"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:20:46 -0600, "PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net
wrote:

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so why must
Scouts change to accommodate those that choose atheism?

Yet another stupid, nasty, lying theist.

Did the moron "choose" not to believe in Santa Claus?

Well another educated response........not

Please explain where the lie is?

A person cannot CHOOSE to believe or not believe.


DOH !
Belief is a CHOICE, silly

If I ordered you to believe in leprechauns, could you do it?


Are you really this dumb ??

"PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net wrote in message
...
Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
"PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:20:46 -0600, "PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net
wrote:

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so why must
Scouts change to accommodate those that choose atheism?

Yet another stupid, nasty, lying theist.

Did the moron "choose" not to believe in Santa Claus?

Well another educated response........not

Please explain where the lie is?

A person cannot CHOOSE to believe or not believe.

If I ordered you to believe in leprechauns, could you do it?

Wow you really believe that people CAN'T choose what to believe? Your
faith in people is pretty shallow if that is true.

Ordering me to believe is not offering a choice, last time I looked in
Canada, there is nothing ordering me to believe or not to believe.

Many people are raised in a religion who go on to choose to reject those
beliefs and replace them with their own so did they not consciously choose
to believe in something other then what they were raised with?


Ditto for those who CHOOSE a faith


She's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article
,
harry wrote:

On May 24, 3:56 pm, Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:20:46 -0600, "PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net
wrote:

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so why must
Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Being queer is learned behaviour.

Educate yourself so you won't make such ignorant statements.


LOL
That's expecting harry to be smarter than you
After all, you are the one claiming that people can NOT CHOOSE to believe or
not.

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net wrote:

harry wrote:
On May 24, 3:02 pm, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
"PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net wrote
:









Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-scouts-vote-t
o- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts are
still a bigoted organization.

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so why must
Scouts change to accommodate those that choose atheism?

The BSA is per se a religious institution
so I don't know how they could be forced to
accept atheists.

The BSA is not religious.
It was invented in the UK primarily to prepare boys for service in the
imperial British army though it has changed since then.

Baden Powell emphasized God throughout his writing including the promise
and
the law

He also intend Scouting to develop good citizens from youth throught
activities and learning, teaching them to prefer service before self.

And atheists, based on what we see here on this group, are far more
moral than theists.


At least that's what atheists tell themselves
Too bad that in recent history, so-called atheists have ended up with the
blood of more innocent people in a single century, than can be ascribed to
theists during the know history of man.

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:46:29 -0400, Kurt Ullman

No, that is not what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of belief in any
gods.
Yeah, you don't believe in gods. A lack of belief, by definition, is
not believing.

Exactly.

What it is not is a belief that no god exists.


But that is EXACTLY the meaning of the word "atheist".
Maybe you should get a better dictionary.

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 13:34:35 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:46:29 -0400, Kurt Ullman


No, that is not what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of belief in
any
gods.
Yeah, you don't believe in gods. A lack of belief, by definition,
is
not believing.

I do not believe in any gods. That does not imply that I assert that no
gods exist.

So you want to have it both ways? Covering bases in case?
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized
there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there
wasn't an afterlife. -Douglas Adams


Repeating your claim does not make it true when your logic is not
valid.
Yet you seem to think your does.
The bottom line despite all of the semantics (including those of my
own) is that you have no way to prove that your lack of belief is any
more valid than any existing belief. Thus it is every bit as much of a
faith as any religion.
(actually from the view of the religious person it is probably a
braver one since if you are wrong you get to rot in whatever version of
hell is being used. If the religious person is wrong nothing happens and
he doesn't know about it after death.)


Oh, dear, big mistake bringing up the idiocy of Pascal's Wager.

There are not 2 choices, there are tens of thousands. What if you've
chosen the wrong god to believe in?


Pascal was not an animist believing that rocks and trees and streams were
inhabited by gods.
But thanks for demonstrating your abyssal ignorance AGAIN..

On May 24, 6:34*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:46:29 -0400, Kurt Ullman

No, that is not what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of belief in any
gods.

* *Yeah, you don't believe in gods. A lack of belief, by definition, is
not believing.

Let's go back to the valid definition of atheism, the lack of belief in
any gods. Where does that require evidence that any particular god does
not exist?

* * * *How does it do anything but? YOu are saying there are no gods.
Lack of gods mean they don't exist or there would be a god or two
floating around. I did not say anything about a particular god (thus the
lower case "g" to keep my high school English teachers happy-grin).
Until you can prove that there are no gods to believe, atheism is just
the mirror image of theism (with their own brand of fundamentalism).
--

You might apply that statement to the tooth fairy.
Or the flat earth.

God belief is just a con.
Why this con is not illegal as are other cons is beyond me.

On May 24, 6:53*pm, Father Haskell wrote:
On May 24, 12:50*am, harry wrote:









On May 24, 5:36*am, Jeanne Douglas wrote:

In article ,
*Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts are still
a bigoted organization.

--

JD

It's so the perverts/paedos of America can get better access to
potential victims.

Isn't that what the churches are for?

Yes but no stone is left unturned.
I wonder what monks wear under their habits?
Or do they go commando?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_commando

On May 24, 6:41*pm, "NotMe" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On May 24, 3:56 pm, Christopher A. Lee
wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:20:46 -0600, "PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net
wrote:

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so why must
Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?

Being *queer is learned behaviour.

And you know this ... how?

Obvious. It can't be genetic because they don't breed.
They would have died out years ago.

Hence fostering children to these perverts should be a criminal
offence.

On May 24, 7:33*pm, "Rob Wall" wrote:
In article 1









Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

The delegates ignored the historical membership of the boyscouts
which opposed the action by a 2 to 1 margin.

Faggots should all be put to death.

We need a pill to cure them. But their deviant behaviour should not be
encouraged.

On May 24, 8:52*pm, linuxgal wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 24, 3:56 pm, Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:20:46 -0600, "PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net
wrote:

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?

Being *queer is learned behaviour.

If being queer is learned behavior, then it follows that being straight
must also be learned behavior, since baby boys don't consistently get
erections when they are breast fed. So, Harry, please list the names of
all the men you considered to be potential sex partners but ultimately
rejected as you were learning to be straight.

If they were post pubescent they likely would.

Being queer is not genetic as they don't breed.

So either it is learned or possibly they have become ill.
Some industrial chemical they have been exposed to perhaps.

Eg oestrogen/similar chemicals now being found in drinking water.
Apparently some plastic food containers may cause problems.

On May 24, 9:00*pm, nestork wrote:
Rob Wall;3067623 Wrote:

Faggots should all be put to death.

So, if you round up all the faggots in the world, and put them in a big
sack and drown them in the river, does that mean that the next
generation won't have any faggots? *Nope, when heterosexual couples make
babies, some of those babies are baby faggots!

Despite the fact that two homosexual men or two homosexual women can't
reproduce, what you have there is a COMMON natural variation in the
human species. *Homosexuality has even been found to exist amongst
animals.

You see, the game plan is, and always has been this: *Mother Nature
keeps creating diversity amongst all living things, and natural
selection determines which of those changes it wants to keep. *The
result of all those small changes through history is called "Evolution",
and it's what makes each species better suited to survive in the
environment in which they live.

Homosexuality is just another example of natural diversity. *In the
grand scheme of things, it's not a step forward cuz two men or two women
cannot reproduce, but it is, nonetheless, a normal part of that same
overall game plan. *It's certainly not "evil", or the "work of the
Devil", it's just Mother Nature doing her thing.

--
nestork

The failures die out as would any society/species that produced too
many failures, so your theory does not hold water.

On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
harry wrote:

South Park, the educational TV satire, did an excellent episode on
the Boy Scouts and featured a character named "Big Gay Al" as the
scout leader. Â*He was an excellent role model, the kids enjoyed
learning under his guidance, and the parents were happy that their
kids were being taught well and having fun. Â*Then the upper
management discovered that "Big Gay Al" is a homosexual, and so
they kicked him out and replaced him with a masochistic and
apparently-straight man who started taking pictures of the children.

The contrast was well presented, and it seems the main point South
Park made overall was that discriminating against homosexuality
isn't a tactic that solves or prevents problems.

I'm surprised you take such propaganda/drivel seriously.

Near the end of many episodes the main characters summarize what they
learned. And they're honest about it too because there was at least one
episode in which they realized that they hadn't learned anything at all.

It is an attempt to influence your mind.
Succeeded apparently.

My having a mind would require proof of my existence, so you're
depending on a premise that has not been peer-reviewed.

But then Americans believe everything they see on TV/that comes from
Hollywood it seems.

Which Americans are you referring to?

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Screw you guys! I'm going home."
-- Eric Theodore Cartman

On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:11:43 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:46:52 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Tom McDonald wrote:

It's a start. I think a good start. But it's ultimately doomed to
either be expanded to allow gay leaders, or to go back to not
allowing openly gay youth as Scouts. As it stands, a gay young man
can be a great Scout until he turns 18, at which point he is,
what, not a great Scout?

I don't think so. Getting Eagle Scout, they can't take it away from
you, anymore than they could take away Bubba's status as a Rhodes
Scholar.

They can (at least for now) disallow you from being a scout leader. I
think they just screwed that pooch, though.

They're probably not ready to vote for beastiality practitioners yet.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"A pair of powerful spectacles has sometimes sufficed to cure a person
in love."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche

On May 25, 12:08*am, "PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 24, 3:02 pm, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
"PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net wrote
:

Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-scouts-vote-t
o- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts are
still a bigoted organization.

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so why must
Scouts change to accommodate those that choose atheism?

The BSA is per se a religious institution
so I don't know how they could be forced to
accept atheists.

The BSA is not religious.
It was invented in the UK primarily to prepare boys for service in the
imperial British army though it has changed since then.

Baden Powell emphasized God throughout his writing including the promise and
the law

He also intend Scouting to develop good citizens from youth throught
activities and learning, teaching them to prefer service before self.

When he invented scouts most of their activities were what we would
describe as para-military. Drills, marching, uniforms, shooting,
bushcraft, following orders in a militaristic hierarchy etc.
Preparing the little buggers for the army.
Not litterpicking and helping little old ladies across the road.
Back then we knew God intended us to kill heathens in order to
civilise them.

And it was God and the King/Queen.

harry wrote:
On May 24, 8:52 pm, linuxgal wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 24, 3:56 pm, Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:20:46 -0600, "PV" edrnouser@ spam
telus.net wrote:

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so why
must Scouts change to accommodate those that choose atheism?

Being queer is learned behaviour.

If being queer is learned behavior, then it follows that being
straight must also be learned behavior, since baby boys don't
consistently get erections when they are breast fed. So, Harry,
please list the names of all the men you considered to be potential
sex partners but ultimately rejected as you were learning to be
straight.

If they were post pubescent they likely would.

Being queer is not genetic as they don't breed.

So either it is learned or possibly they have become ill.
Some industrial chemical they have been exposed to perhaps.

Eg oestrogen/similar chemicals now being found in drinking water.
Apparently some plastic food containers may cause problems.

So when did you choose to be hetro? Don't be shy, date and year will be
fine.

Take your time


--
PV

In Pierre Trudeau, Canada has finally produced
a Prime Minister worthy of assassination.
- Irving Layton

On 5/24/2013 11:10 PM, Attila Iskander wrote:
"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 5/24/2013 8:20 AM, PV wrote:
Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-

lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts are
still a bigoted organization.

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so why must
Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?

If religion, or lack thereof, is a matter of choice, as are many other
things, why should Scouts single out one religious belief (i.e.
'None') for special disdain? The only relevant part of the Scout Law
that could conceivably come into play is the last Law, A Scout is
Reverent. There is nothing whatsoever keeping an atheist Scout or
Scouter from being reverent. Nothing at all.

So why the disbarring of atheist boys and men from Scouting?


Which group has disbarred atheist boys and men ?
Considering that most Scout groups are usually run though a church, it's
no surprise that most members are of that faith.

In my town growing up, there were three troops. Mine was in a mainstream
Lutheran church, and had boys from all religious affiliations. There was
no overt religiosity at all. Another troop was part of an extremely
conservative Lutheran church, and they were hyper-religious, compared to
any other troop I've ever known. The third troop met in a school and was
a lot like mine, except not as great. :-)

In working with other troops in my Council, I don't remember hearing of
any that were mostly composed of members of the faith of the church they
met in except the one I mentioned. They really stood out in that way.

I was involved with 2 scout groups in my life
One was run by the local Catholic Church, and thus was oriented to
Catholicism, since their Chaplain was Catholic and his church basement
was used.
The other was organized through 2 churches of the same Ethnic group.
One Catholic, the other Protestant (Calvinist).
Since the Jewish Community was too small to have their own synagogue,
the Jewish Children had the choice of joining either the Catholic or
Protestant troop.
A lot of activities alternated between the 2 Churches.
The Summer camp was held on property owned in common by the 2 Churches,
where the 2 Churches also held fund-raiser picnics during the summer months
During the Summer camp, the Catholic Priest and Calvinist Minister held
a common Sunday mass/service, And when a rabbi who spoke the language
showed up, he was always welcome to hold a Service on Saturday.
Attendance for the Scouts was mandatory for ALL services.

The Churches also used the same site for their fundraiser picnics, Just
about every member of the community irrespective of religious
affiliation, showed up
There was usually some really stiff competition between the ladies when
it came to traditional dishes.
There was also an annual Men's Picnic, where the men were responsible
for ALL the food, from appetizer to deserts. Typically the men's picnic
were very non-standard but traditional dishes, such as a spit roasted
steer, or wild goose hunter style. I clearly remember the year that the
men went hunting for moose, which was the main dish at the picnic
And the women were only allowed to enjoy being served and decide which
dishes would be the winners that year.
Over the span of 30+ years, this community was able to build 2 churches
and a synagogue, as well as a retirement home for their community.

So I just think back of the tolerance of that community for their
members and their
religious beliefs
And when I see the lack of tolerance shown by either theist or atheists,
I just have to shake my head.

Yup.

On 5/24/2013 11:15 PM, Attila Iskander wrote:
"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 5/24/2013 9:44 AM, linuxgal wrote:
Tom McDonald wrote:

Nope. They already had that access. Now the rules will be more strictly
enforced, and that will mean fewer straight pedophiles in Scouting.

If you must have pedophiles in Scouting, you probably want nothing but
straight pedophiles, in the Boy Scouts where they have no girls to
diddle, and also in the Girl Scouts where they have no boys to diddle.

It's a bit of a conundrum, for me at least, what to call adult males
who have sex with adult women, not adult men, but diddle little boys
and/or girls.

'Homosexual' isn't quite right. Neither is, I'll grant you,
'straight'. But I'm unsure what nomenclature to use when confronted
with the fact that the pedophiles I was aware of as a kid were all
adult males with wives and children, and who never, to my knowledge,
engaged in sex with other men.

AIUI, gay men are no more sexually attracted to young boys than
straight men are sexually attracted to young girls. That means that,
of course, some are; but I'm not aware of that happening at a
significantly greater rate with gays than with straights.

Sexuality is fascinating, and talking about it can be
frustrating--especially at times like in this discussion.

Or, of course, when one isn't getting any.



Pedophilia is much like rape
It's more about power and control than sex.


Yup.

On Friday, May 24, 2013 12:50:24 AM UTC-4, harry wrote:
On May 24, 5:36*am, Jeanne Douglas wrote:

In article ,

*Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:



Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth

May 23 2013



GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted

Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay

kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most

popular youth organizations, ditching membership

guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.

Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400

delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,

BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,

to 475 no.



http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-

lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite



It's about ****ing time!



Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts are still

a bigoted organization.



--



JD







It's so the perverts/paedos of America can get better access to

potential victims.

I vote they and you are beaten to death. WE do not need stinking religious freaks.
Get out of my country.

"PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net wrote in
:

Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
"PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net wrote:

Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...oy-scouts-vote
-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts are
still a bigoted organization.

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so why must
Scouts change to accommodate those that choose atheism?

Because the only reason to discriminate against atheists is bigotry.

So the only reason to discriminate against Spirituality is.......?

The Scouting movement has had a Christian base from the beginning,
read Scouting for Boys if you don't believe me. So why should it
change it's belief structure because some don't like it.


Ask the members who voted for this change.

It is not like they were forced into anything.

On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:10:43 -0600, "PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net
wrote:

linuxgal wrote:
PV wrote:
Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so why must
Scouts change to accommodate those that choose atheism?

They ought to change, they are not required to change. It's sort of
like those country clubs that only accept whites.

I have never seen a family denied membership from Scouting because they are
atheists. However I have witnessed atheists join and then demand the
removal of all references to God. Sorry but the organization has a
spirtiual aspect to it, if that does not fit your choices, too bad.

I have, as is their right. Theism is most definitely a requirement of
scouting.

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:52:14 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:

harry wrote:
On May 24, 3:56 pm, Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:20:46 -0600, "PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net
wrote:

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Being queer is learned behaviour.


If being queer is learned behavior, then it follows that being straight
must also be learned behavior, since baby boys don't consistently get
erections when they are breast fed.

Illogical, but you knew that (which makes you a liar).

So, Harry, please list the names of
all the men you considered to be potential sex partners but ultimately
rejected as you were learning to be straight.

Illogical conclusions derived from an illogical premise are illogical
but you knew that, too.

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:27:52 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:46:29 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

Why would they be? You seem to assume that atheists have beliefs. I'm
not certain which beliefs you think atheists have. Could you identify an
atheist belief and explain why any atheist would get upset if you
question it?

The belief is that there is no God.

No, that is not what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of belief in any
gods.

Which is the belief that there is no god. You believe it so strongly
that you *must* convert others, like any fervent theist. An agnostic
doesn't know (,does care, or doesn't care to argue the unprovable).

As to why, probably be same as
others because other people have the audacity to not believe what they
do. You my friend are serving nicely as the poster child.

How so? You misrepresent atheism, I correct you.

Nope. He is not wrong. You can redefine words any way you want but
it doesn't help communication.

I tend to think that people get upset when you question a belief that
has been arrived at without evidence or logic so the belief is
indefensible. Is that what you have in mind?

Your belief is no more provable (and only mildly more logical) than most
religious people. There is no evidence that God doesn't exist. But

Let's go back to the valid definition of atheism, the lack of belief in
any gods. Where does that require evidence that any particular god does
not exist?

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:40:39 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message
.. .
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:46:29 -0400, Kurt Ullman

No, that is not what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of belief in any
gods.
Yeah, you don't believe in gods. A lack of belief, by definition, is
not believing.

"I don't know" is a perfectly valid point of view and is quite different
from "I
know there is a God" and from "I know there isn't a God".


Agnosticism is a lack of belief
Atheism is a denial of belief there is no god

Correct. Words mean things.

On Fri, 24 May 2013 13:42:30 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:


The belief that there is no god. You can't prove it any more than the
other side can prove there is ONE.

You do know that you have offered a strawman to attack, do you not?

No I haven't, not all. It is a fundamental part of the issue. How can
you be so overwhelmingly sure that your essential unprovable belief (or
lack of belief if you want to go that route) is the one and only True
One yet you can't prove your lack of belief is any more right than the
other sides is? Especially since many want to say so vicerously and
stridently and with every bit as much as loud as those on the other side
proclaim their's?

Prezactly.

You can no more prove your lack of belief is right and warranted
than the other side can their' is right and warranted.

....and they're willing to shut the other side down to prove they're
right.

On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:18:51 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
Yet those who do believe have ample evidence. Just evidence you don't
find convincing... given your beliefs.

Emotions such as hope or belief or faith are evidence of nothing.

To you, which is exactly Kurt's point.

On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:

In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:

On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:

In article ,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts are still
a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it because you
weren't allowed to join because of what you have between your legs? Or
was it because of what you don't have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better organization than
the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to get into
Boy Scouts? Boy Scouts has a much larger and stronger organization,
with more programs, camps, and outings.

Sadly, our troop leader was a bitch who favored her daughter and her
buddies over the rest of the troop, so I dropped out as soon as I was
allowed.

You learned well.

On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:30:36 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 13:34:35 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:46:29 -0400, Kurt Ullman


No, that is not what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of belief in
any
gods.
Yeah, you don't believe in gods. A lack of belief, by definition,
is
not believing.

I do not believe in any gods. That does not imply that I assert that no
gods exist.

So you want to have it both ways? Covering bases in case?
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized
there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there
wasn't an afterlife. -Douglas Adams


Repeating your claim does not make it true when your logic is not
valid.
Yet you seem to think your does.
The bottom line despite all of the semantics (including those of my
own) is that you have no way to prove that your lack of belief is any
more valid than any existing belief. Thus it is every bit as much of a
faith as any religion.
(actually from the view of the religious person it is probably a
braver one since if you are wrong you get to rot in whatever version of
hell is being used. If the religious person is wrong nothing happens and
he doesn't know about it after death.)


Oh, dear, big mistake bringing up the idiocy of Pascal's Wager.

There are not 2 choices, there are tens of thousands. What if you've
chosen the wrong god to believe in?


Pascal was not an animist believing that rocks and trees and streams were
inhabited by gods.

So? What does that have to do with the fact that he intentionally
ignored all of the other possible options when he invented his wager?

But thanks for demonstrating your abyssal ignorance AGAIN..

Pascal knew he didn't have a valid argument.

On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:29:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:46:29 -0400, Kurt Ullman

No, that is not what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of belief in any
gods.
Yeah, you don't believe in gods. A lack of belief, by definition, is
not believing.

Exactly.

What it is not is a belief that no god exists.


But that is EXACTLY the meaning of the word "atheist".
Maybe you should get a better dictionary.

Maybe you should ask atheists about it instead of inventing your own
(false) definition.

On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:15:16 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 5/24/2013 9:44 AM, linuxgal wrote:
Tom McDonald wrote:

Nope. They already had that access. Now the rules will be more strictly
enforced, and that will mean fewer straight pedophiles in Scouting.

If you must have pedophiles in Scouting, you probably want nothing but
straight pedophiles, in the Boy Scouts where they have no girls to
diddle, and also in the Girl Scouts where they have no boys to diddle.

It's a bit of a conundrum, for me at least, what to call adult males who
have sex with adult women, not adult men, but diddle little boys and/or
girls.

'Homosexual' isn't quite right. Neither is, I'll grant you, 'straight'.
But I'm unsure what nomenclature to use when confronted with the fact that
the pedophiles I was aware of as a kid were all adult males with wives and
children, and who never, to my knowledge, engaged in sex with other men.

AIUI, gay men are no more sexually attracted to young boys than straight
men are sexually attracted to young girls. That means that, of course,
some are; but I'm not aware of that happening at a significantly greater
rate with gays than with straights.

Sexuality is fascinating, and talking about it can be
frustrating--especially at times like in this discussion.

Or, of course, when one isn't getting any.



Pedophilia is much like rape
It's more about power and control than sex.

Not buying it. Rape is violent. Pedophilia, not as much, though rape
(other than statutory) is certainly possible against a minor. I know
of one case, in Scouts AAMOF, where it was (more or less) consensual
(though by definition, it can't be). Not a power thing at all.

On 5/24/2013 4:10 PM, PV wrote:
linuxgal wrote:
PV wrote:
Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so why must
Scouts change to accommodate those that choose atheism?

They ought to change, they are not required to change. It's sort of
like those country clubs that only accept whites.

I have never seen a family denied membership from Scouting because they are
atheists.

I'm sure that it varies by council, but scouting has had both gays and
atheists for a very long time. In some councils it's been "don't ask,
don't tell" (for both gays and atheists) and some councils openly ignore
the BSA policies. Even the Mormon church issued a statement that
admitted that they have been ignoring the official policy, "Sexual
orientation has not previously been – and is not now – a disqualifying
factor for boys who want to join Latter-day Saint Scout troops." They
essentially made their own rules, as many BSA organizations have done.

BSA is a private organization and they can do what they want. Private
organizations are legally permitted to discriminate on the basis of
religion and sexual orientation. What they need to be careful about is
their tax-exempt status.

Churches sponsored my son's troop and my daughter's crew but I don't
think there was a single member from the sponsoring organization (I'm
sure that originally this was not the case). I'm sure there were both
gays and atheists but that's the last thing anyone would have asked
anyone else. There were a couple of parents that tried to inject their
religion into "Scout's Own" and as a result you had both scouts and
parents discretely disappearing before the ceremony, not knowing whether
or not they would be uncomfortable with it each time.

You hear all sorts of threats to leave BSA and form a separate
organization. Actually you hear this talk on both sides, from those that
want more discrimination and those that want less discrimination. It's
unlikely to happen. BSA has such an infrastructure with its camps, its
trips like Philmont, Northern Tier, and Seabase, that any new
organization could not hope to duplicate.

What would be ideal is if BSA would at least permit the formation of
troops and crews that are non-discriminatory in terms of religion, while
continuing to allow religious based troops and crews that require belief
in God. Those whose faith is strong do not fear atheists or agnostics.
Those whose faith is weak feel compelled to force others to believe as
they do.

On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:27:01 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net wrote:

harry wrote:
On May 24, 3:02 pm, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
"PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net wrote
:









Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-scouts-vote-t
o- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts are
still a bigoted organization.

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so why must
Scouts change to accommodate those that choose atheism?

The BSA is per se a religious institution
so I don't know how they could be forced to
accept atheists.

The BSA is not religious.
It was invented in the UK primarily to prepare boys for service in the
imperial British army though it has changed since then.

Baden Powell emphasized God throughout his writing including the promise
and
the law

He also intend Scouting to develop good citizens from youth throught
activities and learning, teaching them to prefer service before self.

And atheists, based on what we see here on this group, are far more
moral than theists.


At least that's what atheists tell themselves
Too bad that in recent history, so-called atheists have ended up with the
blood of more innocent people in a single century, than can be ascribed to
theists during the know history of man.

Also note that it's the atheists who are trying to control the actions
of the theists.

On Sat, 25 May 2013 07:20:49 -0700, SMS
wrote in alt.atheism:

On 5/24/2013 4:10 PM, PV wrote:
linuxgal wrote:
PV wrote:
Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so why must
Scouts change to accommodate those that choose atheism?

They ought to change, they are not required to change. It's sort of
like those country clubs that only accept whites.

I have never seen a family denied membership from Scouting because they are
atheists.

I'm sure that it varies by council, but scouting has had both gays and
atheists for a very long time.

It's sad to see them teaching boys that you sometimes have to lie.

In some councils it's been "don't ask,
don't tell" (for both gays and atheists) and some councils openly ignore
the BSA policies. Even the Mormon church issued a statement that
admitted that they have been ignoring the official policy, "Sexual
orientation has not previously been – and is not now – a disqualifying
factor for boys who want to join Latter-day Saint Scout troops." They
essentially made their own rules, as many BSA organizations have done.

BSA is a private organization and they can do what they want. Private
organizations are legally permitted to discriminate on the basis of
religion and sexual orientation. What they need to be careful about is
their tax-exempt status.

They used to be able to get a lot of public help until the religiosity
became a more serious problem.

Churches sponsored my son's troop and my daughter's crew but I don't
think there was a single member from the sponsoring organization (I'm
sure that originally this was not the case). I'm sure there were both
gays and atheists but that's the last thing anyone would have asked
anyone else. There were a couple of parents that tried to inject their
religion into "Scout's Own" and as a result you had both scouts and
parents discretely disappearing before the ceremony, not knowing whether
or not they would be uncomfortable with it each time.

You hear all sorts of threats to leave BSA and form a separate
organization. Actually you hear this talk on both sides, from those that
want more discrimination and those that want less discrimination. It's
unlikely to happen. BSA has such an infrastructure with its camps, its
trips like Philmont, Northern Tier, and Seabase, that any new
organization could not hope to duplicate.

What would be ideal is if BSA would at least permit the formation of
troops and crews that are non-discriminatory in terms of religion, while
continuing to allow religious based troops and crews that require belief
in God. Those whose faith is strong do not fear atheists or agnostics.
Those whose faith is weak feel compelled to force others to believe as
they do.

On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:23:43 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:40:39 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message
. ..
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:46:29 -0400, Kurt Ullman

No, that is not what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of belief in any
gods.
Yeah, you don't believe in gods. A lack of belief, by definition, is
not believing.

"I don't know" is a perfectly valid point of view and is quite different
from "I
know there is a God" and from "I know there isn't a God".


Agnosticism is a lack of belief

Agnosticism tells us that we cannot know if there is a god or not. The
question is inherently undecidable.

Atheism is a denial of belief there is no god

Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. It makes no statement about
whether gods might exist.

Correct. Words mean things.

So please try to understand why he was not correct.

On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:20:51 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:27:52 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:46:29 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote in alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:

Why would they be? You seem to assume that atheists have beliefs. I'm
not certain which beliefs you think atheists have. Could you identify an
atheist belief and explain why any atheist would get upset if you
question it?

The belief is that there is no God.

No, that is not what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of belief in any
gods.

Which is the belief that there is no god.

No. "I do not know if there are any gods" is also a perfectly good
subset of "I do not believe in any gods."

You believe it so strongly
that you *must* convert others, like any fervent theist. An agnostic
doesn't know (,does care, or doesn't care to argue the unprovable).

No, an agnostic says that it is impossible to know whether any gods
exist. It is a very strong statement about knowledge.

As to why, probably be same as
others because other people have the audacity to not believe what they
do. You my friend are serving nicely as the poster child.

How so? You misrepresent atheism, I correct you.

Nope. He is not wrong. You can redefine words any way you want but
it doesn't help communication.

I am not the one doing the redefinition.

I tend to think that people get upset when you question a belief that
has been arrived at without evidence or logic so the belief is
indefensible. Is that what you have in mind?

Your belief is no more provable (and only mildly more logical) than most
religious people. There is no evidence that God doesn't exist. But

Let's go back to the valid definition of atheism, the lack of belief in
any gods. Where does that require evidence that any particular god does
not exist?

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Are you done trying to redefine words to mislead others?

On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:26:07 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 13:42:30 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Free Lunch wrote:


The belief that there is no god. You can't prove it any more than the
other side can prove there is ONE.

You do know that you have offered a strawman to attack, do you not?

No I haven't, not all. It is a fundamental part of the issue. How can
you be so overwhelmingly sure that your essential unprovable belief (or
lack of belief if you want to go that route) is the one and only True
One yet you can't prove your lack of belief is any more right than the
other sides is? Especially since many want to say so vicerously and
stridently and with every bit as much as loud as those on the other side
proclaim their's?

Prezactly.

Except that you know that I never made a statement supporting an
essentially unprovable belief. I have stated only that I do not believe
in any gods.

You can no more prove your lack of belief is right and warranted
than the other side can their' is right and warranted.

...and they're willing to shut the other side down to prove they're
right.

I have neither desire nor need to prove that my lack of belief is right.
It is a state of being. Right or wrong is a meaningless assessment of
it.

wrote in news
On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:

In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:

On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:

In article ,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts are
still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it because you
weren't allowed to join because of what you have between your legs?
Or was it because of what you don't have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better organization than
the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to get into
Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:51:50 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the non-existent
atheist goddess wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:11:43 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:46:52 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Tom McDonald wrote:

It's a start. I think a good start. But it's ultimately doomed to
either be expanded to allow gay leaders, or to go back to not
allowing openly gay youth as Scouts. As it stands, a gay young man
can be a great Scout until he turns 18, at which point he is,
what, not a great Scout?

I don't think so. Getting Eagle Scout, they can't take it away from
you, anymore than they could take away Bubba's status as a Rhodes
Scholar.

They can (at least for now) disallow you from being a scout leader. I
think they just screwed that pooch, though.

They're probably not ready to vote for beastiality practitioners yet.

I'd give you the dumb poster of the day award but the competition has
been too tough this week to give it out so early.

On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:20:08 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:

In article ,
J wrote:

On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:38:11 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:



Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite




This was voted upon by the BSA, not imposed by some judge with an
agenda. It is what it is, so be it.

What does this decision have to do with pedophilia?




Who mentioned anything about pedophilia? I just posted that I
acccepted this decision without criticism because it was voted uopn
the organization itself and not imposed on them by a judge.

This is why I'm the recipient of so much criticism. People read what
they want to see, not what I actually wrote.





J Young


Honesty. Decency. Integrity

On May 25, 7:46*am, "PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 24, 8:52 pm, linuxgal wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 24, 3:56 pm, Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:20:46 -0600, "PV" edrnouser@ spam
telus.net wrote:

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so why
must Scouts change to accommodate those that choose atheism?

Being queer is learned behaviour.

If being queer is learned behavior, then it follows that being
straight must also be learned behavior, since baby boys don't
consistently get erections when they are breast fed. So, Harry,
please list the names of all the men you considered to be potential
sex partners but ultimately rejected as you were learning to be
straight.

If they were post pubescent they likely would.

Being queer is not genetic as they don't breed.

So either it is learned or possibly they have become ill.
Some industrial chemical they have been exposed to perhaps.

Eg oestrogen/similar chemicals now being found in drinking water.
Apparently some plastic food containers may cause problems.

So when did you choose to be hetro? *Don't be shy, date and year will be
fine.

Take your time

It never occurred to me to be anything else.