Mr. Boyce

. . . ahh, very nice! Honestly, if kilts start getting issued, the next push will be for lederhosen. "Reflects an honorable heritage", and all. . .

The next scout shirt I buy, I'll take to the tailor and have the loops taken off so it looks better. Don't care for them and they serve no real purpose.

If I'm no mistaken, the origin of Oklahoma's concern lies in the cases taking place in England, where there is a definite demand for sharia law. Don't content yourself believing those troubles will stay overseas.

You can wear your kilt. . . I'll wear my breechcloth.

You can wear your kilt. . . I'll wear my breechcloth.

that's stating the obvious. No one misses that point. It IS debatable whether marriage is a right at all, let alone a right held by an INDIVIDUAL. But let's rush to judgment on this! We've got enough wealth as a society that we can clean up the big subsequent messes.

Here's something for the kilt crowd, a little song about Scottsman Tom Weir, adventurer:

My two cents? We're rushing this issue. Society needs to more critically examine homosexuality, before we rush to embrace it as acceptable behavior. Too much is unknown, and there are strong suggestions that it's a problematic action. And of course, it's clear there are religious injunctions against it. BUT heck, in America, nobody ever wants to say "no" to anything for fear of being considered mean.

The problems with textbook costs include: great competition in textbooks. So publishers have to constantly "update" even basic stuff, in order to appear relevant. textbook committees. School teachers, gym teachers, etc., who made a consensus decision. This favors just keeping much of the same.

I'm probably going to buy one. I'm a fan of the neckerchief, always will be.

With society so divided on this issue, for so many different reasons, it still seems very, very strange to me that activists want to press their claims onto everyone by law. Why not present reasoned, scientifically-based arguments, instead of having courts IMPOSE a decision upon the people? I know and study politics, and I find the homosexual activists very---extremely--- egregious in what they do.

I'm just curious what particular molecule triggers the thing. THAT should be figured out by now, one supposes.

Frankly, I'm frightened to see this idea of kilts is still kicking around. Life's tough enough. . .

I think it's interesting that we are told to "set aside" or "discount" values when making political choices. Politics is deeply about values. Some of these values come from philosophical sources (e.g., Kantian egalitarianism) and some from religious sources (e.g., Koran). The lurking argument in this view is this: the system will fall apart ("hey, a big catastrophe!") UNLESS we made a prior agreement to withhold actualizing some portion of our moral beliefs. To my mind, it's okay if a person wants to believe he should vote on the basis of his selfish evolutionary concerns (i.e., views himself simply as another animal on the planet) or if he wants the Brotherhood of Mankind or if he wants the Prophet's Ideals realized. I think it's illicit to say only certain values can be acted by voters upon when deciding to vote. Real votes should reflect real people and their real values, not constrained.

The problem with the public discussion about homosexuality comes from the fact that people ONLY tend to rely on legal concepts. The "discipline" of psychology seems unable to come to a consensus about homosexuality. (Yes, I know of the great political pressure that caused the psychiatric manual to redefine homosexuality: does a public vote held under severe duress ever really make science?"). People have been trained for at least one generation now to discount their moral and religious views as (somehow) illegitimate bases for one's political views. People also have been trained NOT to cause dissension with others around them: it's "inappropriate" or impolite or incorrect to disagree. . . especially when a political difference can merely be papered over with contrivances paid for by government. We can buy as many "rights" as we need, to avoid unpleasant disagreement. I'm not a little disgruntled that our majestic universities, funded with millions of dollars, are unable to really shed light on homosexuality and pedophilia. Science hasn't provided much in the way of answers. I ALSO question deeply the notion that people are unable to control their sexual behavior, even as extreme a behavior as homosexual actions. Human beings have rationality, and consciousness, and are quite different from animals when it comes to matters of moral concern. We can restrain ourselves.

. . can I just say I'm getting AWFULLY tired of all the gay stuff. They hurt their cause with the constant annoying BS.

An immediate and large drop in membership would occur, due to concerned parents, etc.

There is a lot of general public confusion about this new allergy. I'm one of the confused. How come none of my classmates in elementary school, high school, etc., weren't falling down right and left? Is this something entirely new?

. . . wow, it's really amazing to be that a divinity school AND an ostensibly Christian denomination would deny the divinity of Christ!

I admire those who served out of personal commitment in the US military; in retrospect, I wish I had. However, I feel that for every person who might be attracted to a military-esque BSA, you would probably chill away two others. . . who might not like the notion. The BSA is about the outdoors.

the important thing is to not let yourself get fat in the first place.

Times change. Back when I was a scout, there was next to no pressure on scouts for advancement. It was self-initiated. Parents didn't care about ranks.

I think it's VERY illegitimate for a sport or activity to claim kids must be there 100% of the time, or have mandatory attendance. This is just a bad way to run a program. The worst offenders are the people running kids sports, who stroke their egos by trying to get a winning record as a coach. Kind of as proof of one's manhood. Kids should be free to go, or not go, as they choose.

Thanks much folks.

OK: I just read below and I understand the president's printed signature is on the Eagle cert.