Tennessee county beats hasty retreat from call to ban homosexuals

Associated Press ^ | March 18, 2004 | BILL POOVEY

[tomball]

The county that was the site of the Scopes "Monkey Trial" over the teaching of evolution Thursday reversed its call to ban homosexuals.

Rhea County commissioners took about three minutes to retreat from a request to amend state law so the county can charge homosexuals with crimes against nature. The Tuesday measure passed 8-0.

[Torie]

Actually it was one of my comprehensible posts, albeit not as comprehensive as the one that had the lone content of "no."

[narses]

You claim Catholicism is wrong because, " It is immoral because it violates the two moral precepts that I have specified", those precepts are: "...rather existential precepts. They are an assertion of the actual state of being."

Wow, how erudite. You claim the right to judge a BILLION Catholics and condemn them on your own feeling. How very special. Of course, the reality (that you deny) is that our laws are BASED on Christianity and the Corpus Jurus of the Latin Church. Have you any support, academic or legal, for your views?

[sinkspur]

Me getting drunk alone is a far cry from that

I disagree. You are much more likely to whale on your wife, or one of your kids, when you're drunk, even in the confines of your abode.

As you know, that is a proximate occasion of sin, and society has the duty to protect them from your drunken rages.

[narses]

Can you spell VENEREAL disease 'deacon'? How about 'divorce'? How about the loss of innocence? Or are you claiming that fornication is HARMLESS?

[narses]

So you would make being drunk a crime?

[jwalsh07]

How does fornication between two adults "harm society" any more than an adult male, masturbating?

If you gotta ask, it's been entirely too much of one and not enough of the other.

[billbears]

Even right here on FR, in this thread, one can sense a reluctance to speak out in favor of such laws.

Welcome to latest form of 'conservatism'. We have a few laws here in NC that are still on the books for adultery. They're used mainly in suing the outside party but the law for one year in prison is still on the books. Our sodomy law was thrown out with Texas'. Now newspapers in this state are weighing whether or not to publish homosexual unions in the wedding section.

You're right, just ten years ago you wouldn't have seen this in the Republican party. Twenty years ago you wouldn't have seen it in either party in the South. And we're being forced to accept it by out of control PC police.

[sinkspur]

Or are you claiming that fornication is HARMLESS?

It's selfish and a misuse of sexual intimacy.

But, masturbation is also selfish and a misuse of sexual intimacy.

And, as we all know, excessive masturbation can cause blindness.

[narses]

Zing!

[AntiGuv]

You appear to claim the right to judge five BILLION non-Catholics and condemn them on your own feeling. I'm sure there is a mirror in your home; feel free to throw your stones there.

If you are right, the five billion who disagree with you are wrong. If I am right as one of those five billion, then you are wrong. It's just the way it works. Sorry you don't like it. You'll just have to get over it.

If you find this unpleasant, perhaps you should join myself and Thomas Jefferson in separating church and state. Then we need not discuss how wrong you are any further.

[narses]

Poor, poor sinky. Are both equally harmful to society?

[narses]

Bingo.

[Torie]

LOL. Hi guy. I really don't know why I am on this thread, but I am.

[sinkspur]

So you would make being drunk a crime?

If we're going to make things that might be harmful to society criminal, then drunkenness is much more dangerous, physically, to those around the drunk than fornication is to the two parties.

[timm22]

No. They also spread disease to their innocent spouse, to their blood donor contacts and to their heterosexual promiscuitous contacts. But even if they WERE just passing it on to other sexual deviants, it would be wrong and a public health hazard, no?

I suppose that if it is common for homosexual men to have female sex parters, then there would be some cause for concern. But I believe blood donations are screened these days.

And IF AIDS was just being spread around in the homosexual community, I don't know if I could call it wrong. It's sad, yes, but the sexual deviants in question know what they are getting into when they decide to have sex with each other.

I don't think I would call it a public health hazard, either. To me, a public health hazard has to involve some illness that can be spread easily to other persons without their knowledge or being able to take steps to avoid the danger. This would be something like an airborne virus. Something that can only be spread by deliberate action to someone who is fully aware of the risks would not classify as a public health hazard.

[narses]

LOL, you are a hoot. You reject Thomas Jefferson on his laws regards sodomy and embrace what you think (erroneously) is his position of faith and church. Both law and history appear to be not your strong points.

[jwalsh07]

I've been lurking but Sink served up a hanging curve and the devil made me do it.

[narses]

You assume that homosexual conduct precludes heterosexual conduct. The facts don't support that view.

[TradicalRC]

By and large, the past was a crude, brutish, ignorant, backwards, limited, oppressive time that I have no desire to see revived.

Ah but we've come so far! 1.5 million children killed by their own mother's choice, Gay pride parades in every major city, schoolkids killing each other, pre-teen pregnancy, pornography at your fingertips, drugs for the asking, etc.,etc.,etc.,...O Brave New World that has such people in it! But hey it's not the "dark ages". Progress.Hmm.

[Torie]

I try hard to avoid serving those up. I always try to qualify, unless on totally solid ground. Being when I do, and am called on it, I actually quite enjoy it. Odd.