DanKroh

eghiglie, They may have gotten it from this 10-year-old: http://www.arktimes.com/articles/articleviewer.aspx?ArticleID=2f5d7a3b-c72a-446b-8d20-3823aa79c021 He's been making the rounds on the news the last couple of days.

Actually, I believe many of the requests for banning involve children's books. I wonder if everyone will still be in such harmonious agreement over the repugnance of banning books when it is "King and King", "Daddy's Roommate" or "Tango Makes Three" in their local library's children's section? Here is a great response from a librarian about a request to ban a book that a patron felt did not belong in the children's section of the library: http://jaslarue.blogspot.com/2008/07/uncle-bobbys-wedding.html

"I could be wrong, but I don't think the White House has a YouTube site, so I take the story to mean they are trolling public pages and collecting and archiving comments posted, as well as who posted them (and no telling what else). No problem with that?" Brent, from the article: "The proposal issued Aug. 21 calls for a contractor to "crawl and archive" social-networking Web sites where the White House maintains an official presence on seven networks: Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo and Slideshare." So it would seem they do have an "official presence" on YouTube. Wasn't hard to find. Went to YouTube and searched on "white house". First result is "The White House (The Official Channel of the White House)". http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse?blend=1&ob=4 I got nothing out of that article that they are "trolling public pages" for comments.

Um, excuse my probable ignorance, but isn't the White House *required* to archive any communication it receives? And wasn't that the whole kerfuffle behind the deleted emails a while back? I'm with Gern, if you communicate with the White House, you are silly to expect it not to be archived. That is, of course, assuming they are only talking about official White House sites, and not sites/pages of random users (which is what the posted snippet actually says, unless something more is buried in the story). vol_scouter, if you want to see righteous indignation about President Obama, all you have to do is look at a few sites dedicated to LGBT issues. His failure to repeal DOMA and DADT has not gone unnoticed or uncommented upon.

"i'm so glad this was used as the example. i've not read further into this thread, but this same proud declaration by a 3 year old.... you've got people running around declaring that they've known from their earliest memories that they were gay. this is accepted as "fact", yet a child making any sort of religious declaration is considered preposterous?" Bulldogblitz, first of all, I didn't say "any religious declaration", but in particular, an acceptance of Jesus as their savior. I know many adults who don't really understand what that means, but a 3-year-old does? I could imagine a 3-year-old expressing a conviction that some sort of sky god created the world; she is looking at the evidence around her and thinking "someone made this", ok, that's developmentally feasible. But a concept as abstract as salvation of the soul by a man whose last appearance was 2000 years ago? Not so much. And yes, an adult (or near adult) who recognizes that even at 3, the seeds were there for homosexuality, is much, much different than a 3-year-old declaring "I'm gay". See that much, do you? I gotta tell you, 15 years into my practice, can't say I have. Controversy aside, evidence does point to homosexuality being a state that is determined prior to birth. Please point out any evidence, any at all, that indicates the same about religious convictions. Sorry, but it's imitation and parroting, nothing more.

Dutch oven "black forest cake": Use a liner in the dutch oven and some water under the liner to keep the cake moist. Use a can of cherry pie filling either on top of the cake batter, or put in half batter, filling, then other half of batter, I've tried it done both ways.

"This is the way other denominations have managed to exclude gays from ministry without actually coming out and saying it, "Gee, to ordain you, if you're in a relationship, you have to be married - you're not, so that solves that, now doesn't it?"" Hey Vicki, how you doing? Yep, this is going to start becoming a sticky wicket for those denominations, isn't it, as more states begin supporting marriage equality? Not that they don't have the right to control who they wish to ordain, but they are going to have to come right out and say it now, and not have this easy out. one further note about promiscuity and marriage. Heterosexual marriage does not automatically exclude promiscuity, any more than homosexuality automatically includes it. (Just ask Mrs. Sanford.) What was that OGE mentioned about judging individuals on their own merits?

Bacchus, Who said they were unmarried? Or at least in a civil union? Or if they live in state where neither of those options are open to them, is it their fault that their commitment cannot be legally recognized? Or are Florida couple Caroline Leto and Venera Magazzu promiscuous because they have been in a committed relationship for 70 years without the benefit of marriage? http://tiny.cc/u4xZh

vol_scouter, I agree that we are probably not far off on this subject. I will admit that I probably have a bit of a hair trigger when I start seeing TG people referred to as "confused" because that is often part of the transphobic rhetoric that is used to invalid the medical nature of what TG people are going through. However, I can see that was not your intent. "As to the medical versus psychiatric issues, I believe from my reading and experience that some people are born as one sex but have conditions that are not yet identified that causes them to see themselves as something different. I believe that in the future these condition will be identified. Whether they will be considered pathological or normal variation will likely be determined by all kinds of pressures present at the time they are discovered." Some very preliminary work has been done in this area, and the current theory stemming from that work is that the brains of these individuals develop characteristics of the opposite gender, in utero, most likely due to maternal hormonal influences. But it is merely a theory. Also, there is a distinction between TG and intersex, the latter being people with genetic (kleinfelter, etc) or hormonal (such as AIS) variations that cause their gender to be ambiguous. But both groups are considered to have medical conditions, and are treated as such. "That said, I also believe that some individuals act in certain ways for shock value and other psychological issues." Yes, which is why anyone who wishes to transition must undergo rather intensive psychological evaluation first, before any doctor following the standard of care will begin treatment. Treatment of TG and intersex conditions is a rather specialized field, which the average MD (especially a GP) may not have anything more than a passing familiarity with. So I'm not trying to make any slight on you or your qualifications as an MD, and I apologize if I made it sound that way.

Pack, of course you are right that trangender and intersex conditions are extremely complicated. Made more so by the interjection of prejudice by people who think they should be able to have a say in how anyone outside of the binary expresses their gender-identity. (Not here, just in general.)

"It points out how complicated these issues can become. In the case of testicular feminization caught early, the person has a vagina, looks, and acts like a female." Not all individuals suffering from androgen insensivity syndrome (the correct name for the intersex condition you are referring to here) decide to have reassignment surgery. So it's even more complicated than you present. "Unfortunately, many of the other transgender, et cetera folks are confused. The confusion is too often obvious." Again, your opinion. There is a standard of care for transgender people, and referring to them as "confused" is not part of that. "My children are grown, but as a parent, I do not want to go to scouts (Boy or Girl) with a child and have to try to explain issues that they are not mature enough to deal. Scouting is not and should not be a way for people who are confused to find their identities. It is a place to help young men and women to mature into sucessful, productive, and moral citizens. If scouting lacks its standards, at least in my area there will be no one left to make a council." Yeah, because someone with a medical condition that is often considered by many to be a type of birth defect obviously lacks moral standards.... Again, you are making a prejudgement about all transgender people based on your personal biases. How exactly is Scouting a way to "find their identity"? It's not. They do that through counseling, and if warranted, medical transition. They may incidently be (or wish to be) involved in scouting because of their children. But you are trying to make some sort of weird connection here that just doesn't exist. Unless the person in question is involved in scouts *during* their transition (which I would not recommend), there is nothing to explain. The person is male or the person is female now (post-transition). What their birth gender may or may not have been is no more anyone's business than private parts of the woman I mentioned in my previous post is the business of her coworkers.

"So, if a person who has a Y-chromosome but develops with female characteristics enters a relationship with a 'normal' male, is this 'gay'? If a guy decides to have 'the operation' and operationally becomes a woman, and marries a guy, is this 'gay'? I'd really like BSA to clarify on these things. I've asked this before, but do those members whose homophobia is so strong advocate karyotypes or other genetic tests, perhaps jsst to be sure?" Pack, you jest (I hope), but the sad thing is, you would not believe (or maybe you would) some of the things that trangender people get asked to submit to everyday. I am currently reading the story of a transwoman who is being asked to have her private parts examined and photographed, and that photo displayed to all the other women in her workplace in order to retain her job where she must change her shoes in a locker room with all those other women. BTW, the term you are looking for that describes someone whose karyotype matches their gender identity is "cis-gender".

"Maybe, but what's the point really in saying so??" Because I want to compliment Sherminator on his clarity of writing and civility of speech. Is there something wrong with that, FScouter?

Lisabob, my sons' school has also instituted service hours as a graduation requirement, and they have been slowly ramping it up over the last couple of years. I believe the first class that this applied to had to have 20 hours (over their 4 years of high school). My oldest needs 50 (he will be a sophomore this year). I'm not sure what their final number will be. My experience so far is that his scouting service hours will be approved by the school, but not all the hours that the school counts will be approved by scouts. For instance, he volunteers in the school library. The school counts that, but I'm not sure if scouts will accept it. Of course, the number of hours for scouting is quite a bit less than the school requirement, so it hasn't really been an issue. I think they should be able to count the same service hours for as many organizations as need them (scouts, school, NHS, etc.) because if we started having them be mutually exclusive, some of these kids wouldn't have time for much else in their lives.

But Lisa, we already have jackets for being bad parents. I think this definitely calls for some sort of fancy hat to go with it. (a swishy beret, perhaps?) Come on in, pack, you are more than welcome. Sherm, nicely put, thank you for expressing what I have just been too gobsmacked to say clearly.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

oh, I can't let the show tunes pass without a selection from Avenue Q. "If you were gay That'd be okay. I mean 'cause, hey, I'd like you anyway. Because you see, If it were me, I would feel free To say that I was gay (but I'm not gay.)"

"I fear for the future of the Scouting program I hold so dear." So do I, so do I. But for entirely different reasons. I'd be proud to be lumped in with the likes of Lisabob, and Trevorum for that matter. Nice company! Who wants pie?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Nah, it's much less morally and ethically taxing to demonize anyone who disagrees with you with pigeon-hole labeling rhetoric than to actually consider the idea that you've said something so universally ignorant and bigoted that anyone with an ounce of integrity is going to call you out. Smells like troll to me.

"While I do not go out of my way to bash gay people, and normally it is a non issue. But if they set themselves up, you have to take a shot. If the gay person in question is not wearing makeup, girls clothes, or using a pronounced lithp, I wouldn't take any shots. But if they combine any of the above I have no choice. " I wonder if that is what Lawrence King's classmate thought, right before he "took a shot"? As far as the OP goes, I have to agree with Lisabob. And I'm still wishing that the "ignore user" function actually worked.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Ok, thanks, basasm, for clarifying your statements.

Pack, I've read enough of Trevorum's post to know when he has tongue planted firmly in cheek. And I also understand your urge to keep the peace. However, I am truly curious about bamasm's pov about what he thinks is the appropriate action to understand who Jesus is/was and what he is/was all about. For me, I was raised in a Protestant Church (very actively), read and studied the Bible on a regular basis, and spent a great deal of my time in contemplation of the creative force in the universe. However, in the end, I decided that the kind of "personal relationship" with Jesus that is advocated by people of faith like bamasm was not for me. If he thinks there is something more I should have done before discounting this relationship, I would like to know what it is.

"I don't assume that you are not a chrisitan because you don't know." Ok. Then can you please explain how this statement: "if you want to compare Jesus to Alexander the great, or Lugh the celtic sun god or whomever, at least find out what the guy was about" doesn't assume that I (or Trev, who is quite learned on religion in my experience) don't know what Jesus "was about"? If you are advising others to find out about something, doesn't that assume that they *don't* know about it as an implied condition? Also, can you please explain what you think is the appropriate way to "find out what the guy was about"? "These are 3 very different people and things, what really gets me is how Jesus was a Lamb his time here, but at the very meniton of his name people get so defensive." Not defensive here, but I will say that there is a big difference between Jesus and his followers. And I'm just curious whether you follow your own advice about getting to know what a religion/religious figure is all about? (And referring to Lugh as "the celtic sun god" says to me, not so much.) "The whole point was, find out who the real Jesus is, don't base it on what you hear, or see from TV, or some sunday morning church goer." Again, can you be more specific about how you think that should be done?

Thanks, Brent. I had also found a reference for it at PolitiFact (which is quickly becoming one of my favorite sources, because they don't seem to hesitate to call bull on anyone) and they have more details about the confusion: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/12/barack-obama/obama-goes-too-far-when-he-says-health-reform-bill/ "Just a few weeks ago, on July 14, the AARP issued a press release gushing about the introduction of the House health care reform bill saying, "This bill would make great strides for all of our members and their families." The group said it was pleased with the legislation for giving "every American has access to affordable, quality health care choices."" So it sure seems like they were for it before they were against it. So, yeah, this is a prime example of how misinformation can be generated. Thanks, Brent. SA, no, the man I was talking about was William Kostric, who was in compliance with the letter of the law in NH. But I'm not at all surprised that there were more.

Thanks, Hal, for the link. btw, it was scoutldr who quoted that study, not Brent.

Brent, source, please? Scoutldr, I'm not sure what "reform" in Mass they are talking about. There has been no "reform" that I have experienced other than to require that everyone have insurance or be penalized on their taxes. The system itself has not changed for me, or the vast majority of the privately insured in Mass. "Only 35% say US is heading in the right direction" I'm curious on a date for that. The number have changed dramatically even within the last few months, and it is hard to keep track. The latest polls I've seen, it was split about 50/50, and still on an upward slope. When you are climbing up from 24% at this same time last year, 35% is an improvement. Context is everything. "Our representatives are NOT representing the will of the people." Well, actually, it seems that the problem is that the government is not representing the will of a very loud minority of the people, those who feel they "lost" in the last election. It is interesting to look at polls when they show partisan split, because the numbers are so drastically different.