DanKroh

"However, heterosexuals by definition do not have homosexual relationships with youth of the same sex unless it is a crime of violence. So it is either bisexual or homosexual if it is pleasure motivated. For those reasons, the ban makes sense to me." There is a reason people indigenous to the polar regions have so many words for snow. Unfortunately, our vocabulary for describing the variety of sexual relationships is not nearly so rich. Do not confuse same-gender sexual relation between a youth and an adult with what happens between two consenting adults of the same gender that we cu

"Gay bowel syndrome was described as a health issue in homosexual men well before AIDs was first being discovered by observing Kaposi's sarcoma in young homosexual men." "Gay bowel syndrome" is another one of Paul Cameron's legacies. It is not a medical term, and has been abandoned and debunked by gastroenterologists. One journal wrote about it in 1997, "It is apparent that Gay Bowel Syndrome is an essentialized category of difference that is neither gay-specific, confined to the bowel, nor a syndrome." "Male homosexuals in the typical American homosexual lifestyle have higher rates

"You may be a moderate but your sources are decidedly conservative." Yes, that would be the same Tradition Values Coalition listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.

" I am a decided political moderate but it IS disturbing to see the tendency among liberals of simply running away from facts. Or pooh-poohing them. Study this issue further, and you'll be surprised at the amount of slant, cant and studied ignorance of facts by our media outlets: they always feel happier selling a "let whatever happen" view." As opposed to the anti-gay faction, who like to distort and misrepresent statistics and perform bad science and pass it off as legitimate. That is, when they run out of ways to ignore actual scientific evidence (vs. "facts" which are no doubt full of

I think we need something similar to Godwin's Law for scouting: When your reach the point where your only response is to tell the person to quit scouting, then you have lost the debate.

Sorry for the delayed response; just got back from summer camp. Mr. Boyce writes: "If you want to attack it, attack the argument being made, not the author." Well, since all of Jeff Satinover's non-scientifically supported opinion piece is based on the incorrect premise that "In any case, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the behavior "homosexuality" is itself directly inherited," then I will just present this: From twin studies (Bailey and Pillard, 1991): 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual 22% of fraternal (dizygoti

"(1) You never showed that Cameron is the author of the study. You have tried to prove that Cameron is discredited by his peers, but this doesn't matter beans if Cameron is not the fellow cited in the Ziegler book. I just don't know. So your note lacks sting." Nope, and never claimed I did. I said it was most likely, since that is the ultimate source of those claims. Pretty much every writer quotes "scientific evidence" to support these claims about homosexuality can ultimately be traced back to Cameron (including the ones you espouse, about violence, shortened lifespan, etc). I don't hav

"It would also be worth knowing---if it did turn out to be the Cameron one mentioned--just WHO and HOW the study was discredited. This being 2009, I have seen many instances where a study opposing one person/group's views was loudly proclaimed to be "discredited" . . . upon questionable grounds." WHO: 1983: The American Psychological Association on ethics violations 1984: Nebraska Psychological Association 1985: The American Sociological Association 1996: The Canadian Psychological Association HOW: Here is an excellent summary of the methodology flaws in Cameron's work: htt

"Hans Ziegler's book on scouting contains reference to research that shows homosexuals more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. . . but he is not the original researcher." Almost guaranteed, he is using Paul Cameron's discredited work, since it is the only "study" I know of that supports this. Published by the aforementioned Family Research Institute (founded by Cameron). "It would be interesting to see the original study, and determine what aspects of homosexual behavior made homosexuals more amenable to this deviant behavior. We know, for instance, that as a group homosexua

"I don't know what sources these would be, but I'd like to." Sherminator, welcome to the discussion. However, beware of the sources you are likely to be cited to support this position. They are most likely articles written by discredited authors based on dubious information, and self-published without peer review, by organizations such as the Family Research Institute, which appears on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of hate-based organizations.

Brent, I believe that what you find unclear is how Cheney thinks that marriage equality should be implemented. And I agree, other than saying that he doesn't believe it should be done at the federal level, I have not seen any comments from him that illuminate how he thinks states should enact that equality. But that doesn't negate that he supports (and has since at least the 2004 election) the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry. His words on that are pretty clear, imo.

Well, here are the actual words that came *out* of his mouth (emphasis mine): "I think that freedom means freedom for everyone," replied the former V.P. "As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been

At our "graduation" ceremony, the boys going into their second year of Webelos get a (patrol) patch for the den emblem they have chosen. We've had some good ones, and luckily, some creative parents out there who made custom patches. The Flying Pigs is still one of my favorites.

Personally, I think it's incredibly poor taste to bring in stuff written in other settings and using it to attack people. Not to mention the whole googling people, borders on stalking. Yes, skeptic, everyone needs a hobby. Maybe you should find one that doesn't involve an unhealthy obsession with Merlyn. Or even better, why don't you give us *your* real name so someone who cares can google you?

I think judging all atheists by the vitriol of a strident few is a lot like judging all Christians by the standard of Fred Phelps. I've known a lot of atheists in my time, and most of them are happy, friendly people who don't give a lick if you believe in a sky god. But if you try to proselytize and tell them they are bad people because *they* don't believe in a sky god, yeah, then they tend to get their back up. And yet, Christians seems surprised when that happens. Because then the atheists are just griping. All righty then. And frankly, I put a lot more credence in the idea t

Twocubdad, talk about changing times These days "Two men, age 45, married, two kids, business owners, making $300k. One's a lawyer, one's a plumber" could be talking about one family. Not necessarily apropos of the discussion, just an observation.

Hi Calico, I was responding to the implication that somehow wanting to take a non-family member to a gender-specific parent function constituted "special treatment" and that my son must therefore be one of "these people" (whoever they are) wanting special treatment because he took a non-familial female to a Mom & Me dance at school. Frankly, such things happen all the time around here (along with non-familial males to Dad & Me stuff), and no one ever says boo about it or cries "special treatment" (perhaps the cries are lost in the fire & brimstone raining down on Massachu

"This is a perfect example of how these people want special treatment, not just equality. I have never heard any of the single, divorced, or widowed moms ask if they could send some other male friend to Dad & Lad in place of their sons' father." So my son is asking for special treatment when he wanted to take his favorite "auntie" (she's no actual relation, just a family friend) to the Mom and Me dance at his school? How very.

"It's their fault for bein' Catholic or Orthodox or whatever" Yes, it is. If I was a Quaker and wanted to be a police officer, would I be allowed to be one while being unwilling to touch a firearm? Some professions are just incompatible with some religious/moral/ethical beliefs. It should be the responsibility of those pursuing those professions to make sure they do not have a conflict, not the people who they are supposed to be serving. *Especially* if they are going to go into ">$120,000 in debt" in the process, as in vol_scouter's example. Vol_scouter, what you call "

So vol_scouter, during those "4 years of undergrad, 4 years of med school, and then 4 years of residency to become an Ob/gyn", it didn't occur to them that a specialty in Ob/Gyn might mean that they were asked to perform abortions? That maybe if such actions were "against their conscience", they might want to consider a different specialty? Why should their poor planning become the problem of their prospective patients?

"AUSCS and gays have attacked Scouting's use of public facilities as "public accommodations" instead of acknowledging them as appropriate taxpayer use." Umm, except, and do correct me if I'm wrong, the BSA is not a taxpaying organization.... Other than that, this statement is still an impressive piece of spin. No one is trying to stop scouting from using public facilities, however, it is illegal for scouting to get *special* access and other freebies that the rest of the *actual* taxpayers aren't privy to, when it is on the *actual* taxpayers' dollars. So does that mean that Rev

Personally, I feel slighted that we Unitarians aren't on the list. After all, we do have our own jihad: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/08/DDG27BCFLG1.DTL Signed, Brother Broadsword of Mild Reason (get your Unitarian Jihad name at http://www.whump.com/dropbox/other/ujname.html) Edited to add: Oh, wait, I guess we'd appear in the "Left Wing" memo put out by DHS in January: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/leftwing.pdf(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

To me, the inconsistency is not with the wording of the handful of individual verses that mention homosexuality, it's with the way some churches have chosen to fixate on those verses and elevate homosexuality above other things that really are harmful to our society. But then again, I'm with Trev. Don't really care what the Bible says, since it's not my religious book. "Because the Bible says so" is not a persuasive argument to me.

"Gay people have the same rights as anyone else." I remember reading something from the decision that says something to the effect that a homosexual person having the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is as distasteful to them as giving a heterosexual person the right to marry someone of the same sex. Imagine if you were told that the only way you could enter into marriage was to do it with someone of the same sex. Don't think you'd see a lot of heterosexual people flocking to sign up. Merlyn, excellent point about the anti-miscegenation laws.

Well, push ups certainly are hard on the wrists, so I guess that qualifies as carpal punishment. Sit ups are mostly hard on the back, so I'd call that lumbar punishment. Unless, of course, you meant corporal punishment?