Oklahoma joins other states in marriage equality (CNN, marijuana, rating)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Haha... the Republican are so butt hurt over not being able to blanket their personal morality onto everybody. What a shame that they would choose to deny all if not able to discriminate against the few. Sickening. Those people have rotten, dark, and festering hearts.
I don't expect the bill to get so much as a committee hearing. Only libertarians like the idea of abolishing marriage licenses and they don't have much of a following in Oklahoma. A couple of years ago another out to lunch Republican legislator submitted a bizarre sounding bill that would ban aborted fetuses from being put into food. It never got a committee hearing.
Haha... the Republican are so butt hurt over not being able to blanket their personal morality onto everybody. What a shame that they would choose to deny all if not able to discriminate against the few. Sickening. Those people have rotten, dark, and festering hearts.
The adult version of a bunch of dummy-spitting, foot stamping, pouting 5 year olds who haven't learnt to share.
I don't expect the bill to get so much as a committee hearing. Only libertarians like the idea of abolishing marriage licenses and they don't have much of a following in Oklahoma. A couple of years ago another out to lunch Republican legislator submitted a bizarre sounding bill that would ban aborted fetuses from being put into food. It never got a committee hearing.
Its amazing that this thread is still going, since it is a total misrepresentation of reality.
Secondly, I thought it was funny that a legislator from Oklahoma finally put forth what I have been advocating for quite some time. The deregulation of marriage altogether.
I also think you downplay the libertarian influence in Oklahoma politics because they are effectively forced to be party of the two-party system. Do you not recall what happened at the 2012 Oklahoma Republican convention?
Moreover, the problem with Republican primaries is that they aren't very representative anyway. About 290k people voted in the Republican primary, about 890k voted for Mitt Romney in Oklahoma. The people who vote in Republican primaries are usually older people. Older people are far less likely to be libertarian.
In my opinion, the young generation is the libertarian generation. And every day the government shows what inept and corrupt dickheads they are. The more libertarians there will be.
It is the only consistent/principled position. Everything else is everyone's stinky opinions being swayed by influences from the media and politicians. I think the internet has done a wonderful job teaching people how much they have been lied to all of their lives. And just how biased and corrupt the national media is. The internet is a source for information which ordinarily would be unavailable to the vast-majority of the population.
The adult version of a bunch of dummy-spitting, foot stamping, pouting 5 year olds who haven't learnt to share.
The problem I have with liberals. Is that they always say they advocate for freedom, but when given the opportunity, they never choose freedom. You are just as much into "social-engineering" as any Republican. But yet you refuse to admit it. At least they do.
If you were really for freedom, you would support the deregulation of marriage. And you would push to eliminate special-benefits handed only to married couples by the coercive power of the state in an attempt to force you into marriage.
Be consistent, be principled, and you will have my support. Otherwise you are just as much a bigot as everyone else.
Its amazing that this thread is still going, since it is a total misrepresentation of reality.
Secondly, I thought it was funny that a legislator from Oklahoma finally put forth what I have been advocating for quite some time. The deregulation of marriage altogether.
But you can't run from the fact that the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled marraige is a fundamental right a total of 14 times. I don't know how the state of Oklahoma can get around that, unless it's going to recognize privately made marriage contracts, rather than issue marriage licenses. Even then that won't work with most Republicans, since the state could recognize a marriage contract signed by a same sex couple. And who's to say three or more people couldn't get together on a contract and label it a marriage?
Last edited by StillwaterTownie; 01-28-2014 at 02:00 AM..
I wouldn't deny the right of marriage to two adult men simply because they were brothers. I wouldn't deny the right of marriage to two adults who happened to be siblings, as long as procreation were not on the table. In the cases where procreation is on the table, given the fact that incest ALWAYS exists in subcultures and not the mainstream culture, and that a family pattern of incest has genetic consequences, I think society has an interest in preventing those genetic consequences.
As for Woody Allen marrying his daughter, couldn't care less, because she's not his genetic daughter. The interest the state has in incest relates to genetic consequences.
Well, look at who gets to decide when the potential to procreate matters to marriage and when it doesn't!
So it's OK for you to apply a double standard to heterosexuals?
I thought that all that mattered was that two people loved each other.
I thought the ability or inability to create children was irrelevant to marriage.
I thought "society" wasn't supposed to decide the rights of others.
Shall we begin sterilizing people with family histories of genetic disease since their procreation could have "genetic consequences"?
Well, look at who gets to decide when the potential to procreate matters to marriage and when it doesn't!
So it's OK for you to apply a double standard to heterosexuals?
I thought that all that mattered was that two people loved each other.
I thought the ability or inability to create children was irrelevant to marriage.
I thought "society" wasn't supposed to decide the rights of others.
Shall we begin sterilizing people with family histories of genetic disease since their procreation could have "genetic consequences"?
Let the brothers and sisters marry. Honestly, who cares? It's not going to stop the 0.00001% of brothers and sisters inclined to incest from getting down and dirty if they wanted. Let the incestuous and their allies fight that fight, however, and stop trying to muddy the waters of the gay rights movement with your absurd hypotheticals.
I assure you, however, that the biggest howls of "no way!" re: incestuous marriages would not come from those of socially liberal minds, but those from the conservative right. GUARANTEED.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.