Judge outlaws prison group's Bible program

It seems that way to me too.

I took every earth science elective I could get my grubby fingers on in school, and then in college as well.

Geology, both physical and historical. Biology. Marine Biology. Chemistry. Meteorology. Astronomy. Paleontology and archaeology courses, and so forth. Never once was I told abiogenesis was a fact, and it came up, from time to time, or was a part of the curriculum, in most of those courses.

I suppose, when one is fundamentally opposed (and probably afraid) of something - misrepresenting the reality of it is a common tactic.

The fact is YES - if one states that abiogenesis is a FACT, then that is taking a leap of faith. But that's not what is happening.

Furthermore, ID presupposes an intelligent life form behind the existence of the cosmos and all within it, which is exclusionary and likely offensive to those who adhere to religions which do not believe in an intelligent creator.

And yes Kevn, I did address your points in my last post to you - you chose to conveniently ignore them and snip one portion you felt you had the upper hand on and respond to it. It's an obvious method which you employ a lot.

aside from Constitutional issues you mean?

yes. She did. It's illegal to kill children, Kevn.

Here it comes...

You may feel very natural about showering with homosexuals, but most straight men don't. It's your morality being pushed if you insist straight men shower with homosexuals.

Enforcing your morality is just as bad as enforcing any one's morality.

But if we must choose a moral basis, we will usually gravitate to the morals of the majority. It may not seem fair, but that's how it works in a democracy.

As for the term gay. I normally use "homosexual", but when there are homosexuals in the discussion using "gay", I use it too.

Who is to say when they are children?

You think it's the Government. I think that's an apalling notion.

Why don't most straight men feel natural about it?

The influence of bigoted religion and archaically thinking parents.

So establishing unisex showers now (as women showering seperately is actually another extension of "seperate but equal" or showers that provide privacy instead of community showers is the answer. I'd opt for the second. It doesn't take long to duckblind a shower, so even the bigoted can feel comfortable.

The Constitution says nothing about the Army. It restricts Congress, not the Army... "Congress shall make no law...." etc ...

You realize that the Constitution is what the.....oi...nevermind....Cindy can explain this in a manner that doesn't reflect my abject disgust with you at this point.

Are you in a stupid post contest? Cos you would so win.

I found this part extremely amusing. "You may feel natural" shooting and killing other people, but most men don't. Yet that's the morality that the army forces upon all its recruits. Heck, the morals of the majority consider killing to be a bad thing, but I guess when it's in great numbers it's ok...

p.s. I have no problems, nor do I take offence, with the word "gay." It's much easier to type out than "homosexuality," plus "homosexuality" makes it seem like sex is a big part of it. We decorate houses and arange flowers too, you know

Kevn, would you feel comfortable in a public shower with a mixed group of straight men and gay men?

Some of us. I think I would loose my membership card if pictures of my apartment ever got back to the council.

"Gay" is fine. I think what I find offensive is in the plural noun, and others do too. "Gays" is usually the pluralized "A Gay", like someone would refer to something of a different species. Now tell me you haven't been offended when someone said, "OMG, you're a gay?"

Allow me to stand up and say, I don't give a damn what you call me. It's a word. It has no power over me if I don't let it.

That's because of their moral phobias Kevn. Gay men don't join the military to try and hook up with straight guys. I was in the Army, knew of and showered with gay men, and it didn't bother me a bit. I am straight. It had nothing to do with my morals. It had everything to do with the fact that I was about 99.999% sure they weren't in the shower (or in the Army) to try and hook up with me. It's about not letting irrational fear rule the day. It's also called not being prejudiced.

On a side-note - I always cringe when I think about the guys in high school who refused to shower at all with other guys - "Because that's just 'gay'." Idiots.

If that makes you feel better about you, yes, I am.

Yes, but the people who use those words exert their power over you by limiting you legally. They use those words to control that limitation by ensuring it's perpetuation. By permitting their use without resistance, we would perpetuate a problem that is already outstaying it's welcome.

I preffer "gays" to "homos."
And no, haven't been offended. Usually because it's in the context of, "OMG! You're gay? SQUEEEEE! ^.^" type stuff. Usually from girls...

oh, wait, "a gay?" hasn't really happened. Usually it's "a fag" or "a homo." Never "a gay."

I think this was "I know you are but what am I", but....I'm not sure, it doesn't make sense.

I live in the American south. It's frightfully common.

A lot of gays are also hardcore computer geeks, with messed up rooms, no fashion or hygene sence, and who have pottet plants with dried soil that hasn't been watered in years. It's just that those gays typically don't come out of their rooms, so aren't seen.

Or, by complaining, I sound like a whiny bitch who can't stand up to them.

I allow them *nothing*. That's the point. Anything they get from me they have to wrest from my clutches, and then after a fight. I will NOT let them take the language away from me.