2012's most important stories on faith

Dec 29, 2012 Full story: Tyler Morning Telegraph 161

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

Full Story
KMA

Benton, AR

#106 Jan 2, 2013
Another question: You don't believe in God. So, I assume that you believe this life is all there is? If I believed that this life was all there is, I wouldn't waste a minute of it arguing with someone on the internet. If you believe this life is all there is, what's the point of anything? Why are you teaching those kids. You could say to make the world a better place or something like that, but you'll only be in this world a brief time and if you cease to exist you won't know or care. So, Why? If i believed that, I'd be having a good time and not wasting a single minute.

But, you see, we have a purpose here and this life is not all that is. I suspect deep down you know that but you won't admit it to yourself. You're searching for answers but you're too stubborn or afraid to ask the questions.

“Plays well with others.”

Since: Jun 07

LIVING WELL*THE BEST REVENGE

#107 Jan 2, 2013
KMA wrote:
"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.
Another Constitutional law expert...let's just see what SCOTUS does about that....

DOMA IS DONE! The 14th Amendment means EQUALITY!

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#108 Jan 2, 2013
KMA wrote:
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.
As long as the Supreme Court recognizes a right to civil marriage, then the equal protection of the law requires that any limitation on that right requires a compelling governmental reason.
KMA wrote:
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.
"Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all."
unanimous Iowa Supreme Court, Varnum v Brien
KMA wrote:
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.
When did you choose your sexual orientation?
KMA wrote:
Interracial marriage does not involve deviant sexual behavior.
Neither does civil marriage for same-sex couples. See Lawrence v Texas.
KMA wrote:
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.
That means you graduated college before 1973. Maybe you should get out and see more of the world. Read. Meet people. Maybe even become close friends with gay people and gay couples. You already know many people who are gay.
KMA wrote:
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.
I've never argued for a right to "gay marriage." I'm arguing that the right to obtain a CIVIL marriage should not be denied solely on the basis of the sex of the partners. Civil marriage jurisprudence goes back well over 100 years.
KMA wrote:
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.
The Equal Protection Clause is already in the Constitution. We don't need an amendment, just enforcement of what is already there.
KMA wrote:
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.
Your tired parade of horribles, your whiny claims of the destruction of the nation and the calamitous things that are sure to happen should the equal protections of the law actually be carried out are really beneath anyone who wants to further a reasoned argument.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#109 Jan 2, 2013
KMA wrote:
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?
Of course you have a free speech right to express your religious belief that homosexuality is a sin without criminal penalty. I stand by your right to do so. Believe it or not, I believe that the nuts at the Westboro Baptist Church have a right to do so, too. They are subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, however. I happen to believe that funerals are neither the time nor place for any kind of hate rhetoric.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#110 Jan 2, 2013
KMA wrote:
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.
Need I repeat this? There is no right to "gay marriage." There is no such legal thing as "gay marriage."

When same-sex couples in nine states and the District of Columbia obtain a marriage certificate, it doesn't say "Gay Marriage Certificate" or "Same-sex Marriage Certificate."

They get the same certificate that opposite-sex couples get, under the same provision of the civil marriage statute. A Certificate of Civil Marriage.

The right in question is the right to obtain a civil marriage.

Are you arguing that civil marriage is a whim, a fad, that will go out of style?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#111 Jan 2, 2013
KMA wrote:
Another question: You don't believe in God. So, I assume that you believe this life is all there is? If I believed that this life was all there is, I wouldn't waste a minute of it arguing with someone on the internet. If you believe this life is all there is, what's the point of anything? Why are you teaching those kids. You could say to make the world a better place or something like that, but you'll only be in this world a brief time and if you cease to exist you won't know or care. So, Why? If i believed that, I'd be having a good time and not wasting a single minute.
But, you see, we have a purpose here and this life is not all that is. I suspect deep down you know that but you won't admit it to yourself. You're searching for answers but you're too stubborn or afraid to ask the questions.
Oh, I suppose we're all searching and asking questions. Ask 100 atheists, and you'll get 100 different answers.

I just got tired of the answers that believers in myth and superstition were providing.

I don't need to believe in a supernatural being to get "meaning" in my life. Life doesn't owe me a "meaning". I can bring meaning to my life as I see fit, or not, or find it within. You project your beliefs outward and reason that all persons must view the world in a similar way and have a need for some greater meaning. I don't.

Your belief in a god is, at least in part, predicated upon the idea that your god provides meaning and purpose to your life. This is an externally imposed meaning. This is not a bad thing necessarily the problem lies in the fact that you cannot imagine that anyone's life can have meaning and purpose unless it happens on the same terms as your life. Perhaps the only way you would ever understand anything else would be if you realize that meaning and purpose can come from within oneself instead.
KMA

Benton, AR

#112 Jan 2, 2013
"Perhaps the only way you would ever understand anything else would be if you realize that meaning and purpose can come from within oneself instead." Pretty narcisistic, I'd say.

"When did you choose your sexual orientation?"

See, here's the way people use words deceptively to distort an issue. Its not about "orientation," its about "behavior." I suppose you would say that pedophiles are "oriented" towards sex with children. So, does that mean they have a constitutional right to it? Should we be punishing them for something they are born with? Should we expect them to refrain from that behavior? Your logic says no to all of that. You endorse a philosophy that says, if they're born with an urge, they have a right to do it. Well, guess what? We're all born with urges to do things that society does not permit. For example, a small child will see another child with a toy and take it away just because he wants it. We are taught that certain behavior is acceptable and others are not. I suppose we cuold say that people are born with an urge to use meth. But we don't say that's okay. Why not? After all, they are born that way. Your logic says the Constitution must guarantee the right to use illegal drugs, have sex with children, animals, whatever. If they are born with an urge, they have a right.

Now, what is the purpose of sex? Procreation. You're a Darwinist, so tell me, if natural selection is the rule, why wasn't homosexuality selected out? What's its purpose? You're beliefs in Darwinism are in direct conflict with your belief that a person is born a homosexual.

THere are compelling government interests for refusing to recognize gay marriage (of coures you will deny them because they don't fit your agenda). Homosexuality is harmful to children and society. Government often refuses to permit things that are harmful to children. For example, child porn - a person may be born with an urge to watch it - so by your logic, a person must have a constitutional right to child porn.

So, you tell me, where do you draw the line. Does the Constitution guarantee the right to engage in:
1. Prostitution
2. Bestiality
3. Pedophilia
4. View child porn
5. Use illegal drugs
6. Commit adultery
7. Have multiple spouses

Where do we draw the line? I'd reallly like to know the answer. If a person is born with an urge, how do we determine which they have a constitutional right to and which they don't? I can't find a list anywhere in the Constitution, can you?

"Your tired parade of horribles, your whiny claims of the destruction of the nation and the calamitous things that are sure to happen should the equal protections of the law actually be carried out are really beneath anyone who wants to further a reasoned argument."
Those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Thought a history teacher would know that.
KMA

Benton, AR

#113 Jan 2, 2013
"I've never argued for a right to "gay marriage." I'm arguing that the right to obtain a CIVIL marriage should not be denied solely on the basis of the sex of the partners. Civil marriage jurisprudence goes back well over 100 years."
The problem with this statement is that marriage is defined by the sex of the partners. Two men, two women, a man and a dog, a woman and horse - these are not marriages. Everyone has an equal right to marry whom they choose.
Now, one last point just to annoy you: Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage ..........
KMA

Benton, AR

#114 Jan 2, 2013
"if you realize that meaning and purpose can come from within oneself instead."
So, what happens to all that meaning and purpose when you die? Seems a shame to waste all that on a few short measly years. You probably don't believe in eternity, but, what is a lifetime in the perpective of the age of the universe?
KMA

Benton, AR

#115 Jan 2, 2013
Here's a question for ya: Say instead of that computer you are typing on, all that was there were the various parts, scattered about the room. Let's say mankind was wiped off the face of the earth. If no one touched those computer parts for billions of years, do you think at some point they would randomly come together and make a functioning computer? Isn't life more complicated than a computer? Isn't it crazy to think life began by chance?

Another one: I probably have all the ingredients for a cake in my kitchen cabinets. Same scenario, man vanishes. Billions of years go by, do you think those ingredients would come together on their own to make a cake? Life is certainly more complex than a cake.

It's crazy to think there was no guiding force behind the creation of life. It requires one to have tremendous faith in things that can't be seen or proven. It really requires one to believe in magic, or something like it - the universe magically sprang from nothingness and life magically began. I like a good magic show, but, I'll put my faith in the one who made it all. Not in some magical theories masquerading as science.
KMA

Benton, AR

#116 Jan 2, 2013
"I just got tired of the answers that believers in myth and superstition were providing."

Maybe you were looking in the wrong places. He gave us his Word and he hears prayers. Go directly to the source.
KMA

Benton, AR

#117 Jan 2, 2013
Do you think monogamy in a marriage is important? Some people might say that they are born with a need to have multiple sex partners. So, is adultery protected by the Constitution? I think few would argue that adultery is harmful to children and to society. But, hey, if they're born that way, the Constitution protects it, right? So, your logic says we should have a Constitutional right to:
Adultery,
Pedophilia
Beastiality
Prostituion
Illegal drug use
Child Porn
Polygamy,

and anything else that someone might be born with an urge to do.

Hey, serial killers may be born with an urge to kill. Constitutional right?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#118 Jan 2, 2013
KMA wrote:
See, here's the way people use words deceptively to distort an issue. Its not about "orientation," its about "behavior." I suppose you would say that pedophiles are "oriented" towards sex with children. So, does that mean they have a constitutional right to it? Should we be punishing them for something they are born with?...


Your arguments are irrational. You can't stay with one topic and you have to veer wildly off on things like pedophilia or bestiality, which are harmful paraphilias and not normal or healthy expressions of human sexuality, which all major medical, scientific, psychological, psychiatric, and social science professional organizations recognize that homosexuality is.

There is no evidence that allowing civil marriage for same-sex couples harms anyone. There is no evidence that banning civil marriage for same-sex couples benefits anyone.
KMA wrote:
For example, a small child will see another child with a toy and take it away just because he wants it. We are taught that certain behavior is acceptable and others are not. I suppose we cuold say that people are born with an urge to use meth. But we don't say that's okay. Why not? After all, they are born that way. Your logic says the Constitution must guarantee the right to use illegal drugs, have sex with children, animals, whatever. If they are born with an urge, they have a right.
You are good at making up and defeating strawman arguments. You are lousy at debating my arguments.
KMA wrote:
Now, what is the purpose of sex? Procreation. You're a Darwinist, so tell me, if natural selection is the rule, why wasn't homosexuality selected out? What's its purpose? You're beliefs in Darwinism are in direct conflict with your belief that a person is born a homosexual.
I have never claimed to be a "Darwinist", which is a term that believers in creationism usually use. I accept the theory of evolution and natural selection, as do all who accept science. Homosexuality has been present throughout time and across cultures. Clearly, this is a trait that provides a benefit to the species or it wouldn't be present.

Feel free to show anywhere where I stated that "person is born a homosexual."
KMA wrote:
THere are compelling government interests for refusing to recognize gay marriage (of coures you will deny them because they don't fit your agenda). Homosexuality is harmful to children and society.
Feel free to provide peer-reviewed evidence to support this claim.

None of the major medical, scientific, psychological, psychiatric, or social science professional organizations with expertise in the relevant fields would agree with you. Your claim is based on belief, not evidence.
KMA wrote:
Government often refuses to permit things that are harmful to children. For example, child porn - a person may be born with an urge to watch it - so by your logic, a person must have a constitutional right to child porn.
Another lie, another strawman.
KMA wrote:
So, you tell me, where do you draw the line. Does the Constitution guarantee the right to engage in:
1. Prostitution
2. Bestiality
3. Pedophilia
4. View child porn
5. Use illegal drugs
6. Commit adultery
7. Have multiple spouses
Where do we draw the line? I'd reallly like to know the answer. If a person is born with an urge, how do we determine which they have a constitutional right to and which they don't? I can't find a list anywhere in the Constitution, can you?
Have you given up the argument on civil marriage, and now wish to move on to all these other strawmen?

Aside from adultery, I can think of legitimate governmental reasons to criminalize or legally discourage these things.

Are you unable to come up with legitimate governmental reasons to limit or outlaw any of the items in your list?
swxxxt

Rochester, PA

#119 Jan 2, 2013
youtube.com/watch...
Obama impeachment
KMA

Benton, AR

#121 Jan 2, 2013
"There is no evidence that allowing civil marriage for same-sex couples harms anyone. There is no evidence that banning civil marriage for same-sex couples benefits anyone."
Feel free to provide peer-reviewed evidence to support this claim."

I already gave you the UT Study but, since it doesn't fit your agenda, you ignored it. This "peer-reviewed" study shows that gay marriage is harmful to children. But, let's just ignore it and jump onto the unscientific, limited sample, uncontrolled, biased studies done by LGBT groups. No, they have no agenda (sarcasm). THe other article you derided but didn't argue a single point it made. You argue by making fun of and deriding the other sides argument but present almost nothing to discredit those arguments.

Furthermore, it should be obvious that children need a mother and father. THat's just common sense (unfortunately a rare thing today).

The legitmate government reasons to refuse to sanction gay marriage are just as real and compelling as any reason you can come up with to ban polygamy, prostitution, etc. I've given you a couple, one in the form of a scientific, peer-reviewed study. You haven't given a single for banning the things on the list. Why do you want to discriminate against polygamist, prostitutes, pedophiles, etc. After all, they are born that way - you must just be a right-wing extremist. The Constitution guarantees us the right to have sex with whomever or whatever we want. If I want to marry my dog, the government must recognize it and make my boss provide health insurance benefits.(Sarcasm)
KMA

Benton, AR

#122 Jan 2, 2013
Btw, adultery is still a crime in the military. So, since you can't think of a reason to ban it, are the rights of military personnel violated?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#123 Jan 2, 2013
KMA wrote:
So, what happens to all that meaning and purpose when you die? Seems a shame to waste all that on a few short measly years. You probably don't believe in eternity, but, what is a lifetime in the perpective of the age of the universe?
When we die, we die. There isn't anything more for each of us after that.

So enjoy it while you can.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#124 Jan 2, 2013
KMA wrote:
Here's a question for ya: Say instead of that computer you are typing on, all that was there were the various parts, scattered about the room. Let's say mankind was wiped off the face of the earth. If no one touched those computer parts for billions of years, do you think at some point they would randomly come together and make a functioning computer? Isn't life more complicated than a computer? Isn't it crazy to think life began by chance?
Another one: I probably have all the ingredients for a cake in my kitchen cabinets. Same scenario, man vanishes. Billions of years go by, do you think those ingredients would come together on their own to make a cake? Life is certainly more complex than a cake.
It's crazy to think there was no guiding force behind the creation of life. It requires one to have tremendous faith in things that can't be seen or proven. It really requires one to believe in magic, or something like it - the universe magically sprang from nothingness and life magically began. I like a good magic show, but, I'll put my faith in the one who made it all. Not in some magical theories masquerading as science.
I suggest that the "magical" theories are those that rely on "belief in things that cannot be seen or proven."

And people who believe in them truly use magical thinking to explain the world around them and inform their actions.
KMA

Benton, AR

#125 Jan 2, 2013
"Have you given up the argument on civil marriage, and now wish to move on to all these other strawmen?"

Asking where you would draw the line is not a strawman argument. You still haven't answered. Forget the list, just tell me, where is the line? Or, is there one?
KMA

Benton, AR

#126 Jan 2, 2013
"Homosexuality has been present throughout time and across cultures. Clearly, this is a trait that provides a benefit to the species or it wouldn't be present."

Since you're so smart, what is that benefit? It has to be something that would help the species survive - survival of the fittest.

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
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 min Frankie Rizzo 15,406
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 8 min LongFella 57,826
Is Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and... 10 min xxxrayted 59
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 28 min Static Discharge 29,770
Hey, What Happened to the NE Jade Threads? 29 min LongFella 6
I'm gay. And I want my kid to be gay, too 37 min Porter Bowman 133
Pediatrician Won't Treat Baby With Lesbian Moms 40 min WeTheSheeple 224
Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 41 min Not Yet Equal 1,092
Transgender Bruce Jenner will be lesbian after ... 1 hr LongFella 111
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 3,214
More from around the web