2012's most important stories on faith

2012's most important stories on faith

There are 161 comments on the Tyler Morning Telegraph story from Dec 29, 2012, titled 2012's most important stories on faith. In it, Tyler Morning Telegraph reports that:

In 2012, a diversity of faiths were represented in the news on the national level ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Tyler Morning Telegraph.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#84 Jan 2, 2013
KMA wrote:
Now, I'm sure Jerald will want to steer the conversation back to gay marriage
KMA wrote:
On the other hand, if you want to discuss gay marriage, I guess we can
Who's steering what?
KMA wrote:
...spend a little more time reading your Bible...Yes, homosexuality is sin....
My argument was that there was no rational basis for denying CIVIL marriage solely on the basis of the sex of the partners.

Those in opposition do so out of ignorance, fear, animus, or religious superstition or myth.

Apparently your argument is out of religious superstition or myth.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#85 Jan 2, 2013
KMA wrote:
But, as far as government and gay marriage - like I said, just get the government out. Seems like anyone who believes in liberty would be okay with that. No marriage licenses, no civil unions.
This is a classic "I'm taking my ball and going home" line of reasoning.

People you don't like want to call their legal union by a term you think is privileged for you.

I'll bet that you never would have offered such an argument at the advent of interracial marriage. Or perhaps you did.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#86 Jan 2, 2013
KMA wrote:
I sincerely hope you are not a teacher. If so, I hope you are not indoctrinating the students with you ideas. I sure hope you don't teach Civics or Government. If this is what we are teaching our kids, no wonder this country is on a path to destruction.
Yes, I'm teaching students US History and Government, and I'll be personally to blame for the total destruction of our country.

At least from the point of view of the nutjobs who believe the kind of crap posted on Free Republic.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#87 Jan 2, 2013
KMA wrote:
...Yes, children can be raised in single parent homes, but there is proof that it is much better for a child to be raised in a home with a mother and father (not two mothers or two fathers). Of course, these studies are not given any attention by the popular media today because that is not the message they want to send....
I'll call you on this one.

Feel free to post the studies that show that children raised in homes headed by same-sex couples fare any worse than children raised in homes headed by opposite-sex couples.
KMA

Benton, AR

#88 Jan 2, 2013
No, I'm not conflating the issues. You've fallen into Jerald's trap of distraction. I mentioned totalitarianism in relation to the broader discussion regarding the scope and power of the federal government. It was Jerald that brought up gay marriage and I only gave my opinion because he brought it up. The only relation to the gay marriage issue I attempted to make is that those who think like Jerald believe the government should control everything, including marriage.

Furthermore, you either failed to understand what I have repeatedly said, or, you are purposely twisting my position. Which is it?

Next, while my position would not discrimate, I will take issue with your argument that gay marriage is a "civil right." First, marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution at all, is it? Think about what the framers said in the declaration of independence about where our rights come from - "our creator." I don't think the framers ever envisioned that society would be degraded to the point of embracing the idea of gay marriage.

So, that leaves us to a societal whim, at this point in history to define it as a "civil right." That's fine, we've read many things into the Constitution, i suppose we can this too. The problem is, its a slippery slope. Is beastiality a "civil right." Is the right to use illegal drugs a "civil right." Is the right to walk the streets nakes a "civil right." Is the right to marry a dog a "civil right." Is the right to have multiple spouses a "civil right." The others may seem silly, but, what about that last one. There are those who, as part of their religion, beleive they are to have multiple spouses. Do you believe thats a "civil right." If not, well the word hypocrite comes mind. What about prostitution - think right to privacy (Roe)- doesn't a woman have a "civil right" to use her body as she pleases - so what if money is involved. So, there are lots, and lots of things people may want to do that we could argue are "civil rights."

A lot of this "civil right" gay marriage crap comes from the myth that people are born that way. There is no "civil right" to choose a deviant lifestyle, just as there is no "civil right" to choose bestiality, pedophilia, illegal drug use, prostitution, polygamy, etc. None of these, including gay marriage are not God given civil rights guaranteed by the Contsitution. They are only "civil rights" if society defines them to be.

But, once again I'll say it - I'm not discrimnating - I'm saying no marriage licenses or civil unions for anyone - get the government out of all of it. I'm saying deny it to everyone, not just gays. Now, will you misrepresent my position again?
KMA

Benton, AR

#89 Jan 2, 2013
"I'm teaching students US History and Government"

Wow, they let people teach subjects they know absolutely nothing about.

This is what you get from a government run educational system.
KMA

Benton, AR

#90 Jan 2, 2013
Here ya go. I'm sure you can find a lot of studies that say these kids do just fine. But, most of those were conducted either by groups with an agenda or researchers that had a preconceived bias. This is an unbiased study:

AUSTIN, Texas — Adult children of parents who were in same-sex relationships differ notably on a variety of social, emotional and relationship factors from adult children raised by biological parents who are married and heterosexual, according to research led by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin.
The findings, to be published in the July issue of Social Science Research, are particularly significant because they are based on the first large-scale, population-based survey of young adults that features a large number of cases in which survey respondents’ parents had been in same-sex relationships.

“Most conclusions about same-sex parenting have been drawn from small, convenience samples, not larger, random ones,” Regnerus said.“The results of that approach have often led family scholars to conclude that there are no differences between children raised in same-sex households and those raised in other types of families. But those earlier studies have inadvertently masked real diversity among gay and lesbian parenting experiences in America.”

Regnerus cautions that his analysis identifies differences in outcomes, but it does not provide causal evidence as to why the differences exist.

Since children are more likely to live with a lesbian mother than a gay father, Regnerus primarily focused on the larger sample — adult children of lesbian mothers — in making comparisons with children who live their entire childhood with both of their married, biological parents.

According to his findings, children of lesbian mothers were significantly different as young adults on 25 of the 40 outcomes measured in the study when compared with those who spent their entire childhood with both of their married, biological parents. For example, they reported significantly lower levels of income, poorer mental and physical health, and poorer relationship quality with a current partner.
KMA

Benton, AR

#91 Jan 2, 2013
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/Dailey...

Good article on the subject. The author discusses a lot of the problems with homosexual relationships.
KMA

Benton, AR

#92 Jan 2, 2013
Okay, let's try and steer this back to religious liberty and the power of government.

One of the reasons people are pushing gay marriage is to force employers to provide benefits to so called "spouses." But, what if I'm an employer who, due to my faith, believes that this is an immoral lifestyle? Can the government force me to support this immoral lifestyle? Now, if I believe in liberty, I would say that the government shouldn't force a business owner to do this. But, if I believe in total government control and want to use the government to force my beliefs on others, I say force someone to support something that is against their religious beliefs.

Here's a question for ya? When religious liberty conflicts with, what you call a "civil right," whicn one prevails?

My answer is there is no conflict because civil rights don't conflict with religious liberty. This is only true if you define something as a civil right that is not.

But, I've strayed again into that stuff when I really want to focus on the question of whether Jareld can use the government to force his beliefs on a business owner.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#93 Jan 2, 2013
KMA wrote:
No, I'm not conflating the issues.... I mentioned totalitarianism in relation to the broader discussion regarding the scope and power of the federal government. It was ... those who think like Jerald believe the government should control everything, including marriage.
Furthermore, you either failed to understand what I have repeatedly said, or, you are purposely twisting my position. Which is it?

Next, while my position would not discrimate, I will take issue with your argument that gay marriage is a "civil right." First, marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution at all, is it? Think about what the framers said in the declaration of independence about where our rights come from - "our creator." I don't think the framers ever envisioned that society would be degraded to the point of embracing the idea of gay marriage.

So, that leaves us to a societal whim, at this point in history to define it as a "civil right." ... The problem is, its a slippery slope.... Is the right to have multiple spouses a "civil right?"

The others may seem silly, but, what about that last one. There are those who, as part of their religion, beleive they are to have multiple spouses. Do you believe thats a "civil right?" If not, well the word hypocrite comes mind. What about prostitution - think right to privacy (Roe)- doesn't a woman have a "civil right" to use her body as she pleases - so what if money is involved. So, there are lots, and lots of things people may want to do that we could argue are "civil rights."

A lot of this "civil right" gay marriage crap comes from the myth that people are born that way. There is no "civil right" to choose a deviant lifestyle, just as there is no "civil right" to choose bestiality, pedophilia, illegal drug use, prostitution, polygamy, etc. None of these, including gay marriage are not God given civil rights guaranteed by the Contsitution. They are only "civil rights" if society defines them to be.
But, once again I'll say it - I'm not discrimnating - I'm saying no marriage licenses or civil unions for anyone - get the government out of all of it. I'm saying deny it to everyone, not just gays. Now, will you misrepresent my position again?
LOL!!!.... You certainly ARE discriminating!

Yes, I will - state - your position again. Only, this time, I will rightfully brand YOU as an anarchist!

There is no such thing as a Constitutional situation in which society can "get the government out of all of it." That is, unless you advocate a government that has no protections for ownership and transference of private property.

We base our society upon individual rights. We declared these rights when we arbitrarily chose to disconnect from the Empire of the British Monarchy.

We created a Union of States and set them together under a Federal Government which government is required to take its principled guidance by and through our Constitution, which was endorsed, ratified, by the authorized representatives of each of the States.

It is naive for you to say that "marriage" and "civil rights" are not guaranteed under the Constitution. Of course, they are! They are specifically enumerated under the declaration of State's Rights. And they are peculiar to each State.

You question the expressed right to polygamy and prostitution? Certain drug use?

Both Nevada and Utah have certain of these rights as do Washington and Colorado.

Civil Rights extend through the Constitution to and then from the individual to the consenting couple, creating what our society regards as family. Common property becomes the result, as well as inheritance and rights of survivorship. Civil Union and by extension and religious freedom, Marriage, involve these rights.

You cannot have government without civil liberty and civil rights, unless government becomes totalitarian or monarchic and is conducted by fiat.

And, yes, you are conflating the issues.

Rev. Ken
KMA

Benton, AR

#94 Jan 2, 2013
Again, you misrepresent what I said. You really need to read more carefully. I did notsay the constitution does not guarantee civil rights. I said marriage is not mentioned in the constitution. And, I said gay marriage is not a civil right.

If you can't read, there's no point in arguing with you. Or, are you intentionally misrepreseting what I say? I don't know.

I'm confused: Are you saying that gay marriage is a states' right issue and not guaranteed by the federal constitution, or are you saying that prostitution and polygamy are protected by the federal constitution - seems a little inconsistent to me.

And, I reject your contention that the government must sanction marriage. I do some agreed divorces for people and I always think what a waste of time and money it is because they just sign the papers and the judge signs, no hearing or anything. If you really wanted a legal agreement what you could do is simply have contracts and would accomplish the same thing. Otherwise, people live together all the time without getting married, have children together, etc. So, just let people have whatever ceremony they want, or none if they choose. Why does the government have to give permission and give them a piece of paper. It's a silly waste of time and money. And that wouldn't be anarchy.
KMA

Benton, AR

#95 Jan 2, 2013
Btw, how does treating everyone the same equal discrimnation? I'm perplexed by that one.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#97 Jan 2, 2013
KMA wrote:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/ articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php
Good article on the subject. The author discusses a lot of the problems with homosexual relationships.
This article is so full of anti-gay stereotyping and biased, faulty claims that it's not even worthy of publication in a reputable journal.

Typical, for the Family Research Council.

You're really good at mining the dregs of the virulently anti-gay, instead of looking at reliable and scientifically valid social science.

Typical, for an anti-gay like you.
KMA

Benton, AR

#98 Jan 2, 2013
"You cannot have government without civil liberty and civil rights,"

Hey, I'm the one here arguing for more liberty. It's you and Jerald that want to keep the goverment involved.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#99 Jan 2, 2013
KMA wrote:
Okay, let's try and steer this back to religious liberty and the power of government.
One of the reasons people are pushing gay marriage is to force employers to provide benefits to so called "spouses." But, what if I'm an employer who, due to my faith, believes that this is an immoral lifestyle? Can the government force me to support this immoral lifestyle? Now, if I believe in liberty, I would say that the government shouldn't force a business owner to do this. But, if I believe in total government control and want to use the government to force my beliefs on others, I say force someone to support something that is against their religious beliefs.
Here's a question for ya? When religious liberty conflicts with, what you call a "civil right," whicn one prevails?
My answer is there is no conflict because civil rights don't conflict with religious liberty. This is only true if you define something as a civil right that is not.
But, I've strayed again into that stuff when I really want to focus on the question of whether Jareld can use the government to force his beliefs on a business owner.
There were millions of business owners who said the exact same thing prior to the 1967 Loving decision that struck down bans on interracial marriage -- they didn't want to support what they considered to be the immoral mixing of the races.

It wasn't until 1991 that a majority of Americans accepted interracial marriage, according to Gallup.

A business owner can believe whatever he wants to believe. Nothing that government can do will force someone out of ignorance, especially if it's against his will. You're living proof of that.

You want the complete freedom to discriminate as you see fit? I think Uganda would look good to you about now.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#100 Jan 2, 2013
KMA wrote:
Okay, let's try and steer this back to religious liberty and the power of government.
One of the reasons people are pushing gay marriage is to force employers to provide benefits to so called "spouses." But, what if I'm an employer who, due to my faith, believes that this is an immoral lifestyle? Can the government force me to support this immoral lifestyle? Now, if I believe in liberty, I would say that the government shouldn't force a business owner to do this. But, if I believe in total government control and want to use the government to force my beliefs on others, I say force someone to support something that is against their religious beliefs.
Here's a question for ya? When religious liberty conflicts with, what you call a "civil right," whicn one prevails?
My answer is there is no conflict because civil rights don't conflict with religious liberty. This is only true if you define something as a civil right that is not.
But, I've strayed again into that stuff when I really want to focus on the question of whether Jareld can use the government to force his beliefs on a business owner.
Take a look at the Westboro Baptist Church and their rants...there is liberty for you! Any person who would picket a funeral of a 6 year old child deserves EVERYTHING that they get.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#101 Jan 2, 2013
RevKen wrote:
......It is his position, and Jerald please correct me if I misstate your cause, that his choice, to enter into civil union with one who mutually agrees as a consenting adult, is his civil right. It is guaranteed under the fundamental principles of our Constitution. And, in fact, is also guaranteed under the clause providing individual freedom of religion....
Close, and I appreciate the attempt.

My position is that the Supreme Court has ruled on over a dozen occasions that the right to obtain a CIVIL marriage is a fundamental civil right, one that is not tied to the ability or willingness to procreate.

This civil right emerges from history, common law, the 9th and 14th Amendments.

All rights have limitations. Fundamental rights may only be denied if there is at least a legitimate governmental interest.

There is no legitimate governmental interest in limiting civil marriage solely on the basis of the sex of the partners.

The First Amendment's Free Exercise clause should have absolutely no bearing on civil marriage.

N.B.: I purposely do NOT use the constructions "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage", since, like "interracial marriage" or "interfaith marriage", there is no such legal construct. There is no "right" to "gay marriage" since there is no such legal construct.

The argument is over the right to obtain a CIVIL marriage, and whether that right may be denied solely on the basis of sex. No state denies civil marriage on the basis of sexual orientation. Gay people can marry in EVERY state; indeed, gay couples can marry in every state, provided that one partner is a gay male and the other is a gay female. While the practical discrimination is based on sexual orientation, the LEGAL discrimination is totally based on sex.
KMA

Benton, AR

#103 Jan 2, 2013
You accuse me of stereotyping while you cite to the Westboro church. You picked the most extreme example and paint with a broad brush. Its amazing how often you do what you criticize me for doing.

"My position is that the Supreme Court has ruled on over a dozen occasions that the right to obtain a CIVIL marriage is a fundamental civil right, one that is not tied to the ability or willingness to procreate."

The Supreme Court also at one time ruled that slavery was legal. See, that's the problem with having a living constitution. Say at some point in time the Supreme Court decides its okay to kill gay people. By your reasoning, as long as the Supreme Court decides it, it's Constitutional, right. I'm not saying there isn't a right to marry whom one chooses. But, two men or two women is not a marriage. I'm sorry, that's just a fact. Everyone is treated equally. Everyone can marry anyone of the opposite sex he or she chooses. And, as far as interracial marriage, no matter how hard you try you're comparing two dissimilar things. First, a person doesn't choose their race. Interracial marriage does not involve deviant sexual behavior. Behavior, by the way, that was illegal throughout most of this country's history. When I was in college I recall that homosexuality was still listed in the DSM as a psychological disorder. So, it's not like there is a rich tradition, or any tradition for that matter in this country or in Constitutional jurisprudence for the right to gay marriage. But, like many other things, including the idea that the government can regulate anything and everything, I'm sure it will be added to the Constitution at some point.

Think about this, the framers put in a mechanism to change the Constitution. Come on, you're a government teacher, you can guess -----its callled an Amendment. So, why have we not amended the Constitution in a very long time? The answer, teach, is that we have decided to allow the Supreme Court to amend it. We have people, like you, who think the Constitution can be bent and stretched to say whatever you want it to say. So, we no longer need the amendment process, we just let the Courts do it. Not the way it was supposed to work, but I guess it suits you so that's fine. But, what happens if we reach a point where the Court does something you don't agree with, for example, what if the decide to fall back to Dredd Scott and relegalize slavery. Hey, if the Court says it Constitutional, it is, right? The point I'm trying to get you to see, but I have no doubt you've missed is, whether it be morality, right and wrong, truth, or the Constitution, if you say it can be changed at the whim of society, its' really meaningless, isn't it? What is right today is wrong tomorrow. What is true today is false tomorrow. No guiding principles, just whatever feels right at the time. Down the road that philosophy will come back to bite you.
KMA

Benton, AR

#104 Jan 2, 2013
Just a question: If I utlize my right to free speech to say that express my religious belief that homosexuality is sin - do I have a right to do that or is that hate speech that should be outlawed?
KMA

Benton, AR

#105 Jan 2, 2013
"This civil right emerges from history, common law, the 9th and 14th Amendments."

The right to gay marriage is no where in any of those. It's "emerging" from societal whim, nothing more. And, I predict it is a fad that, in a few decades will go out of style, like many other fads. Right now we're in the "jump on the bandwagon, demonize everyone else who disagrees." It will get old eventually.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News School textbook with gay maths problem go viral 25 min cpeter1313 68
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 30 min Rose_NoHo 19,260
News Springdale council to review rainbow crosswalk ... 1 hr Wondering 15
News How do we manifest a broad sense of Jewish belo... 1 hr Zio grifters 1
News More LGBTQ people will be compensated in 'gay p... 1 hr Wondering 4
News God can deliver homosexuals - Foh-Amoaning 1 hr EdmondWA 10
Gay meet derry (Oct '15) 1 hr 26 louisville 22
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Wondering 61,059
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 17 hr Blond Prince WCLB 28,029
News 'Roseanne' Star Recalls Fight to Air Controvers... 17 hr Roy 111