Down The Slippery Slope Of Moral Decay - And Response

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Mr. Exum: 

I cede to you every right to your opinion on benefits for gay “couples,” which is the question now before the Chattanooga City Council. 

What I would object to is the propriety of your comments which condemn those who object to this proposal.  By your statement that“virtually every one of us understands  hatred, prejudice and the difference between right and wrong” you infer that those who object to this proposal are acting out of malice.  On both sides there have been excesses of speech, but the essence of the argument, as I understand it, is that the law, as it stands, provides benefits to those who are legally married.  According to the law, those who are not married, be they heterosexual or homosexual, do not qualify.  This has been the rule of law for ages, and it is only because gays have now included the overturn of established law regarding what constitutes marriage as part of the homosexual agenda that this issue has arisen. 

You have rightly raised a question when you ask: “If you approve same-sex benefits where no marriage is involved, what do you do about the man and woman who are not married but who live together? What is the difference if they love each other like a same-sex couple? Who determines a “committed relationship” versus “just an arrangement” where a friend gets health insurance? And, since without a marriage there can be no divorce, how will the city of Chattanooga know a same-sex couple has split up?” Let me say that I do not take your comments to be unloving, hateful, or guided by prejudice, though some would say that you are making a false issue that is designed to weaken the intent of this proposal before the Council.  To the gay community any objection to their agenda is said to be hateful, unloving, and prejudicial. 

The gay community, by advocating these changes in law, does so on the grounds that the opposition is engaged in denying them their civil rights.  Doesn’t it strike anyone as peculiar that they are willing to deny those same rights to a male and female who are living together without marriage as is declared in the proposed ordinance?  So much for the civil rights argument. 

You presume to influence the argument in favor of the proposal by asserting:  “I believe a gay person is born that way…I think God created each of us and, therefore, if God created someone who is gay, that is God’s business.”  In the first place, there is not a single incontrovertible bit of scientific evidence that a person is born homosexual. In fact there is much evidence to the contrary.  And certainly the Christian community has almost universally rejected the homosexual definition of marriage.  I'm not sure on whose side you really are on. 

You claim to be a Christian, and I suppose that means you believe in the revelation of God as given in the Holy Scriptures.  It is only reasonable to believe that, if God created homosexuals, as you claim, He would not afterward condemn his own creation as abominable, as the Scriptures declare.  Homosexuality is a frontal attack on the institution of marriage which God created.  It rejects one of the main purposes of marriage as taught in the Scriptures, of being able to “be fruitful and multiply.” Are you as ready to say that these statements of Scripture are “God’s business” as well?  We can’t pick and choose Scriptures to fit with our own opinions. 

The proposal before the City Council is just another measure down the slippery slope of moral decay that endangers our nation.  You say that the proposal is just about benefits.  Many of us say it is about much more than that.  It is about the recognition of a gay partnership being recognized as acceptable as legal marriage.  Hatred and prejudice have nothing to do with this issue, unless you are so foolish as to deny that the whole history of mankind has objected to this definition of marriage.

James West
Ringgold 

* * * 

Mr. West , 

The ordinance in front of City Council is for domestic partnerships, not just same-sex couples. So your argument that the gay community does not advocate for equal rights to heterosexual couples living together is inaccurate.  

Secondly, as a Christian woman who has been in a loving, wonderful marriage to a man for many years, I take great offense to your assertion that one of the main purposes of marriage is to “be fruitful and multiply."  My husband and I are not able to have children. Does that mean our marriage, and the marriages of so many who do not or cannot have children, is less of a marriage in the eyes of God? I think not. And if it does mean that, than my God is much, much different than yours. Your argument is inaccurate, selfish, and flawed.  

Samantha White
Hixson



Roy Exum: Abused By An EpiPen

It is a good guess that for about 30 years I have kept an EpiPen on the top of my refrigerator. I have never had to open the box, much less jab a dose of life-saving epinephrine into a person suffering from anaphylaxis. Whether it is a bee sting, peanut butter, shellfish or other allergies, I watched somebody come within inches of dying in my early 20s and swore I would have one ... (click for more)

The Tragedy In America's Jails - And Response (2)

I've been attacked trying to sound the alarm about mass incarceration for just about any and every offense, no matter how small, made up or non-existing. I've been told such things as "if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime".  "Stop whining!" "You must be guilty of something!" And quite a number of  more choice words and name calling I won't go into here. But, ... (click for more)

Red Bank Commercial Centers Sell For $9.4 Million

Two nearby Red Bank retail centers have sold for a combined $9.4 million. Red Bank Mayor John Roberts called it "the largest transactions in the history of Red Bank." The Red Bank Town Center at 3901 Dayton Blvd., that includes a Food City, sold for $7,750,000. The sale was  to White Realty & Service Corp from Red Bank Ii Llc. A commercial center that includes ... (click for more)

Jury Awards 25 City Police Personnel Total Of $562,000 On Claims That Pay Plan Was Not Followed

A Chancery Court jury on Wednesday gave a verdict totaling $562,000 for 25 city police personnel who filed suit almost five years ago alleging that the city never lived up to terms of a 2010 pay plan. Attorney Stevie Phillips, who tried the case along with Janie Parks Varnell, said, "The jury awarded each officer what we had asked for to the penny." She stated, "These 25 members ... (click for more)

Sale Creek Storms Past Central, 3-0, In Volleyball Action

Despite playing short-handed, Sale Creek’s once-beaten Lady Panthers made short work of Central, 3-0, Thursday night in high school volleyball action at Central High School. The Lady Panthers sprinted to their 11 th win in 12 matches this season by whipping Central 25-21, 25-13, 25-8 in the non-district matchup. “We played well today,” Sale Creek coach Debbie Hill said. ... (click for more)

Grace Wins In Celebration Of Coach Waters' Birthday

The Grace Academy volleyball team had several reasons to play well at Silverdale on Thursday night, not to mention that it was head coach Hillary Waters’ birthday. Facing the Lady Seahawks in a key District 5-A match, the Lady Golden Eagles did what they had to do as they won the match in four sets as they improved to 6-2 overall and 3-0 in 5-A. Set scores were 25-15, ... (click for more)