Black Swan

Rick you allege that you did not intentionally mean to hurt anyone with that statement. But really, how could you not with what you wrote above? If I may, let me take the liberty to wordsmith it a bit and put my spin on it..and then let’s see how you would react if I had first posted this (note it is almost EXACTLY the same tone/wording you used above): I would not let my parents set foot in a Sunday school class with a Christian. As a daughter I have an obligation to what my elderly parents get exposed to and it is my choice. This topic is an abomination to evolution. Some of these believers are brainwashed while others are simply stupid by choice. I can only hope that they can afford a subscription to the Discovery Channel so they have access to programs on evolution and the myths of religion that can be easily grasp by those who never went on to college or who forget what they learned in 8th grade biology. The United States is a Great Nation that ensures that there is a separation of Church and State, so that religion cannot take us back to the Dark Ages when Church Doctrine ruled. A time of some of the greatest atrocities of mankind: Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Witch Trails, Slavery, all of which were sanctioned by the Church. Our Constitution was written by the Found Fathers, who clearly understood how important it was to separate the two: Church and State. Nowhere in the Constitution does it specify that Christianity is the mother religion. Instead it clearly states that there should be no preference. We believe in Darwin’s theory of Evolution, in which he states: It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change. As religion by nature is stationary, it will die. Deep..honestly, do you know who pays for scientific studies? Believe me, I know, as I work for the largest science foundation in the world. There are pretty much only two ways: Government grants and private contributions. So, as stated in my rebuttal, until 1990 there was a bias towards this type of study. Think of it, if members of this site found out that their Gov’t tax dollars were being spent on finding out which animals took a shine to the same sex, what do you think would happen? Bloody murder, comes to mind. Secondly, when it comes to private contributions, who exactly will benefit from finding this info out? Unless there is some commercial benefit, no one will pay for it. But now that you did bring up numbers, may I ask you a question? Why did your Creator make so many beetles? There are approximately 250,000 to 350,000 SPECIES of beetles. Moreso, of approximately 1 million classified insects, at least 300,000 are beetles. And yet, he only made one species of himself (actually there were two species: us and Neanderthal but according to the bible, we are it). Your God REALLY likes beetles. Why do you think that is? I mean I know...and I’m pretty sure Neo knows…but I’d like to get your answer ? PS…I’ll even let you google it. souce: http://hypertextbook...eithSingh.shtml

if ONLY you'd read the source. Oh hummm.. here is what it says about that: Bagemihl writes that the presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not 'officially' observed on a large scale until the 1990s due to possible observer bias caused by social attitudes towards LGBT people making the homosexual theme taboo. Backatcha'

Hmmm...well, actually quite a few according to this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior List of animals displaying homosexual behavior Bison[i' Brown Bear[ Brown Rat[ Caribou[ Cat (domestic)[ Cattle (domestic)[ Chimpanzee[ Common Dolphin[26] Common Marmoset[27] Dog[28] Elephant[29] Fox[30] Giraffe[31][3][32] Goat[16] Horse (domestic)[33] Human[34][35][36] Koala[37] Lion[34] Orca[26] Raccoon[38] [edit] Birds Barn Owl[39] Chicken[40] Common Gull[41] Emu[42] King Penguin[43] Mallard[44] Raven[45] Seagull[46] Amazon molly[48] Blackstripe topminnow[49] Bluegill Sunfish[49] Char[47] Grayling[47] European Bitterling[50] Green swordtail[50] Guiana leaffish[51] Houting Whitefish[47] Jewel Fish[52] Least Darter (Microperca punctulata)[50] Mouthbreeding Fish sp.[49] Salmon spp.[53] Southern platyfish[50] Ten-spined stickleback[50] Three-spined stickleback[50] Anole sp.[54] Bearded Dragon[55] Broad-headed Skink[50] Checkered Whiptail Lizard[55] Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail Lizard[55] Common Ameiva[55] Common Garter Snake[50] Cuban Green Anole[54] Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizard[55] Desert Tortoise[56] Fence Lizard[55] Five-lined Skink[disambiguation needed][50] Gopher (Pine) Snake[49] Green Anole[54] Inagua Curlytail Lizard[55] Jamaican Giant Anole[54] Laredo Striped Whiptail Lizard[55] Largehead Anole[54] Mourning Gecko[57] Plateau Striped Whiptail Lizard[55] Red Diamond Rattlesnake[50] Red-tailed Skink[50] Side-blotched Lizard[55] Speckled Rattlesnake[50] Water Moccasin[50] Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)[50] Western Banded Gecko[57] Whiptail Lizard spp.[55] Wood Turtle[54] Appalachian Woodland Salamander[58] Black-spotted Frog[59] Mountain Dusky Salamander[58] Tengger Desert Toad[54] Alfalfa Weevil[60] Australian Parasitic Wasp sp.[60] Bean Weevil sp.[60] Bedbug and other Bug spp.[61][62] Blister Beetle spp.[63] Blowfly[63] Broadwinged Damselfly sp.[64] Cabbage (Small) White (Butterfly)[65] Checkerspot Butterfly[65] Club-tailed Dragonfly spp.[66] Cockroach spp.[67] Common Skimmer Dragonfly spp.[66] Creeping Water Bug sp.[68] Cutworm[69] Digger Bee[70] Dragonfly spp.[66] Eastern Giant Ichneumon Wasp[60] Eucalyptus Longhorned Borer[68] Field Cricket sp.[71] Flour Beetle[72] Fruit Fly spp.[73] Glasswing Butterfly[65] Grape Berry Moth[74] Grape Borer[68] Green Lacewing[75] Hen Flea[75] House Fly[76] Ichneumon wasp sp.[60] Japanese Scarab Beetle[77] Larch Bud Moth[74] Large Milkweed Bug[62] Large White[62] Long-legged Fly spp.[78] Mazarine Blue[62] Mediterranean Fruit Fly[73] Mexican White (butterfly)[62] Midge sp.[78] Migratory Locust[79] Monarch Butterfly[65] Narrow-winged Damselfly spp.[64] Parsnip Leaf Miner[78] Pomace fly[78] Queen Butterfly[65] Red Ant sp.[78] Red Flour Beetle[62] Reindeer Warble Fly (Hypoderma tarandi)[78] Rose Chafer[disambiguation needed][78] Rove Beetle spp.[62] Scarab Beetle (Melolonthine)[80] Screwworm Fly[78] Silkworm Moth[74] Southeastern Blueberry Bee[70] Southern Green Stink Bug[62] Southern Masked Chafer[78] Southern One-Year Canegrub[78] Spreadwinged Damselfly spp.[64] Spruce Budworm Moth[74] Stable Fly sp.[78] Stag Beetle spp.[62] Tsetse Fly[78] Water Boatman Bug[disambiguation needed][62] Water Strider spp.[62] Blood-Fluke[81] Box Crab[82] Harvest Spider sp.[83] Hawaiian Orb-Weaver (spider)[83] Incirrate Octopus spp.[82] Jumping Spider sp.[83] Mite sp.[78] Spiny-Headed Worm[84] Personally, I'm a little miffed that beavers weren't on it.

I'm having a hard time with this post. Is it the homophobia that is making me sick or is the milestone of ignorance that makes me even more sick? Hmmmm…maybe both, but it does most assuredly make me want to vomit, that much I can tell you. Your misperception of reality borders on pure weirdness. Freud defined denial as the refusal to recognize the existence or truth of unwelcome facts, and classified it among the defense mechanisms we unconsciously employ to protect oneself from anxiety or distress. You Sir, have a major case of denial But, I guess, when it is all said and done, the one thing that I think of when I read this dribble, is, well...to be frank: Isn't there a goat somewhere that he needs to deworm?

Charles Darwin had it down pat, he is often misquoted with saying that the storngest survive (survival of the fitness), instead he said: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” America is not adapting and therefore just like other Superpowers before it (Greece, Rome, Spain, Brits) , its day in the sun is fading. It's the nature of things, really. Just like humans, rather silly to think we will rein on top longer than the Dinos. To quote one of my favorite passages: “The present life of man upon earth, O King, seems to me in comparison with that time which is unknown to us like the swift flight of a sparrow through mead-hall where you sit at supper in winter, with your Ealdormen and thanes, while the fire blazes in the midst and the hall is warmed, but the wintry storms of rain or snow are raging abroad. The sparrow, flying in at one door and immediately out at another, whilst he is within, is safe from the wintry tempest, but after a short space of fair weather, he im- mediately vanishes out of your sight, passing from winter to winter again. So this life of man appears for a little while, but of what is to follow or what went before we know nothing at all.

Would seem there is more to this story than I thought at first blush...it's a political move in support of two of the BSA biggest supporters. The politics behind the Boy Scouts of America's anti-*** ban Eventually, decline will weaken the hold of Mormon and Catholic sponsors and the Boy Scouts' homophobic policy will change Congratulations to the Boy Scouts of America for emphatically reaffirming their policy banning gays earlier this week – despite historical evidence that this strategy for preventing child sexual abuse will earn them the same success rate as Penn State football and the Roman Catholic Church. This is a point of fact, not mere conjecture. Because the Scouts are already, despite their very best efforts at concealment, on the record as having had similar difficulties as those other allegedly ***-free institutions with sexual abusers among the men it has entrusted with its youth. And for similar reasons. Not because the molesters were "***" – in fact, LGBT people make up a fraction of child abusers and the sexual preferences of the sick, primarily male adults who molest children skew towards age rather than gender – but because the organization's leaders refused to discipline the child abusers in its midst or to involve the police, long past the time when they knew of instances of sexual abuse. In fact, the smoking gun in the most recent of the many cases filed against the Scouts by former members for failing to protect them from predatory leaders was the Scouts' own "perversion files". These privately kept documents, over 20,000 pages of them, detail accusations and investigations of sexual abuse and other improprieties by 1,200 Boy Scout leaders across the United States from 1965 to 1985 – as well as what the organization did and did not do to protect their youth once cases of abuse were known to them. The files were never meant to see the light of day, and the Scouts fought hard, and unsuccessfully, to prevent them from being released after the trial, which resulted in an $18.5m punitive judgment against the Boy Scouts of America, the largest finding ever against the Scouts in a sex case jury trial. An impressive piece of investigative reporting by the Oregonian during the trial documents numerous incidents where Scout officials allowed known abuse to continue. They ignored reports about William E Tobiassen, a longtime Scout leader with sons of his own, for more than two years. The abuse was only exposed "when the teenagers told a counselor and then police what had happened. Even then, internal memos show, the Scouts executive overseeing Tobiassen didn't want to ban him from scouting until there were formal charges." Oregon has no law mandating Scouts to report their suspicions to authorities (in contrast to teachers, doctors and others), and national headquarters was quick to advise the Oregon Scouts of their legal right to keep that information confidential. Not coincidentally, secret files obtained by the Oregonian during its investigation show no record of Scout leaders alerting authorities to adults suspected of sexually abusing youth in at least 11 other instances. There are remarkable similarities between the Boy Scouts' and the Roman Catholic church's handling of the sexual abusers in their midst. Both institutions documented numerous instances of abuse, failed either to discipline the adults involved or alert the authorities, and then decided, as the church did in 2002, at the height of its own sexual abuse scandal, that gays were the problem. Which brings us closer to the heart of the matter. Ignore all of the Scouts' official mumbo-jumbo about the (unidentified) leaders who comprised the special committee of top Scout leaders that made this decision, especially the part about their alleged "diversity of perspectives and opinions". As the LA Times notes, what's really happening here is a business decision about the organization's sustainability, driven by the influence of two of the Scouts' most powerful benefactors: the Roman Catholic and Mormon churches. About 400,000 of the 2.7 million members left in the dwindling organization, "belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", which "encourages members to become involved in the Boy Scouts, and has its own section on the Boy Scouts of America webpage. Counter-balancing the homophobia and financial clout of the Roman Catholic and Mormon churches are the ***-friendly policies and financial clout of board members like Ernst & Young and AT&T, both of which have expressed their reservations with the Scouts' ongoing anti-*** policies. As in all politics, when the importance of continuing to receive such sponsors' money outweighs the churches' clout, the Scouts' policy will change. Good luck with that, boys. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/18/politics-behind-boy-scouts-america-anti-***-ban

Hmmm...Ok. Let's see where we are. I've agreed that a private organization should be able to do what it wants. Really, check my second post. So I'm not argument that. Promise to God I've also shown scientific evidence that G are no more likely to molest children than straight people. I've also said that if G acts in non acceptable behavior, they should I've also shown that G men checking out straight guys is kind of how women feel around guys. And we put up with it every day. Welcome to our world. Boys will be Boys, whether they are G or straight. And finally, I've shown that G & L have to put up with a lot more social "grief" in a straight world than vice versa. But will all that, the only thing I keep hearing is Yea...but we have the right to have exclusive clubs. Yea...well...I got it..see my first sentence. Just because you have the right, doesn't mean that it's a good idea. To be honest, and I don't mean to be mean spirited, but I know I'm addressing an older crowd. You guys aren't up for this level of change. Ok...that's fine. But I can tell you most (not all) men and women my age would laugh at this thread..they have NO problem with G. So in another 10 years, this won't be but a small foot note in the march to equality for everyone.

Wow..you DID come up with something creative afterall. Normally, these types of arguments conclude that I’m either: ignorant, stupid or evil. But you have come up with another trick of the hand, saying that my values aren’t sincere and therefore are meaningless (as in they don’t exist) to you. Kewl…that means I now get to dabble into the thorny area of ontology: the philosophical study of what it means for something to exist. And what excellent timing, as I was just leaning about this in my physics class. It seems it is human nature to keep going back to the same rules, standards, behavior that has worked for you in the past. So what you are saying, is that you hold such things as loyalty and patriotism in high esteem. It also appears that authority is not to be questioned in your book. Hmmm…well, I guess that does leave us on different sides of the tails of the bell shape curve. I on the other hand question everything..including myself. I specifically question authority, I live for adventure, and I’m deeply curious in almost everything. What makes things tick? If I may digress for a moment, just this morning I was reading about physics, evolutionary behaviorism and free will. There is actually a line of study that believes that there is NO free will. That is, before you make a conscious decision, your biology mechanisms have already decided for you. It really is no different than instinct. To illustrate an example: A lady wakes in the middle of the night and discovers that she is thirsty. So she wanders down to the refrig and has a look about regarding her options. She settles on either orange juice or apple juice. Unsure if they are both still consumable (as in not spoiled), she takes a whiff of each. When she takes a whiff of the apple, the aroma sets a subconscious memory in motion of a romantic picnic that she once had in an apple orchard with an old lover. This brings back happy memories that set off endorphins and various chemicals like oxytocin and vasopressin. These are feel good chemicals…and it is little doubt that she decides to pick the apple juice. All this takes place without her even consciously knowing why. Pretty amazing. So, in the end, Francie, it appears that these values of yours have served you rather well. And while my life hasn’t been as long (or shall we say as deep??) as yours, I think mine has been more than likely broader. And no, I’m not going to get into a blow by blow argument on that point. I’m simply saying we both live by our own standards. So be it. One final bit, regarding your argument regarding patriotism and how no “real” American would question their Government’s authority. What about our Founding Fathers? Such men as Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, and Madison? Did they not deviate from Mother England’s authority? Did they not question the Governments ways? Didn’t they even start a revolution against their Government? But then again, maybe they weren’t “real” American either in your book? You know...just saying.

Renee..you know I luv ya...but if you think YOU as a straight person get tired of *** people shoving (pun not intended I hope) things down your throat...think what it’s like for me as a lesbian to live in a primarily straight world? Really…honestly, think about it…how often do you actually deal with any thing dealing with *** or the *** lifestyle in your average daily life? Other than this site..really, when do you ever run into it? Now, as a h o m o…guess how many times I run into ideology that doesn’t accept my “unnatural” way of life? I bet I have a just a tad bit more bumps in my road than you do Sister.

joe...the first part of your post reminds me of the woody allen quote that went something like: I can't prove there isn't a God, you'll just have to take it on faith. Tiff

OMG...those are so funny...and true. My father scared the bejeebies out of my dates (and yes I did date boys at one time). He had a whole routine he'd go thru...about having shovels and 40 acres out back. and that I was to only go on dates to places with lots of lights AND nuns. I'll have to send these on to him! Thanks for sharing!

Sorry snookie..my bad, I can indeed see where it's implied that I was talking about a child, but I meant that if a G couple enroll their child in the SBA, that the parent(s) should be allowed to be leaders. Just because one or both isn't a blood relative is moot, that is why I brought up adoption. I know we were sooo close to coming to a compromise BUT...pandora's box just slip open a bit with the reference to private organizations. May I try a different approach? The KKK is a private organization also...so I guess Blacks and G shouldn't be allowed to join them as well, right? Oops..silly me...that is because they specifically don't like Blacks and Gays. Hmmm...when you kind of think about it...BSA must not like G either? Where does one draw the line? I've proven that gays arent a threat to little Jim Bob and Billie Joe. And that G men CAN abide by the rules and keep their paws off each other when told to. So...what exactly is there left to get one's knickers in a twist over?

Barb...Thank you for your reply..which to be absolutely honest...was a good one. I can respect that. Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. To be honest, when I first read this passage, I couldn't phantom why an all power entity that could create this: would be so fixated on removing human waste in his way. But with your insight, I can see it is a way of providing homage to the Creator...which does indeed make sense. BTW I have other questions that I'd like to ask, would you be up to it? They are question about specific passages that trouble me and I would like to request someone knowledgeable in the Bible to provide some clarity, such as you have done on this one.

I agree. We ARE probably more alike than either of us can imagine. Believe it or not I HATE freeloaders...but I also think it is a mature society that takes care of those less fortuante. BTW, I really don't think of myself as a "liberal", instead I like to think of myself as someone that cares about the welfare of others, especially ones that haven't been as fortuante as I have. I really believe I'm one of the luckiest people on the planet. And in turn, thank you for the reasonableness in your response as well. I rarely have problems with men, because they can see the logic behind my debates. Like you, not that they agree, but they can at least see where I come up with my beliefs. Women on the otherhand...well, some on this site would like to push me over a cliff. Catch up to you on another thread Chris till then...be good!

Pumpkin...you are using that well know male "selective" hearing (ok, in this case reading) again. I DID address why G leaders shouldn't be banned, I didn't say anything about children of G parents not being able to attend BSA. P.S. Spiders are no problem...now snakes....yea, I want a big 270lb linebacker around to help me with those babies!