published Saturday, May 19th, 2012

Letters to the Editor

Same-sex appeal is not love

President Obama's evolution into support of "same-sex marriage" is deeply troubling to me. A little poem goes: First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes ... oops. I guess it doesn't work that way anymore. We've evolved.

Marriage was never intended to simply supply a legitimate context for sexual relationships (or for hospital visitation rights, insurance purposes, etc.). Marriage is designed to be a context to build the next generation. It is a contract between a man and woman for procreative boundaries that give legitimate names and guidance to the next generation.

Same-sex attraction is not love, it is lust. I love my mother, and would give my life for her, but that doesn't mean I am sexually attracted to her. Sexual attraction defined as love is a confusion of the term love, just as same-sex marriage is a confusion of the term marriage.

A homosexual relationship by any other name is still what it is! It will do what it does. Calling it marriage will not make it normal, moral or beneficial. That will only stretch the meaning of marriage into oblivion. Isn't that what's happening?

GREG NANCE, Signal Mountain

Evolution occurs within creation

It was a surprise to read the letter appearing in Sunday's paper (May 13) that spoke of evolution and creation as both worthy of scientific teaching. Voices defending creationism as legitimate science rarely appear in print. Indeed, there seems to be an effort to define creationism as religious superstition and evolution as legitimate science.

The science of evolution and creationism are legitimate absent any debate over religious belief, whether that belief is atheism or an intelligent creator (God). The extent to which evolution has occurred, whether change within species or transpecie evolution, which is only a theory, is a subject for evolutionists and creationists to study using scientific methods. For that study to be thorough it should include relevant claims within religious doctrine as well as doctrine that deny religion has any legitimate voice on the subject.

Science, through the second law of thermodynamics, has shown the universe could not exist absent a creation point in time, suggesting involvement by a creator unbound by physical laws that bind the creation. Evolution is a process occurring within the creation (universe). It cannot answer the question of how the universe came to exist or how life and any subsequent evolution began.


'Sexual preference' is an obsolete term

The term "sexual preference" used in a May 11 Free Press editorial is obsolete. Professionals have been using "sexual orientation" as the accepted term for decades now. "Sexual preference" implies a choice, when in fact sexual orientation is not.

The Free Press editors purposely chose to use this archaic phrase to describe one's sexuality as being a choice. Most if not all of the studies show that there is no such thing as a sexual preference, but that people are born with a sexual orientation. There is a consensus among medical and psychological professionals that sexual orientation is not a choice or learned behavior. Gay men and women are offended by the use of "sexual preference" in modern times because it implies that we have a choice in the gender that we are attracted to when we absolutely do not.

It seems that the Free Press editors often use words or phrases, such as "ObamaCare" and "sexual preference," to purposely upset the liberal readers of this otherwise fine newspaper. When I read the editorial last week I had to check the date on the paper. I thought it might say 1970.


Obama taking people's money

My wife and I just turned 65 and signed up on a Medicare supplement plan. We bought a Medicare Part D prescription plan and a dental plan. I then read there were 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day and that Medicare would be in trouble a few years down the road.

Now we find out Obama would take $530 billion from seniors on Medicare to pay for ObamaCare. He is taking money that people have paid into Medicare, taking it out of Medicare and subsidizing the care for people who have never paid into Medicare. They have the audacity to tell us it won't affect Medicare.

They took $530 billion away from seniors on Medicare to start a whole new government program for other people. Now they will have unelected bureaucrats deciding who gets what care and how much the government will pay for it.

Obama ran on hope and change. Well, I sure hope we change presidents, because if we don't I'm afraid that the seniors who have worked hard all of their lives, paid their taxes and tried to do the right thing will lose their health care by the sorriest president in the history of this nation.

WAYNE LONG, Jasper, Tenn.

Add these reasons to oppose Obama

May's reasons not to vote for Obama:

In October 2010, the Obama administration said it had nothing to do with the firing of Shirley Sherrod and that the Agriculture Department fired her. That was a lie.

Obama said Republicans killed the Keystone Pipeline. On March 7, Obama called all Democrats to vote against the pipeline, but 12 Democrats still voted for it. But it still did not pass. So, Obama is responsible (right).

Obama complains about giving $4 billion to oil companies in tax benefits, but gives $2 billion to Brazil to explore for oil and then tells them we will buy their oil. Why would we do that when we can produce our own oil?

Obama closed down drilling in the Gulf that cost thousands of jobs. Now China is drilling 60 miles off the Florida coast.

Eric Holder is withholding documents about "fast and furious" from congressional investigators who have asked for them. Why is the president doing nothing about it?

Obama said the stimulus plan would create jobs and keep unemployment below 8 percent. The actual unemployment rate is now well over 10 percent, and I feel its probably closer to 20 percent.

TOM FRICKE, Spring City, Tenn.

Religions forbid homosexuality

Whether current President Obama is Christian or Muslim, I don't know. However, I do know that both religions specifically forbid homosexuality. Yep, I said it! No matter how politically/socially incorrect, the Judeo-Christian Bible and the Quran plainly state that the homosexual lifestyle is an abomination against God himself. But if you discount, or simply do not believe, the holy laws, then this statement means nothing to you. I understand your position.

Nonetheless, the Protestant Christian, Catholic, Jewish and Muslim fellowships are encouraged to vote against Obama, not only on this issue, but on abortion (a soft term for murder) and his misunderstanding of Second Amendment rights, as well.

JEFFREY COX, Dalton, Ga.

Here's what Democrats do

Who are the Democrats? What are their standards and expectations?

Democrats believe the purpose of government is to take money away from Republicans and give it to them.

Republicans are concerned about how much they must pay to the government, while Democrats are concerned about how much they can "draw" from the government.

HUDSON PARKER, Murfreesboro, Tenn.

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.

GREG NANCE, I hate to tell you this, but a lot of people are married without having children. Horrors. And actually with modern science you can have children with another in a variety of ways.

DAN C. JOHNSON, you really aren't up to date on modern physics if you think that. Hawking already has a book on it.

WAYNE LONG, don't believe everything you read. Notice you lack of specific facts and allegations. Though if you want to read the Ryan Plan, you may see that it intends to eliminate Medicare. Or you can read about how Coburn himself wanted to cut Medicare while part of the Gang of Six.

TOM FRICKE, funny how you mention Shirley Sherrod without noting the deceitful edit of a video used to misrepresent her words. Why not mention that?

JEFFREY COX, thanks for showing why religion is bad reasoning to use for such decisions.

HUDSON PARKER, you have it wrong. Republicans are concerned about how much they can get from the government without paying for it, while Democrats are busy fighting that looting and making government do its job.

Republicans also believe the purpose of government is to keep the common people down and serve the rich and powerful as they abuse the powerless. Failing that they just go about breaking things so they can point and whine that government isn't working.

See how easy it is to represent another?

May 19, 2012 at 12:35 a.m.
Easy123 said...


Nearly everything you said is false. Marriage was designed for issues like property, money, etc. The institution of marriage has little to do with the next generation. There are couples that get married which are physically unable to have children, others don't want children, and some choose to adopt. Some couples don't get married and still procreate! Love has no gender. Men can love men and women can love women. And people of the same sex can also want to have sex with each other. In some cases it's lust, just like in some heterosexual cases. And homosexuality is normal. It occurs in about the same incidence in the animal kingdom. Explain how it is immoral without using a holy book. And it is very beneficial to the same-sex couple. They get all the benefits of marriage and EQUAL RIGHTS. And finally, the meaning of marriage is the same. P.S. Stop being afraid of gays and lesbians. They are just people. They deserve the same rights as you despite your Bronze Age, bigoted beliefs.


You don't understand what the word "theory" means in the science world. It means that there are copious amounts of evidence for it. Research and experimentation have been done to get the idea to a theory. Gravity is a theory. So is evolution. And they are both facts. Evolution is being studied everyday using the scientific method. Evolution is the only measurable explanation for our observable world. All of the evidence collected since Darwin points towards evolution. Creationism cannot be studied using the scientific method because there is no evidence for a creator or creationism. Intelligent design and creationism are assumptions people make about the origin of the cosmos. It is not science and it never will be. You have to take ID and creationism on faith because there is no evidence for them. Science does not rely on faith because, if it did, it would cease being science. Science and the scientific method rely on evidence to make claims. And all of the evidence points to evolution. It is a fact. The second law of thermodynamics is about entropy so, no, it doesn't suggest a creator. If there was a creator then who created the creator?


The Bible also says that you can't work on the sabbath, women on their period are unholy, slavery was good, kill your wife if she isn't a virgin on your wedding day, tattoos were bad, and sex and masturbation made you unclean. The Koran says absolutely abhorrent things about women and demands the murder of all unrighteous. These aren't holy books. These books preach a lot of evil and should not be held in high regard by anyone.

May 19, 2012 at 1:16 a.m.
kkemerait said...


There's a legitimate reason why there are no voices defending creationism as science. The reason is that it ISN'T science!

From your article it seems that...

You do not understand the word "theory" as defined in science.

You do not understand the second law of thermodynamics.

You do not understand the boundaries of the theory of evolution.

None of this is very surprising and seems to actually be the one common thread connecting virtually all of the people who write articles here on those topics.

Do yourself a favor and learn something about your intended topic, otherwise expect the same type of response that a member of the flat earth society might get.

May 19, 2012 at 6:40 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Ken Orr, you have yet to give one non-religious reason for denying gays equal protection under law (as in the constitution) and provide marriage rights to same sex couples. Your HIV/AIDS argument is false and has been shown to be so. Your continuing to post it reveals a level of dishonesty. Are you a "Liar for Jesus"?

May 19, 2012 at 7:27 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Homosexuality is a complex phenomenon involving genetics, embryology, endocrinology. It has no simple cause, but it is real, innate and not a choice:

Bailey, J. M.; Benishay, D. S. “Familial aggregation of female sexual orientation” American Journal of Psychiatry 150: 272-277, 1993

Bailey, J. M.; Pillard, R. C. “A genetic study of male sexual orientation” Archives of General Psychiatry 48: 1089-1096, 1991

Bailey, J. M.; Pillard, R. C.; Neale, M. C.; Agyei, Y. “Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women” Archives of General Psychiatry 50: 217-223, 1993

Blanchard, R., Cantor, J.M., Bogaert, A.F., Breedlove, S.M., & Ellis, L. “Interaction of fraternal birth order and handedness in the development of male homosexuality.” Hormones & Behavior, 49: 405-414, 2006

Bocklandt, S.; Horvath, S.; Vilain, E.; Hamer, D. H. “Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men” Human Genetics 118: 691-694, 2006

Camperio-Ciani, A.; Corna, F.; Capiluppi, C. “Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity.” Proceedings Biological Sciences/ The Royal Society 271: 2217-2221, 2004

Hamer, D. H.; Hu, S.; Magnuson, V. L.; Hu, N.; Pattatucci, A. M. L. “A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation.” Science 261: 321-327, 1993

Hu, S.; Pattatucci, A. M. L.; Patterson, C.; Li, L.; Fulker, D. W.; Cherny, S. S.; Kruglyak, L.; Hamer, D. H. “Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females.” Nature Genetics 11: 248-256, 1995

Mustanski, B. S.; DuPree, M. G.; Nievergelt, C. M.; Bocklandt, S.; Schork, N. J.; Hamer, D. H. “A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation.” Human Genetics 116: 272-278, 2005

Pillard, R. C.; Weinrich, J. D. : “Evidence of familial nature of male homosexuality.” Archives of General Psychiatry 43: 808-812, 1986.

Puts, D.A., Jordan, C.L. & Breedlove, S.M.; “O brother where art thou? The fraternal birth-order effect on male sexual orientation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 103: 10531-10532, 2006

Blanchard, R. “Fraternal birth order and the maternal immune hypothesis of male homosexuality” Hormonal Behavior 40(2): 105-114, 2001

Brown, W.M., Finn, C.J., Cooke, B.M. & Breedlove, S.M. “Differences in finger length ratios between self-identified ‘butch’ and ‘femme’ lesbians” Archives of Sexual Behavior 31: 117-121, 2002

May 19, 2012 at 7:58 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Brown, W.M., Hines, M., Fane, B., & Breedlove, S.M. “Masculinized finger length patterns in human males and females with congenital hyperplasia” Hormones and Behavior 42: 380-386, 2002

Brown, W.M., Brown, Finn, C.J. & Breedlove, S.M. “Sexual dimorphism in digitlength ratios of laboratory mice” Anatomical Record 276: 231-234, 2002

Ehrhardt, A.A., Meyer-Bahlburg, H.F.L., Rosen, L.R., Feldman, J.F., Veridiano, N.P., Zimmerman, I., & McEwen, B.S. “Sexual orientation after prenatal exposure to exogenous estrogen.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 14: 57-77, 1985

Dorner G, Staudt J. “Structural changes in the preoptic anterior hypothalamic area of the male rat, following neonatal castration and androgen substitution.” Neuroendocrinology 3: 136-140, 1968

Dorner G, Staudt J. “Perinatal structural sex differentiation of the hypothalamus in rats.” Neuroendocrinology 5: 103-106, 1969

Is it a Choice? The Science of Sexual Orientation McFadden, D. “Masculinization effects in the auditory system.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 31: 93–105, 2002

McFadden, D., & Champlin, C. A. “Comparison of auditory evoked potentials in heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual males and females.” Journal of the Association of Research in Otolaryngology 1: 89–99, 2002

McFadden, D.,& Pasanen, E. G. “Comparison of the auditory systems of heterosexuals and homosexuals: Click-evoked otoacoustic emissions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95: 2709–2713, 1998

Morris, J.A., Gobrogge, K.L., Jordan, C.L. & Breedlove, S.M “Brain aromatase: Dyed-in-the-wool homosexuality” Endocrinology 145: 475-477, 2004

Meyer-Bahlburg, H.F.L. “Sex hormones and female homosexuality: A critical examination” Archives of Sexual Behavior 8: 101-119, 1979.

Meyer-Bahlburg, H.F.L. “Psychoendocrine research on sexual orientation. Current status and future options.” Progress in Brain Research 61: 375-398, 1984

Simon, J.A., Jordan, C.L. & Breedlove, S.M. “Steroid hormone masculinization of neural structure in rats: A tale of two nuclei” Physiology and Behavior 83: 271-277, 2004

Williams, T.J., Pepitone, M.E., Christensen, S.E., Cooke, B.M., Huberman, A.D., Breedlove, N.J., Breedlove, T.J., Jordan, C.L. & Breedlove, S.M. “Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation” Nature 404: 455-456, 2000

But of course, you can't help but bring religion into it again.

May 19, 2012 at 7:58 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Over 1500 animal species display homosexuality. Dolphins, apes, penguins, mallards, swans, vultures, elephants, bison, giraffes, lion, sheep, fruit flies, many lizards and the list goes on. Homosexuality DOES NOT go against any law of nature. There are no good reasons for any religion, nation or person to regard homosexuality in a negative manner. Treating people as 2nd and third rate citizens because of their sexual preference is immoral. And no, I do not derive my morals from a holy book.

May 19, 2012 at 8:06 a.m.
LibDem said...

Mr. Orr, Notwithstanding lkeithlu's intelligent and well researched response, the twins you met at the bar were teasing you again.

May 19, 2012 at 8:15 a.m.
LibDem said...

lkeithlu, We dunderheads require a precis (preferably two or three sentences at fifth grade level). In MY opinion, the litmus test for homosexuality is not sufficiently refined to allow reliable sorting beyond self labeling. If Reverend Haggard labels himself straight, I don't think there is a lab test that will reliably confirm or refute his claim. Am I wrong? Don't we have to rely on identical twins to be totally honest?

May 19, 2012 at 9:20 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I'm not sure I understand your question.

May 19, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.
yaffay said...

Greg Nance

The USA is not a theocracy and does not have a national religion. All citizens should enjoy full equal rights under the law. These rights should not be denied because of the religious beliefs and prejudices of others.

As pointed out by others, your basic premise is flawed. There are many other reasons to get married besides reproduction. According to your logic, there is no real reason for those who can't or don't want to have children to marry.

Jeffery Cox I find in interesting that you pull out Biblical references to condemn homosexuals. I can only believe that follow the mandate not to wear garments made of more than one kind of material and find nothing wrong with selling our daughters as slaves!

May 19, 2012 at 10:29 a.m.
Ozzy87 said...

As I've stated before: Following their reasoning to it's logical conclusion that homosexuality is a choice is that everyone born is bisexual and remains that way untill a conscious choice is made otherwise. Now watch their heads explode.

May 19, 2012 at 1:23 p.m.
Easy123 said...


You obviously haven't read the whole Bible. Here are some examples that you probably missed:

Luke 14:26 (NIV) "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."

Luke 12:51 (NIV) "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division."

Matthew 5:17 (NIV) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (For anyone that thinks the Old Testament law isn't applicable anymore)

1 Corinthians 6:8-10 "Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God"

Deuteronomy 13:6-10 "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God..."

The Bible does not preach peace and love. The first three versus I have mentioned are directly from the mouth of Jesus. These passages are patently immoral. But I'm sure many Christians have not read or choose to ignore these passages. You can pick and choose which passages to read and which to base your beliefs off of but that is not Christianity. The Bible is full of inconsistencies. The Bible and many Christian doctrine are incoherent and contradictory to what is actually in the Bible. Anyone can interpret the Bible anyway they want and find authority in it. You can take the passages literally or as allegory, metaphor, fable etc. Read the whole Bible. If you are going to base your entire belief system and moral code on it then you should read the entire compilation of books. The BIble is not a holy book. It is a terribly immoral and evil anthology of copies of copies of oral tradition from illiterate Palestine from about 1500 BCE to around the 2nd century CE written. It is full of historical, geographical and common sense contradictions and falsehoods. Using the Bible as a basis for argument is no better than using any other two thousand year old text.

May 19, 2012 at 2:49 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

How about that NON-religious reason? Others are not beholden to your religious beliefs.

May 19, 2012 at 5:21 p.m.
Livn4life said...

Wow the "experts" are out in force today and so many just think we need to throw out all religion and vote strictly Democrat every election. Now that is a form of expert I can surely do without.

May 19, 2012 at 8:40 p.m.
Easy123 said...

You do realize HIV and AIDS are not strictly homosexual diseases, correct? About half of the people with HIV in America are homosexual men, the rest are heterosexual men/women or intravenous drug users. Lesbians are actually the lowest risk group to acquire HIV or AIDS. While HIV and AIDS is a huge problem in the gay male community, acting like HIV/AIDS is a "gay" disease is ignorant.

May 19, 2012 at 10:05 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

A) your argument has been debunked before: HIV AIDS is only more prevalent in gay populations in the US because of how the disease entered the country. Straight men and women make up the bulk of the infected in countries where it was introduced through heterosexual contact.

B) if you followed your (faulty) argument to conclusion, then gay WOMEN should still be allowed to marry as they carry the lowest infection rate.

May 20, 2012 at 1:46 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Yes, it actually does imply that unless you believe that, somehow, gay people are born differently than heterosexuals. It is either a choice for both heterosexual and homosexual people or it isn't a choice for either groups. I would dare say that no heterosexual person "chose" to be heterosexual. So you can apply the same logic to homosexuals. The low grade "b.s" is on your side. If you claim homosexualityis a choice then the burden of proof is on you. Ikeithlu, Ozzy87 and I have fleshed out the "choice" logic and shown how it doesn't make logical sense. Now it's your turn to prove otherwise.

May 20, 2012 at 3:19 p.m.
Ozzy87 said...

Another fact that is oblivious to tu_qouque and others is that whether homosexuality is chosen or not, it is IRRELEVANT to the issue. Their CHOSEN religious beliefs have no more validity under the Constitution than my "chosen" orientation. Reverse their arguements back to them. No one is BORN Christian. No one is BORN Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, Pagan, or any other religion.

May 21, 2012 at 11:10 a.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.