Banning public homosexuality in Tennessee

[Bradskii]

I don't see where they charged anyone for anything in post 3. But I do see where they could and where they were going to refuse to permit an event due to the homosexual nature. What I don't know is what happened in prior years at that event, but I doubt it was the other more specific things listed in the ordinance.

Nobody charged anybody. The post linked to a court order order preventing them using 'homosexuality' as a reason to do so.

 

[JustOneWay]

Nobody charged anybody. The post linked to a court order order preventing them using 'homosexuality' as a reason to do so.

Which was the best post of the thread.

They should strike the word from the law.

 

[Pommer]

Which was the best post of the thread.

They should strike the word from the law.

No, no, the word is in there to differentiate between “normal” people and homosexuals, you see.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, no, the word is in there to differentiate between “normal” people and homosexuals, you see.

The left really needs to decide whether or not they're for discrimination.

We all remember this...

Boston 'straight pride' parade dwarfed by large counter-protest

Pro-Trump event organised by group calling itself Super Happy Fun America

www.google.com

It doesn't seem like anyone actually knows what "homosexuality" refers to in this law. Some seem determined to make something out of nothing. Some have suggested that the mere act of "holding hands" could result in an arrest...but I recall my father holding my hand when I crossed the street when I was a little boy and no one suggested that was incest so without any specifics....this looks like a typical left wing attempt to drum up bigotry where there isn't any.

 

[WolfGate]

The left really needs to decide whether or not they're for discrimination.

We all remember this...

Boston 'straight pride' parade dwarfed by large counter-protest

Pro-Trump event organised by group calling itself Super Happy Fun America

www.google.com

It doesn't seem like anyone actually knows what "homosexuality" refers to in this law. Some seem determined to make something out of nothing. Some have suggested that the mere act of "holding hands" could result in an arrest...but I recall my father holding my hand when I crossed the street when I was a little boy and no one suggested that was incest so without any specifics....this looks like a typical left wing attempt to drum up bigotry where there isn't any.

There has to be something unique to “homosexuality” they want to ban that’s not covered by the other specific items in the list and that would be ok for heterosexuals. They put the term in there - the reality that it is not clear is the lawmakers responsibility, and questioning their intent is not making something out of nothing. If all they wanted to do was keep everyone homosexual or heterosexual from doing the same things, there would be no need for the word “homosexuality”. Any speculation on what they might want to prohibit that is not covered by the rest of the list?

"Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast

 

[Oompa Loompa]

And two men holding hands.

Why do you say that? Holding hands isn't homosexual.

 

[rambot]

Why do you say that? Holding hands isn't homosexual.

If two men are doing it, it absolutely is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There has to be something unique to “homosexuality” they want to ban that’s not covered by the other specific items in the list and that would be ok for heterosexuals.

I can certainly understand why it looks like that.

I actually looked through ordinances 21-72. It's easy to do with a little Google search.

Municode Library

MunicodeNEXT, the industry's leading search application with over 3,300 codes and growing!

library.municode.com

The section described in the OP isn't actually a description of anything banned... it's just a legal definition of terms. This is how it appears in the city ordinances....

Section 21-71 - Definitions.
As used in this article:
"Minor" means any person under the age of 17 years.
"Nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a full opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or the depiction of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.
"Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast.


And then it continues on to define more terms used in those ordinances.

It would seem that the OP is straight up misinformation. Murfreesboro didn't ban homosexuality, they simply included it in their definition of sexual behavior.

 

[JustOneWay]

I can certainly understand why it looks like that.



It would seem that the OP is straight up misinformation. Murfreesboro didn't ban homosexuality, they simply included it in their definition of sexual behavior.

Nowhere in the OP does is say homosexuality is banned. It says it in the link's title

Headlines are always a bit misleading, but the meat of the article explains -

"A city in Tennessee is using a recently passed ordinance essentially prohibiting homosexuality in public to try to ban library books that might violate the new rules."

I say this post of yours is misinformation.

Of course post# 3 points out it was already blocked by the courts.

 

[stevil]

No, no, the word is in there to differentiate between “normal” people and homosexuals, you see.

Just being a homosexual seems to be an illegal act of "indecent behaviour". So if a man is at all flamboyant or perhaps wears pink, or has long hair, or ear rings or anything that a police officer might consider not manley enough, perhaps the police officer has justified cause to harrass them and to dig deeper towards trying to discover if they are homosexual or not i.e. breaking the law via their "indecent bahaviour". This law is a bigot's dream come true.

 

[rambot]

This law actually reminds me a bit about my time in South Korea.

A lawyer told me that in the US they have the "Rule of law" whereas in Korea they have "Rule by law". Essentially, laws are written purposefully vague and it is up to prosecutors and the police to dictate when particular cases should be pursued. NOT based on likely conviction; only on whether the police felt they contravened the law.

It happenned to me. My teaching visa said I could "only participate in activities related to or approved of, by my employer (school)".

So.....grocery shopping? Volunteering at an orphanage (I know people who got in trouble for that actually)? Volunteering to act in a theatre production (that happenned to me)? I got interrogated and intimidated by the police for a while because I was in a sketch comedy show.

This law kind a smacks of that to me....super vague.


Thanks for your thoughts everyone. I can't speak to the intent of law (though it doesn't appear flattering) and I'm glad it was put down.

 

[WolfGate]

I can certainly understand why it looks like that.

I actually looked through ordinances 21-72. It's easy to do with a little Google search.

Municode Library

MunicodeNEXT, the industry's leading search application with over 3,300 codes and growing!

library.municode.com

The section described in the OP isn't actually a description of anything banned... it's just a legal definition of terms. This is how it appears in the city ordinances....

Section 21-71 - Definitions.
As used in this article:
"Minor" means any person under the age of 17 years.
"Nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a full opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or the depiction of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.
"Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast.


And then it continues on to define more terms used in those ordinances.

It would seem that the OP is straight up misinformation. Murfreesboro didn't ban homosexuality, they simply included it in their definition of sexual behavior.

Thank you for pointing out I was incorrect on what the section quoted was doing. I agree with you it is in reality a definition of "sexual conduct". Which doesn't change the main point behind my question, but I'll reword for clarity.

They had to believe there is something unique to “homosexuality” that’s not covered by the other specific items in the list and that would not apply to heterosexuals. They put the term in there - the reality that their definition is not clear is the lawmaker's responsibility, and questioning their reasoning is not making something out of nothing. Any speculation on what they might consider sexual conduct that would be specific to homosexuals that is not covered by the rest of the list?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nowhere in the OP does is say homosexuality is banned. It says it in the link's title

Also says it in the thread title.

Headlines are always a bit misleading, but the meat of the article explains -

And thread titles.

"A city in Tennessee is using a recently passed ordinance essentially prohibiting homosexuality in public to try to ban library books that might violate the new rules."

Right...none of which appears to be true.

Can you point out where in the ordinance it bans "homosexuality in public"? I didn't see reference to the actual ordinance in the article. I saw only references to sections 21-72 of the municipal code.

I say this post of yours is misinformation.

Can you give the ordinance? Can you lay out what it says?

No offense but I've got a sinking feeling that between the two of us...I'm the only one that actually read the city code.

Of course post# 3 points out it was already blocked by the courts.

Post #3 has something to do with "BoroPride" and some lawsuit surrounding it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This law kind a smacks of that to me....super vague.

What part is vague?

The part against buying and showing children pornographic material?

Or the part that makes it illegal to put on a sexually explicit show for children?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thank you for pointing out I was incorrect on what the section quoted was doing. I agree with you it is in reality a definition of "sexual conduct". Which doesn't change the main point behind my question, but I'll reword for clarity.

I'll do you one better and try to steel man your question....

Were you saying something akin to...

It appears bigoted, or at least unusual, to include the term "homosexuality" in a legal definition that is describing "sexual conduct" that at the very least implies there's something specific to the behaviour of homosexuals that is the focus of these ordinances.

Would you agree with that statement? Is that akin to the point you were trying to make?

They had to believe there is something unique to “homosexuality” that’s not covered by the other specific items in the list and that would not apply to heterosexuals. They put the term in there - the reality that their definition is not clear is the lawmaker's responsibility, and questioning their reasoning is not making something out of nothing. Any speculation on what they might consider sexual conduct that would be specific to homosexuals that is not covered by the rest of the list?

Well, keep in mind....it's a clarification of the legal term "sexual conduct"...not a list of prohibited behavior.

You see, in the actual legal ordinances that follow these definitions....the term "sexual conduct" is used...and so these definitions are there to clarify for the courts exactly what that means. I'll agree though, that it's still somewhat vague.

It becomes less vague if you continue reading on past the legal definitions and look at the actual ordinances themselves and what they prohibit.

In summary, they prohibit 2 things...

1. Prohibits the buying and selling or loaning of sexually explicit content, whether in book form or other media, to children. I think it also goes as far as prohibit exposing children to such material knowingly.

2. Prohibits dancing, stage performance, stripping, strip teasing, or any sort of erotic performance art to be done in front of children or with the participation of children or tailored for a child audience.

You may recall awhile back these things popping up all over the nation...where children were taken to drag shows with men dressed as women twerking and encouraging children to stuff dollars into their underwear. You may recall children's books, so explicit that the evening news had to censor the content...or they would have been fined by the FCC. These are the sorts of things that these ordinances appear to focus on preventing.

If you're wondering why the term homosexuality is included in the definition of "sexual content" I would suggest it's because that particular group of people seem to be the one's intent on exposing children to such sexual content and much of that content is homosexual in nature.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thank you for pointing out I was incorrect on what the section quoted was doing. I agree with you it is in reality a definition of "sexual conduct". Which doesn't change the main point behind my question, but I'll reword for clarity.

They had to believe there is something unique to “homosexuality” that’s not covered by the other specific items in the list and that would not apply to heterosexuals. They put the term in there - the reality that their definition is not clear is the lawmaker's responsibility, and questioning their reasoning is not making something out of nothing. Any speculation on what they might consider sexual conduct that would be specific to homosexuals that is not covered by the rest of the list?

Now, assuming you read my previous post....let me ask you this question (and I'm asking with 100% sincerity)....

Do you think it's a bigger problem that this little town wants to prevent people from exposing children to sexually graphic material/entertainment (which also applies to heterosexual material and makes exceptions for genuinely educational materials)...

Or...

Do you think it's a bigger problem that this article is blatantly partisan political propaganda and misinformation masquerading as "news"?

I don't think it's questionable that is the correct way to describe both the content and intentions of the article. Like other posters here...I was fooled at first into thinking this town had somehow banned public displays of affection between homosexuals like a kiss on the lips or holding hands. It wasn't until the second read that I realized it had the hallmarks of propaganda like it's deliberate vagueness and the extremely limited quotes and a preposterous headline. It definitely wants it's audience to conclude things that are factually incorrect and extremely negative about this town and it's residents. Since it serves a narrative of "persecution of the gay community" and suggests the reader shouldn't be like these hateful, bigoted people...we can safely conclude this is left wing propaganda.

Edit- Also, ty for recognizing your mistake and acknowledging it. I don't know why posters are so reluctant to do this. I've acknowledged mistakes when I'm proven factually incorrect and 99% of the time, people are too kind and respectful to be mean about it. Everyone makes mistakes and I have a lot more respect for someone who can admit when the facts show them incorrect and move on. It's so rare on here though, that I think it impedes any substantive dialogue.

 

[stevil]

Code included:
"Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast

The main problem is this definition.

"Sexual conduct"
We could correctly infer means some kind of action or activity, rather than simply a state of being.

For example a person could proclaim that they are a sexual or amorous person. This person wouldn't inherently be performing a sexual conduct at all times. e.g. They could be walking down the street, on foot in front of the other, arms swinging as the tend to do when people walk. This is walking. It isn't sexual conduct, even if the person walking is self proclaimed to be sexual or amorous. Let's face it, most people tend to be sexual or amorous at some point in their lives. Most of us are capable of sexual conduct, but that doesn't mean we are always behaving in a sexual conduct way.

If we go through that list in the definition of "sexual conduct" almost all those items refer to an action or activity involving a form of sex.
Except for the term "homosexuality"
Is homosexuality an action or act?

Let's refer to a dictionary

Homosexuality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Homosexuality is a sexual attraction, romantic attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender"

The first part of this definition before the "or" doesn't denote any action or activity.
Having sexual attraction isn't an action. For example, liking ice cream isn't an action. Eating ice cream is an action. But you can be in a state of liking ice cream without actually currently eating ice cream.

A man who is in love with a woman, but is walking alone down a street. He is in love, but he is just walking. He isn't performing any sexual conduct. He is just walking.

A gay man who is in love and is walking alone down a street. He is in love, but he is just walking. He isn't performing any sexual conduct.

But according to this useless legal definition he is a homosexual therefore he fits the definition of homosexuality, and therefore in this crazy definition he is performing sexual conduct, even though he is just walking.

I mean what they could have done is define "sexual conduct" as
"homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality"

And of course that would be confusing as anything, and hopefully this gets across the point that the word "homosexuality" does not belong in the definition of "sexual conduct"

 

[Bradskii]

This law actually reminds me a bit about my time in South Korea.

So.....grocery shopping? Volunteering at an orphanage (I know people who got in trouble for that actually)? Volunteering to act in a theatre production (that happenned to me)? I got interrogated and intimidated by the police for a while because I was in a sketch comedy show.

Wow. There's got to be quite a story there.

 

[rambot]

Wow. There's got to be quite a story there.

Lol...oh my yes. But not one I'd share rhis publicly.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The main problem is this definition.

Well it's that or the article that the OP linked.

"Sexual conduct"
We could correctly infer means some kind of action or activity, rather than simply a state of being.

Right.

For example a person could proclaim that they are a sexual or amorous person.

They sure could.

This person wouldn't inherently be performing a sexual conduct at all times. e.g. They could be walking down the street, on foot in front of the other, arms swinging as the tend to do when people walk. This is walking. It isn't sexual conduct, even if the person walking is self proclaimed to be sexual or amorous.

Right.

Let's face it, most people tend to be sexual or amorous at some point in their lives. Most of us are capable of sexual conduct, but that doesn't mean we are always behaving in a sexual conduct way.

True.

If we go through that list in the definition of "sexual conduct" almost all those items refer to an action or activity involving a form of sex.
Except for the term "homosexuality"
Is homosexuality an action or act?

I don't think it matters. Take your pick.

Let's refer to a dictionary

Homosexuality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Homosexuality is a sexual attraction, romantic attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender"

Ok.

The first part of this definition before the "or" doesn't denote any action or activity.

Alright.

Having sexual attraction isn't an action.

Agreed.

For example, liking ice cream isn't an action.

True.

Eating ice cream is an action.

True.

But you can be in a state of liking ice cream without actually currently eating ice cream.

Also true.

A man who is in love with a woman, but is walking alone down a street. He is in love, but he is just walking. He isn't performing any sexual conduct. He is just walking.

Agreed.

A gay man who is in love and is walking alone down a street. He is in love, but he is just walking. He isn't performing any sexual conduct.

Agreed again.

But according to this useless legal definition he is a homosexual therefore he fits the definition of homosexuality, and therefore in this crazy definition he is performing sexual conduct, even though he is just walking.

Ok.

I mean what they could have done is define "sexual conduct" as
"homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality"

They could have.

And of course that would be confusing as anything, and hopefully this gets across the point that the word "homosexuality" does not belong in the definition of "sexual conduct"

It doesn't really matter.

It's a legal definition....not a law against homosexuality.

For example, let's say I define the term "self defense" as...

Self defense- the legal use of force to defend oneself against illegal bodily harm or potential murder.

You can agree with that definition, disagree with that definition, or be apathetic to that definition.

None of this really matters until one has to deal with claims of self defense in regards to some law or policy that uses the legal term.