiles would tell you they really LOVE children should we also accept they love to have sex with children so they should have the right?

I support consenting adults making personal choices of who they want to be with but I take exception to the word "marriage". Marriage should be between and man and and his wife (one male and one female). Now if gay couples want to be life partners with the guarantees and benefits similiar to married couples that would be fine. But marriage has a sacred place in our traditions and religious faiths.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Feb 7, 2013
 
WhatSayYou wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Pedophiles would tell you they really LOVE children should we also accept they love to have sex with children so they should have the right?
I support consenting adults making personal choices of who they want to be with but I take exception to the word "marriage". Marriage should be between and man and and his wife (one male and one female). Now if gay couples want to be life partners with the guarantees and benefits similiar to married couples that would be fine. But marriage has a sacred place in our traditions and religious faiths.
Really? Pedophiles would tell you they really LOVE children should we also accept they love to have sex with children so they should have the right?

Ahh yes the tired pedophile argument... Forgetting that it is not consentul, forgetting it is illegal, forgetting it is harmful.... all things that homosexual couples are not.... so you can see how blatently silly your tired argument is.

Marriage should be between and man and and his wife (one male and one female).

Since legally speaking marriage is a civil contract it is gender neutral. Party of the first part party of the second.

Now if gay couples want to be life partners with the guarantees and benefits similiar to married couples that would be fine. But marriage has a sacred place in our traditions and religious faiths.

Sorry marriage in todays age is a legal term. Pure and simple.
JAG

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Feb 9, 2013
 
..."the tired pedophile argument".

Let's look at the statistics shall we? Those who are pedophiles praying on same sex victims are a serious problem and it's clearly a deviant behavior and they are incurable according to the medical community.

Marriage is between one male and one female. Civil unions should cover those who are same sex life couples. Marriage has a sacred place in our traditions and our religious faiths and should not be tampered with in any way.

Marriage is a special term with the potential of creating a joining of "mates" to produce offspring. Gay couples are unable to reproduce themselves within their sex so they are unique in that respect they by themselves cannot and will never be able to reproduce without "outside" of their union assistance from either a male or female depending on the gay couple in question.

No one is saying those who are gay shouldnt have the right to be together and share life as a couple. Where the objection is in taking a sacred term and the definition thereof in marriage to define a union which by it's very existence is opposite to the definition of marriage in our religions and traditions.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Feb 9, 2013
 
JAG wrote:
..."the tired pedophile argument".
Let's look at the statistics shall we? Those who are pedophiles praying on same sex victims are a serious problem and it's clearly a deviant behavior and they are incurable according to the medical community.
Marriage is between one male and one female. Civil unions should cover those who are same sex life couples. Marriage has a sacred place in our traditions and our religious faiths and should not be tampered with in any way.
Marriage is a special term with the potential of creating a joining of "mates" to produce offspring. Gay couples are unable to reproduce themselves within their sex so they are unique in that respect they by themselves cannot and will never be able to reproduce without "outside" of their union assistance from either a male or female depending on the gay couple in question.
No one is saying those who are gay shouldnt have the right to be together and share life as a couple. Where the objection is in taking a sacred term and the definition thereof in marriage to define a union which by it's very existence is opposite to the definition of marriage in our religions and traditions.
"Let's look at the statistics shall we? Those who are pedophiles praying on same sex victims are a serious problem and it's clearly a deviant behavior and they are incurable according to the medical community"

Fine lets look at stats... A) pedophiles and homosexuals are two different things... one preys on children... one is attracted to adults of their own gender
B) most cases of pedophilia are done by heterosexuals.....

"arriage is between one male and one female. Civil unions should cover those who are same sex life couples. Marriage has a sacred place in our traditions and our religious faiths and should not be tampered with in any way."

Traditionally maybe.. but up until loving v... traditionally marriage was between two people ofthe same race... traditions change.
In to days world marriage is a legal term and civil contract. While many have it "blessed" by a church, it is no more a religious deal than getting a fishing license. If it was a "religious" deal, then athiest could not marry. SSM would not have to involve the church. Your church can still preach against it... it just allows them the ssc couple to enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizen

"Civil unions should cover those who are same sex life couples. Marriage has a sacred place in our traditions and our religious faiths and should not be tampered with in any way."
Do you know there are over 1500 ways where marriage offers more rights than a c.u.?.... If you think a c.u. is ok... then get one yourself.

"Marriage is a special term with the potential of creating a joining of "mates" to produce offspring. Gay couples are unable to reproduce themselves within their sex so they are unique in that respect they by themselves cannot and will never be able to reproduce without "outside" of their union assistance from either a male or female depending on the gay couple in question."

Really, so what term do you use for the infertils hetero couple?...or the couple where one is "fixed", or the older couple with the post menopausal woman?.... After all "Marriage is a special term with the potential of creating a joining of "mates" to produce offspring." Since the infertile,fixed and p.m. couples can not produce offspring any more naturally than a ssc... they can not be married.... you words not mine

Now please show me where in your state it is a requirement for marriage that you as a couple produce children?.... How many are "required" in ordered to be considered "married" by the state?... If there is no requirement, then per the 14th, you can not have a law for one group that does not apply to another group

Marriage, while it has religious connotations, is a legal term. As such there is no reason to deny a ssc the same rights as an osc.
JAG

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Feb 9, 2013
 
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
"Let's look at the statistics shall we? Those who are pedophiles praying on same sex victims are a serious problem and it's clearly a deviant behavior and they are incurable according to the medical community"
Fine lets look at stats... A) pedophiles and homosexuals are two different things... one preys on children... one is attracted to adults of their own gender
B) most cases of pedophilia are done by heterosexuals.....
"arriage is between one male and one female. Civil unions should cover those who are same sex life couples. Marriage has a sacred place in our traditions and our religious faiths and should not be tampered with in any way."
Traditionally maybe.. but up until loving v... traditionally marriage was between two people ofthe same race... traditions change.
In to days world marriage is a legal term and civil contract. While many have it "blessed" by a church, it is no more a religious deal than getting a fishing license. If it was a "religious" deal, then athiest could not marry. SSM would not have to involve the church. Your church can still preach against it... it just allows them the ssc couple to enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizen
"Civil unions should cover those who are same sex life couples. Marriage has a sacred place in our traditions and our religious faiths and should not be tampered with in any way."
Do you know there are over 1500 ways where marriage offers more rights than a c.u.?.... If you think a c.u. is ok... then get one yourself.
"Marriage is a special term with the potential of creating a joining of "mates" to produce offspring. Gay couples are unable to reproduce themselves within their sex so they are unique in that respect they by themselves cannot and will never be able to reproduce without "outside" of their union assistance from either a male or female depending on the gay couple in question."
Really, so what term do you use for the infertils hetero couple?...or the couple where one is "fixed", or the older couple with the post menopausal woman?.... After all "Marriage is a special term with the potential of creating a joining of "mates" to produce offspring." Since the infertile,fixed and p.m. couples can not produce offspring any more naturally than a ssc... they can not be married.... you words not mine
Now please show me where in your state it is a requirement for marriage that you as a couple produce children?.... How many are "required" in ordered to be considered "married" by the state?... If there is no requirement, then per the 14th, you can not have a law for one group that does not apply to another group
Marriage, while it has religious connotations, is a legal term. As such there is no reason to deny a ssc the same rights as an osc.
Never said they couldn't have rights as a ssc but not marriage they can use the term life partner of whatever but marriage is between a man and a woman.

Those who cannot procreate that are hetersexual are usually due to ailment or condition which makes the natural ability to procreate
not viable so therefore it's a condition which is an aberration of the natural ability to procreate. Homosexual union cannot naturally reproduce and never will be able to reproduce between themselves...perhaps it is as nature designed.

Laws can be changed to recognized same sex couples as life mates with legal benefits of those who choose the traditional mate with the traditional joining of marriage. But marriage is between a male and a female.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Feb 9, 2013
 
JAG wrote:
<quoted text>
Never said they couldn't have rights as a ssc but not marriage they can use the term life partner of whatever but marriage is between a man and a woman.
Those who cannot procreate that are hetersexual are usually due to ailment or condition which makes the natural ability to procreate
not viable so therefore it's a condition which is an aberration of the natural ability to procreate. Homosexual union cannot naturally reproduce and never will be able to reproduce between themselves...perhaps it is as nature designed.
Laws can be changed to recognized same sex couples as life mates with legal benefits of those who choose the traditional mate with the traditional joining of marriage. But marriage is between a male and a female.
Never said they couldn't have rights as a ssc but not marriage they can use the term life partner of whatever but marriage is between a man and a woman.

No marriage is a legal concept a civil contract. As such it is gender neutral.

"Those who cannot procreate that are hetersexual are usually due to ailment or condition which makes the natural ability to procreate
not viable so therefore it's a condition which is an aberration of the natural ability to procreate. Homosexual union cannot naturally reproduce and never will be able to reproduce between "

did you or did you not say "Marriage is a special term with the potential of creating a joining of "mates" to produce offspring."?
So either
A) producing offspring is required for marriage, in which case it would not matter the reason why children couldnt be produce. Just the fact that there would be no children which would negate the marriage... in your words
Or
B) children are not needed therefore ssm is not an issue.

Now I did notice how you neglected to answer my question so I will ask again
"Now please show me where in your state it is a requirement for marriage that you as a couple produce children?.... How many are "required" in ordered to be considered "married" by the state?... If there is no requirement, then per the 14th, you can not have a law for one group that does not apply to another group"

"Laws can be changed to recognized same sex couples as life mates with legal benefits of those who choose the traditional mate with the traditional joining of marriage. But marriage is between a male and a female"
Why create more laws when the one we have is quite sufficent. Marriage is a legal civil contract.
JAG

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Feb 10, 2013
 
I will never support changing the definition of marriage which is what you are selling. It may very well happen but I don't support it.

Every tradition this once great country had is being systematically destroyed the strong family unit,respect for the history of our country,belief in a creator,hard work ethic,even Christmas is being constantly attacked because some atheist may be offended if he drives by the mall decorated for the season. The "fringe" is controlling the majority.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Feb 10, 2013
 
JAG wrote:
I will never support changing the definition of marriage which is what you are selling. It may very well happen but I don't support it.
Every tradition this once great country had is being systematically destroyed the strong family unit,respect for the history of our country,belief in a creator,hard work ethic,even Christmas is being constantly attacked because some atheist may be offended if he drives by the mall decorated for the season. The "fringe" is controlling the majority.
" will never support changing the definition of marriage which is what you are selling. It may very well happen but I don't support it."

That is ok,, there were MANY MANY people who did not support school integration, interracial marriage,,, and other civil rights issues. Great thing about this country... you have the right to be the biggest bigot you can be....
Dano

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Feb 16, 2013
 
or the biggest azzhole...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Other Recent Tahlequah Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
OK OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, State Questio... (Oct '10) 36 min TAMARA 74,730
Lonesome dove homosexual bar Tue Not4me 4
OK Who do you support for Governor in Oklahoma in ... (Oct '10) Tue Dennis 2,602
Frenchies Tue not4me 2
OK The "English is the Official Language of Oklaho... (Oct '10) Aug 15 Sam 11,286
Cakie lenard (Aug '12) Aug 9 katie 11
Ryan Adair (Jun '11) Aug 8 Ryan Adair 43

Search the Tahlequah Forum:

Tahlequah Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]