published Saturday, February 18th, 2012

The Honeymoon

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 ...

141
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.
ArnoldZiffel said...

Anything to distract from BO. Most folks don't give a crap what Homos do. That's their beeswax. Call it what you will, it AIN'T no marriage though. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, price of gas, price of gas, cost of food, cost of food and more jobs. The election is not about homo unions or birth control, it's about BO.

February 18, 2012 at 12:12 a.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

OH, YEAH, and debt, debt, debt, debt, mandates and illegal aliens. Not homo unions.

February 18, 2012 at 12:15 a.m.
John_Proctor said...

What an insightful analysis of Clay's latest cartoon! Your logic is so well-stated and compelling. I am amazed at how quickly you figured Clay's clever plot of distraction over this year's election. No, you can't get one over on old Arnold, not by a long shot.

Now, it's time for the rest of the chorus to join in so have at it and enjoy the Kool Aid. If twisting anything and everything into some sort of anti-Obama rant makes you happy, then have at it.

February 18, 2012 at 12:34 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL

For all anyone knows Chrisie is in favor of legalizing gay marriage, but must veto the bill to keep his dreams of national office alive. He's not some right wing nut job. He's liberal to the point of having appointed a Muslim to the state supreme court over the shrill objections of both state and national republican leaders.

Interesting polling on legalizing gay marriage. Voters 18 to 34 are in favor by about 70%. Voters 55 and older only 34%. People in the middle are about 50 - 50. You can probably figure out why.

No, Chritie may be pro-gay marriage, but he's also a savvy politician. He MUST be opposed to gay marriage because republican voters in the all important North Carolina 2016 primary are most assuredly opposed to gay marriage.

Funny: Karl Rove managed to get gay marriage referendums on key ballots in 2004 to help Bush win re-election. It was a powerful wedge issue that effectively split democrats, but this year it's a wedge issue that's splitting republicans.

The Maryland house just passed a gay marriage bill which it had voted down in the past. One reason was the arm twisting republican legislators received from none other than Dick Cheney. Yes, the former Veep. The Maryland Senate said it would approve the bill and the governor said he would sign it. Acutally Cheney has been pushing for the legalization of gay marriage for about 4 years but this is the first time his support has been made public.

For Cheney is not about politics, it's about family.

For Christie, it's just politics.

February 18, 2012 at 12:35 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Crank up the social issues and get the hate filled polarization tuned up for November. Get the attack ads out there to destroy the reputations of those who dare run for public office.

Can we not see what we are doing to ourselves and our nation?

February 18, 2012 at 12:51 a.m.
acerigger said...

Good post blackwater! Keep 'em honest! You,like myself and (I believe),most Americans, know that this is only another "shiny object" to distract voters from the real issues.(and please,do I really have to name those?)

February 18, 2012 at 12:59 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

WHAT'S A TEA BAGGER TO DO?

Establishment republicans are in a pickle. (That was not a single entendre) They represent about 30% of the GOP but control most of the funds. The rowdy conservative pee baggers, represent around 70% of the party and are now in position to wag the proverbial dog.

Remember the republican rallying cry in 2010? Jobs Jobs Jobs! and The Obama economy is a disaster! Those issues are beginning to slip away. The dow is back around 13,000. American manufacturing has increased two years in a row (first time since the 1990s). GM is setting record profits. The economy has added 4 million jobs over the past two years. Unemployment numbers continue a slow decline. New home construction is beginning to pick up. Home sales are up. There are positive signs across the economic landscape.

Poor Mitt Romney based his entire campaign on being a business leader who could turn around the economy. Establishment republicans assumed that the economy would stay tanked long enough for businessman Romney to win the White House. Too bad three years ago Mitt declared that GM should file for bankruptcy, that Obama would ruin the automobile industry with his $50 billion bailout.

Without a compelling economic narrative republicans are souring on Romney and hoping that cultural issues rally their base and split democrats again. Gay marriage no longer has the political impact it did in 2004. This year republicans are going with the so-called personhood amendment, which seeks to make the legal case that life begins at conception. It would not only outlaw all abortions but also most forms of birth control.

Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich have all signed a 'personhood pledge' (what's with republicans signing pledges?) to pursue personhood legislation if they are elected President.

Mississippi voters - a very conservative voting bloc - turned it down last year. This year the Virginia house and senate have passed a personhood bill and republican governor Bob - I''d love to be the vice presidential nominee - McDonnell is looking it over. That means he's meeting with his campaign staff and trying to read the political tea leaves.

Waging a cultural war is tricky, but with the economy showing signs of actually recovering, what's a tea bagger to do?

February 18, 2012 at 1:51 a.m.
hambone said...

Anyone who thinks that the rising price of gasoline is not pay-back to the GOP by the oil companies is the real kool-aid drinker!!

Arnold!!

February 18, 2012 at 4:55 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

I'm glad the GOP House has turned the economy around after 4 years of Mrs Pelosi's destruction.

Abe Lincoln: how many legs would a dog have if you called the tail a leg?

Answer: five?

Abe: No, four: calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

(Mostly I'm "nominalist," but here the functions are different.)

Evolution says: since gay can't breed, it's a total failure. In the human beginning was Mr & Mrs Missing Link, not Mr & Mr.

Jesus & co say: repent and live.

Gay acTIVity involves 2 or more people--a group. Do other groups have (at least) equal rights?

'Till later D.V.--gotta get to work.

Jesus & co say: repent and live.

February 18, 2012 at 6:08 a.m.
EaTn said...

Thanks blackwater48 for very informative summary. Also, hambone, your observation on gas prices and the upcoming election is interesting. The oil companies have the power to put the brakes on the economy in the months leading up to the election if they so choose.

February 18, 2012 at 6:25 a.m.
joneses said...

Obamacare

“The brief argues that it would be wrong for the Supreme Court to defer to the independent judgment of Congress when none was exercised. Several Members of Congress argued that the bill, especially its individual mandate, was unconstitutional, and at least three Members cited the 18-page Heritage analysis of why it was unconstitutional. In response, not only did then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) mock one reporter’s constitutional question with the ‘Are you serious’ snap, she also said that Members would ‘have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.’ The principal sponsor in the other chamber, Senator Max Baucus (D–MT), also admitted that he wouldn’t ‘waste [his] time to read’ the bill. In sum, the sponsors didn’t even read the bill.” “The brief points out all the procedural abuses (remember the budget reconciliation dodge and the various state kickbacks) that were necessary for the sponsors to squeak out a razor-thin, purely partisan margin in each House. The only bipartisan aspect of the bill was the opposition to it. In short, justices need not worry that they are overturning a broad consensus of the American people.” “The brief shows that no other major landmark social legislation was passed without wide margins because the sponsors of all those other laws made compromises to address constitutional and other concerns.”

February 18, 2012 at 6:35 a.m.
alprova said...

AndrewLohr wrote: **"I'm glad the GOP House has turned the economy around..."

That has to be the most outrageous falsehood you have ever written in this forum to date.

You Sir, are a pathological liar. Reading your religious barbs, tossed around so carelessly, makes you the perfect hypocrite.

Crank up that organ and post another YouTube video.

February 18, 2012 at 7:42 a.m.
conservative said...

Oxymoron : Same-sex Marriage

February 18, 2012 at 7:46 a.m.

Ace, if you are referring to real issues of the President you are so in love with is running up a debt like non other, then yes that is a real issue. It may be the issue that the true unemployment figure is around 15% and not the 8.3% BS figure he so graciously tried to put out for people to see. Is it the fact while saying no to PAC money he now has "EMPLOYEES" of the government going out and begging for it on the tax payers backs. Maybe it is the fact of all these trips to states he is call "OFFICIAL" visits to raise campaign funds that are also being paid for by tax payers. I will say one thing about Obama though if he was 1/2 as good at running the country as he is campaigning for the job then American would be 100% better off.

February 18, 2012 at 8:09 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I will say one thing about Obama though if he was 1/2 as good at running the country as he is campaigning for the job then American would be 100% better off.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Considering he had to do everything with a GOP led congress whose ONLY goal (by their own admission) was to make him fail, I think he has done pretty well.

February 18, 2012 at 8:35 a.m.
rogerdodger said...

Wow I went back and done some research and not 1 time does Gov. Christie (not Chrisie, Black Water)ever say that he is for gay marriage. But yet you try to make yourself and other believe he is. The truly sad part is it only took a short time before people were praising your post of total BS. I guess it show the total lack of character you and others ( ACE, & Ea TN) have. It could possibly show that you are in such denial of the facts this country is complete downward tail spin and "YOUR" president has done nothing to stop it but has done a lot to give it more momentum. Hey LOVE, you should know that speaking the truth will only get you attacked on here, because the fools that love Obama will never admit they were wrong for electing him.

February 18, 2012 at 8:39 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Andrew - I strongly suspect that, in your piety, you ignore the Book of Leviticus except for about four sentences. And, you have to interpret those sentences completely out of context to make them apply to two persons of the same gender who wish to mutually commit themselves to a lifelong relationship.

February 18, 2012 at 8:43 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I have never heard a secular reason for forbidding gay marriage. Not one. No arguments about what harm they may cause, or how they might undermine the economy or threaten straight marriage or lead to famine, pestilence, recession, etc. No one is asking churches to perform them, no one is asking religions to approve them. My 30 year marriage is not threatened by them. I don't have to pay for them.

February 18, 2012 at 8:48 a.m.
EaTn said...

Let's get one thing straight. Most liberals do not think Obama is the greatest--they just remember how much better the country is now compared to four years ago. Would another republican in the office repeat the same mistakes? They have in the past and they would again.

February 18, 2012 at 8:49 a.m.
conservative said...

No homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God! 1 Corinthians 6:9

February 18, 2012 at 9:19 a.m.
dude_abides said...

rogerdodger busts on BW48 for leaving out a "t", then commits no less than six spelling and grammatical errors! You gotta love a world in which a Level 2 Certified Tire Changer can assail logic at a 5th to 7th grade English composition level, declare victory, and drive away in his K-car.

February 18, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I doubt any gay or lesbian cares a whit about your interpretation of scripture, conservative. Nor is that a SECULAR reason for banning same sex marriage. Try again.

February 18, 2012 at 9:33 a.m.
dude_abides said...

conservative said... No homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God! 1 Corinthians 6:9

At least not while in the Corinthians 6:9 position.

February 18, 2012 at 9:36 a.m.
NGAdad said...

ummmm... Really? The Governor of New Jersey has a problem with who marries whom, and conservatives explain to us that the whole thing boils down to a biblical absolute.

Does not the same Bible condemn gluttony? I happen to see many of the religious community ignore that every time I go to fast food establishments AND church activities of my family.

I guess that they have taken a pair of scissors to those passages. Maybe especially Mr Christie. hmmmmmm?

February 18, 2012 at 10:05 a.m.
fairmon said...

Those opposing gay marriage should remove the incentives by eliminating the discrimination against singles. Those supporting gay marriage have no objection to the discrimination against those that are single by choice or other reasons. It would financially benefit two straight singles to marry even if they never interacted with each other.

February 18, 2012 at 10:08 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

LET ME BE CLEAR

Roger said Wow I went back and done some research and not 1 time does Gov. Christie (not Chrisie, Black Water)ever say that he is for gay marriage.

First, thanks for pointing out the typo. I done bad and appreciate your help.

Second, I never said he WAS for gay marriage. I simply said that for all anyone knows he might be in favor of legalizing gay marriage. After all, he is liberal enough to have appointed a Muslim to the New Jersey state supreme court and ordered state flags lowered to half staff in memory of Whitney Houston. Many conservatives openly opposed that move. I believe that his veto of the Bill could be a politically expedient and calculated move.

Andy wrote this sugarplum: I'm glad the GOP House has turned the economy around after 4 years of Mrs Pelosi's destruction.

Seriously dude? On what plane of consciousness?

February 18, 2012 at 10:08 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Who really cares about same sex unions? We have real problems to be concerned with. The Wart is obsessed with homosexuality.

February 18, 2012 at 10:11 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Always impressed with angst from the left. Wait a minute! Aren't those the guys that are all inclusive, hear all sides of issues, respect all opinions, etc???

February 18, 2012 at 10:15 a.m.
EaTn said...

conservative...let's review 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. I believe there's some toe stomping in here for everybody, including the righteous right-wingers. .

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." .

February 18, 2012 at 10:15 a.m.
fairmon said...

The fair tax act as proposed in HB-25 and SB-13 would effectively address essentially every tax fairness, tax equity and economic stimulus issue the two parties are using to influence voters. The fact that the wealthy and the power structure in congress will not let it out of committee for a vote suggest it would benefit the middle class and lower income people while taking away the ability of the wealthy to avoid higher taxes and the powers in congress to manipulate the tax system, it would make things too transparent for them.

Google fairtax.org for details. You will have done more than most in congress have done. The administration regardless of which party is in office would have a heart attack if congress were to pass the bill.

February 18, 2012 at 10:18 a.m.
MTJohn said...

conservative said...No homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God! 1 Corinthians 6:9

Conservative - what is your basis for concluding that "evil doers" includes all homosexuals? Perhaps even more important, what is your basis for concluding that "evil doers" does not include you?

Each of us - you and every homosexual included - is the individual handiwork of our Creator and created in God's image. Each of us behaves in many and various ways that violate God's law of love. Yet, each of us is offered the promise of God's grace and that grace is much broader than the limits of human imagination.

February 18, 2012 at 10:24 a.m.
MTJohn said...

BigRidgePatriot said...Who really cares about same sex unions? We have real problems to be concerned with. The Wart is obsessed with homosexuality.

Believe it or not, BRP, I suspect that Clay would agree with you that DOMA is a trivial distraction. But, he is not obsessed with it - he is responding to the fact that a significant segment of the voting public is obsessed with passage of DOMA and, as the cartoon suggests, Gov. Christie pandered to that segment yesterday.

February 18, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.
conservative said...

Do you ever think about what you write? What is your interpretation of " No homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God" from 1 Corinthians 6:9? Go ahead, display your intelligence. Are you stumped by the word "NO"?

February 18, 2012 at 10:31 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Adulterers, too? Gee, that means Newt's gonna be in hell with the rest of us!

February 18, 2012 at 10:31 a.m.
jesse said...

all of pauls writing in the new test. are indicators that somewhere on the road to Damascus he found some bodys stash of L.S.D. imo!

February 18, 2012 at 10:54 a.m.
MTJohn said...

conservative said...Do you ever think about what you write? What is your interpretation of " No homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God" from 1 Corinthians 6:9? Go ahead, display your intelligence. Are you stumped by the word "NO"?

Conservative - I presume that your question was posed to me. And the answer to your question is yes, I do, think about what I write.

There are four different Bible translations on my bookshelf. Of those, only the NIV uses the word, "homosexual" - more correctly, "homosexual offender". I can easily understand, in the context of all of Scripture, how homosexual behavior in the context of adultery, idolatry and abuse constitutes offense. I do not see any language in Scripture that necessarily would associated intimacy within a lifelong, committed, same gender relationship also equates with "homosexual offense".

I get very uncomfortable when people cite passages out of the context of the longer passage and out of the context of all of Scripture. 1 Cor. 6:9 provides a case in point. The admonition in verse 9 is a lot broader than just sodomites. It is broad enough to apply to most of us. And, if we are among the few who escape verse 9, verse 10 is sufficient to catch the rest of us. But, thanks be to God, the last word is not the admonition, but the promise of grace that is spoken in verse 11.

February 18, 2012 at 11:23 a.m.
NGAdad said...

MTJohn... Grace and love have been deleted by the conservative right wingers both in their politics and social interactions. They now believe that "hate is a God given emotion" that inspires them to "go after Obama". Both of those quotes from a pastor in Orlando FL 2 weeks ago at my nephew's church. hmmmmm...

February 18, 2012 at 12:08 p.m.
NGAdad said...

Way to add to the discussion Jon. As usual nothing seems to click with you.

P.S. they let you on the computer in the jail library?

February 18, 2012 at 12:44 p.m.
rick1 said...

I notice Clay never mentions that Obama is against gay marriage.

BW48 here are the facts on the economy that you and the others on the left refuse to except.

Yesterday marked the three year anniversary of Obama signing the stimulus. At the time, Obama claimed that it would "create or save" up to 3.5 million jobs, and that "a new wave of innovation, activity and construction will be unleashed across America." He promised it would "ignite spending by businesses and consumers" and bring "real and lasting change for generations to come."

So where are we three years later? Unemployment rate: The jobless rate is unchanged from February 2009 to January 2012. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, both stood at 8.3%, Obama's economists had initially predicted that with the stimulus, unemployment would stay below 8%.

Number of long-term unemployed: The number of workers who have been unable to find a job in 27 months or more has shot up 83%, with their ranks now at 5.5 million.

Civilian labor force: It has shrunk by 126,000. In past recoveries, the labor force climbed an average of more than 3 million over comparable time periods.

Labor force participation: The share of adults in the labor force —either looking or working — has dropped 3% — also highly unusual in a recovery. At 63.7%, labor force participation is at a low not seen since the middle of the very deep 1981-82 recession, when fewer women were in the work force. A lower participation rate makes the unemployment rate look better.

Household income: Median annual household income is about 7% below where it was in February 2009, according to the Sentier Research Household Income Index.

National debt: Up $4.5 trillion, or 41%, according to the Treasury Department's monthly reports. The latest Treasury figures put the national debt at $15.4 trillion, larger than the entire U.S. economy.

Deficits: The deficit for fiscal year 2009 totaled $1.4 trillion. The Obama administration's proposed deficit for 2012 is $1.3 trillion, which would mark the fourth year of deficits topping $1 trillion.

Gross Domestic Product: Real GDP has climbed just 6% between Q1 2009 and Q4 2011, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Spending by consumers and businesses: Personal consumption has managed to climb 10% in the past three years, according to the BEA, but companies continue to hoard cash, with cash on hand up 27% since Q1 2009, according to the Federal Reserve Bank.

http://news.investors.com/article/601526/201202171525/obama-economic-stimulus-turns-three.htm

February 18, 2012 at 12:59 p.m.
onetinsoldier said...

Who did jesus play hide the weinie with? We all know he put it somewhere, butt where? Repugnants just need to get their faces out of everyone elses crotch. You can always count on them to shove their faces into someones genitals when they need to change the subject. Clay, shame on you for going along.

February 18, 2012 at 1:11 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative said to MtJohn: "Do you ever think about what you write? What is your interpretation of " No homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God" from 1 Corinthians 6:9? Go ahead, display your intelligence. Are you stumped by the word "NO"?"

Well, Conservative, you’re entitled to your opinion and interpretation, of course, but I believe the U.S. would be far more productive and a much better country if its Christians would just make more of an effort to focus on a few Christian basics:

“God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.” [1 John 4:16]

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this, all men will know you are my disciples, if you love one another. [John 13:34-35]

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrong. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth. It always protects, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.” [1 Corinthians 13:4-8]

“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?” [Luke 6:32]

February 18, 2012 at 1:25 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Jon Ross: an animal ( or a child) cannot give consent. They cannot marry. Where do opponents of same sex marriage get such strange ideas? The only possible arrangement that could be argued for if gays are allowed to marry is polygamy/polyandry. It would be easy to argue that any such union between CONSENTING ADULTS should be allowed. But underage marriage or marriage to an animal is NOT BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS.

Maybe you can take up where conservative failed: Give us one secular reason why gays should not marry. One reason, that shows that such marriages put others at risk or deny others their rights. (in your words: abandon their faith. How does allowing same sex unions prevent others from practicing their faith?)

BTW: You not "liking it" is not a secular reason. I don't like fast food, but I don't try to stop others from eating it.

February 18, 2012 at 1:42 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

JonRoss said: "So mountainlaurel you are saying I should be able to marry the neighbor's Collie bitch ? I am trying to see where all of this is going. People of faith must abandon that faith so that Progressives can do what makes them feel good?"

Since “God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him,” I believe the goal would be to love your neighbor, love the Collie, and love the Progressives. And if you're doing this successfully or trying your best to do this, how can you be abandoning your faith?

February 18, 2012 at 1:47 p.m.
SBrauer said...

JonRoss, Were you born stupid, or did you have to practice????

February 18, 2012 at 2:01 p.m.
dude_abides said...

JonRoss... God called and said "yeah, like that collie's interested in you."

How can gay marriage foment bestiality any more than "traditional marriage?" What is the exact mechanism which kicks in and states "everything goes, now!" When is that epiphanic moment in which everyone decides that it's cool to get an iguana, a platypus, and a couple of randy marmosets from Mt. Pilot together for some Mojitos and some hot tub wrestling? Do you really think the morally depraved are waiting for some legal precedent to move forward with their plan for "world abomination?"

February 18, 2012 at 2:15 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

yet they force gay marriage, national healthcare, and other assorted acts of hate against a populace who for the most part opposes.

No one is telling you you have to marry someone of your own gender. No one is saying you have to buy a government held health plan. Neither of these are acts of "hate" anyhow.

Is this your way of saying you don't have an answer?

February 18, 2012 at 2:18 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

lkeithlu said to Jon Ross: “an animal ( or a child) cannot give consent. They cannot marry. Where do opponents of same sex marriage get such strange ideas?”

Good question, ikeithlu. But I think that Jon Ross already knows better than this. I could be wrong, but I suspect his question about “animals” and “marriage” is an attempt to dehumanized homosexuals. Maybe it makes it easier for him to do what he is doing.

February 18, 2012 at 2:24 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

JUST CALL ME THE BUS DRIVER

Rick my hair's on fire and the glass is only half full tried to set the economic record straight.

Yesterday marked the three year anniversary of Obama signing the stimulus. At the time, Obama claimed that it would "create or save" up to 3.5 million jobs, and that "a new wave of innovation, activity and construction will be unleashed across America." He promised it would "ignite spending by businesses and consumers" and bring "real and lasting change for generations to come." So where are we three years later?

There have been 3.7 million new private sector jobs added in the past two years. Also, manufacturing jobs have grown two years in row, the first time that's happened since Clinton was President. (I'm sure that's just an odd coincidence) Also, new home construction is up and home sales are up as well. GM just reported record profits and the Stock Market is closing in on 13,000. It was less than half that when Obama took office.

Gross Domestic Product: Real GDP has climbed just 6% between Q1 2009 and Q4 2011, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Real GDP was at MINUS 8% in January of 2009. As for the rest of your long term unemployment numbers and related jobs statistics you have to remember that the Bush recession cost 8 million people their jobs. We were losing 750,000 workers per month, so, if Obama isn't working fast enough for you, too bad. Considering the steadfast opposition by congressional republicans I'd say he's doing alright. The economy may be growing too slowly for you, but at least it's no longer in free fall.

I guess you can't wait to get back to the good old days of trickle down economics.

February 18, 2012 at 2:27 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

crickets chirping

Sorry, Jon Ross. You and others "not liking" gays is not reason enough to deny them the same rights as straights, such as rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Same Sex Marriage is inevitable, as courts will decide that denial of these rights is violation of the constitution, in the form of "Equal Protection Under Law".

Of course, you could move to Uganda. Sounds like your kind of place. They murder gays there.

February 18, 2012 at 2:30 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

EXCUSE ME?

JonRoss, I am uncomfortable with you referring to me as 'honey.' Check your latent baggage at the door, although I will not discriminate against you for saying foolish things or living in a closet.

So, you republicans lost control of the economy, drove the financial car through the guard rail, and it wound up in a ditch. We can all agree on that. The Bush recession nearly match the great Depression. In many ways it was worse but I digress.

Obama showed up with a tow truck but before he even started getting YOUR wreck out you were complaining. He parked the truck wrong. He's using the wrong winch. Don't scratch the paint. And now that the car is almost out you want to get behind the wheel AGAIN? And blame him for you wrecking the car in the first place? Time to kick back with a reality sandwich.

And stop regurgitating the same old fox 'news' tea bagger BS.

February 18, 2012 at 2:57 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

If it's about BO, Republicans LOSE! Wait a minute. Republicans are losers!

Look in a mirror Republican, see the loser!

Click Here

February 18, 2012 at 3:56 p.m.
workinjay said...

Rick1, you said that "I notice Clay never mentions that Obama is against gay marriage." How could you say such a foolish thing? Obama couldn't possibly be against gay marriage. If he was against it then how and why would he get their votes? Plus if he were against it, wouldn't this also be against equal rights? Are you saying he's being hypocritical? I thought he was the savior of all.

February 18, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

MTJohn said... "Believe it or not, BRP, I suspect that Clay would agree with you that DOMA is a trivial distraction. But, he is not obsessed with it - he is responding to the fact that a significant segment of the voting public is obsessed with passage of DOMA"

I have to admit that I have not sat down with Bennett over a beer on the subject but I still beg to differ. Every time there is something about same sex marriage in the news it seems like he feels compelled to spend his time on a cartoon on the subject.

Clearly, it is a hot button issue for the guy.

February 18, 2012 at 4:09 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

Why are Republican so unhappy with an improving economy? Private Sector Jobs being created.

America on the mend after 8 years of Republican demolition.

Why are Republicans so unhappy that America is climbing out of the HOLE created by 8 years of Republican incompetence?

Beats me!

February 18, 2012 at 4:13 p.m.
MTJohn said...

BigRidgePatriot said...I have to admit that I have not sat down with Bennett over a beer on the subject but I still beg to differ. Every time there is something about same sex marriage in the news it seems like he feels compelled to spend his time on a cartoon on the subject.

Sure, Clay sometimes responds when same sex marriage makes the news. But, same sex marriage would not be making any news if a bunch of folks, apparently including Gov. Christie, were not so intent in denying civil rights to same-gender couples.

February 18, 2012 at 4:15 p.m.
rick1 said...

BW48, yes manufactoring jobs have increased but if Obama would work with businesses instead of hampering them these jobs would increase even more. President and CEO Jay Timmons National Association of Manufacturers stated the following: "I would say that manufacturing is in recovery from its recent and rather prolonged economic hangover,but when it comes to jobs or a long-term strategy to promote manufacturing investment in this country, we still have a long way to go."

Timmons notes that it costs 20% more to manufacture in the U.S. than in other countries not including the cost of labor and that this is "a self-inflicted wound" caused by lousy public policies, such as an overly costly and complex tax code, excessive regulations and runaway litigation costs.

In regards to new home construction builders began just 430,900 single family homes last year. It was the fewest on record dating back a half century, and home prices are still falling.

After previous recessions, housing accounted for at least 15 percent of U.S. economic growth. Since the recession officially ended in June 2009, it has contributed just 4 percent. Also a surge in apartment construction has offset weak single-family homes, pushing housing starts up 1.5 percent. So things are not as good as what the Obama Admin wants us to believe.

Take a look at the unemployment report from the CBO this is the longest strech of high unemployment since the Depression. CBO also reported the real unemployment rate is closer to 15% when include those who would like to work but have not looked for a job in the last 4 weeks or those working part timke but would like to work full time. CBO is reports the share of unemployed who have been looking for work for more than 6 months topped 40% in December 2009. And there are 1.2 million have stopped looking for work and are no longer in the job pool. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/127xx/doc12757/02-16-Unemployment.pdf

February 18, 2012 at 4:16 p.m.
MTJohn said...

JonRoss said...Strange how Progressives and Obamists advise people of faith to love everyone and play nice, yet they force gay marriage, national healthcare, and other assorted acts of hate against a populace who for the most part opposes.

Jon - I defend to the hilt your right to not marry a person of the same gender as yourself! But, then, I don't really think anyone is trying to force you to do that.

February 18, 2012 at 4:19 p.m.
rick1 said...

BW48 in regards to what you like to call trickle down economics read this link which show you gthe proof Reagans policies worked.

stanleyyelnats you may want to try to educate yourself also.

And as you can see it did not come from Fox. By the way that line is getting old.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/one-year-later-another-look-at-obamanomics-vs-reaganomics/

February 18, 2012 at 4:25 p.m.
MTJohn said...

There is an old joke that went something like this: Q. How do you keep a WASP uninformed? A. Take away his Reader's Digest. Q. How do you keep a WASP mis-informed? A. Give it back to him.

Fox News is the 21st Century equivalent, with one important difference - the dis-information is very intentional.

February 18, 2012 at 4:54 p.m.
rick1 said...

JohnRoss, just look at BW48 Avitar using Alex from the movie Clockwork Orange. Alex was a psychopath who got off on robbing, sexual assualting, and murdering hos victims. This movie was so graphic it was banned in this country for sometime.

BW48 why do use this disgusting vile character as your avatar? Is this someone you are proud of? Only someone who has deep psycological problems would associate themselves with this character.

February 18, 2012 at 4:55 p.m.
NGAdad said...

rick1 quotes a bunch of figures then at the end...

"Spending by consumers and businesses: Personal consumption has managed to climb 10% in the past three years, according to the BEA, but companies continue to hoard cash, with cash on hand up 27% since Q1 2009, according to the Federal Reserve Bank."

Now, go back through all the numbers and you'll see that although people are spending (stimulating growth) COMPANIES are NOT. THAT is why things haven't done better. The mega rich and their conservative buddies don't mind tanking the economy to oppose Obama.

That makes them un-American in my way of thinking, and don't give me the fear and regulation crap. Companies have no more to fear nor are they under any more rules than the rest of us.

Besides they can buy influence at all times to get the change (and corporate welfare) they want.

February 18, 2012 at 5:25 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Ha! rick1 is trying to educate tu_ella de Ville! Too much of a coincidence of timing. That's grand. Hey, you Nazis gotta stick together!

February 18, 2012 at 5:34 p.m.
rick1 said...

NGAdad you have shown your ignorance when it comes to running a business.

dude, have to start with the name calling because you can not come up with an intelligent thought. Grow up.

February 18, 2012 at 5:42 p.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

Damn, right Harp! The fair taxe scares the crap out of EVERYONE in D.C. It's too damn good to be true and a REAL solution. Clay and his bf can do whatever they want, who cares! Just don't tell me how to look at things! Move on to real issues. We're going of the edge with a bozo at the wheel and Clay focuses on this again!!!

February 18, 2012 at 6:03 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

nice non-answer, Jon Ross. Gave you all afternoon to come up with something besides an "epic fail".

February 18, 2012 at 6:05 p.m.
NGAdad said...

Ok rick1, i'll bite. Which part of companies hoarding their money is good for the citizens of this country?

Come on, aren't you/they in favor of trickle down? No, not really, or they would at least pretend to invest in the future.

I was pointing to the 'facts' YOU posted. Take all that then you realize the bottleneck is with the greedy companies/banks. They think if they can't cheat into a 10% plus margin they take the ball and go home. The interest for individuals is in the low single digits - thus the system is rigged. duh

February 18, 2012 at 6:07 p.m.
NGAdad said...

Ikeithlu, that Jon guy has the short bald guy perspective on things. Looking at groin level does this to someone. He also has legal problems but is too stupid to pay his debts and move on.

February 18, 2012 at 6:13 p.m.
dude_abides said...

**Potcat=code word for classless trash

Al qaeda Al...

ALPO said: ...

...they do not want to admit that they are Marxists

...you are correct they are Neccesary Idiots** (love the spelling while calling people idiots, btw!)

These are all name calling quotes of yours, rick1. Reap the whirlwind, Hun.

February 18, 2012 at 6:33 p.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Distractions? We Chattanoogans fornicate, divorce, commit adultery, stare lustfully, indulge in sexual daydreams, dress to invite lust--but God forbid we leave those awful New Jersey liberal gayys uncondemned. Let's get the branches out of our own eyes, brothers, before we go after the twigs in their eyes.

February 18, 2012 at 7:23 p.m.
rick1 said...

dude, your are right I was wrong and I am sorry for calling Potcat and Al those names.

February 18, 2012 at 7:24 p.m.
acerigger said...

what's that smell? DFTT!

February 18, 2012 at 7:46 p.m.
conservative said...

MTJohn--

My 10:31am comment was meant for the avowed atheist. Since she wisely decided to stop digging a hole for herself I will answer you instead.

We need to talk. The cartoon is about same-sex marriage and that is why I omitted the other sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. However the passage clearly states that those who practice the other sins mentioned will also not inherit the kingdom of God.

Now look at the NIV translation you chose from 1Corinthians 6:9-11. " Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?" The list of sins that follow detail who are the wicked. But before I pick out just the sexual sins, I want you to focus on the words preceding the list. "Do not be deceived:"- don't let anyone mislead, trick, or fool you. "Neither the sexually immoral" (fornicators in many translations), "nor adulterers", "nor male prostitutes", "nor homosexual offenders" "will inherit the kingdom of God" Can it be any more clear? Don't be deceived, the wicked, those who practice these sexual sins will not inherit the kingdom of God!

I couldn't help but notice that you used the word "sodomites" in your statement "The admonition in verse 9 is a lot broader than just sodomites." "Sodomite" is a more literal translation of the Greek word translated "homosexual offenders" of the NIV translation. Sodomites who are among the "wicked" "will not inherit the kingdom of God"!

Also you use euphemisms such as "intimacy" and "same gender relationship" in place of "homosexual offenders" or "sodomites". Why is that?

Elsewhere there are scriptures which condemn homosexuality: Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-28. How could you not be aware of those also?

As Columbo would often say, "just one more thing". In verse 11 we find the words "And that is what some of you were." The "were" is past tense, meaning as Christians they were no longer practicing those sexual sins listed. Please "Do not be deceived" those who practice homosexuality "will not inherit the kingdom of God".

February 18, 2012 at 8:03 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "BW48, yes manufactoring jobs have increased but if Obama would work with businesses instead of hampering them these jobs would increase even more."

Any charge that President Obama has not "worked with businesses" is patently false. Not only have income and business taxes not gone up on anyone since Obama has been President, numerous tax breaks and tax incentives have been put in place to assist businesses in hiring workers and expanding their businesses.

"Timmons notes that it costs 20% more to manufacture in the U.S. than in other countries not including the cost of labor and that this is "a self-inflicted wound" caused by lousy public policies, such as an overly costly and complex tax code, excessive regulations and runaway litigation costs."

Labor is the number one cost of manufacturing any product. The "overly costly and complex tax code" is not the fault of the President. Obama has not imposed any excessive regulations upon businesses...period. The President has no control over who sues who for what. Nothing this man cites can be dropped at the feet of any President, much less President Obama.

"In regards to new home construction builders began just 430,900 single family homes last year. It was the fewest on record dating back a half century, and home prices are still falling."

Again, what can any President do about the state of the housing market? Nothing.

"After previous recessions, housing accounted for at least 15 percent of U.S. economic growth. Since the recession officially ended in June 2009, it has contributed just 4 percent."

The Obama Administration has never stated anything but the truth, in that recovery will take longer than in the past. When it comes to the housing market, the bottom still has not been reached yet, and that is not the fault of either President in power since 2001.

"Take a look at the unemployment report from the CBO this is the longest strech of high unemployment since the Depression."

That's much like stating that we are experiencing the longest stretch of practically anything since the Great Depression.

This latest recession was the deepest since the Great Depression. The same set of circumstances that led to the Great Depression was repeated in 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), that led to the recession of 2007.

"CBO also reported the real unemployment rate is closer to 15% when include those who would like to work but have not looked for a job in the last 4 weeks or those working part timke but would like to work full time. And there are 1.2 million have stopped looking for work and are no longer in the job pool."

If someone truly has a need for a job, they can find one. It may not be one that they want, but a job can be found. People who truly need a job don't quit looking for work.

The 1.2 million people reported to no longer seeking employment probably are not in dire need of employment.

February 18, 2012 at 8:04 p.m.
AndrewLohr said...

The Bible says only bad about gayy ACTIONS (and all other forms of fornication, among other sins). Man having sex with man, parallel to man having sex with woman, is evil, even though some men marry some women.

Again, in the Romans 1 list of sins, if there could be God-approved gayy actions, could there be God-approved idolatry, God-approved lack of natural affection, and so on?

Again, God in the beginning made male and female for marriage, and Jesus appealed to this in saying (heterosexual) divorce is bad. Surely, if we bring male-and-male to the test of these passages, it fails.

Again, I Cor 6 says some of the Christians there had repented of gayy actions (and of other sins). God hates divorce; so if gayy repentance and 'divorce' is good, then gayy actions are evil.

Since gayy wouldn't breed, and thus can't be very genetic, is that an evolutionary, secular reason to consider such actions bad?

Maybe letting people, not just gayys, list a Registered Significant Other (RSO) might sometimes do some good and discourage some evil: reduce number of sexual partners, allow visits in hospitals (visiting the sick is good), regularize some aspects of relationships (property). But the Christian interest in active gayys is that they repent, and break up, whereas the Christian interest in marriage is that it abide. So we need something other than marriage for other kinds of relationship.

Of course everything wrong with the world is the Church's fault. How often has your pulpit person explained what God considers right and what wrong about sex? Most advertisements, or many, say buy this and people will want to have sex with you. ("Kiss me; I've got the Signal!") Since we hear that wickedness several times a day, we need to hear God's counsel more often than most churches seem to preach it. Get to work, pastors. Luther said, He who preaches the whole gospel except the point particularly assailed in his day is not preaching the gospel.

Jesus and company say: repent and live.

February 18, 2012 at 8:12 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

My 10:31am comment was meant for the avowed atheist. Since she wisely decided to stop digging a hole for herself I will answer you instead.

Yeah, right. I was never in a hole, conservative, sweetie. You could not answer the question. Neither could JonRoss. But then again, when have you ever answered a question or supported the crap you post here?

By the way, just because I am an atheist does not mean I have never read your bible.

February 18, 2012 at 8:13 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Since gayy wouldn't breed, and thus can't be very genetic, is that an evolutionary, secular reason to consider such actions bad?

Nice try-at least you are attempting to address the possible secular reason (unlike conservative and JonRoss)

Let me tell you what is wrong with this answer: Sexual orientation is not genetic. Same sex attraction and behavior occurs in many animals, including reptiles, birds and mammals. It occurs naturally (from varying hormone levels in gestation) in some percent of humans. There is no gay gene, and parenting styles do not affect it. It is not a choice anymore than you and I choosing to be attracted to the opposite sex. It is not pedophilia. Gay relationships between consenting adults harms no one and breaks no laws. Many religions accept and acknowledge gays, some do not.

In animals, and perhaps in early humans too, being gay does not make you unable to live in social groups. In many animals, only the dominant individuals breed. Others participate in raising young, obtaining food, defending territory; groups engage in social behavior to cement relationships and share resources. Same sex activity would serve a purpose here; not all sexual behavior is for procreating.

Religious arguments only go as far as protecting churches' rights to not accept same sex marriage. Imposing your particular beliefs on the rest of the population is not appropriate, nor is it American.

February 18, 2012 at 8:25 p.m.
dude_abides said...

rick1... the first step is admitting you have a problem, and I salute you. For my part, I feel terrible for having inadvertently called you a Nazi, when my intention was to call you Anastazi, a much less offensive term. To get back on subject, I think what you do and whom you live with, in your Pueblo, is nobody else's concern and your Medicine Man should be free to marry you and your significant other. Regardless of what Governor Christ-i.e. says.

February 18, 2012 at 8:47 p.m.
conservative said...

Beginning at 9:19am, I wrote:

conservative said... No homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God! 1 Corinthians 6:9 February 18, 2012 at 9:19 a.m.

Your response was: lkeithlu said... I doubt any gay or lesbian cares a whit about your interpretation of scripture, conservative. Nor is that a SECULAR reason for banning same sex marriage. Try again. February 18, 2012 at 9:33 a.m.

conservative said... Do you ever think about what you write? What is your interpretation of " No homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God" from 1 Corinthians 6:9? Go ahead, display your intelligence. Are you stumped by the word "NO"? February 18, 2012 at 10:31 a.m

lkeithlu said...

Yeah, right. I was never in a hole, conservative, sweetie. You could not answer the question. Neither could JonRoss. But then again, when have you ever answered a question or supported the crap you post here? By the way, just because I am an atheist does not mean I have never read your bible. February 18, 2012 at 8:13 p.m.

You responded to my 9:19 comment with: I doubt any gay or lesbian cares a whit about your interpretation of scripture, conservative. Nor is that a SECULAR reason for banning same sex marriage. Try again.

I asked you what was your interpretation of the plainly stated fact " no homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God" in the 1 Corinthian 6:9 scripture. The rest that you threw in about JonRoss had nothing to do with me. The scripture reference I supplied clearly supported my statement that " no homosexual will enter the kindom of God". I was the one who asked you a question.

You can't and don't fool me with your silly strawmen and now others can see as well how dishonest you are.

February 18, 2012 at 9:04 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

You still haven't answered my previous question, regarding what a TROO CONSERVATIVE is, and you did not answer this question: what secular argument can you give for forbidding gays to marry? You cannot, apparently, answer either one, and your spouting bible verse to support your hate is ironic. I thought that Christianity was about love. Clearly I am wrong about that, at least.

Or, perhaps, you don't know the definition of secular? or conservative?

I asked you what was your interpretation of the plainly stated fact " no homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God" in the 1 Corinthian 6:9 scripture.

This, my dear, is a religious argument, not a secular argument. And the bible is not the constitution.

February 18, 2012 at 9:12 p.m.
workinjay said...

If gay marriage is about equal rights then why isn't Obama and Clinton being criticized for their fence riding approach in support for the gays in the same way that earlier presidents are now criticized for their ignoring the issue of slavery?

February 18, 2012 at 9:20 p.m.
acerigger said...

tu_quoque ,please don't try to diminish my posts by whining about "copy and paste"!

look away from the mirror long enough to see yourself.

February 18, 2012 at 9:22 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

One word, workinjay: politics. Ethics takes a back seat to politics again.

February 18, 2012 at 9:22 p.m.
macropetala8 said...

This is a little off the subject, but the excerpt below kinda blows out the water old boy Newts preachings about blacks on foodstamps and other government subsidies.

According to NY Times, Which parts of the country count on government benefits the most? "Many of the counties that are most dependent on government benefits are rural, and lean politically conservative. It wasn't hard for the paper to find residents who decry the growth of the government safety net -- while relying on it themselves.

February 18, 2012 at 9:25 p.m.
MTJohn said...

conservative said...Also you use euphemisms such as "intimacy" and "same gender relationship" in place of "homosexual offenders" or "sodomites". Why is that?

Because I am not willing to conclude that the passages you cited apply to those who wish to live together in committed, same-gender, intimate relationships in the manner in which you are trying to apply them.

conservative said...Also you use euphemisms such as "intimacy" and "same gender relationship" in place of "homosexual offenders" or "sodomites". Why is that?

conservative said...Elsewhere there are scriptures which condemn homosexuality: Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-28. How could you not be aware of those also?

Of course I am aware of those passages. As I suggested earlier in this conversation, I suspect that those who cite those few passages from Leviticus in this debate probably ignore the rest of that book. And, look at the context of those passages - they are silent concerned two people in a committed relationship. Instead, they speak specifically to homosexual acts in the context of promiscuity, idolatry and abuse. Romans 1 is much like the Corinthians passage that you cited earlier. Read it along with chapters 2 and 3. The list of sins is long and very conclusive - sufficient to exclude us all - including you and me - from the Kingdom. But, just like the Corinthians passage, Paul concludes his admonition with a clear proclamation of the Gospel. Neither you nor I have cease sinning, but we can live out of the clear message of grace. Why should it be any different for homosexual couples? If God's grace is not sufficient for them, where is your confidence that it is sufficient for you and me?

February 18, 2012 at 9:30 p.m.
MTJohn said...

macropetala8 said...

This is a little off the subject, but the excerpt below kinda blows out the water old boy Newts preachings about blacks on foodstamps and other government subsidies.

So does this:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/video/video-portraits-of-hunger-stories-of-americans-on-food-stamps/13154/

February 18, 2012 at 9:32 p.m.
fairmon said...

Not a single rebuttal to the following. Some people still believe in fairy tales and that gays want to marry because they are "in love" which is BS. Those opposing gay marriage should remove the incentives by eliminating the discrimination against singles. Those supporting gay marriage have no objection to the discrimination against those that are single by choice or other reasons. It would financially benefit two straight singles to marry even if they never interacted with each other. I think gays should have the right to marry. I have not seen any legal reason why they should not have the right. But Remove the discriminatory incentives and it will not be an issue. Those hypocrites using a religious reason also insist the government should not interfere or impose any conditions on the church but want the government to impose their religious beliefs on others. I assume that is reconciled in their mind the same way as discrimination against singles?

Apparently those posting think discrimination against one minority group is OK. No one has ever responded with a logical reason why singles have higher tax rate than those filing married. It cost more for two singles to rent two residences or to buy and maintain two houses. Singles pay a higher per person health care premium than a married couple with a greater difference if they have a house full of kids. Two single home owners pay twice the property taxes where two people own a similar property. Singles pay the same social security rates as those married but do not have beneficiaries while a couple has a spouse that continues receiving social security whether they contributed or not and kids under 18 are recipients until 18. Why not a family benefit rate and a single rate?

Where in the constitution, which says in many ways discrimination is not to occur, and there is to be equal treatment under the law. I understand there being no response to the prior post since there is no logical defense.

February 18, 2012 at 9:41 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

How is an atheist any different than a religious believer when it comes to their individual ability to rationally and objectively prove their positions.

Atheism is a religion the way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby. I don't attack others for their beliefs, but I will not have them dictate what others can or cannot do based on those beliefs, nor will I tolerate the teaching of their beliefs as science in public schools. Face it, if there is any group more vilified than atheists in this country, I'd like to know. It would be easier to just lie and say I believe in gods, fairies, angels, heaven and hell.

February 18, 2012 at 9:46 p.m.
macropetala8 said...

Yes, MtJohn. Having worked @ the dept. of family and children services in the 1980s I'm aware that people who receive foodstamps assistance and even medicaid or medicare aren't all unemployed or on welfare. In fact, dependent upon how much a working family is receive from their job, they might still qualify for welfare benefits. As the programs are based on family income and where they income is below the poverty level.

February 18, 2012 at 9:46 p.m.
conservative said...

I'm astonished! You read scripture and I have pointed out that God's word PLAINLYsays that homosexuality is wicked and that homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of God. Furthermore I used your choice of translations and yet you substitute "same-gender,intimate relationships" for the wicked sins of homsexuality.

Christians are those who have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Salvation means the Christian has been saved from the penalty and power and practice of sin. He has repented of his sins and has received God's forgiveness. God does not forgive the sins of those who continue in their sins. Those who defiantly remain in a homsexual relationship give evidence they are not saved and have not made Jesus Christ, Lord of their life.

Christ once told his disciples "if you love me you will keep my commandments". I fear for you my friend.

February 18, 2012 at 10:17 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Again, conservative, SECULAR. Everything you have posted is religious. I know you are not stupid, but I'm beginning to think you are nuts.

February 18, 2012 at 10:23 p.m.
acerigger said...

Hey Blackwater,have you heard,Christie PUNTED!

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) has issued a CONDITIONAL veto of a bill extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians in the state, the Associated Press reports. “I have been just as adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples – as well as the strict enforcement of those rights and benefits,”

February 18, 2012 at 10:28 p.m.
acerigger said...

tu_quoque,"look away from the mirror long enough to see yourself."

I'm not completely sure about this statement so ... Say What Loon?!?!

GOOGLE"narcissist" ,you might get it!

February 18, 2012 at 10:35 p.m.
conservative said...

You are wrong again, most of my comments today have pertained to Christianity not religion. Atheism is a religion,a false one, for it denies the reality of God the creator of the universe and mankind. Man was made to worship,some worship the sun, moon, stars,and creatures and others like atheist worship themselves.They will suffer eternally in hell while those who receive forgiveness will live forever.

Now who is nuts?

February 18, 2012 at 10:44 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Here I will make it simple for your small brain. Since you claim to be an atheist then make you point rationally that there is "no god" and you can prove it.

After you, dear. When you prove there is.

most of my comments today have pertained to Christianity not religion

I am reconsidering my original theory about you being intelligent, conservative.

February 18, 2012 at 10:59 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative said: "Most of my comments today have pertained to Christianity not religion."

What I find interesting about your comments today is that you've completely avoided addressing some important Christian basics, which I find rather odd. It seems to me the U.S. would be far more productive and a much better country if its Christians would just make more of an effort to focus on a few Christian basics. Do these directives have no meaning for you?

“God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.” (1 John 4:16)

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this, all men will know you are my disciples, if you love one another. [John 13:34-35]

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrong. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth. It always protects, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.” [1 Corinthians 13:4-8]

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?” [Luke 6:32]

February 18, 2012 at 11:11 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I've made no claim as to being a religious believer and have stated many times on this web site. I declared that the Agnostic position is the only rational one and that is where I stand. You on the other hand have stated an atheistic position which you can not and will not provide any proof of.

A difference in label only. How is being agnostic make you any wiser, or function differently than a a non-believer? From an agnostic position can you deny the rights of gays to marry, using a secular argument? What difference does it make to anyone else what I believe or don't believe? Who are you to demand "proof" of a god's non-existence. (as if one can "prove" a negative) How I arrive at my non-belief is a personal journey, and I do not have to explain it to you or anyone else. However, in a secular country ruled by secular laws, a religious person may not impose their religious beliefs on others, or use them to deny the rights of others.

In my opinion (and it is just an opinion) claiming to be "agnostic" is the coward's way out. Have a little spine and take a true position.

February 18, 2012 at 11:23 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

IT'S ALL CONTEXT

When republicans use the term freedom of religion they really mean christianity. Do republicans ever extend the same respect to muslim as they do, say, the catholic church? Or baptists?

Sorry, TQ, no time for the old in out, I'm just here to read the meter. But you just keep on trolling, honey.

February 18, 2012 at 11:29 p.m.
MTJohn said...

conservative said...Christians are those who have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Salvation means the Christian has been saved from the penalty and power and practice of sin. He has repented of his sins and has received God's forgiveness. God does not forgive the sins of those who continue in their sins.

Conservative - if God does not forgive the sins of those who continue in their sins, where is the hope? Have you stopped sinning? For some reason, I suspect that your honest answer would have to be no.

God's promise of forgiveness is entirely dependent upon God's love for us (c.f. Romans 5:8), not whether we deserve it because we have stopped sinning. We are free to reject the promise. If we accept it, we do so in faith. The gift is ours because God loves us - not because we deserve it.

February 18, 2012 at 11:35 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

SOME LATE BREAKING-ISH NEWS

Rick, I appreciate the effort you put into offering some facts to back up your opinions. You are dead on with the housing numbers from last year but the January numbers exceeded many expert projections.

Here's an article from Bloomberg Businessweek if you want more up to date information:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-17/new-u-s-housing-construction-exceeds-forecast-in-january.html

February 18, 2012 at 11:37 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Good grief. . . Where do the Republicans find these guys?

“Back in 2008, Rick Santorum traveld to Ave Maria University in Florida to deliver an address to students. . .

. . . Santorum began his remarks by explaining to the students in attendance how every institution in America has been destroyed by Satan; from academia to politics with even the church having fallen under His sway - not the Catholic church, of course, but "mainline Protestantism" which is in such "shambles" that it is not even Christian any longer. . .”

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/santorum-satan-systematically-destroying-america

February 19, 2012 at midnight
alprova said...

Conservative wrote: "I'm astonished! You read scripture and I have pointed out that God's word PLAINLYsays that homosexuality is wicked and that homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of God."

The Bible is not God's word. The Bible was written and translated by many humans, all of whom inserted their own personal beliefs and opinions as they went along.

"Furthermore I used your choice of translations and yet you substitute "same-gender,intimate relationships" for the wicked sins of homsexuality."

Whatever translation you are considering, chances are that it has been loosely translated to mean something other than what was intended in its original wording.

Pertaining to 1 Corinthians 6:9, there are different interpretations of the words translated into "effeminate" and/or "homosexuals."

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/no_fems_no_fairies.html

"Christians are those who have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Salvation means the Christian has been saved from the penalty and power and practice of sin. He has repented of his sins and has received God's forgiveness. God does not forgive the sins of those who continue in their sins."

You have no way to know for sure what the heck you are talking about. You do not speak for God, nor does anyone else. You have no way of knowing what is on God's mind or what his plan is for any person, including yourself.

"Those who defiantly remain in a homsexual relationship give evidence they are not saved and have not made Jesus Christ, Lord of their life."

So you say. You do not speak for God.

"Christ once told his disciples "if you love me you will keep my commandments". I fear for you my friend."

You have enough to tend to in worrying about your own soul.

February 19, 2012 at 12:26 a.m.
MTJohn said...

conservative said...

MTJohn--

I see you are up. I don't stay up late so I would like to continue my discussion with you on 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Your choice of Bible translation was the NIV. The first sentence reads- Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? What does that sentence mean to you?

Conservative - I moved the conversation over here to avoid hi-jacking the other conversation.

My choice was not the NIV. I only noted that, of the four translations that I regularly use, that is the only version that uses the word, "homosexual", in the passage that you referenced. The principle point is that we do not have the original texts and, even if we did, language evolves. We have to be careful when we put too much emphasis on individual words and phrases out of context of the larger passage and all of Scripture.

There are very few references to homosexuality in Scripture. The Leviticus passages occur in the context of hedonism, idolatry and abuse and in a "rule book" that the 21st Christian church pretty much agrees was time/place specific. The Romans and 1 Corinthians passage occur in the context of Paul condemning sin (not condemning sinners) and proclaiming that the antidote to sin is God's grace. Thus, I am not willing to accept an interpretation which rigidly applies those passages to condemn people who choose to live together in a committed, same gender relationship. And, I am willing to worship with them - not because I put any confidence in my own understanding but because I trust God's grace.

You and I agree that the wicked shall not inherit the Kingdom. But, I do not think Paul's intent in either the Romans passage or the 1 Corinthians passage is to build two lists of good and wicked people. To do so would be inconsistent with the parable of the wheat and tares. Rather, I believe that Paul reminds us that all of us are tainted by sin. Left to our own devices, there is only one list - the wicked - and we are all on it. But, the story does not end there because God loves us. Salvation has been won because of Christ's sacrifice on behalf of ALL sinners. The promise is everyone's to accept or reject. It is not something that any of us can earn.

February 19, 2012 at 9:19 a.m.
Ozzy87 said...

When will the Bible thumpers and tea baggers stop having cranial-rectal inversion and realize the Constitution, not the Bible, is the law in this country? Name ONE nonreligious reason that can be used in a secular court of law to deny marriage equaility.

February 19, 2012 at 3:18 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Don't waste your breath (keystrokes?) Ozzy. I have been asking for this and all I get is raving lunacy (Jon Ross), Bible verses (conservative) or silence (from all the rational conservatives).

February 19, 2012 at 7:29 p.m.
conservative said...

MTJohn--

God's word tells us that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23) and "none is righteous, no, not one" ( Rom 3:10). We are all sinners and are worthy of death, "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:23). However, " God so loved the world that He gave his only son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved", ( Rom 10:9).

Notice the two references to "Lord" in Rom 6:23 and Rom 10:9. Christ must be the Lord in a believer's life. Believers have a relationship with their Lord, one of obedience. Believers still sin but it is not a lifestyle like we had before Salvation. Christ did not die for us only to allow us to continue in a lifestyle of sin. His death would have been in vain.

You seem to believe that God's "grace" will allow us to continue in a lifestyle of sin. That is not possible, the point of Christ's death would be meaningless - "what shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?( Rom 6:1-2). The rest of chapter 6 makes this very clear.

1Cor 6:9-11 refutes those who teach (as many false teachers do) that one can have a lifestyle of sin and still enter the kingdom of God. The Greek tenses of those sins listed of which homosexuality is one, refer to continous action. Those who would enter into a false same sex-sex marriage would be continually living in sin! Those who continually practice these sexual sins and the others listed are wicked and will not enter the kingdom of God! It is a mockery of scripture to practice and teach otherwise!

I hope and pray you come to this understanding.

February 20, 2012 at 8:16 p.m.
MTJohn said...

conservative said...God's word tells us that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23) and "none is righteous, no, not one" ( Rom 3:10). We are all sinners and are worthy of death, "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:23). However, " God so loved the world that He gave his only son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved", ( Rom 10:9).

Agreed. And that is the context in which I understand 1 Cor. 6:9 ff. and Romans 1 - 3.

conservative said...Christ must be the Lord in a believer's life. Believers have a relationship with their Lord, one of obedience. Believers still sin but it is not a lifestyle like we had before Salvation.

I agree with the first sentence but I think it is better stated with "is" than "must be". I say that because I do not believe that we earn salvation - rather we accept the free gift of the promise.

I also agree that believers continue to sin. The test for believing is faith in Christ, not the specific sins committed. Thus, I get very uncomfortable when on Christian says "I'm a sinner but I still believe. You are a sinner, therefore you cannot believe."

Simply stated, I believe that, by grace, I am a child of God. By grace, you also are a child of God. Just as that promise is there for you and for me, I believe that the promise is offered to everyone because God loves us. Except for the sin against the Holy Spirit (i.e. rejecting the promise) our sin does not separate us from God's love. I therefore reject the notion that when two people of the same gender commit themselves to each other they necessarily are separating themselves from God. I also reject the notion that you can conclude otherwise based on the Scripture passages that you have cited and cited out of context.

conservative said...You seem to believe that God's "grace" will allow us to continue in a lifestyle of sin.

Not quite. I believe that God's grace is such that God continues to love us in spite of our sin.

I can understand why some folks might reference that as "cheap grace". However, I'd suggest that those who suggest that I am guilty of "cheap grace" might check themselves to be sure that they are not guilty of "cheap law", i.e. the sense that they understand the law well enough to know who, on the basis of the law, do and do not merit salvation. None of us is capable of keeping the law - even those of us who know Christ as Savior.

February 20, 2012 at 10:10 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.