you are misreading the status chart . Only the parts in green have been completed .

The lady at the center of the alleged GOP war on women has filed to replace Henry Waxman. That's right the women who couldn't find her $9.00 prescription at the Target down the street, the genius that gave us the contraception mandate, the one, the only Sandra Fluke could be the next representative from Kalifornia. Good luck, Ms. Fluke.

What do you have against women entering public service? Wow, you're nasty today.

Quote:

---

What do you have against women entering public service? Wow, you're nasty today.

---

What the hell is your problem? Nothing in that can be construed to mean I have something against women entering public service. It's called sarcasm, learn it and keep your nasty personal comments to yourself, bucko.

Hello again, Creationists:

If sex is the design of an intelligent creator, can we look to its intended purpose to know whether or now we've wrongly employed it?

In other words, having sex for FUN is it wrong. Using a contraceptive is CLEARLY wrong..

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Creationists:

If sex is the design of an intelligent creator, can we look to its intended purpose to know whether or now we've wrongly employed it?

In other words, having sex for FUN is it wrong. Using a contraceptive is CLEARLY wrong..

excon

---

What's your point?

Hello again, Steve:

I'm an evolutionist. I screw for fun.. You're a creationist, I'm just wondering if YOU do too.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

I'm an evolutionist. I screw for fun.. You're a creationist, I'm just wondering if YOU do too.

excon

---

You don't think Christians have fun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Creationists:

If sex is the design of an intelligent creator, can we look to its intended purpose to know whether or now we've wrongly employed it?

In other words, having sex for FUN is it wrong. Using a contraceptive is CLEARLY wrong..

excon

---

You must be familiar with the Song of Solomon . There is nothing in the bible that prohibits sex for pleasure between husband and wife. In fact 1 Corinthians 7:3–5 tells us to not abstaining from sex in marriage and to not deny conjugal rights of the spouse.

Then Oklahoma is in trouble if the "Christians" get their way.

Oklahoma State Rep. Wants To Ban All Marriages | WebProNews

Quote:

---

“[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all,” Turner told News 9.
Nicole Flatow of Think Progressive mentioned how Turner's move draws parallels to the tactics used during Jim Crow south where the U.S. Supreme Court ordered states to desegregate schools in Brown v. Board of Education. Virginia Senator Harry F. Byrd contributed to a “massive resistance” campaign in which “Virginia legislature ordered the closure of schools subject to a desegregation order.”
“When that tactic was invalidated by courts, one county went so far as to shut down its public school system entirely from 1959 until 1964.” Flatow wrote.
Turner knows that his idea has made a few people uncomfortable, but says “I accept that.”

---

Tal

I think the state should but out of marriage. Marriage should imply a contract beyond that there is no place for the state in marriage

Quote:

---

Marriage should imply a contract

---

Contract = law.

yes common law not statute law

Hello again,

Right wingers HATE so much, that if everybody can't swim in the pool, they'll just close the damn pool. Don't they realize that they UNDERMINE their own argument by simply making it?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

Right wingers HATE so much, that if everybody can't swim in the pool, they'll just close the damn pool. Don't they realize that they UNDERMINE their own argument by simply making it?

excon

---

Don't believe I've ever made that argument.

Quote:

---

Then Oklahoma is in trouble if the "Christians" get their way.

---

Why ? nothing says the 'state ' has to sanction marriage. Let the state deal with the legal contract aspects of the relationship ,but there is nothing that says religion has to sanction it just because the state says so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

Right wingers HATE so much, that if everybody can't swim in the pool, they'll just close the damn pool. Don't they realize that they UNDERMINE their own argument by simply making it?

excon

---

it's not a new idea that the state should get out of the marriage business. Like I said ;let the state deal with the legal contract and call it whatever it wants to call it . Just so you know that just because the state calls it a 'marriage ' doesn't make it so.

Quote:

---

Why ? nothing says the 'state ' has to sanction marriage. Let the state deal with the legal contract aspects of the relationship ,but there is nothing that says religion has to sanction it just because the state says so.

---

Agreed! :-)

Hello again:

If they're OUT of the marriage business, then they're OUT of the marriage BENEFIT business too. So, I don't think there's too many married people in Ok who are gonna be fine with LOOSING those benefits.

I'll change the HATE word I used above, to STUPID. Do they really THINK they're going to do this, or are they just trying to SOUND STUPID???

excon

Quote:

---

Why ? nothing says the 'state ' has to sanction marriage. Let the state deal with the legal contract aspects of the relationship ,but there is nothing that says religion has to sanction it just because the state says so.

---

That will be the left's next demand if states go the way Oklahoma might go.