You're using the past tense here, but reading the article it sounds like the ordinance remains in effect for all the other sex pest shit, and only the enumerated 'homosexuality' item was removed.
Weird, I'm old enough to remember when associating gay people with this stuff was a horrible right wing smear instead of an enshrined part of the culture.
People normalized homosexuality because they thought homosexuals were, on average, not degenerate and deviant. When that ended up not being the case, the people pivoted to normalizing degeneracy and deviancy. Because the revolution is never wrong.
Similar to the push for equality transforming into the push for equity. When all legal barriers to equality were removed, people expected underachieving demographics to rise up. When that didn’t happen - because low IQ and impulse control are largely genetic - then people pivoted to pursuing equity. Because the revolution is never wrong.
Equality itself is an affront to nature. Nobody is equal. The only logical way to make people equal is to destroy some highly successful people's abilities to put them on par with the lowest common denominator.
It's the same concept as "equal justice under the law," applied broadly. If a politician and a black laborer are both discovered to be thieves, both should face the same law and consequence, without favor to the former because he is a politician or to the latter because he's black.
So no, the treatment should not be tailored to the person where equality is concerned. Equal opportunity, equal treatment, with the understanding that people will always be unequal by nature and by outcome.
I haven't read it but I would give 100 to 1 odds that it is exactly like that.
Having to show the mildest restraint or have the tiniest consideration for the sensibilities of normal people is a mortal sin in the religion of faggotry.
Well, way back in 1949 the city code defined "sexual conduct" to include homosexuality. However, when this new ordinance was written, it was intended to ban pornography, nudity, and lewd behavior in public.
And this is of note:
The council unanimously voted to eliminate the term, "homosexuality," from the code's definition prohibiting inappropriate sexual conduct.
So it was bullshit, good to know, if wasn't i would've thought there was an Islamic majority in Tennessee to pass it.
"I can't believe they want to ban just being gay in public!" in the speech bubble on top, being spoken by a fat naked guy wearing assless chaps doing a meatspin in front of a 4 year old.
The city literally removed the word homosexuality from their obscenity ban and leftists will still be talking about the city that tried to ban homosexuality for years.
No one hates anyone for being homosexuals; they find the lifestyle disgusting and repulsive. For example, people aren't afraid of sewage, they simply find sewage repulsive and disgusting.
It is. That isn't even up for debate. Leviticus 18:22 as well as Leviticus 20:13, and Romans 1:26 make it irrefutably clear (along with the reason for why Sodom & Gomorrah was destroyed).
some joked about beating up gay people.
So?
some people here say homosexuals are pedo's etc etc.
so... you don't hate homosexuals, but... you find them abhorrent.
Aberrant. The definition of aberrant is: departing from an accepted standard.
But it's true, I also find their behaviour to be abhorrent as well, for all the reasons I explained.
it kinda reminds of racist who say they don't hate black people because i have a black friend. but they would have the most racist takes, against black people. you remind me of that.
Personally I saw nothing wrong with the current name 23-O-22 Community Decency Standards Ordinance - Ordinance establishing standards of community decency in public places. - ORDINANCE 23-O-22 amending the Murfreesboro City Code, Chapter 21 Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions, Article I, Section 22, regarding community decency standards.
They didn't choose the 'ban on being gay in public', or 'don't say gay'.
The communists in the media choose and apply these labels, and normies such as yourself eat them.
You don't automatically distrust every word they say, and you're basically trying to defend them to a bunch of people who know better. This is why you are being downvoted.
It was a ban on being a sex pest in public.
You can guess the ones who threw an absolute fit of rage over this : trannies.
And Democrats lied as usual.
You're using the past tense here, but reading the article it sounds like the ordinance remains in effect for all the other sex pest shit, and only the enumerated 'homosexuality' item was removed.
Weird, I'm old enough to remember when associating gay people with this stuff was a horrible right wing smear instead of an enshrined part of the culture.
People normalized homosexuality because they thought homosexuals were, on average, not degenerate and deviant. When that ended up not being the case, the people pivoted to normalizing degeneracy and deviancy. Because the revolution is never wrong.
Similar to the push for equality transforming into the push for equity. When all legal barriers to equality were removed, people expected underachieving demographics to rise up. When that didn’t happen - because low IQ and impulse control are largely genetic - then people pivoted to pursuing equity. Because the revolution is never wrong.
Equality itself is an affront to nature. Nobody is equal. The only logical way to make people equal is to destroy some highly successful people's abilities to put them on par with the lowest common denominator.
Equality is about treating people equally, not treating them as equals.
How do you treat people equally if they are not equal? Wouldn't you tailor your treatment to the person?
It's the same concept as "equal justice under the law," applied broadly. If a politician and a black laborer are both discovered to be thieves, both should face the same law and consequence, without favor to the former because he is a politician or to the latter because he's black.
So no, the treatment should not be tailored to the person where equality is concerned. Equal opportunity, equal treatment, with the understanding that people will always be unequal by nature and by outcome.
I'm old enough to remember that that was a facade from the outset, to snow the gullible.
Oh no someone said no to the gays
Can anyone provide a copy of the ordinance I can read? I want to see for myself if this is another 'anti gay Florida bill' instance.
I haven't read it but I would give 100 to 1 odds that it is exactly like that.
Having to show the mildest restraint or have the tiniest consideration for the sensibilities of normal people is a mortal sin in the religion of faggotry.
Pdf is linked here.
Not the Bee had a rundown posted here.
And this is of note:
So it was bullshit, good to know, if wasn't i would've thought there was an Islamic majority in Tennessee to pass it.
"Vague law clarified" is less of a clickbait story.
If I could draw, this would need a cartoon.
"I can't believe they want to ban just being gay in public!" in the speech bubble on top, being spoken by a fat naked guy wearing assless chaps doing a meatspin in front of a 4 year old.
The city literally removed the word homosexuality from their obscenity ban and leftists will still be talking about the city that tried to ban homosexuality for years.
When it's their law they use the proper name, however ridiculous. When it's the other guy's law, they call it, eg, the anti-gay law.
There is no such thing.
No one hates anyone for being homosexuals; they find the lifestyle disgusting and repulsive. For example, people aren't afraid of sewage, they simply find sewage repulsive and disgusting.
Right and some people find sewage disgusting, but they hold their nose and dig in for a paycheck.
Poop pumper society... yeah...
It is. That isn't even up for debate. Leviticus 18:22 as well as Leviticus 20:13, and Romans 1:26 make it irrefutably clear (along with the reason for why Sodom & Gomorrah was destroyed).
So?
Many of them are: 33% according to some studies: http://www.homosexinfo.org/Sexuality/Pedophilia
No it does not. Their sex is aberrant; a fetish, by definition. Those acts carry with it significant health risks, as outlined by the CDC, 67% of all HIV cases are gay men: https://www.verywellhealth.com/why-do-gay-men-have-an-increased-risk-of-hiv-3132782
It's also a net negative for society, as homosexuality literally provides nothing positive for the community or surrounding culture.
Aberrant. The definition of aberrant is: departing from an accepted standard.
But it's true, I also find their behaviour to be abhorrent as well, for all the reasons I explained.
That's fine.
Personally I saw nothing wrong with the current name 23-O-22 Community Decency Standards Ordinance - Ordinance establishing standards of community decency in public places. - ORDINANCE 23-O-22 amending the Murfreesboro City Code, Chapter 21 Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions, Article I, Section 22, regarding community decency standards.
They didn't choose the 'ban on being gay in public', or 'don't say gay'.
The communists in the media choose and apply these labels, and normies such as yourself eat them.
You don't automatically distrust every word they say, and you're basically trying to defend them to a bunch of people who know better. This is why you are being downvoted.