published Tuesday, June 28th, 2011

The Bouquet

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 ...

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.
dude_abides said...

Libertarian4Freedom! What say you to this development?

June 28, 2011 at 12:08 a.m.
nucanuck said...

It' good to see a law that helps some people without taxing others.

Will Tennessee be next?

June 28, 2011 at 1:38 a.m.
Reardon said...

dude_, gov't shouldn't be involved in volitional social matters between two consenting adults, anyway.

Has anyone wondered how silly it is that we are required to get a license from the State to validate marriage?

June 28, 2011 at 5:17 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Love, love, love this cartoon. I hope Tennessee will someday be the bridesmaid, who catches the bouquet. Hey, it doesn't hurt to dream.

June 28, 2011 at 7:01 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

i wonder why bennett didn't illustrate a man in a tuxedo throwing a bouquet over his shoulder to a bunch of other men? couldn't quite pull the trigger, huh?

now...if we could only extend the same inalienable know, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to the unborn, then we'd be making some strides.

you can pass all the laws you want...but, unfortunately you can't legislate thought. sorry, guys, but you'll never be able to force everyone to look at fred and bruce walking down the street holding hands, the same as they would bob and amy walking down the street holding hands.

this country is very tolerant and the government has bent over backwards (no pun intended) to accomadate the "gay" community. but, it never seems good enough for you libs. i really believe you want to legislate thought. you libs are always accusing conservatives of trying to legislate morality, but you have no problem trying to legislate what most in this country believe to be immorality. i know it frustrates you to no end that someone like me will never look at bruce and fred holding hands and say, oh, what a lovely couple.

it truly is a tyranny of the minority in thiis country...on many levels.

as a conservative i believe what someone does in their own home is t heir long as they're not breaking the law or hurting other people. i don't agree with the "gay" lifestyle, but if my "gay" neighbors need help or in trouble i won't hestitate to help them. in our neighbor- hood there're are two gay couples. nobody is running them out of the neighborhood, no one is attacking them....i say goodmorning or hi to them like i do anyone else. they never ask me what i think of the "gay lifestyle" and i don't tell them what to do. it's none of my business.....

i think most people in this country approach it like i do...but that's not good enough for you extreme libs.....everyone has to think like you do or else.

i don't think it's moral or normal....i'm not going to change my view because the governement says a "gay" marriage is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman.

it's pure hypocracy to deny the unborn life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while figthing tooth and nail for "gay rights".....

June 28, 2011 at 7:13 a.m.
hambone said...

Not much chance of this in Tennessee, the buckle of the Bible Belt.

June 28, 2011 at 7:23 a.m.
ProgressiveInTN said...

@seamonkey - marriage between two men is the "trigger"? What is that supposed to mean? Is a union between two women less offensive to you? How typical that would be! Your approval or disapproval of a "gay lifestyle" is irrelevant. I don't approve of your complete lack of respect for the English language, but laws exist to protect your right to express yourself without using capitalization or creating complete sentences.

"this country is very tolerant and the government has bent over backwards (no pun intended) to accomadate the "gay" community"

There are so many things wrong with this statement: ignorance, common stupidity, and a complete lack of understanding of the law. The government does not protect the gay community - especially not the TN state government. It's perfectly legal to discriminate against gay people in this state. Gays are still not considered a protected class nationwide. This is an injustice.

Approach "it" like you do? No, that "approach" is not good enough. You drop ignorant offensive statements blithely, ("bend over backwards, no pun intended" - really?) and state that marriage between two people of the same sex is not equal to marriage between people of the differing sexes. That's a problem. And thank God states like NY are leading the charge in squashing mindsets like yours. You are on the wrong side of history. This nation's posterity will be ashamed that people like yourself lurk in our country's past... just as we are ashamed of the angry mobs of whites who jeered as blacks entered integrated schools.

June 28, 2011 at 7:50 a.m.
mymy said...

Debate all day if you choose. It is a waste of time.

Obama Theme Song should be: “On the road again”

And I can't wait to get on the road again. On the road again - Like a band of gypsies we go down the highway (airway) We're the best of friends. Insisting that the world keep turning our way

And then here’s the latest tacky ad with questions regarding where it was made which would be illegal: In The WH. So diehards send in your $5.

June 28, 2011 at 8:17 a.m.
Yano said...


it truly is a tyranny of the minority in thiis country...on many levels.

Not a minority any more:

Not that human rights should ever be subjected to a vote.

June 28, 2011 at 8:39 a.m.
fairmon said...

It is a state issue not federal. The whole marriage process is still in the 18th century. Why should a license be required? Why not a simple registration? It has long been said two can live cheaper than one so why do married couples pay a lower tax rate? Why do those electing to have children get an incentive to proliferate with a per kid tax deduction? There is no justification for the favoritism shown marriage over those not married. Why do couples get better health care rates than single? Why do those with kids get an even bigger break? Health care rates should be per person at the same rate for each for the same coverage. Why was social security liberalized to provide for a spouse without increasing the contribution of those married, another unfair to singles action? What gives politicians the right to favor one segment of society over another? Why should laws and systems encourage marriage?

I have no objection to gay marriage but I do object to all the favored treatment for those married whether gay or heterosexual. I suspect the gay desire for legal marriage is to take advantage of the unfair financial favoritism of government for those married. At least they can't proliferate and get even more favorable treatment. Government keeps trying to legislate morals and insisting on everyone being politically correct. Is it moral to discriminate against those electing to remain unmarried?

June 28, 2011 at 8:42 a.m.
fairmon said...

The political rhetoric about the sanctity of marriage and the American dream being home ownership makes me sick. It is nothing more than seeking votes. That suggest if you prefer being single and renting instead of owning anything from a shack to a castle you are not an American.

The logic of some politicians and their supporters are confusing. Liberals support abortion, killing the unborn, but will participate in an all night vigil protesting the death penalty for a heinous crime. Conservatives protest abortion and insist on the right to life but will fry your ass for felony murder. There seems to be an inconsistency.

June 28, 2011 at 9:03 a.m.
bigbearzzz said...

It's morally wrong and against the very design of nature itself for same sex individuals to be together. It doesnt matter if you are a believer of evolution or creation, it was all still designed for a female and male to mate, period. Of course this is just my personal opinion and everybody has one, I am one of those supporters that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. I do not believe an individual is homosexual from birth, but rather it is a choice. We all choose daily the direction our life's go. You can't tell me that there are individual that are born gay when that goes against the very design itself. It's choice. Now having said that, i am not going to be one of those individuals taking away ur right to choose. If you want to live that way, then so be it. But as for me, it is wrong from a moral biblical stance and i can not support the union of a gay marriage. but once again, this is just one man's opinion. Doesn't mean that its right or wrong...just an opinion.

June 28, 2011 at 9:21 a.m.
MTJohn said...

SeaMonkey can pass all the laws you want...but, unfortunately you can't legislate thought. sorry, guys...

SeaMonkey - I agree. And, for that reason, the state can't legislate "marriage".

Libertarians4Freedom said...---I say that consenting adults should be able to enter into any kind of relationships they choose. And while ideally I would like to get the state out of the marriage business

L4F - you and I agree on that one. "Marriage" is a spiritual matter. It is defined by the two persons who choose to enter into the relationship. It is no one else's business unless the couple chooses to also involve their faith community in the recognition of their relationship. The state has no legitimate interest in that relationship and, by the Constitution, is compelled to stay out of it.

The state does have a legitimate interest in the contractual obligations that attend "civil unions". And, if the state accords rights and privileges to domestic partnerships, such rights and privileges should be extended to every domestic partnership, without regard. And,as a footnote, pastors who perform marriage ceremonies should not be allowed to function as agents for the state in endorsing civil unions.

June 28, 2011 at 9:29 a.m.
MTJohn said...

bigbearzzz said...I do not believe an individual is homosexual from birth, but rather it is a choice.

Bigearzzz - please explain how it is that you know that you chose to be a heterosexual. And, please explain why - given the intense pleasure that "normal" people experience during copulation and the significant stigma that society places on those who engage in "abominations" - would anyone choose to live in a life-long, committed homosexual relationship.

June 28, 2011 at 9:35 a.m.
limric said...

Good cartoon Clay. I've been waiting for one like this to rev up my imagination for satirical slush postings.

The NY law is scheduled to take effect on July 25th; thousands of gay couples are planning to make their nuptial pilgrimage to the Empire State. Once these couples tie the knot in July, their lives will officially end. OWW!! My wife just hit me.
The effective the numbers of filings for marriage licenses will increase by a factor of six. I’ll bet that in six months the number of filings for divorce will increase accordingly.

Gay Marriage Cruises at Niagara Falls! The horror...the horror...

June 28, 2011 at 9:36 a.m.
blackwater48 said...


First, monkey man, I've never seen a groom toss a bouquet. I've only been to liberal weddings so I don't know what goes on a tea bagging ceremonies, but that seems rather traditional.

Second, a marriage license is a legal contract. If you've been divorced you'd know that. The contract, which gay couples believe they are legally entitled to, extends rights to each party. Keep in mind that gay couples adopt children and the law is also designed for their protection.

I found this on Wikipedia. The new law will affect the pronouns but you get the idea:

Giving a husband/wife or his/her family control over a spouse’s labor, and property. Giving a husband/wife responsibility for a spouse’s debts. Giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized. Giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse’s affairs when the spouse is incapacitated. Establishing the second legal guardian of a parent’s child. Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children. Establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.

Marriage also binds the couple to the parameters of family law, which includes, "the termination of the relationship and ancillary matters including divorce, annulment, property settlements, alimony, and parental responsibility orders (in the United States, child custody and visitation, child support and alimony awards)."

Besides, gay marriage is good for the economy. After they buy a license they have to spend more money on the fabulous wedding, the lavishly decorated and well catered reception, and then there's the extravagant honeymoon.

Anything that helps the economy is good for America.

June 28, 2011 at 9:37 a.m.
miraweb said...

We forget our history on how the United States became a place where civil marriages exist at all. In the 1600s those who wanted to get married needed approval from the Church of England. For the folks who became the pilgrims and puritans (two different groups) this was a bit of a problem. In Holland they picked up the practice of a marriage that didn't need approval by the Church authorities and brought it with them to this continent. England was very unhappy when American marriages were solemnized by governors and magistrates rather than with the permission of the official church.

June 28, 2011 at 9:50 a.m.
bigbearzzz said...

MTJohn the proof is all around. When other species all over our planet search out for a mate, they search out for one of the opposite sex. That is the normal process as defined by both science and religion. Secondly, the body wasnt designed to be used in the manner that the homosexual lifestyle uses it. Anybody like to offer argument up for that one? Hence due to the design of our bodies and the design of nature itself, we can conclude that we were made (either by a series of evolution or created, which ever you choose to believe) to mate with those of the opposite sex. Hereby, we choose to go against that very nature. And individual chooses the life they live. It is not thrust upon them. I am not an individual who believe that i am stuck in amy circumstance just because of whats thrown at me. I have a choice. Just like i have a choice on who my mate is and what sex i date. Are you John stating that i cant choose to be homosexual at this juncture of my life? of course not! i could make a choice right now that i enjoy something else more than the other and go that route. But regardless....its still a choice.

June 28, 2011 at 10:05 a.m.
Livn4life said...

Would someone show any evidence where the total embrace of homosexuality in a society caused noted society to be better? Would someone also show any evidence of any society which fully embraced homosexuality and survived? Let's get off the "it's a right" or judgmentalism against and look at history. The evidence is not encouraging when one considers the current direction of our society. That is not just about the homosexual issue but it is the one which seems to be constantly thrown to the forefront by the media and a trite cartoonist.

June 28, 2011 at 10:06 a.m.
Sailorman said...

"I've never seen a groom toss a bouquet."

Never been to a gay wedding involving two guys eh?

Other than that, congratulations on rising out the septic tank. The rest of your post is spot on.

To you so-called conservatives on here. What is going on in your heads? Conservatives are supposed to support the rule of law. Homosexuality is legal in America. Marriage is a basic civil right for all Americans. The fact is that despite most "conservative" reaction that it's an abomination before God, the US is not governed by Christian "mullahs". The US government is supposed to operate on the basis of laws and the Constitution. Civil marriage must be available to all people regardless of sexual orientation, because civil marriage is administered by the government and the government can not discriminate based on sexual orientation just like they can't discriminate based on race or religion.

Either you support the rule of law and the Constitution or you don't. Generalizing (problematic I know), many who are against gay marriage are fond of quoting the constitution when it comes to gun rights - other constitutionally guaranteed rights are no less important.

June 28, 2011 at 10:07 a.m.
bret said...

The Constitution doesn't even mention marriage so nobody has a Constitutional right to get married.

June 28, 2011 at 10:19 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

"squashing mindsets"? I think Progressive has just proven SeaMonkey's point that the liberals are trying to control thought. (Well, 7:50am, not "just.")

June 28, 2011 at 10:38 a.m.
blackwater48 said...


Sailorman wrote, "'I've never seen a groom toss a bouquet.' Never been to a gay wedding involving two guys eh?"

No. I think Clay was using the tradition of the bride tossing the bouquet to illustrate a point. I'll defer gay wedding ceremonies to your expertise.

Since you brought up the Constitution I was wondering what anyone thought about the Supreme Court, citing 'Freedom of Speech,' overturning the California law banning the sale of ultra violent and graphically explicit video games to children.

What's next? Alcohol? Pornography? Driver's licenses? Marriage licenses?

Ah, freedom.

June 28, 2011 at 10:40 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Bigbearzzz - I'm not surprised that you avoided both of my questions.

I agree that you could choose to engage in homosexual acts. But, that does not prove that it is your choice to experience greater pleasure in heterosexual acts.

By the time I was 3-years-old, I was keenly aware of a "curiosity" about girls and had no comparable "curiosity" about boys. I did not choose that "curiosity" - it's just he way I was. If I did not choose my own orientation, I don't think you did, either. Nor do I think that anyone has chose theirs, regardless whether that orientation is gay or straight.

footnote - homosexual behavior has been document in several species. Given recent advances in the understanding of how genes control tissue differentiation during development, it would not surprise me if someone discovers a "genetic switch" that functions differently in homosexuals than it does in heterosexuals.

June 28, 2011 at 10:41 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

8:39am how come 'gay marriage' tends to lose popular votes and tends to be afraid of them? New York didn't vote; the legislature did this.

Of course, since God calls homosexual actions and lusts "uncleanness" and "vile affections" (Romans 1), we know what we should think, whether we do or not.

One of Clay's better drawings as art, though evil in intention.

June 28, 2011 at 10:44 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Andrew - if you are going to cite Romans 1, I'd suggest that you consider it in the context of Romans 2 and 3, as well. The list of uncleanesses is rather long and sufficient to include you and me, as well as the homosexual. Thankfully, Paul did not end the story there. He also reminded us that God's grace also is very inclusive - it is sufficient to embrace you, me and the homosexual. And, if grace is not sufficient to embrace the homosexual, maybe it does not you and me. Feel free to live by the law. I'm content to err on the side of grace.

June 28, 2011 at 10:49 a.m.
bigbearzzz said...

By the time I was 3-years-old, I was keenly aware of a "curiosity" about girls and had no comparable "curiosity" about boys. I did not choose that "curiosity" - it's just he way I was.

But you had the choice to either act upon those curiosities or not. You chose. And if you trying to convince me, a dad of three, that a kid at age three has a sexual preference, well to that i'll use a common southern term: Hog-wash. I cant fathom the thought of a three year old walking around sayin "I gotta get that over there!" No. At age three kids play and hang out with those they feel comfortable with, but it is not due to sexual orientation.

And yes, there are homosexual behaviors in several species, but that still doesnt prove that it is against the natural design of our bodies. If it was intended to for male to mate with male and visa versa, why werent we both given reproductive organs to be compatible with both? The facts are facts: My body, a male, was not designed to mate with that of the same sex. Sorry, it wasnt. And if it wasnt designed that way, then there has to be other circumstances that drive that desire.

As far as quoting Romans 1 - 3, whats the point?! The moral compass of this country is so screwed up anyways there's no point in using the Word in any argument. But for the record, ALL sin is an abomination in God's eye's. The Homosexual is no more a sinner than the man who cheats on his wife everytime he pulls up an inappropriate website on his computer to fulfill his sexual urges is. So we really dont wanna go there do we?

June 28, 2011 at 11:07 a.m.
Sailorman said...

The Constitution doesn't even mention marriage so nobody has a Constitutional right to get married.

The Constitution doesn't even mention eating popcorn so nobody has a constitutional right to eat popcorn.

So the denial of civil rights to someone who wants to perform a legal activity is OK with you? If you want to work to pass laws making homosexual activity illegal (again), go for it. If, and until, that happens, homosexuals have as much right to marriage as do heterosexuals. While I disagree with the so-called gay lifestyle, their civil rights are sacrosanct.

June 28, 2011 at 11:09 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

once again...i'm attacked for just giving my opinion.

give me an example of my lack of respect for he english language, progressive? oh, does it bother you that much that i don't capitalize? get over it........ok

yeah....if it's going to labeled a marriage...then some of the same traditions should apply... one should toss the bouquet..and it should be perfectly fine for a bunch of guys to catch it?

one can be the bride and one can be the groom.

if all things should be equal..then there's nothing wrong with a man tossing a bouquet to another.

no progressive, you pompous ass.....whether it's two men or two's the same.

the thing just can't force people to accept that it's's is what it is.. and it's consistant behavior for them, but it's in no way normal.....there is normal and abnormal. it's not the norm for a man to want to be with another man sexually......just because some primates do it, so what........there's no logic to you libs' attempt to convince everyone that's it can condem discrimination, which is fine and the right thing to do, but you can't be angry at people for believing it's not's a waste of time

are you relvevant, mr. progressive?

how about we just look at everyone as americans....and not hyphenated groups like you libs like.

gay-americans, black-americans,'s all so sickening. you libs are dividers..

the government has no business being involved in "gay marriage", "abortion rights"...or preventing a mother from packing a school lunch for her child...

you cannot legislate perception and belief. so stop trying. pass all the laws you want, condem everyone you want...but i, like most americans, believe "gay" americans are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. but, to call me a bigot or a homophobe for not accepting their behavior, ..and it is the behavior..., as normal is quite foolish...and absolute proof, mr. progressive, that you want to control my thoughts.

June 28, 2011 at 11:19 a.m.
eastridge8 said...

Well, I don't understand the Gay lifestyle at all and I don't approve of it. But basically it's none of my business. I don't care what ADULTS do in the privacy of their home...I DON'T have to answer for it. When all of the Gays are standing before their Maker they will have some "'splaining to do"...and all of you non-believers are going to be in a "World of hurt".

I do NOT think the majority of America is "for" this. I bet if it had been put to a vote in NY State it would be a non-issue and would never have gotten "passed".

June 28, 2011 at 11:25 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

i don't believe in denying "gays" civil rights. civil rights is longer the battle for you libs.

the battle as you libs see it, ...and you know it is,... is to eliminate any thought in everyone's mind that it's not abnormal behavior. the question is how are you going to do it? good luck.

i will never see a man walking hand in hand with another man in a park and accept it as normal. i accept that's the way it is with some, and it's none of my business..and they're americans like i am........but i can't look at them the same as i would a man and woman walking down the street. sorry.

June 28, 2011 at 11:35 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

good point, eastridge...just like abortion..if it had been put to a vote instead of being rammed down everyone's throat it wouldn't have passed.

June 28, 2011 at 11:39 a.m.
bigbearzzz said...

Hey dont feel bad u 2...evidently i need to go get my three year old some birth control so she doesnt get knocked up by the other three year old pervs on the playground. I dont know about yall....not a lot of memories from my 3's...i think i vaguely remember peeing my pants outside.....once or twice...wait..that was last week....nevermind.

June 28, 2011 at 11:47 a.m.
limric said...


Quote: “You can't tell me that there are individual that are born gay when that goes against the very design itself. It's choice.” This has been debunked over and over and over. It is immature to adhere to such folly. You could just as well profess the world is flat.

Quote: “When other species all over our planet search out for a mate, they search out for one of the opposite sex. That is the normal process as defined by both science and religion. Secondly, the body wasnt designed to be used in the manner that the homosexual lifestyle uses it. Anybody like to offer argument up for that one?”

I will explain it to VERY, VERY simply. As humans are, for the sake of argument, the only fully sentient beings on the planet, we are able to distinguish unconscious (key word) pleasure preferences in ways unavailable to other creatures. If you had done your research, you would have found there are instances of other animals practicing same sex preferences. They are not aware of its “immorality” nor is there any indication that they or other animals view it as unnatural. It simply ‘is’.

Your argument is based on a lack of scientific observation, and concluded with a form of inductive logic. An example being: “normal process as defined by both science and religion.” The two are incompatible when used for a pseudo scientific hypothesis. But you chose to do so. One does not observe, but has all the answers; the other observes, but has all questions.

Be neither for nor against homosexuality. It simply is.

June 28, 2011 at 11:51 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Bigbearzzz - we can choose how we respond to our orientation. We cannot choose our orientation. And, while I agree that a 3-year-old may not know her/his "sexual preference", the child is still very much aware of her/his curiosities.

I was not the person who brought the Word into this conversation. I only pointed out that, if a person is going to bring the Word into the conversation, the person should bring all of the Word into the conversation and not cherry pick. As you correctly noted, all sin is abomination and each of us is a sinner. In the Creator's eyes, we live by grace - none of us lives by our ability to keep the Creator's law. And, it seems to me, that if we are going to use the Word to justify a political position regarding rights for homosexuals, we ought to make it on the basis of the fact that God loves the homosexual and not on the argument that homosexuality is an abomination.

June 28, 2011 at 11:56 a.m.
limric said...

Now back to the fun stuff.

As retribution for the immoral legalization of same-sex marriage, God sent destruction and tribulations on New York City last night that left almost no survivors.

New York City—not the dull city Albany—descended into an orgy of state-sanctioned hedonism, and then into an apocalyptic inferno as God rained fire and brimstone from the sky.

This was predictable, says Focus on the Family president ‘bigbearzzz.’ “We have warned of this prophecy for years,” he explained “Homos have by choice been trying to destroy traditional marriage by shoving this new definition of marriage down our throats like some giant...umm…banana. Now they have to swallow the biggest one of all: GOD’s.”

President Obama sent his condolences this morning for the dead. “Our hearts ----- go out to the industrious and vibrant people----- of New York City.,” he said. However, later, he seemed to veer off to a testy defense of his policies. “I hope now you see why----- I capitulate to Republicans------on moral issues.” This destruction vindicates---- our relentless push to----destroy America----and all its infidels.

A sea of limp wrist humanity and dykes on bikes descended on Times Square to celebrate the consummation of the “gay agenda” with smiles and jubilance. Early reports described the crowd as chanting “USA,” they were in fact yelling “Ooh, Snap.. it’s a-aaaaaiiiieeee!”- as temperatures suddenly rose, a whiff of sulfur wafted as fireballs rained down from the sky.

Details of the destruction remain sketchy - and contradictory. Some witnesses, tapping frantic tweets and text messages from their phones, described a ghoulish figure riding a pale horse across the Brooklyn Bridge as the Angel of Death, though others insist it was just some ‘Sailorman’ from Williamsburg. A Libertarian from the Queens L4F militia spoke of giant monsters and alien space ships. What is uncontested however, is the destruction: skyscrapers leveled, the outer boroughs aflame, and millions dead.

The only known survivor was Rubén Díaz Sr., a member of the New York state legislature and the only Democratic senator to cast a ‘no’ vote, he says that’s why he was spared. Díaz returned to New York after the vote to get his wife. As they crossed the Verrazano Bridge, she looked back at the burning city to capture some video on her iPhone and turned into a pillar of salt.

New York’s next Pride March is planned for August despite the destruction, and as described by its organizer, Bruce Seamonkey will be “even more flaming than usual.”

June 28, 2011 at 12:04 p.m.
MTJohn said...

limric - are you sharing your application for work at the Onion?

June 28, 2011 at 12:08 p.m.
bigbearzzz said...

Limric...I actually have no issues with ur post and agree with you, it is what it is (words i live by daily). Just thought that i would point out that our human bodies were not designed to reproduce and mate with those of the same sex, to which nobody in here has offered an argument against yet. We have discussed the behavorial and philosophical mindsets of those individuals and why they are the way they are, as to which i have no problems with their choice. I am not debating the immorality issue of the debate. That would be pointless as we are all on seperate morality compasses. What i believe is not going to be what you believe and what's "right" in my mind is not necessarliy whats "right" in your mind. And yes, i know its preposterous to place religion and science in the same sentence...just thought i would try to appease both sides of the argument at bad.

and MTJohn the Word comment was not directed at you at all. I saw who brought that up and should have pointed that out in my post. My apologies. And i agree with you on that, Dont use the Word to justify a political position. It is what it is.

Once again, this is all just my humble opinion which im not stating is the end all beat all judgement against all those that oppose me. And know that i am the last person to in anyway judge or condemn another indivual. I am not nearly righteous enough to pass that judgement.

June 28, 2011 at 12:12 p.m.

Limric that was phenomenal. Kudos for the Seamonkey and L4F cameos

June 28, 2011 at 12:13 p.m.
Clara said...

And how about those who live in a same sex relationship, and aside from sex, engage with only true affection, respect, friendship, and understanding.

I've been straight my whole life, never been attracted sexually to another women. Yes, I have been approached, but never felt the urge to experiment. I have no right nor does anyone else the right to judge other's feelings. Am I missing something? Not that I'm aware of.

June 28, 2011 at 12:45 p.m.
blackwater48 said...


Kudos Limric. Another monster shot!

Especially like the 'pillar of salt' reference.

June 28, 2011 at 1:06 p.m.
bigbearzzz said...

Entertaining Limric, i am actually a huge supporter of Focus on the Family..funny stuff. And i actually blame part of the moral decay of our nation to the decay of the family. If men would actually step up and be the heads of their households and be the fathers that they were meant to be, we wouldnt have half the issues we deal with now. But that is another debate meant for another day....

June 28, 2011 at 1:23 p.m.
limric said...

bigbearzzz Quote: “Just thought that i would point out that our human bodies were not designed to reproduce and mate with those of the same sex, to which nobody in here has offered an argument against yet

Ticky, trick, tricky. And a good point – sort of, if that was the crux of the issue - but it’s not.
Y’know, there are creatures that can change sexes (potrandy and protogyny). Damn – that sounds gay doesn’t it? But they evolved that way. AND, lets not forget hermaphrodites. Geeze, that sounds Greek. Therefore it must be gay (and broke). But they evolved that way too. Nature did not design trees to be homes yet we make them so. Nature did not design Pigs to have my BBQ sauce slathered on their naked cooked to perfection ribs, yet I do it frequently. Well, maybe they were.
Are pink pigs gay? Hell - I’ll barbeque one of them. I ain’t particular Uh oh.

To be perfectly honest, I find male homosexuality rather icky. Female homosexuality – I don’t mind so much….unless they remind me of Jesse Ventura…YO !!. Would I deny any of them the same rights you and I enjoy? No.

Yea, I know - I’ll catch hell for saying that but…it is what it is. It’s not a choice. Get it?

I know where you're coming from. Don't try to justify it. You can't, neither can I. We don't need to. It is what it is. Pass the bourbon.

June 28, 2011 at 1:36 p.m.
bigbearzzz said...

LMAO!!! Now thats gotta be the post of the day! well played sir....well played indeed.

June 28, 2011 at 1:49 p.m.
MTJohn said...

bigbearzzz said...

Entertaining Limric, i am actually a huge supporter of Focus on the Family..funny stuff. And i actually blame part of the moral decay of our nation to the decay of the family. If men would actually step up and be the heads of their households and be the fathers that they were meant to be, we wouldnt have half the issues we deal with now. But that is another debate meant for another day....

Begbearzzz - believe it or not, I used to be a supporter of Focus on the Family - back in the days when its focus was on the family and before the days when its focus shifted to "family values" which, in my opinion, have a lot more to do with counting political coups than promoting healthy families.

I also agree with you regarding problem associated with the deterioration of the family in this country. But, I suspect we might disagree whether it is the disease or a symptom of a deeper problem. I tend to think it is the latter. And, I find it a bit ironic that those who tend to stand on "family values" also tend to complain about their tax dollars being wasted on programs that might make it easier for young men to develop into the kind of adults who can realize a benefit from the promise of equal opportunity and to mature into being responsible heads of their households.

June 28, 2011 at 1:53 p.m.
bigbearzzz said...

i actually thought about clarifying after making that statement, MTJ. Glad you brought that up. I support their effort on keeping the family strong and intact and healthy. Like you stated, when the focus was on the family and not on hidden political agendas. They lost alot of my respect and support when they started doin that mess. And there's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree on issues. Nuttin at all!

Not really a big huge debating topic today...dang...and I was hopin to really have some fun stuff for my first time debating in the Clay Room...oh well...maybe another day....

June 28, 2011 at 2:17 p.m.
tderng said... pigs aren't gay.If they were they would have become extinct a long time ago.But they sure taste good! on the issue of hermaphrodites,I have always wondered if they could inseminate themselves(even artificially)and if so would their offspring also be hermaphrodites.Also regardless of which sex they mated with would it be called gay sex?

June 28, 2011 at 2:53 p.m.
hambone said...

To me, it's a matter of fairness. In about any state a man and a woman can live together long enough, without a marriage license and share health, Social Security and any other benifits.

But a gay couple can't. Where's the fairness?

June 28, 2011 at 3:13 p.m.
hambone said...

And FrancisTrollMonkey, every one of your post are a example of your lack of respect for the engish language!

June 28, 2011 at 3:16 p.m.
Livn4life said...

Wow lots of chatter now WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE I REQUESTED? I guess it gets tangled in a mocking post by someone above. You have every right as a US citizen but one never mind. I hope you can find the truth.

June 28, 2011 at 3:18 p.m.
blackwater48 said...


L4L wrote way back this morning sometime, "Would someone show any evidence where the total embrace of homosexuality in a society caused noted society to be better?"

Would you like to show evidence where denying basic freedoms has caused a society to be better?

"Would someone also show any evidence of any society which fully embraced homosexuality and survived? Let's get off the "it's a right" or judgmentalism against and look at history."

Would you like to show evidence of a society that 'fully embraced homosexuality?' I can't think of any. Obviously you've thought about this and have examples to demonstrate the danger.

"The evidence is not encouraging when one considers the current direction of our society. That is not just about the homosexual issue but it is the one which seems to be constantly thrown to the forefront by the media and a trite cartoonist."

GREAT! You have evidence! Please share your findings so we can all share your outrage and concern. I am not mocking you.

Knowledge is power, and if you aren't careful you learn something everyday. (Don't worry monkey man, I wasn't including you.)

June 28, 2011 at 3:34 p.m.
bigbearzzz said...

That was definitly a School House Rock reference right there...while were at it....Conjuction Junction...what IS your function?

June 28, 2011 at 3:54 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

When gays get married does the "female" try to change the "male"? Does the "male" become emotionally detached? Do they forget how to communicate with each other? When the whole thing flies apart will the divorce judge be evenly distributing the wealth? Will there be a custody battle for the dog?

They have no idea what they are getting themselves into.

BTW, you can really see where Clay's priorities are. His cartoons often have nothing to do with current events or are at least a week behind. He was all over this one like a pink pig on $hit.

June 28, 2011 at 4:48 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

You know, this cartoon is so "milk toast" it could make you gag. Thinking of the videos of revelers that night one could imagine a pretty darn spicy and entertaining cartoon.

Way to bore us Clay, you Loooser!

June 28, 2011 at 5:03 p.m.
SeaMonkey said...

i don't think so, usual, kiss my ass.

it's all political anyway. it's all a big distraction to take attention away from obumbles mess.

as long as homosexuals choose or allows themselves to be defined by their sexual acts they deserve all the criticism they get. gay pride parades are often lewd and in your face events.

that'll get them a lot of sympathy. why not just go all out and have a float with a bunch of guys of guys humping each other?

until some of you libs are willing to fight for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the unborn, your eagerness to martyr yourselves for "gay rights" is laughable and complete hypocracy.

June 28, 2011 at 5:11 p.m.
chet123 said...


June 28, 2011 at 5:18 p.m.
SeaMonkey said...

here's a come lesbian couples often assume the role/immitate a husband and wife.. ...that would a man and woman, hambreath..

take ellen degeneres....she dresses more masculine, pants, ties...etc..while her wife, whatever her name is, dresses in a more feminine manner........wierd.

and what about that actor, neil patrick harris....he and his partners...have decided to raise a family. they have a couple of kids.....which one plays the husband? does mr. harris go to work all day while his partner/wife changes diapers and slaves over a hot stove..

it's all just a poor imitation of the real thing......quite wierd...don't you agree, hambreath, yano and dude?

June 28, 2011 at 5:20 p.m.
SeaMonkey said...

actually, screamin' fool...i have a fine woman...she's the best. she loves reading the posts on here and how outraged i make you. she also loves my lack of capitalization, mr. progressive.

she said i should have lower case pride parade.

actually no, chet.....the whole world revolves around obama. just ask him.

June 28, 2011 at 5:26 p.m.
blackwater48 said...


As usual, sea cow, you've demonstrated that you really need to get a life. And stop asking guys to kiss your you-know-what. (Calling Dr. Freud?)

It's a free country. If people pay taxes and obey the law why do you care who does what to whom in their own home? Seriously.

You've spent waaay too much time wondering about Ellen and Neil and the gay dynamic. First of all, it's none of your business. Second of all, why do you give a crap??

Once again we are left with nothing but pity for the pathetic little fool.

And a good laugh.

June 28, 2011 at 5:31 p.m.
SeaMonkey said...

if not a bouquet, bennett should've illustrated a man in a tuxedo tossing a package of bacon or a new wrench over his shoulder to a bunch of other men. that would make it more manly and distinguish it from a lesbian wedding. after all, some may be allergic to flowers, but all men love bacon and tools. right, yano?

June 28, 2011 at 5:41 p.m.
SeaMonkey said...

maybe anthony weiner can be the grand marshall of the gay pride parade in new york city?

he could ride in an oscar myer weinermobile!

yes, i know he's not homosexaul....but, it would be rather humorous. his poll numbers might rise...and he the crowd might get a rise out of it.

June 28, 2011 at 6:26 p.m.
SeaMonkey said... silly, opinion hating fool.

tell me when someone says to you that they think pancakes are better than you shout, THAT'S YOUR OPINION! then demand documentation and links to back that up?

June 28, 2011 at 6:39 p.m.
fairmon said...

Gay marriage would not be an issue if the government did not discriminate against those prefreeing to remain single and to rent instead of owning a house which politicians insist is the American dream. One persons dream may be a nightmare for another.

These are serious questions and comments. I would be receptive to a response other than some moral philosophical crap that insist it is the way things are supposed to be:

Why is the government involved in marriage?

Why is it necessary to have a license and the blessings of the state? Why is informing the state or registering for the record not sufficient?

Why do tax laws, social security benefits, health care policies and a mirade of other government legislation discriminate agains those preferring to remain unmarried and to rent instead of own a house.

Why do income tax rates favor married couples? It is often said two can live cheaper than one?

Why do those opting to have kids receive deductions, the more kids the more deducted? The single tax payer is alreay paying more income tax, paying property and sales tax to educate their kids so why more income tax?

Why does a married spouse receive social security and survivor benefits when the single and married worker pay the same social security tax rates? Why would a married worker not pay for spouse and survivor benefits?

Why is a family health care plan paying the same beneifts as that held by a single policy holder cheaper for those in the insurance pool that are married and if they have kids the per person rate is even less?

the list of examples of singles being discrimated against and questions is much longer. Where in the constitution does it suggest the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is more applicable to those married.

Government intervention and government deciding what is socially good when others are not harmed without government intervention and favor showing always yields bad results for some to favor others. The push for gay marriage is an economic issue, they seek to take advantage of those laws and rules showing favor to marriage that should not exist. What right does government have to interfere with gay marriages if not for the economic impact? One good point is they can't proliferate and if on welfare they can't have kids to increase the amount received.

June 28, 2011 at 7:32 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Secondly, the body wasnt designed to be used in the manner that the homosexual lifestyle uses it. Anybody like to offer argument up for that one? --- bigbearzzz

I won't offer up an argument for your statement, bbz, but I would ask you what you use your nipples for. Let me know how your own personal nipples fit "the design."

June 28, 2011 at 8:07 p.m.
dude_abides said...

SmegMonkey, I wouldn't call any role playing, whether that be masculine/feminine roles in a relationship, a wife faking climax for the sake of her husband's fragile ego, or a bigoted neo-nazi pretending to espouse human rights to gain a thin patina of credibility, any weirder than any other. I'm role playing right now, acting as if I despise your ass, when in reality I'm glad you give a damn about the country I love. All we are give chance a piece.

June 28, 2011 at 8:24 p.m.
hambone said...

FrancisTrollMonkey ask when two men get married, how do rhey decide who is in the male role and who is in the female role?

Well Francis I guess they just FLIP A CONDOM

June 28, 2011 at 8:26 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

That's pretty darn funny. Men have nipples, therefore homosexuality is normal. Is that ”new” logic?

Or, do you mean to say that both male nipples and homosexuality are genetic relics of when all humans were hermaphrodites?

June 28, 2011 at 9:01 p.m.
dude_abides said...

I mean to say neither you nor I have any answers, but only you are judging others without those answers. Did God intelligently design nipples for men, BRP?

June 28, 2011 at 9:11 p.m.
hambone said...

I've never read anything by the Founding Fathers about the "gay lifestyle".

I think in Colonial times they had BIGGER CLOSETS.

June 28, 2011 at 9:18 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Sorry dude, I did not mean to judge. Maybe God intended male nipples to be conveniently located stimulation centers perfectly matched to the female tongue and, uh, never mind...

June 28, 2011 at 9:18 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Ah, so God has a plan for men and women of certain heights or lengths! Are we breaking God's law by marrying women of the incorrect height? You like that, do you? Stimulation of the daddary glands?

June 28, 2011 at 9:28 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

I like that, daddary glands. I'm not sure about God's law but things do seem to fit together quite nicely, thank you.

June 28, 2011 at 9:34 p.m.
blackwater48 said...


Sea cow scolded me with, "tell me when someone says to you that they think pancakes are better than you shout, THAT'S YOUR OPINION! then demand documentation and links to back that up?"

That was good. No, really. I like funny. Funny is good and that was funny.

I don't mind it when people offer their opinion. I do it all the time and I like to have an honest discussion with people who hold well thought out arguments.

I have several conservative friends who have thought about what they believe and why. People who know history and try to look at all sides of an argument. Repeating crap you hear on Fox or Rush or Glenn or whomever is not critical thinking.

I try to provide quotes or cite facts or point to articles that support my opinion. I guess you think that's absurd.

I object to people who believe their opinion is fact and don't know the difference, and if you beg to differ they go flying off the handle with name calling and another rant that, no offense, sounds a little looney.

Okay, to use your example of waffles and pancakes. This is what you might say:

( libs can't stomach the fact that waffles are better......everybody nose it.....obamaliar likes pancakes so you socialist fascists say you like them two.....probably with watermelon and chicken....i know lots of folks and nobody i know would be caught dead with a commie pancake.....i'm allowed to have my opinion and your a moron for not liking waffles.....why don't you think for yoursleves you spineless sheep........when republicans take the senate and white house in 2012 youll see.....youll all see and nobody will be caught dead eating pancakes again....if you dont like it you can kiss my ass...........)

See the difference?

No, you probably don't.

June 28, 2011 at 10:56 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Jesus, BW, I'm afraid you need a break from Monkeyboy. That is too spot on. If I were him, I would change my name again and start punctuating.

June 28, 2011 at 11:05 p.m.
fairmon said...

Apparently all posting here supporting both parties are married and greedy enough to agree with all the legislation and laws that discriminate against those electing to be single and not share the politicians idea of the American dream and financing a house.

No answers or response to any issue noted in the post at 7:28 pm. The same response from Chucky and Corker, total silence. It may be time for a special interest group called "singles rights" and get a lobbyist to represent them with congress and the POTUS.

June 28, 2011 at 11:46 p.m.
blackwater48 said...


The Dude warned, "Jesus, BW, I'm afraid you need a break from Monkeyboy."

No doubt, sir, but it was actually fun and surprisingly easy. All I had to do is drink five or six shots, hit myself in the head with a framing hammer and down lots of cough syrup. (the good kind)

So thanks, Dude. You're probably right.

But I'm sure the simian didn't get it.

June 28, 2011 at 11:51 p.m.
Yossarian25 said...

Why would someone continually come back to these cartoons and post comments, when they are blatantly opposed to reason and don't agree with anything the cartoonist had to say? . .

I never wanted to restrict peoples rights to freedom of speech, until I read the last pieces of bile from seadonkey. . .

Most uninformed opinions I have ever read anywhere, ironically appear on one of the best political cartoonist's in the world site. . . . So strange :)

June 29, 2011 at 5:38 a.m.
limric said...

Dang Blackwater,

Your progressive pancakes vs the wicked and their waffles was really funny.

I imagine you as Aunt Jemima and Seamonkey as Mrs Butterworth. Syrup, butter and batter splattered all over the griddle of freedom.

We need more of that stuff. Do it some more!

June 29, 2011 at 9:22 a.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

We already have a Gay American Republican running for President. Of course Republicans have banned him from the Primary debates but...

Republicans doing the RIGHT thing is not far behind.

June 29, 2011 at 10:50 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


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.