Sally Kern, "Gay's are Infiltrating our City Council."

reply to post by Christian Voice


Why should anyone even listen to you? You aren't willing to debate this in a controlled manner, so what's the point?

You pick your facts from weak, biased sources. Then you ignore or slander the sources other people provide, without actually stating reason. Then use your circular "God logic" to come full swing back around.

So you end up saying a lot, but really you've said nothing at all. And you don't fool me.

You get the from me. And you know why. You know you are wrong, and you won't debate me on it because of it.

Knock it off sublime. I'm not debating anything with you in any one on one debate where you can just verbally asault me however you'd like. The answer is no, so drop it and back off.

Originally posted by Christian Voice
Knock it off sublime. I'm not debating anything with you in any one on one debate where you can just verbally asault me however you'd like. The answer is no, so drop it and back off.

Actually the debates are VERY structured and that type of action is not allowed. So, why not?

No thank you. I'm not interested and that's that. Actually debating this any further anywhere is fruitless. Both sides are very stubborn and it's pointless.

Jesus lord.... Once again, I am indelibly ashamed to be an Okie. I mean, Tulsa is becoming a somewhat progressive place, but man we still crank out the dingbats. And as a previous poster pointed out, this really does make the people of Oklahoma look bad. We (not I) elected this person to represent us. And what does she do? She uses her position to spew appallingly ignorant and xenophobic remarks. There is no excuse.(period)

reply to post by Christian Voice


That's the whole point of it. Instead of having a 30 page thread where nothing is solved, you have a 1 page thread where both sides are forced to recognize the other's point of view.

If you stick a narrow-minded approach, and don't acknowledge fact as fact, then you risk getting hammered by the judges.

That's really the whole point of them. You get 5 posts to sum your argument up and issue rebuttals. No personal attacks, no citing biased sources, no skipping over information.

Just a good discussion where both sides force truth down the other's throat.

*edited to add:

Click the link in my signature to look at a few examples. There have been some great debates on issues just like this one. You'd be surprised how open minded the judges are to any well-presented case.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by Sublime620]

I think this gay thing is right/wrong has been beaten to death. Let's get back to the topic:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by intrepid


Good point. That really wasn't the basis for the thread. I think we resolved that way back in the first few pages.

Someone said it was hate speech. Then someone said it's free speech. I said it could be hate speech, depending on whether it was said with intent to incite hatred.

In the end we decided it would be up to the people of the state to decide what to do with her.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by Christian Voice
No thank you. I'm not interested and that's that. Actually debating this any further anywhere is fruitless. Both sides are very stubborn and it's pointless.

Really?

You collected that from my posts? My responses to you?

I answered and addressed things you said and things you asked. But you basically pretended like my posts didn't even exist.

I am really confused by this statement of yours. Hahaha okay actually I am not surprised at all

My official stance on the original thread topic is this:

1. She didn't commit a crime. She is safely sanctioned by amendment number 1. She should not be jailed.

2. She should be removed from office. She represents the people of her state, and based on what I have read this doesn't reflect the majority of her state at all. She is promoting senseless hate and obvious non-factual disinformation.

[edit on 023131p://12u37 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by intrepid

 

Good point. That really wasn't the basis for the thread. I think we resolved that way back in the first few pages.

Someone said it was hate speech. Then someone said it's free speech. I said it could be hate speech, depending on whether it was said with intent to incite hatred.

In the end we decided it would be up to the people of the state to decide what to do with her.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by Sublime620]

When you have free speach,you get "hate" speach. Because it's free speach. You can't have free speach,and then say "hey,you can't say that" Cos that's not free speach.

Sally Kern should have chosen her words a little more carefully,being as she's in a public position,representing all people of all creeds. But,she didn't. And in my experience,people who publicly air views like that,don't get very far.

reply to post by Acidtastic


Well, her bosses will let her know what they think in the next election. When is that btw?

Originally posted by Quazga

Originally posted by Christian Voice
Wow quazga, what a great arguement you have there. Name calling always is a great arguement. Have you not read any of my actual posts. I said that given that sex's intended purpose is for reproduction then homosexuality is unnatural.

Name calling is what happens when you say homosexuals are sinful because one of the thousands of gods humans have had was claimed to have said it.

It may also be what happens when people refer to you as being a bigot for doing so.

But you bring up an interesting question... "What is the intended purpose of sex" Of course that really means you have a "belief" which tends to make you think all things have an intended purpose, but thats another thread.

I'd like to ask you how you know that sex was intended for only reproduction? Do you know that Bonobosuse it to relax tensions between tribes to ensure the social fabric and collective survival? Imagine that.. Sex serving a peacemaking role as opposed to a reproductive role. And do you know what else happens... female bonobos will have sex with other female bonobos to squelch disagreements as well.


So now, where do you get your data on the "purpose of sex" other than a religious narrative of some sort?





[edit on 12-3-2008 by Quazga]

Just figured I'd remind you that you hadn't answered the "natural purpose" question yet Christian Voice

Perhaps she will get reelected and continue the fight for moral values. Maybe bring a little balance to the heathanistic world we live in today. Perhaps she will start a movement that will spread to other politicians and constituants as well. Perhaps the gay agenda will dissappear and we wouldn't see someone pissing and moaning about it anymore when we turn on the television. Shows like Will and Grace and Ellen were a big part of what marked the decline of our society. Two thumbs up to Sally. You have my vote.

reply to post by Christian Voice


I wouldn't count on it. People don't like the represented by bigots. We've seen the reaction from one Okie on the last page. This lady has less credibility than Spitzer, he with his hookers, and he's finish. This boils down to moral character and if I were her, I'd be looking for another line of work.

Again quazga, can you turn your sperm off and on? No. Whenever a man has an orgasm, he ejaculates sperm. That would insinuate that his body is doing what it was designed for, and that is releasing REPRODUCTIVE fluid.
A woman'e body releases an egg roughly once a month. Her body is doing what it is supposed to do which is releasing REPRODUCTIVE eggs. A man's parts are not made for another man. Nor are a woman's for another woman. When you need a screw tightened or loosened, do you use another screw? No you use a screw driver. They fit each other.
Again, when two men have sex with each other, they emulate heterosexual sex. The same is for women. It seems very clear to me. If it doesn't to you, that's fine. You believe what you want. I was asked and there's my answer.

reply to post by Acidtastic


True, but not true. Hate speech has been banned by many states. Words cannot be banned. Hate speech can.

We all still have the ability to speak freely, it's just not legal to say things with the intent to incite hatred towards specific races, genders, etc.

So hate speech does not necessarily come with free speech.

I wouldn't count on it. People don't like the represented by bigots. We've seen the reaction from one Okie on the last page. This lady has less credibility than Spitzer, he with his hookers, and he's finish. This boils down to moral character and if I were her, I'd be looking for another line of work.

Exactly, one opinion from her state. I'm sure that's not the majority opinion of her constituants.

Originally posted by Christian Voice
Exactly, one opinion from her state. I'm sure that's not the majority opinion of her constituants.

I'm sure it is, care to make a wager?

reply to post by Christian Voice


I beg to differ. I believe the majority of people in her state, and in this country, do not believe that gays are ruining the country.

I would go as far to say that the people who believe that represent a small 10% or less amount.

That or they are just too scared to admit it in public.