published Thursday, October 14th, 2010

Brainstorming

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

176
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
acerigger said...

Look at that shiny object over there! Wake up people,"gays" didn't cause this financial melt-down,two wars that are bleeding America dry,wages that won't support you even if you HAVE a job,crumbling infrastructure,rich getting richer while the poor get poorer,trashing the 4th amendment,etc,etc.Are Americans so stupid they'll fall for these distractions? Oh wait,Bristol Palin got kicked off Dancing With The Stars!I guess you all know about that huh?

October 14, 2010 at 12:19 a.m.
alprova said...

I'm wondering how all the Obama bashers are going to find a way to hold the President responsible for this one, given that he has openly spoke out against the ruling yesterday in a Virgina Federal court, effectively and immediately suspending the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Oh, the President wants it suspended alright, but he also wants Congress to suspend the policy and also to write additional laws preventing the military from being able to continue the practice of discharging military personnel with nothing else on their records dictating such groundless discharges.

And he's right.

The overwhelming majority of the people in this country have no problem with gays serving our country. Recent polls in fact, indicate that 75% of Americans think that gay people should be allowed to serve in the military like anyone else.

In other news, Carl Paladino, the Tea-Party favored candidate, currently trailing in the New York Governor's race, had to backtrack after he waded in on homosexuality.

He created an uproar on the 10th while speaking in front of an Orthodox Jewish group in Brooklyn. He said that children should not be "brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is acceptable" along with some other choice words, pre-written by members of the Jewish group he was speaking to.

On the 11th, Paladino said that although he does not support gay marriage, he is not a bigot and that he would hire gays.

When the proverbial crap hit the fan the next day, Paladino issued a statement, offering that although he does not support gay marriage, he is not a bigot and that he would hire gays. He also stated that he "abhorred discrimination in any form. I enjoy a close relationship with my nephew, who is gay, and I certainly consider him to be a 'functional' child of God."

Why is it that whenever a Republican is called on the carpet for a controversial remark, that the first thing they trot out is that they have a close relationship with someone who is gay, or they happen to know someone of color, if the remark borders on bigotry?

I'm more likely to wonder how long will it be before this clown is caught in the sack with either a dead girl or a live boy.

Aw...who cares? He's got about as much a chance of being elected Governor of New York as I do.

October 14, 2010 at 1:42 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

After my cousin "came out" 20 years ago I admit to looking at this issue a little differently. She is smart, funny, intelligent, and makes more money than anybody else I know. All she wants is to be left out of the political conversation. She works hard, pays her taxes, makes time to be a Red Cross volunteer, and would appreciate a community environment a little less openly hostile.

Republicans have clung to political relevance by pointing fingers and pounding fists. Too many people believe that you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. The GOP thrives by attacking their political rivals and the more outrageously the better.

Political Science teaches that attacking your opponent forces him to respond defensively and get off message. It's called going on the offensive. Some Democratic candidates seem befuddled, as if their campaign slogan should be, "I'm going to lose badly."

For the past few elections the GOP has been masterful at rallying their base by bashing gay people. Karl Rove admitted that he helped get a gay rights initiative on the 2004 ballot in Ohio which essentially swung the reelection. Republican turnout was strong and Bush won Ohio by 130,000 ensuring four more years.

Thanks to Tea Baggers, Gay bashing is back bigger and badder than ever.

October 14, 2010 at 2:26 a.m.
moonpie said...

Liberty is not a parking place.

You don't lose it when you share it.

October 14, 2010 at 6:32 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Christians, who notice that a court of the only superpower condemned our Lord Jesus to death and that he rose up alive, reversing the verdict of the only superpower, need to know what He thinks.

He died for our sins, and you can't top that for love. He rose from the dead, and you can't top that for power. These may be socially optional--birds nest in the tree of His Kingdom, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, do what good you can to all men especially (but not only) to those of the household of (Christian) faith--but as realities, they are mandatory.

Love triune Jehovah, love your neighbor as yourself, without love I am nothing, whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, warn the wicked of their way lest they die in their sin...love, and let God define love.

As a Jew, Jesus agrees with the Old Testament. As the founder of the Church, he agrees with the Apostle Paul. As a preacher, he says the same thing all Bible preachers say: Repent! Change from sin to righteousness!

Gay is an arrangement; it should show love by tolerating other arrangements, not breaking in on them when not wanted.

October 14, 2010 at 6:39 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

"Gay is an arrangement; it should show love by tolerating other arrangements, not breaking in on them when not wanted."

What the heck does this mean? Translation, please.

October 14, 2010 at 6:52 a.m.
sd said...

Andrew wrote, "Gay is an arrangement; it should show love by tolerating other arrangements, not breaking in on them when not wanted."

Christians should show love by tolerating others, not breaking in on them when not wanted.

Fixed it for you.

October 14, 2010 at 7:11 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

Andrew's view is that of a religious person.. not a constitutional person.

Gays - most non-theists care about you and will fight for your constitutional rights to live the American dream.

And thanks Andrew for reminding me of the Zombie Walk this weekend.

"Jeeeeazzuss luuuuuuuuvs yorrr branes!"

October 14, 2010 at 7:29 a.m.
EaTn said...

I believe that some day soon the biologist/scientific community will put to rest the age old argument of whether sexual preference is a physical trait or a personal choice. However, many don't trust scientists so the question may still linger for some time.

October 14, 2010 at 7:43 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

One of the best cures for homophobia is for your beloved son or daughter to reveal that they are gay. Most (not all) people will choose their child over some medieval notion of what is "natural".

October 14, 2010 at 7:49 a.m.
OllieH said...

Very funny cartoon. I love the slogans that were rejected. My personal favorite is 'Liberty, schmiberty!"

October 14, 2010 at 8:28 a.m.
Francis said...

it only matters what the people in the military think. if it affects their efficiancy in any way and they say it's a problem, then what 75% if the people think doesn't matter. the only opinion that matters is that of the military. they have a unique job to do and if it's an issue..then it's an issue.

and of course...you liberals will equate homosexual "rights" with the black struggle for civil rights....which is absurd and an insult to the those that fought for it.

blackwater..you're delusional....your second paragraph describes exactly what the democrat party does so well.

"medieval notion"........right...it will never be considered "natural"..it will never be considered normal...because no matter how you libs try and blur things..there will always be normal and abormal....there is natural and unatural...sorry...it's illogical to deny that.

homosexuals should not be discriminated against in any way. it's none of my business what someone does in their private life. it's none of my business what sexual orientation they are. it's none of their business what mine is.

but to demand, and get angry about it, as well...that everyone doesn't see steve and jack holding hands walking down the street and remark, oh, what a lovely couple!...or look at it the same as steve and jackie walking down the street holding hands.....it ain't going to happen.

October 14, 2010 at 10:16 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

"homosexuals should not be discriminated against in any way. it's none of my business what someone does in their private life. it's none of my business what sexual orientation they are. it's none of their business what mine is."

So you agree that gays should have full rights and full protection under law. Guess that clears things up!

October 14, 2010 at 10:19 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

I guess francis didn't know what she was cut and pasting :-)

October 14, 2010 at 10:25 a.m.
Francis said...

and blackwater...lying and corruption are not not exclusive to one party.. but, lying, corruption and the politics of personal destruction are not institutionalized in the republican party like they are in the democrat party; and obama, being mentored by an extremely corrupt political machine in chicago, has only made it worse.

October 14, 2010 at 10:28 a.m.
Francis said...

no..eeeeek....francis is a man's name..frances is the female verson....

the law is one thing.....i'm talking about perception......you can't force people to look at something that's unatural and ask them to accept it as natural..it's not going to happen.

October 14, 2010 at 10:36 a.m.
gngriffin said...

I found it interesting that Judge Phillips' language in her decision borrowed very heavily from President Truman's order to racially integrate the Armed Forces. Our nation was engaged in a particularly violent conflict in Korea at the time, in much the same way we are currently engaged, and many of the same arguments against repeal of DADT were made against integration, particularly with regard to readiness and soldiers' ability to work in a racially integrated environment.

President Truman was unconvinced by these arguments, and made a very unpopular choice, but a choice that history has vindicated. I hope that, despite the Obama administration's decision to appeal the injunction, we will soon see a final end to this discriminatory policy. As a veteran, I can tell you that while certain servicemembers will certainly not approve of homosexuality, our men and women in uniform will have absolutely no trouble at all executing their mission with homosexuals living openly among them.

October 14, 2010 at 10:40 a.m.
Francis said...

i don't cut and paste anything...moron..........

i'm accused on here of saying the same thing over and over..well, you bootlickers have no idea how you all sound the same to me.

you libs act as if this is some kind of liberal click instead of a forum....

what part of what i wrote don't you understand? i don't condone discrimination.it is against the law. but if there's a discomfort level in the military due to people openly pronouncing they're gay...then it's better to keep their sexual orientation to themselves.

there's no reason for anyone to know about anyone elses sexual life....so why is it so important for everyone to know somoene is gay in the military or in any other walk of life. keep it to yourself.

October 14, 2010 at 10:54 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

You could apply the same restrictions to your religion. "Why is it important for everyone to know someone else is Christian in the military or in any other walk of life. Keep it to yourself."

You clearly missed the point, Francis. Gays only want the same rights as everyone else. No discrimination.

October 14, 2010 at 11:21 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Another lame cartoon, but I guess that is what plays to the majority here.

Any rational person would know that no Conservative or Republican would ever build such a list, but I could imagine a liberal list of slogans like...

Spread the Wealth Around Socialize Healthcare Capitalism is Evil Oil Kills

And on and on... The important distinction between the two lists is that most on this forum and nearly all Obama supporters would embrace at least one of these slogans whereas NO ONE HERE would embrace any of the slogans on Clay's list.

So, clay's cartoon is just silly hyperbole, the liberal inverse would have been pretty clever.

October 14, 2010 at 11:29 a.m.
alprova said...

Francis, the MAN wrote: "you libs act as if this is some kind of liberal click instead of a forum...."


And you act as if this is your personal blog instead of a forum.

Most of us discuss the issues. You bash and rant.

Most of us offer counterpoints. You bash and rant.

Yes, most of us who stop in to discuss the issues are liberal in our views. Cry me a river of tears.

If there is one thing that you, SIR, do contribute to this forum, it is to show others what the conservatives are all about, and why people no longer identify with Conservative idealisms any longer.

Please keep up the good work.

October 14, 2010 at 11:36 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova,

Francis is right and you are wrong. He is the lead voice of the conservative arguement and you all spend more time personally attacking him and almost never answer his points, which are generally right on the mark.

You THINK you discuss issues but in reality you repeat slogans and launch personal attacks. That is why I think the liberal version of clay's cartoon would have actually been insightful, whereas the version he gave us is just more liberal clay junk.

October 14, 2010 at 11:54 a.m.
ITguy said...

If Francis is the lead voice of the conservative argument, then you guys need to do some recruiting.

The issue of whether or not homosexuality is a choice has been decided. It is not a choice. Some people prefer to deny science, but that does not change the facts. ALL of the arguments against allowing full rights to homosexuals are either based on Religion or some Emotional reaction to what makes someone uncomfortable. Neither Francis of any other poster has presented any argument to refute that. If it makes you uncomfortable to work around someone who is gay, that is YOUR problem.

DADT is a joke. Everyone knows who is gay and who is not. The military will get along just fine when we stop forcing people to lie about who they are. Sexuality has nothing to do with job performance either in the military or in the civilian world. Either you can do the job or you can't.

Open your eyes and your minds. It might be enlightening for you to try to see things from another perspective.

October 14, 2010 at 1:01 p.m.
Clara said...

Francis,

I take issue with the fact that you indicate that homosexuality is "not natural."

Throughout nature, there are animals and humans,(as animals), bacteria,algae, plants and trees, and probably other designations not yet discovered, that have the trait of homosexuality.

October 14, 2010 at 1:17 p.m.
Francis said...

rights? you libs say it's about rights..

what it really is a demand that everyone who is hetrosexual look at a man being with a man and woman being with a woman as the same as a man being with a woman.

that's a fantasy.

you have the right to be who you are, but you don't have the right to be accepted.

discrimination is wrong and those that discriminate are punished......sorry...but it's not going to get much better than it is now..governments, schools, businesses bend over backwards, no pun intended, to accomodate "gays"...the perception that they're abnormal will never change, because it is abnormal.

October 14, 2010 at 1:20 p.m.
hambone said...

Gay Rights and Abortion always works to inergize the base on both sides. Look at the shiny object.

October 14, 2010 at 1:43 p.m.
moonpie said...

Realizing I probably won't get a coherent answer or one without broad generalizations and one short of specifics, I do have to ask.... (being an optimist)

Francis, you keep using the word natural. What do you mean by natural?

How do you know if something is natural or not?

So you know where I'm going, I'll give you my perspective on it. I think you're using natural in the sense that something is customary or common or average. When a behavior deviates too far from the mean, we might call this unnatural. But that's a fallacy. There are outliers in nature. That doesn't make them unnatural. It doesn't make them wrong. It makes them less common. Sometimes it makes them quite special and remarkable. In fact, rarities are often highly valued. Finally, man cannot exist outside of nature. Whatever man creates is natural. Whatever man is, is natural.

Now you could argue that some natural behaviors are detrimental to society. Like murder or abortion, for example.

So is your argument that homosexuality is not the average, therefore unnatural, or is your argument that it is destructive? Or both.

On the one hand you say no one should be discriminated against, but then you say that they shouldn't be regarded equally... you seem to contradict yourself.

So the question remains, how are you defining unnatural? And then, how would denying equal rights to Gays be harmful?

October 14, 2010 at 2:10 p.m.
alprova said...

BigRidgePatriot wrote: "Francis is right and you are wrong. He is the lead voice of the conservative arguement and you all spend more time personally attacking him and almost never answer his points, which are generally right on the mark."


Never forget that he is right, according to YOUR opinion.

In MY opinion, the man is representative of the illogical, incorrect, inflexible, incompetent, and incredibly inconsequential opinions flowing from most of the right-wing idiots of this nation.

Further, he sounds very much like many of the Tea-Partiers, who are largely using little of their brains, and what little they do use is indication that they are completely ignorant.


"You THINK you discuss issues but in reality you repeat slogans and launch personal attacks. That is why I think the liberal version of clay's cartoon would have actually been insightful, whereas the version he gave us is just more liberal clay junk."


I don't think what I wrote about him, until THIS post, comes close to a personal attack at all. I pointed out the fact that each and every one of his responses in this forums are bashes and rants.

I know I discuss the issues, 99% of the time.

So go get stuffed.

October 14, 2010 at 2:19 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Go get stuffed? :)

You do start out arguing about the issue but for some reason seem compelled to go into attack mode when confronted with a more conservative outlook.

It is pretty comical to see you proudly claim you argue the issues after investing your entire post in vitriol and name calling.

Way to go!

October 14, 2010 at 2:27 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Oh, really, Big Ridge. Alprova's MO is to be clear, point by point, with cites to evidence. Francis is to be foaming, ungrammatical and inflammatory. Every time. He will not answer questions nor support what he says. Ever.

October 14, 2010 at 2:37 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

moonpie,

It looks like you need to reframe your argument. I don't think you are supposed to describe homosexuality as a behavior. Homosexuals are supposed to be a specific genetic subset of the species that are entitled to be specifically called out in our laws as having equal treatment, I suppose because there has been past discrimination that society now feels guilty about.

If it is just a behavior then you may have to call any behavior that a person is somehow strongly compelled to participate in as worthy of special protection, that is if you can find a sympathetic majority. If not, I guess you are out of luck!

October 14, 2010 at 2:39 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

"If there is one thing that you, SIR, do contribute to this forum, it is to show others what the conservatives are all about, and why people no longer identify with Conservative idealisms any longer."

Tsk, Tsk, Al. You know what we all think about blanket statements... They're stupid, and almost always incorrect.

October 14, 2010 at 2:45 p.m.
alprova said...

BigRidgePatriot wrote: "Go get stuffed? :)"


Yes.


"You do start out arguing about the issue but for some reason seem compelled to go into attack mode when confronted with a more conservative outlook."


Not at all. Francis is as negative and consistently irritating as Canary was. Does the man know how to discuss something, or is he only capable of just bashing and ranting?


"It is pretty comical to see you proudly claim you argue the issues after investing your entire post in vitriol and name calling."


Go back up there and read my post. At what point did I directly call HIM or anyone else a name?

October 14, 2010 at 2:46 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Ikeithu, I don’t see Francis as any of those names you called him. He puts forward some very valid arguments with varying degrees of tact. He may have just gotten to the point where he knows the tone of this forum and realizes he might as well go straight to the harder language.

Do you think “Go get stuffed” is clear, or that “Tea-Partiers, who are largely using little of their brains” is cited with evidence?

If the libs would hold back the indignation long enough to read and understand they would find great wisdom, not delivered in a politically correct package, but wisdom just the same.

October 14, 2010 at 2:52 p.m.
eeeeeek said...

Canary and Francis are rarely on the boards at the same time. Maybe they are multiple personalities inhabiting the same body.

Perhaps a few of the other personalities are very nice and liberal, so the C and F must over hate to make up for it.

October 14, 2010 at 2:59 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova, Are you telling me you are proud of you 2:19 post and that it merits another read? OK, let me bite...

Nope, after looking at your last two posts again, I don't see anything of value. Just attacks on anyone that does not agree with you.

I guess that puts me in the ranks of all the stupid people that do not agree with alprova!

October 14, 2010 at 3:03 p.m.
alprova said...

Musicman375 wrote: "Tsk, Tsk, Al. You know what we all think about blanket statements... They're stupid, and almost always incorrect."


Is that right?

Then why did you drop the above sentence into a post, but stop short of either endorsing Francis's opinions, or distancing yourself from them?

Do you remember when we had all those exchanges regarding Muslims in America? The consensus from many was that because American Muslims were not fervently "denouncing" the radicals, however that was supposed to be done, that this was viewed as an endorsement of the radicals.

Did you upvote one of his comments? Two people think that he is correct in his "perceptions" that homosexuality is unnatural. It's been established that BigRidgePatriot finds him correct on all fronts.

It doesn't matter what he or anyone thinks in regard to what is "natural" or "normal." To anyone who is straight, homosexuals are absolutely abnormal, but that's not the end of the debate. Homosexuality is not a choice, or we would all make that choice at some point in our lives.

Whoever sat down and had a long conversation with themselves to decide which gender, or anything else for that matter, what they CHOSE to be sexually attracted to?

Is it oversized mammary glands, long skinny legs, red hair, a large posterior, etc. that floats your boat? Did you have that conversation to CHOOSE those features of attraction?

Of course not. None of us do. What we find appealing is set in stone for life, and we become aware of it early on in life.

Numbers or percentages do not determine abnormality or what is unnatural. I'm sure if two straight men sit down and discuss what they find sexually appealing, they might discover many features of attraction that they differ on. I know that this has been my experience, that's for sure.

Homosexuals are not looking for total acceptance, or to be viewed by every last person as being right for being gay.

They are seeking a prohibition of intentional acts of being ostracized, excommunicated, persecuted, prosecuted, and from being prevented from going about living their lives just like everyone else, simply because others view their sexuality as being something totally wrong.

To a straight person, homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural. To a gay person, heterosexuality is equally abnormal and unnatural to them.

October 14, 2010 at 3:23 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Now hold on alprova. I will admit that I agree with Francis far more often than I do you, but you are guilty of a liberalism when you say, "It's been established that BigRidgePatriot finds him correct on all fronts."

October 14, 2010 at 3:32 p.m.
alprova said...

BigRidgePatriot wrote: "Are you telling me you are proud of you 2:19 post and that it merits another read? OK, let me bite..."


Who said anything about being proud? You claimed I called someone a name, and I asked you to read it to determine if your accusation had any merit. It doesn't.


"Nope, after looking at your last two posts again, I don't see anything of value. Just attacks on anyone that does not agree with you."


Um...okay.


"I guess that puts me in the ranks of all the stupid people that do not agree with alprova!"


Just remember. YOU said it. I never made any determination of the status of your brain, nor did I accuse you of being stupid.

Confession can be very beneficial, and is quite effective in freeing up memory in the brain, as is performing routine maintenance to rid your computer of unnecessary files when it takes an inordinate amount of time to process new data.

October 14, 2010 at 3:36 p.m.
alprova said...

BigRidgePatriot wrote: "Now hold on alprova. I will admit that I agree with Francis far more often than I do you, but you are guilty of a liberalism when you say, "It's been established that BigRidgePatriot finds him correct on all fronts."


Did you not state that he is right and I am wrong?

Make up your mind, will you?

October 14, 2010 at 3:38 p.m.
alprova said...

Fickle, fickle, go sit on a pickle.

October 14, 2010 at 3:39 p.m.
alprova said...

Oh, I'm sorry, was that too gay?

October 14, 2010 at 3:39 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Mr.Clay Bennett and all posters here on this site please read what the federal government has to say about civil rights laws.

Federal Civil Rights Statutes

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 249 - Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245 - Federally Protected Activities

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 247 - Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 248 - Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 844(h) - Federal Explosives Control Statute

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 3631 - Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 - Pattern and Practice

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 249 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act

This statute makes it unlawful to willfully cause bodily injury—or attempting to do so with fire, firearm, or other dangerous weapon—when 1) the crime was committed because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin of any person, or 2) the crime was committed because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person and the crime affected interstate or foreign commerce or occurred within federal special maritime and territorial jurisdiction.

The law also provides funding and technical assistance to state, local, and tribal jurisdictions to help them to more effectively investigate, prosecute, and prevent hate crimes.

The law provides for a maximum 10–year prison term, unless death (or attempts to kill) results from the offense, or unless the offense includes kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, or aggravated sexual abuse or attempted aggravated sexual abuse. For offenses not resulting in death, there is a seven–year statute of limitations. For offenses resulting in death, there is no statute of limitations.

October 14, 2010 at 3:43 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

"If the libs would hold back the indignation long enough to read and understand they would find great wisdom, not delivered in a politically correct package, but wisdom just the same."

I have yet to see any wisdom in Francis' screes; I don't agree with many of the conservatives on this forum, but many of them write clear, concise arguments that are well supported. Canary and Francis just foam and rant. Canary, at least, writes in proper English.

October 14, 2010 at 3:45 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

back to top

October 14, 2010 at 3:46 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

October 14, 2010 at 3:47 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245 Federally Protected Activities

1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as:

a) A voter, or person qualifying to vote...;

b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;

c) an applicant for federal employment or an employee by the federal government;

d) a juror or prospective juror in federal court; and

e) a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 2) Prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because of his/her activity as: a) A student or applicant for admission to any public school or public college;

b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by a state or local government;

c) an applicant for private or state employment, private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in any labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through any employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall;

d) a juror or prospective juror in state court;

e) a traveler or user of any facility of interstate commerce or common carrier; or f) a patron of any public accommodation, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters...or any other establishment which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises. 3) Prohibits interference by force or threat of force against any person because he/she is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or class of persons from participating or affording others the opportunity or protection to so participate, or lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed in items (1) and (2), above without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life or may be sentenced to death.

October 14, 2010 at 3:47 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 247 Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996

Prohibits (1) intentional defacement, damage, or destruction of any religious real property, because of the religious, racial, or ethnic characteristics of that property, or (2) intentional obstruction by force or threat of force, or attempts to obstruct any person in the enjoyment of that person's free exercise of religious beliefs. If the intent of the crime is motivated for reasons of religious animosity, it must be proven that the religious real property has a sufficient connection with interstate or foreign commerce. However, if the intent of the crime is racially motivated, there is no requirement to satisfy the interstate or foreign commerce clause.

Punishment varies from one year imprisonment and a fine or both, and if bodily injury results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this section, and the violation is by means of fire or an explosive, a fine under this title or imprisonment of not more than forty years or both; or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined in accordance with this title and imprisonment for up to twenty years, or both, and if death results or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined in accordance with this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

October 14, 2010 at 3:49 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 248 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act

This statute prohibits (1) the use of force or threat of force or physical obstruction, to intentionally injure, intimidate or interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person or any class of persons from obtaining or providing reproductive health services; (2) the use of force or threat of force or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or (3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship. This statute does not apply to speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. Non obstructive demonstrations are legal.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be up to six months, or both, for the first offense: and the fine shall, notwithstanding section 3571, be up to $25,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent offense; and if bodily injury results, the length of imprisonment shall be up to ten years, and if death results, it shall be for any term of years or for life.

October 14, 2010 at 3:49 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 844(h) Federal Explosives Control Statute

Whoever (1) uses fire or an explosive to commit any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, or (2) carries an explosive during the commission of any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, including a felony which provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to imprisonment for five years but not more than 15 years. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, such persons shall be sentenced to imprisonment for ten years but not more than 25 years.

October 14, 2010 at 3:50 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 3631 Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing

This statute makes it unlawful for any individual(s), by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with (or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with), any person's housing rights because of that person's race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Among those housing rights enumerated in the statute are: ■The sale, purchase, or renting of a dwelling; ■the occupation of a dwelling; ■the financing of a dwelling; ■contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above. ■applying for or participating in any service, organization, or facility relating to the sale or rental of dwellings. This statute also makes it unlawful by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is assisting an individual or class of persons in the exercise of their housing rights.

Punishment varies from a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results, shall be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned up to ten years, or both, and if death results, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 Pattern and Practice

This civil statute was a provision within the Crime Control Act of 1994 and makes it unlawful for any governmental authority, or agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice. Types of misconduct covered include, among other things:

  1. Excessive Force
  2. Discriminatory Harassment
  3. False Arrest
  4. Coercive Sexual Conduct
  5. Unlawful Stops, Searches, or Arrests
October 14, 2010 at 3:51 p.m.
FM_33 said...

The traveling exhibit is the brainchild of Gene Rosenberg, a member of the East Tennessee Civil Rights Working Group. Gene initially targeted middle school kids with the Trunk because he believes they're at an age when they are susceptible to bullying others who are different. By letting students actually see and touch these items, Gene thought he could generate classroom discussions about the consequences of racial, religious, ethnic, and other kinds of persecution.

So he set about collecting historical and more modern-day hate crime artifacts from law enforcement agencies (including the FBI) and other sources, and he purchased replicas of other well-known hate symbols. Before long, he had enough to fill up a large suitcase, which eventually grew to several suitcases! And he took his show on the road—first to schools in Knoxville, then around the state, and most recently, to one or two neighboring states.

Currently, the exhibit also features a piece of the bombed Oklahoma City federal building, leg irons, a noose, barbed wire, a piece of the Berlin Wall, street gang bandanas, segregation signs, Holocaust-era objects, photos from hate crime investigations, plus much more. And Gene has included additional types of items in the trunk—like traditional Muslim apparel—to represent other groups of people who are victims of hate crimes. He uses the Muslim clothing to initiate positive conversations about Islamic culture.

Since he began making these presentations, Gene's core audience of middle school students has expanded to include younger kids (who are shown only age-appropriate items), older kids, and various community and church groups. So far, more than 16,000 students alone have seen the Traveling Trunk, and requests for the presentation to be given before more schools, community groups, and churches are pouring in.

Feedback from those who have seen the Traveling Trunk has been overwhelmingly positive. Said one teacher, "The children were touched by your presentation, and you caused them to challenge some of their own thoughts as well as analyze those of others." And another, "Your message planted an important seed and is an important part of educating and inspiring our youth."

Of the exhibit, Richard Lambert—the Special Agent in Charge of our Knoxville office—said, "It sends a very powerful message about hate to anyone who sees it, and I think it will have a long-lasting and positive impact, particularly on students."

The Traveling Trunk's sponsor—the East Tennessee Civil Rights Working Group—was established in 1996 as the Knoxville Hate Crimes Working Group. It's a networking group of community leaders, civil rights advocates, law enforcement agencies, and concerned citizens who work together to help detect and prevent hate crimes—along with other civil rights violations like color of law crimes and human trafficking—in their communities.

Clay straight from our back yard.

October 14, 2010 at 4 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Now Clay that's the law pal.

October 14, 2010 at 4:01 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Username: lkeithlu | On: October 14, 2010 at 3:45 p.m.


Hey what you think about how Clay pushed some deep button's with this cartoon.

October 14, 2010 at 4:03 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova, you are making me sleepy with all of your wit. yawn...

please try harder because I am loosing interest. Wait, that might well be the goal here. If the non-libs all go away then you libs can share your pre-packaged thinking to each other and pat yourselves on the back.

Go Comrades!

October 14, 2010 at 4:05 p.m.
FM_33 said...

To a straight person, homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural. To a gay person, heterosexuality is equally abnormal and unnatural to them. Username: alprova | On: October 14, 2010 at 3:23 p.m.


It weird Alprova how some people don't get that point and they continue to make ther self's look very silly to the LGBT community when they are speaking in a harsh tone to them about there sexualty in general.

October 14, 2010 at 4:07 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Go Comrades! Username: BigRidgePatriot | On: October 14, 2010 at 4:05 p.m.


Be careful when you make that statement because a comrade might be reading your post and would maybe call you up for an invite into the party.

Just kidding......or was i .....hmmmm.

October 14, 2010 at 4:10 p.m.
moonpie said...

BigRidge, thanks for noticing. Actually, I intentionally chose the word "behavior" over the concept of state of being. The reason is, is that so frequently when I have discussed this issue with people opposed to Gay rights, they insist that this is behavior, a choice etc.

I'm ok with it either way. A state of being sometimes results in behavior. I was just trying to lessen the wiggle room so that the actual point could be discussed.

How does Franics or, anyone else here, define what is "natural"?

It doesn't matter to me if we're describing a behavior or a state of being.

October 14, 2010 at 4:16 p.m.
FM_33 said...

You folks on here are haters !

I showed you all what the law says about civil rights so i guess you all gave the federal government a thumbs down and not me.

Rolando did you do it ? .......not this time.....or did you ?

October 14, 2010 at 4:21 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Username: moonpie | On: October 14, 2010 at 4:16 p.m.


This thread is mostly for the gay posters to have a say in how they feel so we all should wait for anybody that is in that community to speak up here.

Then we 'll all learn something new.

October 14, 2010 at 4:24 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

Al, I think you're reading a bit much into what I posted. My point is that not only do some conservatives disagree with what Francis posted, but "why people no longer identify with Conservative idealisms any longer." is not a true statement. That quote insists that I don't agree with conservative idealisms, but... I do agree with many of them. therefore, my post that blanket statements are almost always incorrect still stands. I wasn't trying to defend anyone in particular. It just happened to be a quote of yours I responded to that was originally directed at Francis. Oh well, sue me.

I don't care if gays serve in the military. I do think, however, that no matter how silly or in some way hypocritical it may be, that you and I shouldn't discredit those people who say they are uncomfortable with it. In my opinion, I don't understand why people are homophobic, but I'm not going to look down my nose at people who are. I might think they are silly for it, which I do, and other people might be furious at homophobes. So be it.

I don't know what will happen now that DADT has been repealled so abruptly, but I don't think it will be that big of a deal overall TBH. Some people disagree with me and that's fine... we'll find out together. But I'm not going to jump on here and drop a statement saying that someone I disagree with epitomizes the party they belong to 100% the way you did.

October 14, 2010 at 4:26 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

The state of being is a natural variation in human sexuality. The behavior between consenting adults is none of our business. Equal protection under law is a civil right of all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation.

October 14, 2010 at 4:27 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Another lame cartoon, but I guess that is what plays to the majority here. Username: BigRidgePatriot | On: October 14, 2010 at 11:29 a.m.


Then why did you even bother to post here BigRidgePatriot?

That was a waste of time giving us your opinion if you feel that way about it.

October 14, 2010 at 4:28 p.m.
FM_33 said...

The state of being is a natural variation in human sexuality. The behavior between consenting adults is none of our business. Equal protection under law is a civil right of all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation. Username: lkeithlu | On: October 14, 2010 at 4:27 p.m.


LOL.... Ikeithlu when will BigRidgePatriot see the light ?

October 14, 2010 at 4:30 p.m.
mtngrl said...

Francis, why do you say this is not about rights then go to talk about how discrimination is wrong? It almost sounds like you are aguing for the repeal of DADT.

No one is asking that you accept homosexuality, no one is making a "demand that everyone who is hetrosexual look at a man being with a man and woman being with a woman as the same as a man being with a woman". They are obviously not the same and you are free to feel that is "unnatural" all day long.

All that is being asked is for soldiers to not get discharged based only on sexuality - that is discrimination. A major part of the injunction focuses on thier 1st amendment rights, not specifically "gay rights". It's the Don't Tell part that's unconstitutional.

And I would also like to know what you mean by "natural". Moonpie gave a good guess at what you could mean, but that is also the definition of "normal", while you used both words. Normal is relative, we each have our own perspective of what is normal.

October 14, 2010 at 4:32 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Username: Musicman375 | On: October 14, 2010 at 4:26 p.m.


Most conservatives wobble on the gay issue in any given moment just look at how they act when you say " Log Cabin Republican ".

October 14, 2010 at 4:34 p.m.
FM_33 said...

And I would also like to know what you mean by "natural". Moonpie gave a good guess at what you could mean, but that is also the definition of "normal", while you used both words. Normal is relative, we each have our own perspective of what is normal. Username: mtngrl | On: October 14, 2010 at 4:32 p.m.


When two people are getting there freak on they don't care what anybody else is thinking because to them they are fine and they are so busy digging on each other to even worry about how you or i feel Mtngrl.

October 14, 2010 at 4:37 p.m.
FM_33 said...

It's the Don't Tell part that's unconstitutional. Username: mtngrl | On: October 14, 2010 at 4:32 p.m.


The sad fact is that most US military commanders would ban all LBGT people from serving in the armed forces for good.

That is why Mtngrl the government has to step in and have fair laws for there basic human rights to fight and protect our nation.

If we have a shortage in troops soon then this will not even be an issue anymore and then we can all come together as AMERICANS reguardless of who you like to lay in the sack when you both are of adult age and have made that choice in the matter.

October 14, 2010 at 4:52 p.m.
FM_33 said...

I love my * Thumb's Down Troll * !

October 14, 2010 at 4:53 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Come on ....come on ......you're know the truth when you read it and it's killing your hate toward the LBGT community.

~~~~~ Let love regin forever ~~~~

October 14, 2010 at 4:56 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Speaking of which, it sure is quiet without the Black Panthers threatening to club white voters if they go into a polling place and ACORN dragging parkbench sleepers in to register...

Makes me wonder what the Dems are up to this time around...besides recounting until they win, that is. Username: rolando | On: October 13, 2010 at 6:51 p.m.


Rolando i could have sworn that when i first met you you was a democrat.

October 14, 2010 at 5:01 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Rolando did you not say that Clay Bennett "was one of ours".

Maybe that is is a mistake but do correct me on the point.

October 14, 2010 at 5:03 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Fickle, fickle, go sit on a pickle. Username: alprova | On: October 14, 2010 at 3:39 p.m.


Woooo.....Alprova do you put grease on it before you take a sqwat on one ?

October 14, 2010 at 5:09 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

Wow, FM, you enter the room and everyone leaves. Does that make you feel bad?

October 14, 2010 at 5:18 p.m.
FM_33 said...

No it just proves my point about the "Click" that likes to post together and leave certain people out but that is the way most internet posting sites are so you get used to it.

I find that in most cases that you will connect with some decent people if you stay at it and don't get upset about it.

Each site has there little gang on it and this one aint no different.

October 14, 2010 at 5:59 p.m.
FM_33 said...

And no SavartiTN i don't sit on anything going up in my butt !

Alprova ran into that one and it happens to the best of us sometimes so you have to be on your toes when you say stuff like he said and not paying no mind to it.

October 14, 2010 at 6:03 p.m.
FM_33 said...

"Jeeeeazzuss luuuuuuuuvs yorrr branes!" Username: eeeeeek | On: October 14, 2010 at 7:29 a.m.


It's coming out of you slowly but it just takes some time. If you slow the first word to said a little more you be able to say Jesus the way it is supposed to be said.

Eeeeeeek it takes a little practice but you are doing better then you was a few weeks ago so keep up the good work.

October 14, 2010 at 6:08 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: FM_33 | On: October 14, 2010 at 4:28 p.m. "That was a waste of time giving us your opinion if you feel that way about it."

Now I understand why I feel like such a mutant around hear! I thought they put this trash in the opinion section to spur debate on the topic!

At one point I thought the choice of using clay's cartoons was questionable, he is so consistently a joke himself, but then I came to realize that his liberal theme seems to keep the libs coming and this forum really does seem quite lively as a consequence.

October 14, 2010 at 6:40 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Username: BigRidgePatriot | On: October 14, 2010 at 6:40 p.m.


I don't think of you as a mutant BigRidgePatriot at all because believe me i have been catching hell for years because i dared to stand up as a proud independent since the early 1980's.

The far left and right wings of the country is what is tearing us apart and we need some good olde wing clippers like you and me to keep those being clipped off and falling into the deep fryer.

October 14, 2010 at 6:48 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: moonpie | On: October 14, 2010 at 4:16p.m.

I don't care one way or the other myself. But hey, I don't think I have a problem with polygamy either, as long as all parties are consenting.

I do have objections to "super protection" of any particular group. It seems like it is just creating a full time job for politicians, finding yet another down-trodden victim group to turn into a voting block and pander too.

In the case of gays in the military, I don't know what the answer is. It seems responsible to let the military figure out how to handle the transition as they were.

This just percolated a strange thought. I understand that black soldiers were once segregated in the military. Maybe gays should go through a trial period where they are segregated in special gay units. It would be interesting to see if they could form a gay SEAL team. Then when we finally get to the end of this civil right crisis they could draw stronger parallels to themselves and the plight of the black man.

Sounds like a question for South Park to deal with.

October 14, 2010 at 7 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Sorry for taking so long getting back to you, Francis. (There's a line from the movie 'Stripes' the floats through my mind whenever I see or hear the name 'Francis.')

I'm still trying to decipher this comment:

"and blackwater...lying and corruption are not not exclusive to one party.. but, lying, corruption and the politics of personal destruction are not institutionalized in the republican party like they are in the democrat party; and obama, being mentored by an extremely corrupt political machine in chicago, has only made it worse."

First, I've got to say that it's moronic to use the word 'Democrat' when you should be using 'Democratic.' It's only proper grammar, and I know that can be a real nuisance when you've got your panties in a bunch and you're typing really really fast with both fingers, but I guess that goes to the Republican sophomoric need to insult and mock and generally discredit their opponents. It's really stupid, but you're not alone. Elected Republican officials use it all the time for some reason that's beyond my comprehension. Maybe that's the GOP version of 'clever.' Ugh.

Anyway, everyone knows the Republic Party (oops) is nothing more than a pack of toadies bowing and scraping before their corporate overlords both foreign and domestic. Come on, Francis. The GOP is wholly owned subsidiary of EVERY fat cat corporation out to bend rules and change regulations to make an extra buck. Remember when Cheney invited oil company executives to re-write America's energy policy? That really didn't bother you?

Sorry. I digress. Typing really fast.

But I was taken with your phrase, "lying and corruption are not not exclusive to one party." I think this is your feeble attempt at fifth grade retaliation many conservatives base arguments upon.

So, let me get this straight (no pun intended). Your argument, then, is that even though Republicans are corrupt liars it's okay because, you know, uh, that democrat party does it too. Only more worser. They're all Muslims and socialists.

The Republican Party, whose first President was Abraham freaking Lincoln, has become an embarrassment.

Remember the big BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? It was in all the papers. When Obama got British Petroleum to put $2 billion aside to help in restoration, Republicans APLOGIZED to BP. Remember? That was money tax payers didn't have to shell out, but the GOP thought it was a shakedown. Good grief.

It's no wonder the Tea Baggers took control. Yeah, well, some dress up like Nazis, and some dabbled in witchcraft, and some are mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore, but the Republican party of Barry Goldwater and Everett Dirksen and Dwight Eisenhower never would have let it happen.

The Republican Party is a joke, and if you're a working class ham and egg kind of guy and support the GOP, well, everyone's laughing AT you.

October 14, 2010 at 7:01 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

blackwater, 484 words and nothing to say.

October 14, 2010 at 7:12 p.m.
ITguy said...

Blackwater, you are my hero! Best post of the day.

October 14, 2010 at 7:26 p.m.
eeeeeek said...

FM_33 - I'm sorry, I didn't realize you hadn't made it to the fifth grade. In the fifth grade you start learning about quotation marks.

Here's a little something to be ready for in a few years.

Quotation marks around a choice of words in this case signifies that the words were used by another and you are quoting them. That is to say.. Saying the words the way they did.

So the following phrase was said by someone I know and I was quoting them.

"Jeeeeazzuss luuuuuuuuvs yorrr branes!"

I hope this clears up your confusion. If not, please find a fifth grade teacher that is familiar with explaining to children your age.

October 14, 2010 at 7:29 p.m.
hambone said...

So the topic tonight is Francis? Talk is cheap, it's a matter of supply and demand!!

October 14, 2010 at 7:36 p.m.
rolando said...

The argument that homosexual sex acts and animal sex acts are comparable in certain cases is a false argument. Animals do not have sex out of love or enjoyment as homosexuals endlessly whine is why THEY do it.

No, there is one reason animals commit same-sex acts -- to show dominance, the one over the other. Neither party particularly enjoys it... Homosexual acts among adults are definitely abnormal, as Francis and BigRidgePatriot point out; two percent of our population committing those acts makes them definitely unnatural.

A second point is ignored here, for obvious reasons. A homosexual is NOT discharged because of his sexual persuasion but because of an "unnatural act" he committed; actually, it matters not whether it was a homosexual or heterosexual act.

[QUOTE] Art. 125. Sodomy

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. [UNQUOTE]

Also see the following Article -- it essentially says that anything not specifically listed therein as punishable under the UCMJ is punishable under this one.

[QUOTE] Art. 134. General article

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. [UNQUOTE]

The above reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Feb.1, 2010. [Need I mention that was a Democrat-dominated Congress? Read that however you like but the dominator is changing in less than a month...]

Everyone is treated the same under these two Punitive Articles of the UCMJ, as under all the other Articles. There is no discrimination at all; all are the same.

The homosexuals, again, want special rights NOT civil rights.

October 14, 2010 at 7:41 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Nope, they want outdated, ridiculous laws forbidding acts that are private and consensual to be thrown out. I am still waiting for a secular, constitutional argument for our continuing to deny all the same rights to gays as to straights. Just one. Anyone on the right? Anyone who thinks that gays should continue to be treated as second class citizens?

And, no rolando, not all same sex interactions between animals are about dominance. Very few are. However, many heterosexuals use sex for demonstrating dominance and power. It's called rape.

October 14, 2010 at 7:55 p.m.
ITguy said...

Rolando, I a afraid that you are wrong. Under DADT you can be discharged for being gay. Not based on any conduct other than being gay. People have been discharged on the basis of e-mail correspondence. You can be discharged from the military without ever having committed sodomy. To say that gays want "special rights" is inaccurate. No one is asking for special rights. People simply want to be honest about who they are without fear of being persecuted.
If people commit inappropriate acts, regardless of their sexuality, then deal with the behavior.

October 14, 2010 at 8:07 p.m.
moonpie said...

BigRidge, you actually allude to a point I've made frequently. I wouldn't have a problem with polygamy, either, among consenting adults.

I also got a laugh out of the segregated suggestion. I think the beauty of history is our abiltiy to learn from it. Without approval, I appreciate the suggestion!

I will acknowledge that change can be painful and slow. What some call the erosion of society, others call advancement. I think equal rights for Gays will happen, and one day, many who now oppose it will have faint memory of their opposition... kind of like a prominent Free Press editorialist who once opposed Civil Rights.

I also think I understand why people on the right think homosexuals are looking for "super protection" (as you call it). It's because they have to make dramatic statements to be heard. Dramatic declarations are not always well received. Where you see anger and a desire for special protection under the law, I see a cry for justice and equal protection.

I may not always succeed at this, but I try really hard to separate the message from the medium. I will acknowledge that the message can sometimes be hard to hear over what sounds like shrill anger.

Imagine how we sounded to the loyal subjects of King George!

I still await answers to what Francis or others regard as "natural" behavior or a state of being and how we can tell if deviations from the norm are truly harmful to a healthy society.

At any rate, good night. Unless someone addresses me with a special question on this issue, I will let you and others have the last words.

October 14, 2010 at 8:08 p.m.
Oz said...

ITguy wrote.....The issue of whether or not homosexuality is a choice has been decided. It is not a choice.

Heterosexuals placed in the prison system often turn to homosexual sex. Is that a choice or genetic? Excluding rape.

October 14, 2010 at 8:27 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Oz, sexual orientation is not a choice. It is also not necessarily genetic. It's developmental (in males) during gestation. Females are a little more complicated, but recent studies suggest that there is also a big gestational component, just different from that of males. Gays do not choose to be gay any more than straights choose to be straight. One just realizes, usually in late childhood or early adolescence, that one is attracted emotionally and physically to individuals of the same gender. (who would CHOOSE to be something that is discriminated against and called perverted by others?)

October 14, 2010 at 8:34 p.m.
ITguy said...

Oz. It is rape. It is about dominance and humiliation. I know of no prison homosexuality that is consensual, unless the participants were homosexual prior to being in prison. People who are in prison tend to be anti-social psychopaths. They hardly represent 'mainstream' homosexuality.

October 14, 2010 at 8:41 p.m.
Oz said...

ITguy...I agree with the dominance and humilation. I did not think that through completely. lkeithlu...I believe it more of an environment thing than gestation.

I knew someone with a sibling that was born with male and female genitalia. The doctors removed the male part and told the parents to raise the child as a female and everything would be fine. Wrong...The child never identified with anything female and rebelled around age 6. The child was a male from age 6 on. I can see this as genetic.

I grew up with a homosexual male and his father was terrible. The father was verbally abusive and had no interaction with his son in a normal manner. I believe the son was always looking for love from a male. The love he never received from his father. I had a gay client about 10 years ago and his relationship with his father was no better. In fact it was worse.

In my opinion, I don't believe gentics had anything to do with it. At some point, I believe both of them became comfortable with it and to them it felt normal.

October 14, 2010 at 9:25 p.m.
grandmother said...

And the last days shall be as "the time of Noah". A world of homosexuality, lust, lying, stealing, wars, etc. etc. What does it take for us to understand God says for "a man to lie with another man is an abomination". We are ruining ourselves, just like Sodom.

October 14, 2010 at 9:50 p.m.
sd said...

Whether a person thinks homosexuality is natural or unnatural or whatever is beside the point regarding DADT, isn't it?

The whole problem with DADT is it means any soldier, male or female, who is homosexual or has "the intent" to commit homosexual acts may be discharged as a result, regardless of history and performance.

Even if you (generic you, not a specific poster) have a problem with homosexuality I don't understand how you can say DADT is okay and that repealing it is "special treatment." How does being gay make a person unfit for duty? You're defending something that doesn't even make sense to begin with.

You would think, considering how active our country is militarily, that we would want to have as many capable soldiers in our ranks as possible.

October 14, 2010 at 9:51 p.m.
Clara said...

Francis,

I posted this on a much earlier blog but you weren't around then. Here is Part 1.

"On pp.11 of the Introduction

In the mid-1970s, on the basis of emerging scientific evidence and encouraged by the social movement for ending sexual orientation discrimination, the American Psychological Association (APA) and other professional organizations affirmed that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder and rejected the stigma of mental illness that the medical and mental health professions had previously placed on sexual minorities.1 This action, along with the earlier action of the American Psychiatric Association that removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; American Psychiatric Association, 1973), helped counter the social stigma that the mental illness concept had helped to create and maintain. Through the 1970s and 1980s, APA and its peer organizations not only adopted a range of position statements supporting nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (APA, 1975, 2005a

October 14, 2010 at 9:56 p.m.
ITguy said...

Grandmother, it is abomination to eat shellfish. The same word in Hebrew ia used in both passages of scripture. We currently understand that the author of Leviticus was reacting to the world in which he lived. Do you think that God changed 'His' mind regarding shrimp? Or maybe the writer of Leviticus got it wrong. I personally like shrimp.

October 14, 2010 at 10:10 p.m.
Clara said...

Francis,

This is Part 2 of the introduction.

On pp.12 of the Introduction

In the early 1990s, some APA members began to express concerns about the resurgence of individuals and organizations that actively promoted the idea of homosexuality as a developmental defect or a spiritual and moral failing and that advocated psychotherapy and religious ministry to alter homosexual feelings and behaviors, because these practices seemed to be an attempt to repathologize sexual minorities (Drescher & Zucker, 2006; Haldeman, 1994; S. L. Morrow & Beckstead, 2004). Many of the individuals and organizations appeared to be embedded within conservative political and religious movements that supported the stigmatization of homosexuality (Drescher, 2003; Drescher & Zucker, 2006; Southern Poverty Law Center, 2005). The concerns led to APA’s adoption in 1997 of the Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (APA, 1998). In the resolution, APA reaffirmed the conclusion shared by all mainstream health and mental health professions that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and rejected any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I did not have to read these, as I was already aware that the problem was not an abnormality or behavioural.

Perhaps IKeithlu, who is an instructor might be able to help in deciphering it for you.

October 14, 2010 at 10:11 p.m.
grandmother said...

eeeeeek: I'll pray for you tonight, May God bless you.

October 14, 2010 at 10:16 p.m.
eeeeeek said...

grandmother wrote "I'll pray for you tonight, May God bless you"

I forgive you and I'll think for you.

goddesses and gods don't bless.. they're not real.

October 14, 2010 at 10:44 p.m.
Oz said...

eeeeeek...a touch of astroglide maybe. With your personality, I'm sure it's not natural.

October 14, 2010 at 11:43 p.m.
alprova said...

Musicman375 wrote: "Al, I think you're reading a bit much into what I posted. My point is that not only do some conservatives disagree with what Francis posted, but "why people no longer identify with Conservative idealisms any longer." is not a true statement. That quote insists that I don't agree with conservative idealisms, but... I do agree with many of them."


I goofed. I left out the word "many" that should have been in front of "Conservative." I didn't catch that the first time around, nor when you protested my blanket statement.

I am sorry about that. I never meant to imply that all people don't agree with Conservative ideals. Of course many do.

October 15, 2010 at 1:25 a.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "The argument that homosexual sex acts and animal sex acts are comparable in certain cases is a false argument. Animals do not have sex out of love or enjoyment as homosexuals endlessly whine is why THEY do it."


If an animal did not find any enjoyment in the act, then why would they do it?

How silly of you to bring THAT argument into this. We know of course that all straight people ONLY have relations to procreate, right? All straight people have relations only when they are in love, right?


"Homosexual acts among adults are definitely abnormal, as Francis and BigRidgePatriot point out; two percent of our population committing those acts makes them definitely unnatural."


You're a little out of touch, Rolando. 2%? You need to brush up on your understanding of the issue.

In 1948, Alfred Kinsey estimated that 10% of the male population is gay. A 1993 Janus Report estimated that nine percent of men and five percent of women had more than "occasional" homosexual relationships.

In August 2002, Gallup asked Americans, in an open-ended format, to estimate the percentage of American men and the percentage of American women who are homosexual. The average estimates were that 21% of men are gay and 22% of women are lesbians. In fact, roughly a quarter of the public thinks more than 25% of men and 25% of women are homosexual.

The ONLY fact to your estimate is that your figure is widely quoted by the Family Research Council, who are hardly in a position to begin to count the gay population. Their too busy condemning them to Hell.

They likely derived their figures from the 2000 Census, where somewhere between 1% and 2% of same-sex households, reported themselves as being cohabitational couples.

How many others are out there, who are deep in the closet, who would never admit to their homosexuality? Millions in this nation alone.


"A second point is ignored here, for obvious reasons. A homosexual is NOT discharged because of his sexual persuasion but because of an "unnatural act" he committed; actually, it matters not whether it was a homosexual or heterosexual act."


Pure unadulterated hogwash. You're a hopeless liar.

From 1993 to 2004, 7,900 military members, or 83% of those discharged under DADT, were discharged because they SPECIFICALLY stated that he or she is a homosexual, or offered words to that effect. 1,520, or 16%, were discharged for attempting to engage in, or for soliciting another to engage in a homosexual act

Source;

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05299.pdf

Page 11. Read it for yourself.

October 15, 2010 at 2:19 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

That sexual preference is dictated by gestational conditions is not my opinion Oz, nor is the evidence that supports it. The science is there for anyone to read up on. I'll get you some cites later today. Environment has very little to do with the sexual orientation. It has EVERYTHING to do with the psychological damage that gays suffer from the people that are supposed to love and accept them.

October 15, 2010 at 6:44 a.m.
Clara said...

I have now erased about seven comments I tried to make.

I'm going back to bed!

October 15, 2010 at 7:04 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Try Nature's Choice, edited by Cheryl Weill. It's a summary pf the current findings. (2008, I think) The development of a fetus is extremely complex, and there are multiple factors. However, past-birth conditions seem to have little to no effect, and sexual orientation, once set in utero, cannot be changed.

October 15, 2010 at 7:14 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Has rabid support for gay rights created a world that is capable of extreme prejudice against opposing views? Or, are Christians caught under the wheels of the gay rights train just acceptable collateral losses?

Don’t mean to judge, just asking the questions…

http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2010/10/15/eight_straight_suicides/page/full/

October 15, 2010 at 7:27 a.m.
moonpie said...

eeeeek, your comments to grandmother are rude beyond the pale. I hope your manners face to face are better than they are here.

And I know what alprova meant when he said it, but eeeeek, the comment was not "to the point" at all. (I'm sure he was trying to convey "pointed".)

grandmother, I may not agree with you, but no one should speak to another the way eeeeek did.

October 15, 2010 at 7:29 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I agree moonpie. Big Ridge, no one has a right to deny Christians their views. But no one, including Christians, has the right to deny any other citizen their rights based on their religious views. No one needs to change people's minds about homosexuality, although someone who refuses to educate themselves comes off as foolish and pig headed. However, no one has offered ANY secular or constitutional reasons for treating gays differently from anyone else. A Christian, like any citizen, has freedom of speech. But someone who says something that is hateful or inflammatory should be called on it. And if someone uses differences like sexual orientation as a reason to discriminate, that is unlawful.

BTW, not all Christians feel that "teh Gay" is a bad thing.

October 15, 2010 at 7:35 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

Yes moonpie.. In response to all stupidity, I am blunt and to the point all of the time.

All of my comments are made with a smile.

If it hurts a bit, so be it. You have to fight stupid comments with stupid comments to shock some reality into the picture.

If you are offended, that's your view, I'm offended by many things that pass my lips or fingers when writing. But that's life around me.

Don't like it? Ignore it. You are fully capable of skipping my posts. It's called self censorship.

I guess I can do a repeat of the old fall back for bible thumping grandmothers

Hey grandmother.. your nasty imaginary god tells you to shut it.

1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence

October 15, 2010 at 8:04 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: moonpie | On: October 15, 2010 at 7:29 a.m.

Thank you for being a voice of reason moonpie.

Username: eeeeeek | On: October 15, 2010 at 8:04 a.m.

eeek, Not agreeing with you is no excuse for going as far as you did, nor does it make anyone stupid. You clearly stepped way over the line.

October 15, 2010 at 8:48 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

brp... you have no opinion I value.

I didn't cross MY line.

October 15, 2010 at 9:03 a.m.
sd said...

Al wrote, "In 1948, Alfred Kinsey estimated that 10% of the male population is gay."

The oft-quoted 10% statistic comes from, "10 per cent of the males are more or less exclusively homosexual (i.e., rate 5 or 6) for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 35."

Kinsey also notes, "4 per cent of the white males are exclusively homosexual throughout their lives, after the onset of adolescence." But that's only white males.

http://scienticity.net/wiki/Kinsey:_Sexual_Behavior_in_the_Human_Male


"...Roughly a quarter of the public thinks more than 25% of men and 25% of women are homosexual."

This is an argument ad populum.


According to the 2010 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior: "While about 7% of adult women and 8% of men identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual, the proportion of individuals in the U.S. who have had same-gender sexual interactions at some point in their lives is higher."

http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/

October 15, 2010 at 9:07 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

It's none of my business who you're doing or what you're doing. Just don't throw yourself a party or a parade and make a big public deal out of it. I don't want heterosexual pride day and you shouldn't need homosexual pride day. Live your life quietly like me and you won't be bothered by all the gay haters with their own agendas.

October 15, 2010 at 9:11 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: eeeeeek | On: October 15, 2010 at 9:03 a.m.

Likewise!

October 15, 2010 at 9:31 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

To my knowledge Gays don't try to deny religious people their civil rights. Suicide is a tragedy, but to blame suicide in any group on a single incident is stupid.

October 15, 2010 at 9:45 a.m.
Oz said...

lkeithlu...If you are responding to the link provided by BigRidgePatriot finish reading the whole story.

October 15, 2010 at 10:04 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I read the link, Oz. You are missing the point. Some gays are harassed from their childhoods on; the harassment takes on a new meaning when it is implicitly supported by the words of pastors, teachers and parents. The confusion over why one does not feel the way they are "told" they should feel, by the usual emotional upheaval of adolescence, by the message that they must choose either to be true to themselves or stay in their churches, families and communities and deny what is a natural part of themselves.

No gay child or adolescent has killed themselves because of one incident. They have done so after years of living in quiet despair and pain.

Want it from the horse's mouth? See this painful, yet hopeful video from a Ft. Worth City Councilman. It is more than 8 minutes, and so raw and emotional.

I am a GSA sponsor at my school. I will defend my beautiful, loving teens from the likes of anyone who would use the bible or koran to make them feel like they are not worthy of all the respect and affection they deserve as any child of God. AND that they had the right to find, fall in love with, and marry the person of their choosing. AND that they would be protected from discrimination in the workplace. What church they choose to go to would be based on the message from that church. No church can be made to accept gays or to perform marriages. But NO church has the right to impose their message on unwilling recipients outside their own walls.

AND I issue my challenge again: Give me ONE secular or constitutional reason why gays should not have full civil rights like anyone else. ONE. What you think your bible says means nothing in this situation, because we are talking about civil rights.

October 15, 2010 at 10:33 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

Actually.. I do think there are laws that should be enacted that restrict the free practice of religion in some cases.

  • christain “scientists” should be legally prohibited from denying medical care to the children in their "care"
  • female genital mutilation of a minor should be illegal in all cases as well as it’s less horrific cousin of male circumcision
  • jehovah witnesses should be legally prohibited from denying life saving blood transfusions to their children.
  • arranged marriage of minors should be illegal.
  • relationships between prepubescent children and grownups are pedophilia and already a crime.

Every single one of these things steps on a religious belief of one sort or another, yet I’m perfectly comfortable keeping or creating those laws. They all affect the well-being of children.

But back on topic... unlike the religious, we don’t want to interfere in the consensual behavior of ADULTS. It is a Constitutional right of every US Citizen.. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

October 15, 2010 at 10:34 a.m.
Clara said...

"1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence Username: eeeeeek | On: October 15, 2010 at 8:04 a.m."

EEEEEEK!

My King James version shows the paragraphs in question and reading further it is obvious that Timothy reflected the thinking of the prevailing male domination spouting of the day, and did not reflect what Jesus practiced and preached.

I note that now that women vote and preach and become doctors, it comes as no surprise that many men still hold that thought in reverence and act accordingly.

I don't recall that in my lifetime, Timothy, as a proponant of Christianity was much accepted. I haven't heard him used EVER! Except now. (Except by those who seek to control the "weaker sex".)

I do hope you were blogging with "tongue in cheek".

Sigh! Bite your tongue!

October 15, 2010 at 10:45 a.m.
Francis said...

in reponse to moonpie...a while back...about what is "natural".....or what i call normal....well, if that has to be explained..i don't know what to say...it's natural or normal for a man to be attracted to a woman and want to have intercourse with her...it's not normal or natural for a man ot be attracted to another man and want to be intimate with him.....

there's too much blurring or graying of things.....almost to the point of being absurd....to deny there're homosexual is silly, but on the otherhand, to state that their behavior is normal or natural..is also silly.

most people in this country couldn't care less if someone is "gay"..what they do in their private lives is their own business...but when the media and gay rights groups insist, no, demand that the majority of people, who are hetro- sexual, accept homosexuality as normal; and label people as "homophobes" if they don't, then it's over the top. the exporting of the idea that is "normal" is destructive...it's just not..no more than it's normal to have an eye in the middle of your forehead..

i'm not a "homophobe"...i don't believe homosexuals should be denied rights. but i won't accept that it's normal....

it is possible for a hetrosexual man to be uncomfortable with a homosexual man in a close living arrangement like in the military. doesn't mean he's a "homophobe" ...if that homosexual soldier lets it be known who he is..then he's stating that he likes men, obviously....and that automatically brings in a sexual element..that wouldn't ordinarily be there..........it doesn 't mean that the homosexual soldier can't perform his duties as well as the next guy, but it does introduce a level of dicomfort.

October 15, 2010 at 10:50 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

Clara..

There is no weaker sex... that lie was created by religion.

As was the creation of the Jesus myth and Mary's baby daddy.

October 15, 2010 at 10:54 a.m.
reaganwasright said...

I see that eeeeeek's comments were deleted.

I too, fail to see how someone's imagined feminine hygeine plays a role in this debate. grandmother made a point, and eeeeeek's response was about as sensible as "you stink".

Nanny-nanny, poo-poo arguments aren't very effective at persuasion, but his right support your right to speak them. I also support the paper's right to remove them if they are off color.

October 15, 2010 at 10:55 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

Francis..

During my Navy service, my department had 3 (out to us) gay men, we had no problems, no homophobia was present... no one had uncomfortable "feelings" in the shower.

This was 10 years before DADT.

But I guess if you have a goddy touched judgmental little brain in you head... I can see why you would have had a level of discomfort.

October 15, 2010 at 11:03 a.m.
hambone said...

This whole arguement is silly, its been going on for two days now and proved nothing. Homosexualilty has been around as long as man has walked the earth.

Do you think religion can cure it? It hasn't yet.

Do you think medicine can cure it? What kind of shot would you give?

Why didn't the founding fathers put something in the constitution to cover it? Maybe someone said " lets hurry up and wrap this thing up I've got to get home to Bruce"

The truth is all this up and down back and forth arguing doesn't change anything. Some sort of civil arrangement should be granted to gay couples when it comes to insurance benefits, property, social security, etc. Call it civil union, marriage what ever. Marriage is just a word, I've had two of them. Why should hetrosexuals be the only ones to enjoy the pitfalls of marriage.

Lighten up people be reasonable.

October 15, 2010 at 11:06 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

You know, hambone, lightening up seems to be a reasonable request. In the case of evolution deniers, I could agree to live and let live. But I have seen first-hand the damage done to young men and women by prejudice, often cloaked in religion. I will fight for their right to live a full life with all the rights and privileges the rest of us enjoy.

October 15, 2010 at 11:24 a.m.
alprova said...

reaganwasright wrote: "I see that eeeeeek's comments were deleted."


And I'm still wiping up traces of that mouthful of iced tea that went flying across my desk like a 98 mph fast ball.

People love selecting that one verse contained in Leviticus, forever skipping and ignoring the one that precedes it -- a law that much more people in our own nation violate on a daily basis.

Leviticus 20:10 -- "And the man that commits adultery with another man's wife, even he that commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

How many people have escaped the claws of Biblical justice for violating that particular holy law?

October 15, 2010 at 11:25 a.m.
FM_33 said...

During my Navy service, my department had 3 (out to us) gay men, we had no problems. Username: eeeeeek | On: October 15, 2010 at 11:03 a.m.


Both my mom and dad where USNavy officers so we do have something in common.

October 15, 2010 at 11:50 a.m.
FM_33 said...

Username: eeeeeek | On: October 14, 2010 at 7:29 p.m.


Eeeeeeek if i am in the 5th grade then you're behind me in the 4th.

October 15, 2010 at 11:55 a.m.
FM_33 said...

Username: eeeeeek | On: October 15, 2010 at 11:03 a.m.


How many years did you serve in the US Navy and what was your MOS ?

October 15, 2010 at 11:57 a.m.
FM_33 said...

I have now erased about seven comments I tried to make.

I'm going back to bed! Username: Clara | On: October 15, 2010 at 7:04 a.m.


A bottle of Ultra-Mega Women will do the trick at your local GNC store.

If you go on * Gold Star Tuesday * you will recieve a 20% discount on each bottle.

Now that's a deal Clara and you will feel a lot better after you start taking 2 a day for more zest and energy.

October 15, 2010 at 12:02 p.m.
Oz said...

lkeithlu...Just wanted to make sure you realized the suicides never happened in the link provided by BigRidgePatriot.

October 15, 2010 at 12:05 p.m.
Clara said...

eeeeeek,

Can you accept Christianity as a philosophy and not a religion?

Don't you pick out the parts of any philosophy and adhere to what you believe of them.

I'm wondering what philosophy you adhere to, to be so adament against Christianity, and probably other religions and philisophic teachings.

Isn't it nice to be here and be able to express your beliefs?

October 15, 2010 at 12:05 p.m.
claybennett said...

FM_33-

I don't mean to inhibit any debate or criticism about my cartoons, but you should really try to consolidate your thoughts more than you have in this thread. I understand that there are several regular participants in these debates, many of whom jump into the conversation repeatedly along the way.

That's fine. That's the nature of the back and forth that takes place here.

But as I scroll down the comments, your screen name starts to dominate the discussion. In a period of just over two hours, 29 of the 37 comments that were posted were from you. I'm not asking you to hold back, as much as I'm asking you try and express your thoughts in fewer posts, and to try your best to suppress the urge to post comments in rapid succession.

I think your comments will actually get more notice if you do.

October 15, 2010 at 12:07 p.m.
Clara said...

FM,

I don't need a tonic! Especially on YOUR recommendation. I need 8-9 hours of sleep a day.

I hate waking up at 3 a.m. and not getting back to sleep again before 6-7 a.m.

EEEEEEK's removed declaration did not disturb me. It surprised me, though. C:-)

October 15, 2010 at 12:16 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Yes, Oz, I realize that. I did read the story. I wonder what their point was, writing that way and then saying at the end that the suicides never happened. (some religions consider suicide a sin) It only reinforces my point.

October 15, 2010 at 12:23 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Username: claybennett | On: October 15, 2010 at 12:07 p.m.


  • Ok *
October 15, 2010 at 12:25 p.m.
mtngrl said...

http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/Cacd/RecentPubOp.nsf/bb61c530eab0911c882567cf005ac6f9/4f03e468a737002e8825779a00040406/$FILE/CV04-08425-VAP(Ex)-Opinion.pdf

This is the "Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law" filed by the judge that ordered the DADT injunction. It goes into great detail on how the policy violates the First and Fifth amendments.

I personally don't see any way the policy will stand. It is not a question of if it will be repealed anymore, only how. The DOJ is appealing the ruling, but only to give Gates more time to formulate a plan for the repeal instead of it being immediate. Either way the policy is going to end.

Although I do not see how a judge could approve allowing discrimination to continue in the meantime.

October 15, 2010 at 1:47 p.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "it is possible for a hetrosexual man to be uncomfortable with a homosexual man in a close living arrangement like in the military. doesn't mean he's a "homophobe"..."


Only a person who has had little, if any, exposure to interacting on NORMAL levels with those who are gay, would write such a statement. Your statement is indicative of someone who fears gay people.

Look, be it in the military or in private enterprise, people who are gay are quite adept at not 'crapping where they eat,' for a better way to describe it. They go about their daily lives just as you do, never making the mistake of mixing business with so much as an iota of pleasure.


"if that homosexual soldier lets it be known who he is..then he's stating that he likes men, obviously....and that automatically brings in a sexual element..that wouldn't ordinarily be there."


You may be one of those people who has sex on their minds all the time, but not everyone does.

Let's say you crack a really raunchy joke about two gay guys. If someone were to pipe up and say to you that they don't find the joke funny because happen to be gay, would this immediately make you feel as if you have been solicited?

If so, then you may indeed be homophobic.


"it doesn 't mean that the homosexual soldier can't perform his duties as well as the next guy, but it does introduce a level of dicomfort."


For him, or for you?

Who then needs to learn to deal with that discomfort?

October 15, 2010 at 2:24 p.m.
Francis said...

you've yet to see any "wisdom" in any of my posts, huh..ikeithlu

well, sorry, solomon.....

you're a typical pompous, and elitest liberal.....which, unfortunately, is pretty much par for the course for most EDUCATORS now a days.

you libs can contort , blur and do your best to gray everything to fit your bizzare view of life....but there is normal and abnormal...natural and unatural......you just don't have the ability to see it.

to say homosexual sex acts are natural to them, or normal to them...and to shake your head at those who "don't understand it" and say it's not.. just confirms to me how wacked the liberal mind is.

no man was not created to take it in the rear. sorry...the parts don't fit.

to try and argue that it's normal...speaks to your acceptance of perversion.

not thinking homosexuality is normal does not make one a "homophobe"

October 15, 2010 at 5:30 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

You just confirmed what I said, Francis. You can find nothing whatever to refute anything I have posted here. You also show no inclination to learn.

You don't have to accept gay as a natural and harmless variation in human sexuality, just like you don't have to accept evolution or anything else that conflicts with your beliefs. No one cares and your lack of acceptance changes nothing. You may remain a bigot as long as you don't act or ask lawmakers to act to deny gays their rights.

October 15, 2010 at 5:39 p.m.
rolando said...

First, the APA rammed their leadership's homophilic decision without full participation of the members present at their conference [or whatever]. The vote was held the way King George ordered the Colonies to hold theirs -- in odd, out-of-the-way places, at late hours of the night, with certain members present, etc. The removal of homosexuality from the DSM-III did not have majority consent or approval.

Second, whatever the homophiles here believe, no one is discharged from the military service for being a homosexual...it is done to maintain good order and discipline withing the ranks. Hence, the DADT policy -- which is a bunch of hogwash -- was imposed to "appease" those who are unappeaseable...that is, homophiles. Silence wasn't and isn't good enough for them -- only complete and total social recognition that their acts are "normal" and fully accepted as such by our society. As Francis repeatedly says, "Never Happen".

The court has taken it upon themselves to decide what is and isn't done to maintain good order and discipline within the military ranks. Good luck with that.

Finally, all this trash about percentages of homos in our society is just that...trash. The ONLY current and reliable source of that information comes from the legal representatives and spokesmen [generic...live with it] of the major alternative lifestyle folks by whatever name while filing amici curiae briefs before the US Supreme Court. One of their briefs stated words to the effect that about four % of US population were homosexual, lesbian, switch-hitters, the confused, the shape-shifters, etc.

Of that number, just over two percent were homosexuals.

Since it was presented to the court, that is much more accurate assessment of the actual number of men performing abnormal sex acts on a continuing, exclusive basis...the only basis worth considering.

Point is, homosexual acts are NOT the norm in our society...and they never will be. If that should happen, our society would, of course, no longer exist.

October 15, 2010 at 6:01 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

When were you a member of APA rolando?

Do you have sources for your claims?

No one said that homosexuality is the norm. It is a natural variation but they are in the minority. There is a difference, you know. As far as the %, it is 8% of men; somewhat less for women.

Finally:

Do YOU have a secular or constitutional argument for continuing our policies that discriminate against gays? If so, let's hear it.

October 15, 2010 at 7:04 p.m.
rolando said...

Iknew I could count on you to respond, lkeith.

Do your own research. Hint: the numbers are from Lawrence v. Texas. Hint 2: All I said is available on the Internet if you only look. I should add it took me considerable time and effort...but then we all know I am a slacker, right? Yeah, right.

The issue here was indeed "What is the norm?" Natural variations are NOT the norm which is established over large populations extending over a period of years, decades, etc.

I will continue to believe sworn court testimony over your uninformed opinion; amici that gave the numbers I stated. It is a matter of credibility. These were lawyers...lots of them.

Your final is easy -- homosexuals are not discriminated against...they have the very same constitutional and natural rights everyone else has. No more, no less. [Nice try to bring religion into this discussion, as you so often do, but you win no banana or other prize.]

October 15, 2010 at 7:19 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

They don't have the same rights rolando. Hence the topic of the cartoon. 158 posts and you don't know that yet?

My opinion is not the issue here. The evidence is from science, not the courts. Again, you can believe what you want; your bigotry does not matter. What matters is rights, specifically equal protection under law, as in the constitution. Gays don't have it, but they will.

October 15, 2010 at 7:54 p.m.
Oz said...

If a straight man kills me. It is no big deal. If a straight man kills a gay man. It is a hate crime. They want special rights. Equal will not get it for them.

Next it will be employers must hire X number of gay employess. Schools must hire X number of gay teachers, etc., etc.

October 15, 2010 at 9:35 p.m.
Clara said...

They are still very much human and deserve the same "rights".....The same as a mentally deficient with the IQ of 40 or less has! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ikeithlu, I just got home and you posted nicely what I'd hoped to get across. Thank you!

October 15, 2010 at 9:35 p.m.
rolando said...

They have the same rights, Clara...just like you and me, mentally deficient or Mensa level.

October 15, 2010 at 9:52 p.m.
rolando said...

Contrary to what you believe, lkeith, it IS your opinion you are laying on us...you just like to pretend otherwise in hopes someone will buy it.

Testimony before a court by a "Friend of the Court" is usually, if not always, slanted in support of the "Friend's" opinion. To say nothing of the fact they provided executed, sworn statements.

So if anything, the homophiles' estimates of percentages of people performing abnormal sexual activities on a continuing, exclusive basis in the US were HIGH.

If there was the slightest credible evidence indicating homosexuality was inborn and NOT a matter of choice, you may certainly be assured that those mouthpieces [so to speak] would have shouted it to the highest cobwebbed corner of the courtroom.

Instead, there was dead silence on that issue. Which says a lot.

Name one constitutional or natural right I have that a homosexual in the US doesn't have. I can't think of a one...

October 15, 2010 at 10:07 p.m.
rolando said...

Were you aware this month has 5 Fridays, 5 Saturdays, and 5 Sundays? That reportedly happens once in 820-odd years.

Trivial factoid of the night.

Have a good weekend, all. Especially you, Clay. Good cartoon; good topic for discussion.

Good night, all.

October 15, 2010 at 10:13 p.m.
reaganwasright said...

Oz, with all due respect, you misunderstand the law.

A hate crime would be when you kill someone because they are a gay, not just incidental to the fact.

If a gay person killed a straight man because he is straight, that can be prosecuted the same way.

I'm not aware of such a case being prosecuted this way, but this is the essence of a hate crime.

I'm not crazy about carving out special considerations for special populations, but I will admit, I don't think I've ever heard a gay person say things like straight people are perverted or abnormal or deviant or evil just because they are straight. The disdain for sexuality generally flow from heterosexuals and in the closet homosexual/bisexuals toward homosexuals.

I bet it's a matter of time before we see a hate crime committed by a homosexual.

October 15, 2010 at 11:13 p.m.
Clara said...

Nothing you said has been about Human rights as opposed to Legal rights, which we are trying to heal.

October 15, 2010 at 11:21 p.m.
reaganwasright said...

rolando, I've heard about this 820 years statistic, too.

I don't know where it came from, but it's not correct.

It happens every time a 31 day month starts on a Friday.

I heard where it last happened in October was in 2004. I can't remember when it happens again in October, but it's something less than 20 years away. I'm sure someone else knows.

October 15, 2010 at 11:36 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

rolando, the court case you quoted didn't reveal statistics, and you never supported your claim about the APA, something that NARTH said but could not support either. NARTH is a religious group, although they claim that they are not.

The science behind sexual orientation, while not complete, does NOT support the following: sexual orientation is a choice sexual orientation can be changed after birth sexual orientation is the result of a missing father/mother figure same sex attraction does not exist in any other species same sex relationships threaten traditional relationships

These are the claims of groups like NARTH, which are funded and staffed by religious people trying to impose their version of what is "right" and what is "natural"

It is only a matter of time before SCOTUS finds that gay marriage (and possibly plural marriage) and the right of gays to serve in the military will be allowed under our constitution, simply because no one (including the anti-gay posters here) can show that civil rights for gays can be denied for secular or constitutional reasons. Since we are NOT a theocracy (thank dog) people cannot use their religion to deny rights to others.

As for the visibility of gays and their in-your-face pride parades, well, they have the right to be obnoxious. We don't have to watch. I don't attend Christian rock concerts, KuKluxKlan marches or Gay Pride Parades because I don't want to. That does not mean they don't have the right to do these things. I don't watch TV because I think the shows are stupid and pointless, but I have no right to deny others that choice. (Every group has a channel or two that provides programming geared to interests: BET, Telemundo, ESPN, CN, Foxnews, PBS, even channels that have religious or GLBT programming.)

Gotta work all weekend. You guys enjoy the pretty weather.

October 16, 2010 at 7:44 a.m.
Revantler said...

It is always sad to watch this forum degenerate into name calling and false characterization and bitterness. Maybe it is the nature of the beast that a group of anonymous typists will always lose their ability to discuss matters in a civil manner that seeks consensus.

October 16, 2010 at 9:09 a.m.
rolando said...

As I said, lkeith, do your own homework. The information -- dependable, objective information -- is right at your fingertips. All you have to do is as I did...dig it out.

Your hopes and dreams for a homosexual-filled America are pipe dreams, milady.

No one questions anyone's right to demonstrate on any topic...but I would say public nudity and abnormal sex acts during parades, etc are a bit over the top for our society. It is these kinds of penchants that do not endear the homosexual's drive for society acceptance -- which not even the courts can demand.

You forgot to mention the homosexual revolution's greatest friend and supporter, NAMBLA. Oh, and the ACLU.

The "science" behind the homosexual's argument that their abnormal ways are inborn and unchangeable are totally unsupported, twist it as you may. They depend on a lack of evidence being proof that their view is correct.

October 16, 2010 at 9:43 a.m.
rolando said...

What can I say, RWR, but it sounded good when I read it. Kinda made the weekend special, didn't it?

Well, back to more mundane things...gotta fix the kitchen plumbing [my hands are already dirtied from posting on the TFP].

Have a great day.

October 16, 2010 at 9:46 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

As usual, rolando, no sources for your claims. I have family members and friends that work in this area, so I know the science is there and it is sound even if not complete. Your NARTH group that you are so fond of is wrong. But, as I said before, your lack of knowledge or acceptance doesn't matter in this case. The constitution will be followed.

See y'all Monday.

October 16, 2010 at 9:47 a.m.
rolando said...

As I said, lkeith, do your own homework. It is all there as are the arguments AGAINST my argument. Too lazy, hm-m-m?

In referring to your "scientific" and/or discrimination claims, I offered this:

"Instead, there was dead silence on that issue [evidence of inborn homosexuality]...

"Name one constitutional or natural right I have that a homosexual in the US doesn't have. I can't think of a one..."

Having difficulty addressing those, are we?

I doubt the constitution will be followed by the Ninth District...it seldom is. That's why it is the most over-ruled [or whatever] Federal District Court in the US.

Hope your weekend was good.

October 16, 2010 at 11:37 a.m.

President Obama & First Lady Hold LGBT Pride Reception Posted on June 30, 2009 at 12:00 AM EDT The President and First Lady host a reception for LGBT Pride Month in the East Room of the White House. June 29, 2009. (Public Domain) ...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/video/President-Obama-and-First-Lady-Hold-LGBT-Pride-Reception

Here is President Obama specking on the "Don't ask don't Tell" policy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obama-speaks-gay-civil-rights

October 19, 2010 at 1:16 p.m.

Here is also some more video of Obama in action.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/videos/2009/April/20090428_FBI.mp4

http://www.whitehouse.gov/videos/2009/April/20090420_CIA.mp4

President Obama is one hell of a commander and chief and all america should honor him and love him as well.

October 19, 2010 at 1:25 p.m.
rolando said...

Well, hopefully the attendees didn't do their public abnormal sex thing in front of the Obama children, Indielight.

October 19, 2010 at 10:11 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.