TN County Tries To Outlaw Homosexuality

pellaeons_scion · Post by **pellaeons_scion** » 2004-03-17 11:11pm

and I am an idiot. please ignore previous post..its was the lack of caffeine..

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-03-17 11:41pm

I say that before these guys join the 21st century, they should try to get out of the 19th. Hopefully, this display of exrteme bigotry gets shot down in the courts.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-03-17 11:46pm

URGE TO MAIM RISING

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-17 11:51pm

darthdavid wrote:URGE TO MAIM RISING

More insightful commentary I see.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-03-18 12:00am

Durandal wrote:
darthdavid wrote:URGE TO MAIM RISING
More insightful commentary I see.

Fine then. Their stupidity, fundamentalist bulshit and complete and total disregard for civil liberties causes me to desire to maim them. Happy now?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-18 12:05am

darthdavid wrote:
Durandal wrote:
darthdavid wrote:URGE TO MAIM RISING
More insightful commentary I see.
Fine then. Their stupidity, fundamentalist bulshit and complete and total disregard for civil liberties causes me to desire to maim them. Happy now?

You don't get it. It's not your wording; it's the content of your post, or lackthereof. It's completely vapid crap that contributes nothing to the thread. So stick to spamming in BotM, A&P and wherever else you increment your post count. You're out of your league.

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2004-03-18 12:29am

This isn't the same as anti-sodomy laws. They are not trying to outlaw homosexual acts; they are trying to outlaw homosexuality. The proposition defines homosexuality as unnatural and would make it illegal just to be gay. The commissioners openly said that they are trying to force homosexuals to leave their county.

pellaeons_scion · Post by **pellaeons_scion** » 2004-03-18 12:30am

So much for the land of the free. Im not overly familiar with the US consitution or bill of rights, but don't these actions violate some of the more baser principles of freedom of expression, and basic privacy?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-03-18 12:35am

pellaeons_scion wrote:So much for the land of the free. Im not overly familiar with the US consitution or bill of rights, but don't these actions violate some of the more baser principles of freedom of expression, and basic privacy?

Laws such as this have already been struck down as unconstitutional in other areas. These county commissioners are banging their heads against a wall, seeing as though the law won't be able to actually carry any leverage.

pellaeons_scion · Post by **pellaeons_scion** » 2004-03-18 12:49am

Good. as it should be.

Fer fucks sake, with all the other problems they could focus on, like unemployment, drug abuse, violent crim, etc etc, you'd think they might attack something a little more important than consenting adults doing something in the privacy of their own homes, which doesnt affect anyone else.

Talk about getting your priorities wrong.

Did the world just get stupider, or has it always been this way and Ive been too busy to notice ?<apologies to Arthur Dent HHGttG>

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-03-18 12:50am

Nathan F wrote:
pellaeons_scion wrote:So much for the land of the free. Im not overly familiar with the US consitution or bill of rights, but don't these actions violate some of the more baser principles of freedom of expression, and basic privacy?
Laws such as this have already been struck down as unconstitutional in other areas. These county commissioners are banging their heads against a wall, seeing as though the law won't be able to actually carry any leverage.

Then what this really boils down to is a desperate cry for attention on the part of the county legislators/commissioners (or whoever they are). They're just stirring the hornets nest for their own benefit. Is someone up for re-election or something?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-03-18 01:04am

Crown wrote:
Nathan F wrote:
pellaeons_scion wrote:So much for the land of the free. Im not overly familiar with the US consitution or bill of rights, but don't these actions violate some of the more baser principles of freedom of expression, and basic privacy?
Laws such as this have already been struck down as unconstitutional in other areas. These county commissioners are banging their heads against a wall, seeing as though the law won't be able to actually carry any leverage.
Then what this really boils down to is a desperate cry for attention on the part of the county legislators/commissioners (or whoever they are). They're just stirring the hornets nest for their own benefit. Is someone up for re-election or something?

No clue. I'm not sure how often other counties elect commissioners, or if they're just doing this for the hell of it.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-18 01:39am

Crown wrote:*Grumbles that we don't get the Daily Show in Oz*

We used to have a similar show Backburner it got pulled off the air, then we got the Daily Show during the War in Iraq on SBS, and now nadda.

Australia gets the Daily Show via CNN. I'm not sure what time it's on though.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-03-18 01:40am

Vympel wrote:
Crown wrote:*Grumbles that we don't get the Daily Show in Oz*

We used to have a similar show Backburner it got pulled off the air, then we got the Daily Show during the War in Iraq on SBS, and now nadda.
Australia gets the Daily Show via CNN. I'm not sure what time it's on though.

I was refering to free-to-air stuff, not cable.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-03-18 01:54am

Crown wrote:
Vympel wrote:
Crown wrote:*Grumbles that we don't get the Daily Show in Oz*

We used to have a similar show Backburner it got pulled off the air, then we got the Daily Show during the War in Iraq on SBS, and now nadda.
Australia gets the Daily Show via CNN. I'm not sure what time it's on though.
I was refering to free-to-air stuff, not cable.

The Daily Show is on cable in the US too.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2004-03-18 02:26am

Here's the CNN link, for anybody who wants it...

I am a nice boy and will dress my links

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-03-18 02:31am

DPDarkPrimus wrote: The Daily Show is on cable in the US too.

Well it was on free-to-air for a while here.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-03-18 02:40am

I would comment quickly that this is a very interesting reversal of my comments in my Invisible Segregation thread. It seems that us queers don't have to be civilly disobedient in order to be abused like this. I expect that this will eventually fuck over Rhea county more than any gay people in it.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2004-03-18 05:59am

pellaeons_scion wrote:Fer fucks sake, with all the other problems they could focus on, like unemployment, drug abuse, violent crim, etc etc, you'd think they might attack something a little more important than consenting adults doing something in the privacy of their own homes, which doesnt affect anyone else.

It is far easier to attack the ungodly abomination that is homosexuality then it is to try and solve a true problem like unemployment with complex causes and no easy solutions and people like these hatfuckers aren't likely to be great intellectuals. Besides finding sound economic advice from the bible is far harder then finding stupid, ignorant and biggotted rules and laws.

pellaeons_scion wrote:Talk about getting your priorities wrong.

Actualy from the point of view of a demagogue the priorities aren't wrong at all. Blaming "someone" else has been a favoured trick of demagogues for a long long time, the Nazis blamed the jews, communists blamed "counter revolutionists" and "enemies of the state" and fundamentalists christians blame gays, atheists and just about everyone not just like them. Some song over and over again.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-03-18 07:52am

Wait, so by banning "being gay" rather than "sodomy" they can technically circumvent the Supreme Court ruling?

This could be, in perverse way, be a good thing, because when it gets struck down (and I have no doubt that it will) it will more firmly establish equal rights for homosexuals.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-03-18 11:37am

ah, paragraph 175 is being reinacted. this time in tennesee. interesting.

sometimes i wonder where people take the time and nerves to worry about crap like other people´s sex life.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-18 11:40am

salm wrote:ah, paragraph 175 is being reinacted. this time in tennesee. interesting.

sometimes i wonder where people take the time and nerves to worry about crap like other people´s sex life.

it's obvious that they're jealous over people getting more sex than they are.

seriously though, if they're going to try and do something idiotic like ban being gay they may as well try to ban marriage out of wedlock and interracial marriages. it's completely idiotic. then again it is in texas. . . .

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-03-18 11:53am

Darth_Zod wrote: it's obvious that they're jealous over people getting more sex than they are.

a good number of them is probably jealous because they´re gay themselves but are unable to come out of the clauset because they´d risk their social status and have to have sex with women.

seriously though, if they're going to try and do something idiotic like ban being gay they may as well try to ban marriage out of wedlock and interracial marriages. it's completely idiotic. then again it is in texas. . . .

texas... for some reason i thought tennessee.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-18 11:54am

EDIT: bah, that should be sex out of wedlock, not marriage. *bangs head on desk* i wasn't paying close enough attention when i posted.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-18 11:55am

and whoops, i guess it is tennesee, my bad.