Tennessee county beats hasty retreat from call to ban homosexuals

Associated Press ^ | March 18, 2004 | BILL POOVEY

[sinkspur]

Immoral activity should be criminal activity. Period.

That's rather Talibanish, niner.

[ninenot]

Damn straight.

[AntiGuv]

Well, yes. One can certainly say that. I am not discussing theology in the comments that you're referring to; I am discussing actual practice. These statements that Hitler could not be Christian because he was (a) socialist or (b) nationalist are like saying that Henry VIII was not Christian because he was monarchist or that Henry David Thoreau was not Christian because he was anarchist.

The Testaments can easily be interpreted to rationalize any of the above.

[Melinda in TN]

I live 20 minutes from Dayton in a small community smaller and just as conservative. The people are not "dumb hicks" as mentioned in another thread but they did go about this thing all wrong. They never said that they would ban gays. They just want to make Dayton and Rhea County an undesirable place for them to live. Every small town in TN feels this way but don't normally go public with it. The worst thing they did was to let it get into the news media. Small towns here have always handled their town problems with something called "Southern country justice" and it has been working for years and will continue to work. The people of Dayton and other small towns like mine are not isolationist as accused in a news article. They welcome new people to the community. They are the friendliest people on earth but are very conservative, independent and protective of their own. All they want is to keep a decent lifestyle in a community where their kids are safe and free to grow up without being exposed to the darker sides of life. Homosexuals are the vilest of freaks next to pedophiles in this area and they are not welcome in a family oriented community like Dayton.

I'm glad they rescinded their request because all that would do is to make the freaks force themselves on this beautiful community just to make a point. I feel like they were overwhelmed with the media coverage about gay marriage happening in other states and fear that it might come here. They should have thought it out better or at least kept it private.

Oh and yes, they do own computers and other modern conveniences. :-)

[Melinda in TN]

I reread my post and I think I'll clarify something I said because I didn't explain it very well. This is where I got my information. On our local radio stations officials from Dayton were asked if they wanted to "ban" gays. They said they would like to but knew they couldn't and that it wasn't possible or legal. The community residents would like to see them banned but that's their personal opinions. The council wanted to ban same sex marriages and did admit to wanting them kept out of Dayton. They didn't mean a literal physical ban even though I'm sure they wish they could. They want to make it difficult and unpleasant for them to live in Dayton. From there the media reported that they asked to ban homosexuals but that was not actually what they did according to what we have heard. Everybody here knows it's not possible and most people don't want to live in a place where others could be banned. It's not very American. :-) I trust what I hear reported locally more than I believe what I see printed by outside news media because they are famous for reporting misleading information to stir up trouble. I wasn't there and all I have to go on is the local news.

[ZULU]

Can anyone humm "Dueling Banjos"???

Too bad Tennessee caved to the Sodomites. They were right in every way here.

Tolerate these punks and they march naked in the streets, kiss each other in public, spread virulent venereal diseases, equate their perverted liasons with marriage, discredit and attack decent American institutions (e.g. the Boy Scouts), soil their marriage beds, attempt to spread their filth through school books, and in other ways demonstrate they were better off being relegated to the closet - WITH THE DOOR NAILED SHUT!!

[TradicalRC]

Okay, I think I understand your position somewhat better. The point I was trying to make is that anyone can Call themselves whatever they want, including Hitler.

What is salient is what they call themselves that also reflects what they believe and do.

Hillary can call herself a conservative. Arlen Specter can call himself a Republican. Hey we can even call Clarence Thomas white and Bill Clinton black.

[tdadams]

on our radio this morning Armstrong and Getty were degrading and mocking Tenneseeans

Heck, I am a Tennessean and I find a lot about Tennessean that merits a little derision.

[tdadams]

Any behavior that spreads an incurable disease should be banned.

You do know that genital herpes is incurable, right? Many heterosexuals have it and spread it. Should we outlaw heterosexual sex according to your suggestion?

[ASTM366]

tdadams:

Let me clarify:

Any behavior that spreads a 100% fatal disease, such as AIDS, should be banned.

If there was a behavior that spread the Ebola virus would you defend it?

Dig your hole.

[Dimensio]

Any behavior that spreads a 100% fatal disease, such as AIDS, should be banned.

Vaginal sex can spread HIV. It might not be as effective a transmission vector as anal sex, but it's still possible.

[tinacart]

I must admit I'm spoiled now - living in a dwelling that has an inside toilet instead of an outhouse, running water instead of drinking spring water out of a metal dipper, and hot water instead of having to heat water on top of a coal stove (almost burned our shack down a few times!). But all in all, I wouldn't trade being born there for anything. I received certain teachings and beliefs that never left me, no matter what kind of brainwashing I was subjected to here in Cali. I'm being blessed to take my mom back to see her mom in a couple of weeks - my grandma is 95 and the neighbors still have to call my uncle when they catch her climbing up on the roof to make repairs! That's what being Tennesseean is all about, strong stock, hard working and ornery!

[Melinda in TN]

LOL, I always find it hilarious and a little bit infuriating that outsiders still believe that kind of garbage about TN. There are very few, if any, people that live like that here. There are still a few mountain people that live a little primitively but the rest of us are very modern and nothing at all like you see on the Beverly Hillbillies. When we hear people make comments like that we always laugh and think it's amazing how stupid people really are. The only true thing that was said in your post is that we are raised right. We are taught good manners from birth and don't mind working hard.

[narses]

"If I am wrong, and America in 1954 did follow your system, then I would compare them to the Taliban."

You are. America, until quite recently felt very comfortable legislating morality (and in fact, still does, just a different 'morality').

In your world, 'legislating morality' and the Taliban are the SAME, yes?

[narses]

"That's rather Talibanish, niner."

Actually Deacon, that is rather AMERICAN. We have ALWAYS legislated morality. Unlike the TALIBAN, we also respect the rights of the individual under NATURAL LAW, but make no mistake, AMERICA stands for MORALITY.

[timm22]

You are. America, until quite recently felt very comfortable legislating morality (and in fact, still does, just a different 'morality').

I won't dispute that America legislates morality. But it does not now, nor has it ever, legislated morality in the way you describe. There are laws against certain behaviors that are deemed sinful, but I don't believe America has ever prohibited every mortal sin that is socially harmful. Especially not when the determination of what is and isn't a mortal sin is defined by the legislature.

In your world, 'legislating morality' and the Taliban are the SAME, yes?

Not exactly. I can imagine systems where every immoral act is banned, but punished less severely than being dragged into a stadium and shot in the head for entertainment. Likewise, I can also recognize systems which partially legislate morality (like our own), but still recognize some individual rights.

[Polycarp IV]

Sent this to the local paper today, Narses, in response to several recent letters. One could say that the label "Taliban" falls into the same category as the ones I describe below...and by extension so do those who employ it.

Letter to the Editor, Johnstown Tribune Democrat

Commonly invoked in Internet debate, Godwin's Law states that as a debate grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 100%. When this occurs the debate is automatically over. In comparing an opponent to Nazis obviously one has lost whatever argument was in progress by employing indefensible insult rather than rational and ethical debate.

A similar situation has emerged in the cultural debate over homosexuality. It is obvious to all that to resort to ad hominem terms such as "faggot" or "queer" must be and is roundly condemned. Just as with comparisons to Nazis, resorting to such offensive language ends the debate, proof that the individual is substituting indefensible insult for substance. Fortunately, those defending traditional marriage rarely if ever resort to such, and if they do their peers soundly rebuke them. There is simply no place in this debate for such indefensible behavior.

On the other hand, the opposition appears to have decided that they need not refute the issues advanced by those defending traditional marriage. Instead they resort to meaningless ad hominem attacks, employing such indefensible words as "homophobe" and "gay hater."

When such indefensible terms are employed, it is purposely done to impugn the motives and character of anyone who has the temerity to make a sincere defense of traditional marriage, based upon overwhelming scientific, sociological and Natural Law evidence.

It is time that the use of such ad hominem attacks are relegated to the same status as using words such as Nazi, Hitler, faggot, or queer. When the opposition refuses to address the overwhelming evidence of those opposing homosexual marriage, and instead resort to "homophobe" and "gay hater" labels, it is a clear admission that they have no rational refutation of these verified facts and that they have lost the debate.

[timm22]

Unlike the TALIBAN, we also respect the rights of the individual under NATURAL LAW, but make no mistake, AMERICA stands for MORALITY.

Which do you think America stands for more; freedom or morality?

Which did the Taliban overwhelmingly stand for, and which did they aggressively oppose?

[timm22]

Sent this to the local paper today, Narses, in response to several recent letters. One could say that the label "Taliban" falls into the same category as the ones I describe below...and by extension so do those who employ it.

If the topic of discussion was simply the merits (or lack of merit) to gay marriage, I wouldn't think of bringing up the Taliban label.

Defending traditional morals or protesting the weakening of the institution of marriage are one thing. Advocating a system of total prohibition of mortal sins is quite a different thing.

Godwin's law is useful when someone cries Nazi over welfare reductions or a change in the tax code. Would it still apply if someone advocated a system of racially based National Socialism?

[narses]

Which do you think America stands for more; freedom or morality?

How can one have freedom withOUT morality? Name a modern amoral or imoral people who have been free.