published Wednesday, December 19th, 2012

Government and marriage

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that its 2013 docket will include two cases directly related to gay marriage. The first is a case determining whether the federal government can deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry. The other is a constitutional challenge to California's Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban preventing the state from recognizing gay marriage.

Perhaps more important even than the outcomes of these two cases is the opportunity this attention on gay marriage affords those of us on the right side of the aisle to discuss the government's role in marriage.

As conservatives, we often advocate for government recognition of marriage between one man and one woman on the basis that it is an institution that benefits the public good. Yet, in the same breath, we fight other attempts by government intended to benefit the public good -- such as mandatory exercise schemes, occupational licensing requirements and bans on sodas and fatty foods -- with every fiber of our being. This intellectual inconsistency not only concedes marital power to government without a constitutional basis, but weakens our arguments when government tries to gasp control of other aspects of our lives -- from what we can eat to how we should teach our children.

Our other conservative arguments against gay marriage are even more flawed and even less compelling.

Religious beliefs, while the best reason to oppose gay marriage personally, are perhaps the worst reason to encourage government prevention of gay marriage universally.

For many of us as conservatives, religious dictates determine how we and our family choose to operate in our personal lives -- and we don't want government in the way of that. It is contradictory to argue to keep government out of religion while attempting to use government to mandate our religious beliefs on others who may not share out values.

Utilizing nanny-state tactics to force lifestyle decisions on others is the very antithesis of limited government tenets -- particularly in the case of gay marriage bans, where the freedom being eliminated is only considered wrong on the basis of personal morals and subjective social ethics. Despite arguments to the contrary, it is extraordinarily difficult to prove that anyone is harmed by two men or two women marrying.

Tradition is at the heart of conservatism and also at the heart of gay marriage opposition. "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman" is a common refrain from our side. Our modern notion of marriage is just that -- modern. Throughout history, a large portion of marriages have been either arranged or polygamous, or both.

What marriage hasn't been traditionally is a government contract which, sadly, is what it has become.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, there are 1,138 federal benefits, rights, and protections granted on the basis of marital status. Additionally Scott Shackford, writing on Reason magazine's website, points out that "there are 179 tax provisions that take marital status into account -- everything from tax exemptions for health insurance contributions to tax credits for children."

These tax breaks and benefits amount to an unsettling attempt at social engineering by the government in an effort to goad procreation. After all, the more kids today, the more taxpayers and potential members of the military tomorrow.

•••

The U.S. Constitution contains no mention of the word "marriage." Since the 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," it follows that the federal government should not be involved in marriage.

In light of that fact, it is apparent that the easiest solution to the thorny issue of gay marriage is to simply get the federal government out of the marriage business altogether.

While states have a right to determine their own marriage requirements, that right may be ultimately stripped by civil rights and equal protection arguments that claim that it is unfair for a privilege to be denied to individuals based on sexual orientation. As a result, state governments may be forced out of the marriage game as well. And that's for the best.

Marriage shouldn't be a government contract. It shouldn't be a tax shelter. It should be a covenant between people who love one another.

48
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.
conservative said...

This whole piece is nothing but a mishmash of sophistry, contradictions and hypocrisy to justify homosexuals marrying and claiming Conservative values to justify it!

Conservatives are for conserving that's why it is called Conservatism. There are truths, values, traditions, laws, institutions, that have made our country and people great in the eyes of the world and Conservatives want to maintain/conserve them.

Redefining marriage is NOT Conservatism Mr Johnson!

December 19, 2012 at 8:14 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

You're a bigot. And homophobic. And ignorant. But I digress.

I bet it really stings to read a pro-gay marriage article from the "Right" side of the TFP!

LMFAO! You're running out of places to hide. Pretty soon bigots like you will be all but eliminated from this country.

Happy Holidays, bigot!

December 19, 2012 at 8:32 a.m.
Jalan said...

Nothing is more toxic to hate mongering and bigotry than an intelligent well written opinion by a conservative editor. Hatred and prejudice die a hard slow death. This took a lot of courage to write. If we continue to speak out against extremist and their hatred, maybe we can keep them under the rocks they belong under.

December 19, 2012 at 9:31 a.m.
dao1980 said...

The Con-meister himself said: "Conservatives are for conserving that's why it is called Conservatism."

Really?? That's not your (or any other self proclaimed con's) stance when the topic centers around the environment, personal freedoms, innocent life in proximity to fast moving war zones, etc. etc. etc.

That pseudo-objectivity and evil-purpose-serving interpretation you've learned at church sure comes in handy everywhere else too huh?

December 19, 2012 at 9:51 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Bravo-finally a truly consistent conservative opinion. You can't have it both ways-either you are for government intervening in personal affairs or you are not.

December 19, 2012 at 10:32 a.m.
Stewwie said...

Ike, it's pretty rare that someone is "all or nothing" when it comes to liberal and conservative views. I'm a limited-government conservative, but that doesn't mean I think that the government should be completely hands-off on personal and economic matters...hence the term limited-government. Mr. Johnson, on the other hand, is about as anti-government as you can get. I think that his views sometimes are a bit too extreme.

Mr. Johnson, you acknowledge the rights of the states, so how about justifying and defending the approval of Prop 8 in California? Of the people, by the people, for the people. But instead you advocate the people's decision to be overturned by the federal government...even though you also said that the federal government should stay out of the marriage business. The Supreme Court should do the right thing and uphold Prop 8.

Mr. Johnson, take a look at the comments section. When you write anything that gets a thumbs-up from folks like Ike and Easy123, it's clear that it belongs on the left side of the paper. If you feel this strongly about gay rights, save an article like this to print on the left side when Harry Austin is on vacation.

December 19, 2012 at 10:57 a.m.
nucanuck said...

c-man, this is just one more time that you should have kept your lips zipped.

December 19, 2012 at 10:58 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

stewwie, prop 8 denies equal protection under law for gay citizens. A state's population cannot vote to deny basic rights to a segment of the population. Same sex marriage is inevitable precisely because it falls under the constitutional "equal protection under law". Given that there is NO secular reason to deny the right to marry to any two consenting adults, same sex marriage will eventually become legal everywhere.

I stand by what I said. Conservatives who want government out of people's lives except when they want government imposing their sectarian morals on everyone else (for our own good, of course) are hypocrites.

December 19, 2012 at 11:27 a.m.
conservative said...

"As conservatives, we often advocate for government recognition of marriage between one man and one woman on the basis that it is an institution that benefits the public good. Yet, in the same breath, we fight other attempts by government intended to benefit the public good -- such as mandatory exercise schemes, occupational licensing requirements and bans on sodas and fatty foods -- with every fiber of our being. This intellectual inconsistency not only concedes marital power to government without a constitutional basis, but weakens our arguments when government tries to gasp control of other aspects of our lives -- from what we can eat to how we should teach our children."

There is no " intellectual inconsistency " by Conservatives between marriage which is voluntary and those "mandated" behaviors by government which you listed.

What a false comparison!

December 19, 2012 at 12:35 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

conservative, do you have a secular reason for denying two consenting adults to marry?

December 19, 2012 at 12:40 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike, no, in fact homosexuals can marry now, just not to those of the same sex.

You would starve if you had to live by trapping.

December 19, 2012 at 1:01 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Again-do you have a secular reason for denying two consenting adults to marry? I never mentioned gender-nice dodge.

December 19, 2012 at 1:16 p.m.
conservative said...

IKe, your atheism has truly made you obtuse. You are only going to get worse.

Again, two consenting adults can marry now just like you did, if you are now or ever have been married.

December 19, 2012 at 1:23 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Not in all states, conservative. Try again: do you have a secular reason for denying two consenting adults to marry? Whomever they choose?

My belief system has nothing to do with this.

December 19, 2012 at 1:24 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Conservative said, "Conservatives are for conserving that's why it is called Conservatism. There are truths, values, traditions, laws, institutions, that have made our country and people great in the eyes of the world and Conservatives want to maintain/conserve them."

Great Conservative Organizations and People: Spanish Inquisition, National Socialism- Nazis, Communism, Puritans, Westboro Baptist Church, Aryan Nation, Great Britain in 1775, Franco in Spain, Peron in Argentina, Hirohito in Japan, Orvil Faubus in Arkansas, New England Slavers, Mohammed, Brigham Young, Shah of Iran, Mike Huckabee, Pope Pius 12th, Southern Baptists, Christian Re-Constructionists, John Calvin, Henry Kissinger, Ayatollah Khoumeini, Meyer Khan, Benjamin Netanyahu, Yasir Arrafat.

So Conservative, you're in good company of those who enslave, commit crimes against humanity, preach hate,and long for the return of the good old days of darkness and despotism.

The only freedom you want is the freedom to determine the world by your standards, not free-thought and liberty.

December 19, 2012 at 1:28 p.m.
conservative said...

Mr Johnson why can't you or want you say that two homosexuals who do not have the tax advantages of married couples now, should be given those tax advantages while denying those tax advantages to other single adults?

December 19, 2012 at 1:32 p.m.
conservative said...

"It is contradictory to argue to keep government out of religion while attempting to use government to mandate our religious beliefs on others who may not share out values."

"our religious beliefs"

Why do you say "our religious beliefs" when you obviously don't share the religious beliefs of Conservatives concerning homosexuals and marriage?

December 19, 2012 at 1:50 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Again, conservative: do you have a secular reason to deny marriage rights to consenting adults? If not, then your reasons to deny these rights are religious, and therefore unconstitutional.

December 19, 2012 at 2:21 p.m.
conservative said...

"Our modern notion of marriage is just that -- modern. Throughout history, a large portion of marriages have been either arranged or polygamous, or both."

Wrong, our modern as well as ancient notion of marriage has been between a man and a woman.

Those "polygamous, or both" have been quite small in number in America. Furthermore, you recognized these marriages were of the opposite sex when you used the word "polygamous" beginning with the prefix "poly" instead of "homo."

December 19, 2012 at 2:29 p.m.
Stewwie said...

Ike,

Do you have a secular reason for denying 3 consenting adults to marry? How about 4? Why stop with just 2?

December 19, 2012 at 2:36 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I actually don't have a good secular reason to ban plural marriage, Stewwie. It doesn't matter to me if a woman wants more than one husband or a man more than one wife. It might be a little more complicated to draw up laws regarding order of claim on spousal rights, but I don't see it as impossible. My only concern is that men and women have the same rights. (polygamy and polyandry, not just polygamy). Not my thing, but I don't feel I have the right to deny others.

Wrong, conservative. Ancient forms of "marriage" almost always were plural. A man and his wives/concubines.

December 19, 2012 at 2:46 p.m.
Ozzy87 said...

Stewwie, I'll break it down in simple terms the same way I had to for Conservative (verbatim) so you can understand: A) 1 man + 1 woman = LEGAL marriage. B) 1 man + 1 man = BANNED from marriage in 41 states. C) 1 woman + 1 woman = BANNED from marriage in 41 states. The difference between couple A versus couples B and C is discrimination based on one of the couples' gender which is ILLEGAL. In this country it is already legal for two unrelated people ( in some states being related as close as first cousins) of sound mind and legal age (in some states as young as 14 with parent's consent, so I wouldn't use the "pervert" word too loudly, IMHO) to marry. All we want is the laws to be applied equally according to the 14th Amendment, which; according to the Constitution; federal laws supersedes state laws banning marriage equality. So, just to start off, trying to ban us from marriage violates Full Faith And Creditablity Clause, the 1st, 9th, and the 14th Amendments, and federal laws against gender discrimination.

December 19, 2012 at 3:16 p.m.
JustOneWoman said...

Because Con can't count........ Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

http://youtu.be/OFkeKKszXTw

December 19, 2012 at 4:03 p.m.
conservative said...

I noticed also Mr Johnson that you never used the word Libertarian which you are. However, you often used the word Conservative or a form of it which you are not. You finished with a Libertarian source Reason magazine pushing for the elimination of tax deductions, benefits etc for married couples.

Good luck with that!

December 19, 2012 at 4:20 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Mr Johnson why can't you or want you say that two homosexuals who do not have the tax advantages of married couples now, should be given those tax advantages while denying those tax advantages to other single adults?

Why just the tax advantages? Why not the entire package? Or are you saying that married couples should not get these advantages? That is certainly an argument too. Discrimination against single people.

December 19, 2012 at 4:29 p.m.
Gidget said...

Conservative - Mr. Johnson is by definition a true conservative. If you refer to his article on socialism from back in November you'll understand.(http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/20...)

December 19, 2012 at 4:33 p.m.
dao1980 said...

In all objective fairness, conservative(the poster) possibly represents the average american conservative about as well as he represents the average american christian... as in, poorly.

Well, actually... he's most likely an absolute embarrassment to both.

December 19, 2012 at 4:40 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike , if you would read the article which I responded to instead of responding to me you might understand my comment. I didn't address you but Mr Johnson who would understand. You will also find the answers to your questions if you read the piece, specifically who wants to end all your privileges if you are married to someone of the opposite sex.

December 19, 2012 at 4:55 p.m.
Herbert said...

The US government, and local and state governments, should not be involved in the validation of marriage at all. If one is truly conservative and believes in small government, marriage ceremonies should be irrelevant to the state. Marriage should be a contract between individuals. If one wants government in the bedroom, one is then what is commonly called a statist. That is the European model. I am happily married, in a heterosexual relationship, with three lovely children. I want the government to regulate their lives as little as possible. That was the original American way, and it is a way to which we should return.

December 19, 2012 at 4:59 p.m.
TonyGottlieb said...

Drew: While I generally subscribe to your view on this issue, I have one major caveat. I maintain serious a reservation about the deliberate involvement of children with couples involved with a same sex relationships. There is no child of a same sex relationship without one or both of that child's biological parents being absent. Where are they? Why have they abrogated responsibility for their offspring? I concede that divorces occur, and that one biological parent may chose to enter into a same sex relationship. But that does not specifically exclude the other bio-parent. I do not approve of the deliberate procreation of a child, using surrogacy, specifically to form a same sex family. Altering a child's birthright exclusively for the purpose of constructing a same-sex familial relationship and detaching that child from its biological parent(s) is a capricious and self indulgent act. Men and women who sell off their children in anonymous sperm and egg donations similarly receive my scorn. While adoptive parents of abandoned and orphaned children are truly angels, one does not have to witness many children in adoptive homes to notice the damage often inflicted by biological parental abandonment. Procreating specifically for same-sex couples is simply hubris. No one has been able to convince me that two young men or two young women just graduating high school and so adopting, or step parent-adopting a young baby, is anything but a high risk venture. Shredding the social fabric for the purpose of legitimizing indulgent sexual impulses needs to stop at the doorway to a fertility clinic.

December 19, 2012 at 5:01 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

While adoptive parents of abandoned and orphaned children are truly angels, one does not have to witness many children in adoptive homes to notice the damage often inflicted by biological parental abandonment.

In some cases, yes, but if children are the biological offspring of disfunctional people, even being adopted as infants does not erase the damage. Some forms of disfunction are hereditary, and damage is done in utero by drugs and alcohol.

Procreating specifically for same-sex couples is simply hubris. No one has been able to convince me that two young men or two young women just graduating high school and so adopting, or step parent-adopting a young baby, is anything but a high risk venture.

This would be true of opposite sex couples too. Many young people just leaving high school are too immature to be parents. The gender of the couple is not an issue.

Shredding the social fabric for the purpose of legitimizing indulgent sexual impulses needs to stop at the doorway to a fertility clinic.

Ah, now we get to the meat of your inner feelings here. How does allowing gays to marry "shred the social fabric"? Isn't marriage supposed to be good? Aren't children better off in a family? Just because you don't like the idea of a loving couple who are the same gender doesn't mean that they are not capable of forming a stable, loving family and raising children. There is no evidence to show that children raised by same sex parents are at risk. Indeed, plenty of children are at risk of abuse by their own, biological, opposite sex parents.

December 19, 2012 at 5:13 p.m.
Ozzy87 said...

TonyGottlieb : do an internet search on the name Zach Wahls and watch some of the video clips about him and other children raised by gay and lesbian couples.

December 19, 2012 at 5:18 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

TonyGottliebsaid: "Men and women who sell off their children in anonymous sperm and egg donations similarly receive my scorn."

Are you saying that eggs and sperm are children? Should male masturbation be punishable? Is Onanism a crime, sin, or just good fun?

December 19, 2012 at 5:31 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

More crazies on gay marriage, abortion and the war on Christmas from evangelicals.

"New York Times bestselling author Joel Rosenberg tied Jon Stewart to the shootings in Newtown, Conn., because Stewart is part of “the cultural war against Jesus and Christmas” that helps “drive [God] out of our society, our of our schools and courts.”

In a blog post, Rosenberg cites the ongoing so-called War on Christmas, and how “We are, in many respects, in a moral and spiritual freefall in our country, and we are paying a terrible price.”

Rosenberg, who has previously linked Hurricane Sandy to abortion rights, is an evangelical who writes about End Times, and wrote in his latest book, “The Tehran Initiative,” that “[m]illions of Muslims around the world are convinced their messiah—known as ‘the Twelfth Imam’—has just arrived on earth.”

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/19/right_wing_author_jon_stewart_part_of_the_culture_that_led_to_shootings/singleton/?google_editors_picks=true

Perhaps it's time to start a spay and neuter program for religious nutters like Joel Rosenberg and friends.

Here's great response to "The Right-Wing Religious Nutters Imaginary War of Christmas" by Penn Jillette.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/13/opinion/jillette-atheist-christmas/index.html

Happy Holidays and a Merry Festivus for the Rest of Us.

December 19, 2012 at 8:26 p.m.

Unfortunately, marriage contracts are well known for their business and property related nature throughout history, ergo, dismissing it as a non-concern for government is a fool's gambit.

Unless you're a closet anarchist who believes the government has no role in the regulation of contracts.

December 19, 2012 at 10:01 p.m.
fairmon said...

Conservatives and liberals are both very willing to discriminate against those that are single which is the reason gays want to be married. Why should singles pay a higher tax rate than those already taking the advantage of the two can live cheaper than one concept. Why are married people encouraged to have children with tax deductions that shifts more of the tax burden to singles. Health care policies and social security have similar provisions that discriminate against those not married. Discrimination against singles is not justified but a lot of those participating in it object to two people of the same sex taking advantage of the prejudice in practices and policies. Stop the discrimination and the issue goes away. Personal and religious beliefs are not justification. This is another example of governments attempting to dictate behavior and gain favor.

December 20, 2012 at 6:06 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Are You ready for this?

Complex mathematical calculations within the sciences give the reason why something works. The formulae allows us to get to the solution. They are tautological in nature/operation (yes, these are all original thoughts from ken orr). Necessary and sufficient conditions are evident within the solution. Through this, same sex unions, etc. can be given a litmus test for viability.

Same sex unions, etc. must be viewed utilizing a law for them that can be labeled the 'all-or-none' law (for these purposes, aside from the ordinary neuronal example). For example, we know that no amount of effort will produce a biological offspring between two males, nor, two females. They cannot attain to the necessary and sufficient conditions to be able to accomplish this. This results in a totally unnatural response to the purpose of continuing human life. This is against nature.

To go a step further the following ontological axiom is tautological in concept...and...very true:

God is still God, and, I am still not! The Greatest Great, of which there is no Greater Great than that Great...is God. (Anselm). The Lord Jesus Christ is utilizing powerful mechanisms to destroy that which seeks to destroy His perfect plans for family order. One of many current examples of this is HIV/AIDS. For this installment, I won't go into the cost of this to the government/people.

Back to the top! Not only do the mathematical calculations provide the reason something works, but, also why something does not work. The Lord God of Hosts (The Greatest Great) lets us know why homosexual unions don't work. And beyond that, they destroy. In my following post I will let You read just one of the more current things Jesus has said regarding His response to homosexual behavior. kwo

December 20, 2012 at 11:06 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

As promised, here is the Supreme Conclusion:

ROMANS 1:22- "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,..."

Jesus Christ, Through Saint James, Said:

James 1:15

"Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." Homosexual HIV/AIDS is no joke. Even the type of sexual behavior in which the homosexual men engage, tears and damages muscles not designed by Nature to be used this way. (Please refer to the Sandusky trial wherein a young boy was caused to bleed from his anatomy due to homosexual sex). This, and other Biblical[not Secular) laws are absolute, everlasting irrefutable, unchanging...as is Jesus Christ. Ken Orr

December 20, 2012 at 11:14 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Ken Orr,

"Complex mathematical calculations within the sciences give the reason why something works."

False. Very few real world situations fall perfectly into mathematical equations.

"Through this, same sex unions, etc. can be given a litmus test for viability."

No, it can't.

"Same sex unions, etc. must be viewed utilizing a law for them that can be labeled the 'all-or-none' law"

Based on what? The "all or nothing" law is specific to action potentials. You cannot use it as a measure or "rule" for anything else.

"For example, we know that no amount of effort will produce a biological offspring between two males, nor, two females."

False. Many organisms produce asexually. You should be more specific and use "sex reproduction" somewhere in that sentence but you are too stupid to do so.

"This results in a totally unnatural response to the purpose of continuing human life. This is against nature."

Using this logic, infertile women, sterile men, and mules are "against nature". You're such an idiot.

"The Lord Jesus Christ is utilizing powerful mechanisms to destroy that which seeks to destroy His perfect plans for family order."

False. No proof of Jesus Christ or god or anything you are saying.

"For this installment, I won't go into the cost of this to the government/people."

How much does church tax exemptions cost the government/people?

"Not only do the mathematical calculations provide the reason something works, but, also why something does not work."

Again, this premise is entirely and utterly false.

"The Lord God of Hosts (The Greatest Great) lets us know why homosexual unions don't work."

Again, this is false. Homosexual unions do work and are currently working for many same-sex couples around the world.

You are scientifically illiterate and patently ignorant. You shouldn't be permitted to talk about anything involved science. You embarrass yourself with every attempt.

December 20, 2012 at 11:36 p.m.
Ozzy87 said...

Easy123, what are the complex mathematical calculations to calculate the probability that Orr needs to be confined to a padded cell and only be allowed to write with crayons?

December 21, 2012 at 2:47 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Ken Orr, why do you keep coming here? I have tried to work with you but you either refuse to learn or you can't learn. Did you lie when you said you wanted to? Your credibility is now completely shot in my mind. You continue to post things that are false even when you have been shown to be false. What does your god say about lying?

December 21, 2012 at 7:59 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Jesus Christ>>>John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life..."

I shine the Light on many who operate in darkness (this is one of my blessings). Those who would not come to the Light are exposed by the Light, nonetheless. Only those who know who they are can absolutely determine if the following quote applies to them:

"The Dogs Bark, But, The Caravan Move On!"<<<

Ken ORR

December 21, 2012 at 8:29 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Oh, I just about forgot.......

The country of Germany had my video slide show blocked from them by the Universal Music Group. Viewers in Germany would get a message: 'This video is not available in your country'. I didn't like that because I used a remix (Fair Use Authorized, i thought) of a Moody Blues song, 'Say It With Love'. So, I have found music that works with my video, and, which meets all intellectual copyright guidelines for the same. Please view this video regarding the wonderful service great newspapers like The Chattanooga Times Free Press provides for all of us. kwo

http://youtu.be/oqt2G9ywa2s

December 21, 2012 at 9 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Well, that answers my question: your only purpose to being here is to impose your religion on the rest of us. I get it. If you would like to spend your life knowing nothing about our incredible world except what is written in a 2000 year old book, that's your choice. I won't engage you again.

Just for future reference: if I was on the fence in terms of religion, your dishonesty would have sent me running the other way. You might try a different approach.

December 21, 2012 at 9:01 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

My scholarly information shared, and, my Christian Witness, are not 'mutually exclusive'. That info which I receive from others is always valued! Please be patient with me. kwo

December 21, 2012 at 9:09 a.m.
dao1980 said...

Incoherently delivered, total and complete gibberish Ken.

I agree with Ike, anyone who is unsure as to their stance on your particular flavor of religion, could easily see from your posts that it has absolutely nothing substantial to offer.

Not that you're alone in that... conservative (the poster) surely runs as many off (or more) than you do.

December 21, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Nope, Ken. You are a liar. You have demonstrated that. It might not be your fault-you seem damaged and in pain, and religion is the life ring you chose to grasp. I am sorry for you, but will not waste my time pointing out your falsehoods. The first time is a mistake-no change after correction, and it becomes a lie. Happy holiday, whichever of the midwinter holidays you choose to celebrate.

December 21, 2012 at 9:15 a.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

My scholarly information shared, and, my Christian Witness, are not 'mutually exclusive'.

They are however, mutually wrong. No scholarship and Christian apologetics equals ignorance.

December 21, 2012 at 10:57 a.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.