Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 Full story: The Courier-Journal 134,410

FRANKFORT, Ky. - The state would create rules for teaching about the Bible in public high schools under a bill filed Monday by three Democratic senators.

Full Story

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107843 Jul 1, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>That's code for "using your brain". I'm happy to be separated if that be the case, my friend. Happy indeed.
Ignorance is bliss

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107844 Jul 1, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>No, no, no.

It will not come to humans and animals. Holy hell, people. What part of adult, mutual, and consent do you NOT understand??

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Being attracted to your sister is NOT. Desiring five wives is NOT. Those are completely different issues.

And if they ever came to the forefront of the culture wars (I doubt they will, personally, because far fewer people are compelled to practice incest or have multiple spouses) then we will parse the subject out fully, in public and open dialog...just like we have been doing with homosexuality for decades.

Jesus effin' Christ. If I was as scared of everything as you guys seem to be I'd just never leave the house.
It isn't common now, but it will become so.
And again, that dog humping someone's leg equals consent in someone's warped mind.

And what about a brother and sister that were separated and did not grow up together? How would they know not to be attracted to each other?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107845 Jul 1, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, some rulers are bumpkins. Especially a thousand years ago. The "mainstream" of expert opinion does not always match what the uneducated are thinking. We have congressmen right now who believe the earth is about 6000 years old and that women's bodies can "shut down" rape sperm.

Science is always a provisional engagement. It is not absolute. Everything single theory that I am willing to call fact on this day could be overturned in the future in light of new evidence and new theories.

But in the meantime we have to teach kids what we think is the best idea today. The big problem, I think, is that we don't teach kids critical thinking at an early age. For some reason we are afraid it will cause them to question our authority or something. But without critical thinking skills you get adults who think Zija cures warts and a hologram on a plastic bracelet improves your balance.
Then we shouldn't call it "fact" and we shouldn't teach it as "fact". It is theory and should be taught as such.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107846 Jul 1, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>You have a link? Please post.

I'll be totally honest. I've given it some thought and if two brothers, for example, wanted to have a relationship I cannot find a reason to say it is wrong or illegal. It does seem to be a situation in which nobody can get hurt as a *necessary* result of the relationship.

However, when a man and a woman get together we all know that babies can come out of the mix. And doing a very quick survey of the data it seems like there is a shockingly high percentage of birth defects and mortality involved with offspring of closely-related people. It isn't quite as high with brother-sister unions but with parent-offspring unions the numbers are very high (like 20% or more?).

So we have a serious problem, I think. There seems to be no moral argument against incest that I can think of. Therefore my instinct would be to allow it. To each his own, you know.

But the incredibly high rate of birth defects seems compelling enough that it would be justified to prevent inbreeding somehow. But that gets us into sticky territory. Body autonomy is very important. If I want to have a baby it is not your business. Yet if we know that there is a 25% chance my baby will be horribly disfigured or will die shortly after birth maybe there is some argument that could be made to limit my right to have a child.

I don't know. That's a really tricky one. Again, I don't see it rising to the level of a genuine public debate. There are just too many things stacked against it and not nearly enough people interested in it. And it is not a sexual orientation, as I said before.

In terms of its relationship to the gay marriage issue, this is nothing but a dumb red herring meant to scare people. But it is an interesting topic to pursue on its own merits.
People aren't interested in it now. But people weren't so passionate about gay marriage 100 years ago either. My point still stands, and it would be a major problem to most all of us if incest started becoming more socially acceptable.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107847 Jul 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>No, I am not. But this has nothing to do with the price of rice in China.
Sure it does. It is two consenting adults. If you use that as your logic, then they should be allowed to marry as well.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107848 Jul 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, for practice and honing their skills, and domain, traits that are beneficial to a species.
So should humans do this to home their skills before going off to war? Or becoming a police officer? Or any reason?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107849 Jul 1, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>You wager god is real and Joe Smith found gold tablets with writings of a deity, so your judgement is highly suspect.
I do not wager beastiality will be socially acceptable even in two hundred years. And are you really trying to keep homosexuals from marrying due to fears of what will occur two hundred years in the future?
You can try to justify your bigotry if you wish, it is what all bigots do.
You are on the wrong side of equality, and as long as you are, I will protest your beliefs. I will inform all of how the god you worship is but a myth. Atheism is on the rise, and this is one large reason why.
Are you ok with marriage between family members? Brother and sister? Father and daughter? Mother and son?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107850 Jul 1, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I would wager your bigoted beliefs are pushing more people away from your religion than pulling them in.
Atheism is growing faster than Mormonism.
Why do you so frequently answer the same post twice?

Of course it is growing. It is easier and you get to please yourself however you feel and believe there will be no consequence. Sounds like party time while the parents are away. Whoo hoo

All is great until you hear the car pull up outside.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107851 Jul 1, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>OK, I looked this up and their is some truth to your statement. I say "some" because it is not healthy for most animals, but a few species do mate this way.
Clearly in humans it is not a healthy way to reproduce.
What if they aren't doing it to reproduce? Then it's ok?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107852 Jul 1, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Pride in your opinions separates you from reality.
But thanks for the textbook propaganda line. Religion has all the good lines. It is as if politicians invented religion.

At least our opinions are based upon observable evidence, not some claims some people made thousands of years ago. Our opinions are movable. They can adapt to new information. We can back our opinions up with logic and reason. No need for propaganda, brainwashing lines like, "god moves in mysterious ways". That line is an attempt to trick you into leaving logic and reason behind. I see it worked.
Thanks. I made that one up. Being quote worthy of a textbook means it must be a good one.

What was more intriguing to me is that Jesus told us we could know the mysteries of the kingdom. And the more I try to learn, the more knowledgable I become about God and how He "moves"

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107853 Jul 1, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>You mean like teaching religion that has zero evidence as fact? Yes, that can be dangerous.
It astounds me how you claim god as certainty, yet can produce not a drop of evidence. You show quite a bit of hypocrisy, as we can see here. You have double standards.

You clearly do not even know the definition of a "fact". But I get that what you have been taught is simply the mainstream idea that has absolutely zero evidence and is claimed as fact.

Homosexuality being innate has quite a bit of observable evidence.
Bullying homosexuals has observable evidence. Condemning this bullying by public schools does not defy any evidence and is supported by much evidence.

Now just why do you teach Mormonism as if it were a certainty?
I've never said it was fact. I have been overly redundant in saying faith was required.
The great thing about it is that you can know for yourself if you truly seek to know. For most all of you that condemn us for believing things that men wrote, you also believe what men say they discovered in a science lab, though you weren't there and are takin their word for it, and others in a different lab can come to a different conclusion, and many times it isn't fact, but rather a theory.
Hmmmm

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107854 Jul 1, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I do not use it as the reason it should be acceptable, I use it to show how it is not unnatural.
You guys keep claiming it is unnatural, then I respond with evidence.
The act harms no one anymore so than heterosexual relationships.
I really do not expect you to "accept" it, but I would hope you just used a logical reason to prohibit gay marriage. You have yet to do so.

I don't like religion, but I would never try to outlaw it. Outlawing such things causes more harm than good.
So with that logic, outlawing murder is the wrong thing to do.

It isn't natural, sorry. Nature (whether you believe in God or not) definitely requires male and female to continue any natural specie. Sure being aroused is natural, but you can't justify sex with your vacuum cleaner by saying it is natural. Again, just because it fits doesn't mean you should put it there.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107855 Jul 1, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Why should I know this when their is no good evidence to the claim? If you wish for me to believe your claim, then show me it is true with something like evidence. Hell, I would be happy if you could just produce some logic and reason, but you do not even try.
Unlike yourself, I do not believe claims with no evidence. Did some ancient book tell you about animals killing for fun?
I had an old cocker spaniel that would pick up baby rabbits and turtles and crunch them, then drop them and walk away. Then go back and play with his tennis ball.
That's enough evidence for me.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107856 Jul 1, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Believing in things that are not there is also natural, but I certainly do not try to outlaw it.

Humans have a large brain. We can use that brain to help determine what is detrimental and what is not. We can observe nature to inform us of what is detrimental or not. You have yet to demonstrate how homosexual marriage is detrimental.

I see America's number one founding principle is freedom.
I have demonstrated how your comparisons to gay marriage are detrimental (incest, bestiality, pedophilia).
Now either demonstrate how gay marriage is detrimental or else you just look like a superstitious person who condemns homosexuality with no logical reason to back up his bigotry.
I haven't seen your answer on incest yet either.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107857 Jul 1, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Well they can try, but the evidence is stacked against them. It is well documented that human incest produces birth defects. This in effect, is directly causing harm to a third party.
Evidence shows pheromones repel us from our relatives.
Evidence also shows that if separated and raised with no knowledge of each other, there is no such repellant.

And what if they aren't trying to have kids? Daddy and daughter just enjoy each other? Are you ok with that?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107858 Jul 1, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I curse god in lightning storms just to prove a point. I have zero fear in mythical beings.
I pictured Lt. Dan for a second there.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107859 Jul 1, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Their is a point and that point is, some things are just impossible. So when a religious person claims god can do anything, it is a demonstrably false claim.

Another point was shown here. When a religious person is confronted with a hard question, he avoids it like the plague. He runs and claims he is not running. The self denial is overwhelmingly evident.
I have never said God can do anything. So your dumb question, and your weak point, do not apply to me.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107860 Jul 1, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>And just how can you know they are not practicing for the big game? The big game in the animal world is killing other animals to survive. It is a game that must be played and perfected. Now you seem to claim they need no practice and can know their emotions as they practice?
Because domesticated animals aren't practicing for anything and would most likely die if they had to live on their own.
That cat knows there is big bowl of fancy feast waiting. No reason to kill the mouse and then walk away.
care8741

Morehead, KY

#107861 Jul 1, 2013
kellerman wrote:
It's not appropriate to teach religion in school. we live in a diverse society and can't teach all religions in schools. One has to keep these separate, it's up to the parents to inform their children on religious upbringing. I thought this issue was long solved, but i see it keeps coming back up.
You say that it's not appropriate to teach religion in school??? Well, if you are going to go so far as to take moral value out of the public school system, then evolutionism should be pulled as well, considering it also is a form of religion, with many followers.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#107862 Jul 1, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So now humans hunting is immoral?
You seem not to be able to understand the value of practice.
Humans hunting other humans most certainly should be considered immoral. I hope you don't intend to disagree with this too.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Barbourville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
knox county detention center 3 min Really 5
~~Keep A Word~~Drop A Word Game. (Jun '10) 3 hr Princess Hey 642
{keep a word drop a word} (Oct '11) 3 hr Princess Hey 3,751
Laura Hammons (Jul '09) 4 hr Wanna know 25
joe ore rat 5 hr The neighbor 2
Who is the Poorest person in Knox Co? (Jan '13) 5 hr YOLO 41
flat lick Hammons Brothers Arrested--joseph/w.f... 5 hr The neighbor 10
How to make homemade ice melt for steps, sidewa... (Jan '13) Thu Artie2 74

Flood Warning for Knox County was issued at March 06 at 4:01PM EST

Barbourville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:09 pm PST

Bleacher Report 1:09PM
Bengals Re-Sign LB Maualuga to 3-Year Deal
NFL 1:16 PM
Cincinnati Bengals re-sign Rey Maualuga
ESPN 1:25 PM
Bengals re-sign MLB Maualuga for 3 years
ESPN 4:58 PM
49ers sign WR Simpson to two-year deal
Bleacher Report12:13 PM
Buzz: Titans to Be 'Aggressive' in Free Agency