Ozzy87's comment history

Ozzy87 said...

I have not seen one single scripture in the bible that is anti-homosexual. No Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic word translates to "homosexual" because the term and its medical definition did not exist until the 19th Century, when it was identified as an inherent psycho-sexual trait and began to be medically studied.

What the bible condemns are very specific same-sex sexual ACTS. Genesis 19 is about an attempted gang rape, Leviticus 18:22 is a Mosaic law (not applicable to Christians) forbidding ritualistic anal sex, Romans 1:13-32 is about the intoxicated, frenzied pagan sex orgies of the Romans to their idols, 1 Corinthians 6:9 comments on the catamites and dirty old men who solicited them, a common practice in Corinth's many brothels.

If a gay or lesbian person is not practicing any of these things, I see no reason why they should feel condemned by these scriptures, anymore so than a heterosexual reading about opposite-sex prostitution, rape, pagan sex orgies etc. which the bible also mentions.

September 21, 2013 at 12:33 p.m.
Ozzy87 said...

Religion has nothing to do with civil marriage. Marriage can be a religious ritual, but it's not a requirement. When the preacher (or whatever term they call themselves) says "By the power vested in me by the state of (blank)" they are recognizing that without the state's authority their ceremony is legally worthless. Or do you consider couples married by a Justice Of the Peace not married?

August 14, 2013 at 2:17 a.m.
Ozzy87 said...

Ahhh, the old mantra of the conservatives is at it again : "Repeat a lie long enough and everyone ( including ourselves) will believe it." The Democrats didn't have a fillibuster-proof Senate for " two years", try living in the real world where they had total control for about 14 weeks.

July 27, 2013 at 1:53 a.m.
Ozzy87 said...

I'm not too happy with the Prop h8 decision. We didn't lose any gains, but the S.C. punted the issue back to the district court, shirking their responsibility to uphold the Constitutional principle and freedom to ALL citizens. The narrow interpretation of DOMA and Prop h8 hasn't stopped the legal challenges in the future. When a legally married couple moves from a Constitutional supporting state to a restricted state, what will happen when one of them dies? Since states control marriage rights, will the surviving spouse be exempted from state taxes the same as their heterosexual counterparts? NO. What about custody of children if there is an accident and the biological parent is killed? Will the surviving spouse gain automatic custody of their children? NO. So this ruling was just window dressing until one of these scenarios reaches the federal courts. Then (if Scalia and Thomas have been poisoned by their own venom and no longer on the S.C.)the real issues of the stomping on the Full Faith And Creditability Clause, the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments will be considered.

July 3, 2013 at 11:34 a.m.
Ozzy87 said...

Una61, a great line from Star Trek : Insurrection : "How many people does it take for a decision to be wrong?" 6? 60? 6000? Taking the most ACCURATE and NEUTRAL numbers is that 5% to 10% of the population identifies themselves as LGBT. So that equals between 19.5 and 39 MILLION people. The Prop 8 decision was another punting the ball back to the states, instead of a handing down a decisive ruling.

June 30, 2013 at 5:47 p.m.
Ozzy87 said...

I guess Joe King has never heard of the First Amendment.

May 11, 2013 at 4:05 p.m.
Ozzy87 said...

And yet again no one has offered a logical nonreligious reason to deny marriage equality that doesn't conflict with established Constitutional precedent.

April 15, 2013 at 9:03 p.m.
Ozzy87 said...

"Christianity neither is nor ever was a part of the common law." - Thomas Jefferson.

April 9, 2013 at 11:03 p.m.
Ozzy87 said...

Carey Crouch, Reagan would turn tail and withdraw troops like what happened in Beirut. He would've raised the debt ceiling like he did 17 times while President. Something else comes to mind : he was the one to sell Iraq the weapons Hussein used on his own people. And don't forget about setting up Bin Laden.

March 26, 2013 at 9:33 a.m.
Ozzy87 said...

Did I wake up this morning living in a theocracy? I didn't think so.

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression. -- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Joneses, please read the Constitution before you spew your drivel. The Ninth Amendment (AKA The Enumerated Rights Amendment) says otherwise. Basically it states just because a civil right isn't stated doesn't mean said civil right doesn't exist. The Supreme Court referred to the Ninth and the Fourteenth Amendment in their ruling in the 1967 case of Loving v Virginia, which overturned bans on interracial marriage. Because marriage was not listed as a civil right, the USSC based their ruling from the 9th Amendment and then stated that marriage was a "fundamental civil right" and as such fell under the equality clause of the 14th Amendment.

March 16, 2013 at 5:58 p.m.

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.