published Tuesday, November 19th, 2013

'Times have changed for gay citizens in Chattanooga' and more letters to the editor

Times have changed for gay citizens

How far we have come since the 1980s when I worked for the city of Chattanooga. At that time, I made no mention of being gay and fortunately, only needed benefits for myself. I didn't really fear losing my job, but I was always aware of the possibility. Shifting careers in the early '90s, I became a clinical social worker, joining a profession committed to ending all forms of oppression, providing fair and equal treatment for all. Since that time, I have done all I could to foster this approach to treating people who want to lead responsible, productive and contributing lives.

I am pleased that Chattanooga is considering legislation to extend benefits to domestic partners of city employees and to broaden the non-discrimination provision to include sexual orientation. My partner and I joined a gym because it offered joint membership if we share a common household, which we have for nine years. Some council members and the Mayor have already expressed support for fair and equal treatment. Adopting this provision would further the work done over recent years to make Chattanooga a progressive city.

LYNN HODGE

Stop funding family benefits

In regard to the same-sex benefits controversy in Chattanooga: One way to end this controversy is to take benefits away from everyone!

Why should partners and children be the business of Chattanooga government? Nobody but the employee, himself or herself, should have workplace health benefits.

Save money! If you can't provide for a partner or a family, don't have a partner or a family. Easy!

NANCY SMITH

Dayton, Tenn.

Oppose same-sex benefits for city

As I read the article, "Chattanoogans have say on same-sex benefits" published on Nov. 6, 2013, I found myself shaking my head. I strongly believe this should not be an issue. How is it that we have confused liberty with profligacy? People have given up on the righteous law of God and adopted conformities to this world. If same-sex issues should become law, it will simply be the law of men. While I do not hate homosexuals, I cannot condone to their behavior. The law of God is clear and he finds it an abominable sin. People have the right to make decisions even when wrong, but I hope the state does not pass a law that will make it right to do wrong, whether you are a Christian or not there is a voice that speaks from the depths of our hearts and it is crying out: "Open your eyes and see your shame!"

BRENDA LEE CRUZ

Collegedale, Tenn.

No excuses for ACA

Everything surrounding the Affordable Care Act is unraveling, and we really shouldn't be surprised. After all, our federal government doesn't have a very good track record of working together on just about anything. Todd Park insisted Wednesday that the only problem with the government health care website was volume. "Take away the volume and it works." he said. What a statement! Did no one at the White House realize what the volume was going to be like? Caesar Augustus was no better off some 2,000 years ago. Bethlehem was overloaded with people trying to register. The common people suffered: Mary and Joseph had no room in the inn. By the way, Joseph was denied coverage and had to care for Mary himself. But their little family didn't do too poorly, did they?

GERALD WHITELY

Ringgold, Ga.

55
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.
ToHoldNothing said...

If nothing else, this is the most balanced set of letters on this issue I've seen. The opposition on economic grounds at least has some basis to it. The religious/moral opposition, sadly, is, like many things that are both antiquated and virtually useless, dying out with the older generations that still cling to this. Not to say there aren't those in my own generation or younger who oppose it, but I think they're at least softer in their disapproval.

November 19, 2013 at 2:55 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Argue benefits on economic grounds. What people do in consenting adult relationships, straight or gay, married or not, is no one's business. As far as the older generation, homosexuality has always occurred in the population, at approximately the same frequency. I'd suspect that an older gay man or woman would find these open times to be much healthier than secrecy.

November 19, 2013 at 7:07 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

EXTREMELY SHORT-TERM 'HOMOSEXUAL DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIPS

The average expectation of a homosexual domestic relationship is six months (or, less)...what kind of wasted City dollars are going to finance these 'good time parties' while the recipients laugh the Tax Payers to scorn? Who is going to untangle all of the confusion (paperwork legalities, etc.) of homosexual relationship, after homosexual relationship, after relationship, after relationship, after relationship? (do You get the idea?).

Homosexual individuals account for a huge part of the cost to innocent United States tax payers. Approximately 20 billion dollars per year. Who's idea was it to add more forced expense to our City Citizens (Families)Tax Payers? This on top of what we are already paying into Federal Government Coffers.

While CDC estimates that ONLY 4% of men in the United States are Men Having Sex With Men, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among Men Having Sex With Men in the United States is MORE THAN 44 (fourty-four) TIMES that of other men (range: 522 –989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men). CREDIT: CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL [CDC] (CDC.GOV URL) Anyone Can Choose To Leave This Lifestyle Before They Become A Part of These Statistics! (I Speak This With The Love of Christ Jesus).......Ken Orr

Ken ORR

November 19, 2013 at 9:35 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

The federal budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2011 includes a total of $20.4 BILLION DOLLARS for domestic HIV and AIDS, a 4% increase from the FY 2010 funding, which totaled $19.6 BILLION DOLLARS. Federal funding for AIDS programs falls into five basic categories: care and treatment, financial and housing assistance, prevention, research, and global spending (most of which goes out through the US PEPFAR program). Of these five budgets, care spending is by far the largest - just over half of the FY 2010 budget was for care and treatment programs. THE MAJORITY of AIDS CARE FUNDING goes out through the federal MEDICARE and MEDICAID PROGRAMS for people who do not have adequate private health insurance. (Innocent American Tax Payers Forced to Pay For Those Who Choose This Lifestyle of Homosexual Behavior). I Do Not Blame Innocent Victims Such As Children and Blood Transfusion Patients. credit: Avert.Org International HIV & AIDS charity.

November 19, 2013 at 9:35 a.m.
conservative said...

Ken:

You go man!

Did you know that the intolerant left would call your comments hate speech?

The truth is hate speech to Liberals. My guess is that your free speech would not be allowed on a college campus newspaper such as UTC.

November 19, 2013 at 11:37 a.m.
ToHoldNothing said...

The truth can be exaggerated with statistics and studies like what's being referenced. Even if there are promiscuous gay men, it doesn't reflect on the behavior of all gay men. And men who have sex with men doesn't equal exclusive homosexuals

November 19, 2013 at 2:08 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

And behaviors practiced by homosexuals are not exclusive to homosexuals. Heterosexuals, including married couples, can engage in most if not all of the same behaviors. And be exposed to the same risks. Are you suggesting, Ken, that sexual behavior be regulated or supervised?

November 19, 2013 at 3:51 p.m.
conservative said...

No God ordained (one man and one woman for life) married man or woman who has been faithful to their spouse has ever gotten AIDS.

Stated another way married people who don't have or ever had sex with anyone other than their spouse has ever gotten AIDS from sex.

Stated another way no married couple has to use protection to prevent AIDS.

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Hebrews 13:4 KJV

The God ordained marriage and the marriage bed is undefiled!

November 19, 2013 at 4:34 p.m.
ToHoldNothing said...

There's a marked difference, albeit a bit subtle, between HIV and AIDS. You can be HIV positive and not have AIDS, though it commonly develops, from what I can recall. I could be wrong, though.

Irresponsible sexual behavior is your beef, which I can agree with. But it's not unique to homosexuals, especially in this day and age. No fault divorce doesn't help marriage either, does it?

November 19, 2013 at 4:50 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Unless, of course, you must pass a purity test to get a marriage license. That would be interesting. Of course, no redemption allowed. HIV, herpes and chlamydia are not cured by being "born again".

November 19, 2013 at 8:03 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Following from: The National Institute of Health: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21573705/?i=3&from=/19543410/related

When a high-significant (statistically) number of homosexual individuals think up and engage in the below described behavior...well, I for one do not want my tax dollars going to support such.

Felching among men who engage in barebacking (unprotected anal sex). Authors Klein H. Journal

Arch Sex Behav. 2012 Apr;41(2):377-84. doi: 10.1007/s10508-011-9770-0. Epub 2011 May 14. Affiliation

Kensington Research Institute, 401 Schuyler Road, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA. hughk@aol.com Abstract

Felching (sucking or eating semen out of someone's anus) is a sexual behavior about which virtually nothing has been written in the scholarly literature, despite the fact that it appears to be a not-uncommon practice among certain subpopulations of men who have sex with men (MSM). This study examined three broad research questions: (1) How common is felching? (2) How does a desire for felching relate to other HIV risk practices and risk behavior preferences? (3) What factors are associated with the desire to engage in felching? The data were from a content analysis study of one of the largest Internet websites specifically targeting MSM looking for partners for unprotected sex. A total of 1,316 profiles on the site were analyzed and selected randomly based on users' ZIP codes. Felching was mentioned as a sought-after practice in approximately one-sixth of the men's profiles. Men who wanted to find felching partners were significantly more likely than those not searching for felching partners to seek other types of risky sex, including unprotected oral and unprotected anal sex, and various enhanced risk preferences (e.g., having sex while high, multiple-partner sex, unwillingness to withdraw the penis prior to internal ejaculation). Multivariate analysis revealed several factors that were related to an interest in identifying partners online for felching, including race/ethnicity, indifference to sex partners' HIV serostatus, several sensation-seeking measures (e.g., wanting "wild" or "uninhibited" sex, self-identification as a "bug chaser"), and eroticizing ejaculatory fluids.

November 19, 2013 at 10:19 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

These benefits just passed are unlawful, rogue, and seemingly that which scofflaws would pass. This political action follows the example given by the Obama administration (disregarding established laws and utilizing tyranny to force conditions which have not been legislated). These benefits are illegal in every sense of the word.

TENNESSEE STATUTE (LAW) RE: LEGAL MARRIAGE:

"(b) The legal union in matrimony of only one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be the only recognized marriage in this state. (c) Any policy, law or judicial interpretation that purports to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one (1) man and one (1) woman is contrary to the public policy of Tennessee"; Tenn. Code Ann. ' 36 3 113

Too many Liberal Democrats are Scofflaws and utilizes sleazy deception and other evil tactics to push their immoral lifestyles onto society. It may be we now see Chattanooga City Government following this example of the Obama administration.

Ken ORR

November 19, 2013 at 10:33 p.m.
ToHoldNothing said...

You're comparing men from the 60s and 70s to gay men growing up now, it's like dinosaurs and lizards. The times were different and many men still felt closeted and behaved in sexually unsafe ways. To generalize about the entire gay community because of this is ridiculous.

Your tax dollars don't support any sexual behavior of consenting adults. You do know anti sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional just 10 years ago? Seems odd it would take that long in history to find out that private sexual acts between adults are protected regardless of if people agree with them morally/religiously.

November 19, 2013 at 10:40 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

10:19 comment flagged, Mr. Orr. Disgusting and inappropriate.

November 20, 2013 at 7:06 a.m.
conservative said...

I totally agree, Homosexual behavior IS disgusting and inappropriate!

The more people realize that the less likely it will be accepted and condoned in society.

And yes they will stand in judgment before God:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1Corinthians 6:9-10 NAS

November 20, 2013 at 8:40 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I'm sure god appreciates you keeping tabs on the sexual behavior of strangers, conservative. It's an unpleasant job, but someone has to do it. Of course, most of the dirty work falls to your assistant, Ken Orr. However, the rest of us would appreciate you two keeping the gory details to inter-office memos, please.

November 20, 2013 at 9:44 a.m.
conservative said...

So now you claim to speak for everyone else!

November 20, 2013 at 10:05 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I'd like you to produce a single poster, other than Ken, of course, that finds his disgusting detailed research of homosexual behavior to be helpful, interesting or appropriate. They are welcome to come here and confirm this. I would expect that even the most fervent conservatives here will not; only you and Ken seem interested in this topic at this level of detail. Disturbing, if you ask me.

November 20, 2013 at 10:10 a.m.
conservative said...

You have admitted the practice of Homosexuality is disgustng and yet you approve of it and defend it.

November 20, 2013 at 10:34 a.m.
conservative said...

I would like to see who besides you Ike would defend Homosexuals and the disgusting habits of Homosexuals as detailed by the CDC and others.

November 20, 2013 at 11:13 a.m.
conservative said...

I hope that some after seeing the number of comments will see what the discussion is about and have their eyes open to the disgusting habits of Homosexuals.

Your turn to increase the number of comments Ike.

November 20, 2013 at 11:18 a.m.
ToHoldNothing said...

Clearly conservatives, particularly paleocons like yourself, seem to lack reading comprehension skills. lkeithlu didn't say homosexuality was disgusting, but the comments generalizing it as such by Mr. Orr.

You think anal sex is disgusting, look into commonly heterosexual practices, even if they are kinks, and you'll find far more stomach churning practices. Though it does seem odd that you're so concerned with people's sex lives

November 20, 2013 at 1:11 p.m.
conservative said...

ToHoldNothing:

No, she referred to the Homosexuals/sodomites habits. Their habits are disgusting.

Now you come along and state normal people practice something more disgusting than the disgusting habits of Homosexuals and sodomites.

OK Ike you got ToHoldNothing to defend Homosexuality/sodomy.

However, a higher score in defending Homosexuality and sodomy is not a good thing.

November 20, 2013 at 1:31 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

conservative, you must be a virgin. Sex (gay AND straight, as well as solo) in any form can be pretty disgusting, and unless you are talking to your doctor, details about the various sexual behaviors practiced by you or anyone else are not part of polite conversation.

November 20, 2013 at 2:04 p.m.
conservative said...

But you Liberals keep pushing the approval and acceptance of the disgusting and abominable practice of Homosexuality and sodomy in public.

You Liberals even go so far to call it love and loving the Homosexual/sodomite.

There is no end to your insatiable desire to defend the disgusting practice of it.

Now you have resorted to charging that all sex is disgusting to justify Homosexuality and sodomy.

November 20, 2013 at 2:17 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Yep-virgin.

November 20, 2013 at 2:22 p.m.
ToHoldNothing said...

I don't know why I'd even bother trying to analyze this insanity you're spouting. Homosexuality and sodomy are not identical, since the latter is an umbrella term. I don't think anyone would advocate having sex with an animal.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are basic variations on human sexuality, not unlike the other major forms we can enumerate: nonsexuality and bisexuality, among some other small groups. Love between two mature adults not sharing biological relation and not being raised in proximity to each other is hardly any of your business, especially since heterosexuals have far more issues in terms of maintaining marriage and having healthy marital relations overall.

And why is this? As the saying goes, familiarity breeds contempt. Straight people, myself included, have just taken for granted that they can get married and no fault divorce has made it worse.

The logical fallacy is stunning, not to mention no one said what you are quoting us as stating. The disgusting nature of some sex acts does not follow to all sex acts being justified. And homosexual acts are not the same as what would be considered "kinky" acts that aren't common, compared to anal intercourse, which is not unique to homosexual men, as you seem to believe.

November 20, 2013 at 3:05 p.m.
conservative said...

ToHoldNothing:

How can I possibly discuss the the disgusting practice of Homosexual/sodomites when you don't even know the meaning of the words sodomy and sodomite?

Yes sodomy can mean sex with animals but traditionally it has meant anal sex between men.

This is the most common meaning as evidenced by many dictionaries. Also, look up the origin of the word "sodomy" and you will find a Biblical reference to a city and the practice of Homosexuality associated with the name of that city. I am not pulling your leg.

You are going to be much surprised, I'm certain.

November 20, 2013 at 3:33 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

So are you. Your definitions are incorrect.

November 20, 2013 at 3:45 p.m.
conservative said...

There are many dictionaries out there, they are on the internet. I don't want to embarrass you any further but I will if you insist.

November 20, 2013 at 3:57 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Hahahaha! You really are clueless. You aren't embarrassing me, nor could you. Your definitions are incorrect. They may be YOUR RELIGIOUS definitions but they are yours only. That is beside the point anyway. I suspect that your fixation on the sex act is incurable, and your obsession with other peoples' sex lives and your insistence on applying your religious expectations on everyone else regardless of what their beliefs are is a strong indication that you suffer from a set of psycho-pathologies. That you think any of this is appropriate for public conversation or any of your business is astounding. I hope you don't have access to peoples' children.

November 20, 2013 at 4:17 p.m.
conservative said...

OK, you go ahead and correct Webster:

From Merriam Webster:

Full Definition of SODOMY

: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also: copulation with an animal

— sod•om•it•icˌsä-də-ˈmi-tik or sod•om•it•i•cal-ti-kəladjective

See sodomy defined for English-language learners »

Origin of SODOMY

Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1–11

First Known Use: 13th century

====

Now, either you are right or Merriam Webster is right!

November 20, 2013 at 4:25 p.m.
conservative said...

Do you want another correction?

November 20, 2013 at 4:30 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Legal definition is different. No animals. Oral has been removed. Your failure to acknowledge the bigger issue here is noted.

November 20, 2013 at 4:41 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike;

I am not going to let you change the subject. I stated:

"Yes sodomy can mean sex with animals but traditionally it has meant anal sex between men."

"This is the most common meaning as evidenced by many dictionaries. Also, look up the origin of the word "sodomy" and you will find a Biblical reference to a city and the practice of Homosexuality associated with the name of that city. I am not pulling your leg."

You stated: "Your definitions are incorrect"

Now, again read the Merriam Webster definition:

From Merriam Webster:

Full Definition of SODOMY

: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also: copulation with an animal

— sod•om•it•icˌsä-də-ˈmi-tik or sod•om•it•i•cal-ti-kəladjective

See sodomy defined for English-language learners »

Origin of SODOMY

Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1–11

First Known Use: 13th century

November 20, 2013 at 5 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Legal definition, con. We don't live in a theocracy. And this still does not address your obsession with the details of other peoples' sex lives. Your well "researched" detailed definition is more evidence that you are truly a sick human being.

I am ending my participation. Crow triumph if you desire, but I don't think it is healthy for you to reveal so much about your sick obsessions on this forum, and I will no longer be your excuse to do so.

November 20, 2013 at 5:03 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike:

You wrote:

"Your definitions are incorrect. They may be YOUR RELIGIOUS definitions but they are yours only"

NO, THIS DEFINITION IS NOT MY DEFINITION. SURELY YOU ARE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO READ THE MERRIAM WEBSTER DEFINITION, LOOK UP THIS DEFINITION FOR YOURSELF.

From Merriam Webster:

Full Definition of SODOMY

: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also: copulation with an animal

— sod•om•it•icˌsä-də-ˈmi-tik or sod•om•it•i•cal-ti-kəladjective

See sodomy defined for English-language learners »

Origin of SODOMY

Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1–11

First Known Use: 13th century

November 20, 2013 at 5:12 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike:

Now focus on the origin of the word sodomy.

From Merriam Webster:

"Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1–11"

"First Known Use: 13th century"

I made no mention of a LEGAL definition.

THAT IS TOTALLY YOUR STRAW MAN, YOUR INVENTION.

Now, I gave you fair warning that I would correct you if you insisted.

November 20, 2013 at 5:22 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike:

You wrote:

"but I don't think it is healthy for you to reveal so much about your sick obsessions on this forum"

YOU have prolonged the discusion with YOUR obsession of defending Homosexuality/sodomy after referring to the sodomites "disgusting" behavior yourself. You used the word "disgusting" and even went to the extreme of calling married sex as sometime "disgusting" in your failed attempt to justify it.

November 20, 2013 at 5:30 p.m.
ToHoldNothing said...

Historically, sodomy probably focused on anal sex, but other acts have fallen under the definition, either legally or morally. But merely because there's a precedence for one definition doesn't suggest that the term should be exclusively defined as such. It's as antiquated a word as "negro" or even calling a black person a "colored" person.

The fact that you insist on using that in contrast to other terms that work just as well with the same amount of syllables (anal sex or even buggery, as British as the word is) makes me think that the problem isn't the dictionary so much as that the common usage defined by Webster is primarily religious in nature and thus isn't focusing on the act and its moral nature, but the association to a morally repulsive place in the bible.

I won't even get into the discussion of whether homosexuality was the sin, since the Bible itself even focuses more on another horrible act perpetrated, but suffice to say, I don't think this discussion can go anywhere when you are stuck in the 18th century in terms of sexual morals.

November 20, 2013 at 5:52 p.m.
ToHoldNothing said...

lkeithlu didn't call homosexuality disgusting. Reading in context of the discussion, you'd see that the thing called disgusting was focusing on the sexual act for arguing why homosexuality is wrong.

November 20, 2013 at 5:53 p.m.
conservative said...

No,No,No!

She was referring to the details of the sodomites sexual acts and proclivities.

Read them and see if you can bring yourself to admit that they are "disgusting."

She would never call Homosexuality itself "disgusting."

Read the "disgusting" acts yourself and then dare tell me that they are not "disgusting."

You have gone out of your way to justify Homosexuality. Why?

November 20, 2013 at 6:06 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

You are wasting your time, To Hold. (I was too) This person is a twisted, sick individual. Trying to carry any kind of conversation with him is pointless.

November 20, 2013 at 6:23 p.m.
conservative said...

No. Ms. Lucas you are the one who is troubled. You are the one obsessed with defending the abomination of Homosexuality.

November 20, 2013 at 6:35 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I have flagged you for using my name again.

November 20, 2013 at 6:52 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I have asked you repeatedly not to use my name on this forum. I am sending a letter to the editorial staff.

November 20, 2013 at 7:24 p.m.
conservative said...

It is still a free country. The Post Office will gladly accept your money. You should not expect to insult and slander me or anyone else and then hide after you have divulged your real name.

Sorry.

November 20, 2013 at 7:31 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I didn't insult or slander you conservative. You did that yourself with your own words. You are violating the terms of this forum. And the country IS free, though you forget that consenting adults are free to engage in sexual relationships without your or anyone else's approval or permission. However, this forum is not. It has rules that you must follow or lose the privilege of posting here. What a hypocrite.

November 20, 2013 at 7:38 p.m.
conservative said...

Nice straw man!

November 20, 2013 at 7:45 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

AND you lied. My name was released accidentally several months ago, I did not reveal it intentionally, not that it matters. I asked that it not be used. The staff has been notified. By the way, you might educate yourself on the term "straw man" before you use it.

November 20, 2013 at 7:47 p.m.
ToHoldNothing said...

I got nothing better to do. Kind of allows me to understand the insanity a bit more. Also, I'm a bit of a glutton for it.

Conservative, I think you still misunderstand. The act itself wasn't the target so much as the context and detail of description in a conversation that didn't warrant it. He could've described other acts, like a rimjob or creampie, various sorts of sexual acts and it would've still been considered disgusting. The fact that it's a homosexual act is incidental.

Bottom line, it's the appropriateness of the comment itself, not the specific content in question

November 20, 2013 at 7:58 p.m.
May said...

The only sick thing here is the amount of homophobic hate in this thread. I'm glad this whole God hates gays mentality is coming to an end. It's illogical for someone who calls themselves Christian, who worships a God of love, to believe that this God is selective of who he loves and that he is homophobic.

And even if for whatever reason people decide to follow this hateful homophobic line of thought, there's no validity to be found with the way the legal system works. All people should be treated equally despite whomever their partner may be. It's a common sense issue that is being blown out of proportion by homophobic extremists. Keep religion out of politics, it's not that hard of a concept to grasp. If someone is being discriminated against because of someone else's religious views, then what's to stop our courts from burning people who are accused of witchcraft?

Blacks and women had the same struggle and were also put down by people who tried using the Bible to justify their hateful point of views, history repeats itself.

November 20, 2013 at 10:44 p.m.
fairmon said...

This council was elected in large part to replace prior members due to their spending decisions that resulted in a 19% increase in the cost to live in the city. The increase included property taxes, sewer and storm water run off fees, utility cost increases and various other fees. It appears the majority of the new council feels no more fiduciary obligation to tax payers then the former council. Why are benefits provided for the dependents of any city government employee? Why has the city government not moved to a defined benefits concept like most private sector employers? The supporting statement that it is only approximately a 1% increase in the budget, which like most projections is probably low, Is a good indication of how responsible some on the council think about being good stewards of taxpayers money. It is time for a professional firm to review the cities compensation rates compared to like or similar work in the private sector plus an efficiency and productivity study. This initiative would yield at least 15% lower cost and most likely much more.

November 21, 2013 at 3:25 a.m.
conservative said...

Great cost to treat AIDS so let the taxpayers of Chattanooga pick up the bill.

November 21, 2013 at 6:38 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.