tiger_lily111

I'm from the old town, see. I've hit the half-century mark. Got my name from a New Yorker, You might hear it in the dark. I cruise along, play it by ear - Many careers I have sparked.

Basically everything.

I'm an idealist. Can't help it. But I do understand & appreciate what you're saying.

In general, I'm all for "light" censorship, to help protect the young (& old!) from things they can't understand or *shouldn't* (according to society) have to deal with yet. However, what this form should take, or how extreme it should be, I haven't the foggiest. I'm not knowledgeable enough to figure out what should & shouldn't be censored - I know what I don't want to have to see/hear, but that's different from other people. Basically, if I ever have kids, I don't want to have to really explain to them about rape or violent acts until they're old enough to actually comprehend what I'm saying. Until then, it's just "don't talk to strangers" etc. because their brains aren't developed enough to understand what danger is.(Emotion vs Reason) I don't want any potential progeny to end up as prudes, but I don't want them paranoid, either!

Going back to the original discussion, here's my opinion: I wouldn't say it's genetically 'favored' because then it would indicate a dominant trait which would eventually lead to zero population growth and the extinction of the human race. If you go by Darwin's theories, then that isn't plausible. Whether or not homosexuality is a mainly genetic trait is still under debate. There is some evidence for, and some against. My *personal* opinion is that it is likely at least partially genetic - but genetic traits sometimes indicate possibilities, rather than certainties. I do believe that there are some people who identify as homosexual who do so by choice, not genetics. Before you bash, I would like to point out that there are psychological studies which indicate that some people have been too damaged by circumstance, abuse, etc. to tolerate thoughts of the opposite sex in a sexual connotation. Yes, some may indeed be genetically predisposed towards homosexuality - BUT some may be able to "choose" to lean more towards hetero- or homo-sexuality. The truth is, that we don't know yet, as a scientific community. My personal beliefs fall towards the Chrisitan norm - The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. Maybe it is (eg, Soddom & Gomorrah), but I also try to follow the belief of "Judge not, lest you be judged." (Also known as, "Love the sinner, hate the sin.") Meaning, to me, that how a person chooses or is predisposed to live their life doesn't matter to me so long as knowledgeable consent is freely given & accepted, and that all parties involved are happy and at peace with themselves. If there is judgement that will be rendered, I don't have the knowledge or authority to do so, and God will sort us all out in the end. Honest curiosity here: Since it was quasi- brought up earlier - Regarding gay marriage: I think most people's issue is with the word 'marriage.' Some people will say it's racist or homophobic to desire a word to differentiate between 'heterosexual' & 'homosexual' unions, but from discussions I've had with other people, that is the main hang-up. (Is it racist or race identity to have differential words such as "Black" vs "Hispanic" or "Thai" vs "South-east Asian"? I prefer to think of it as identity, but that's me.) Is it awful to be able to differentiate, using a single word, whether your life-partner is the same sex or the opposite sex? In the U.S. especially, we have issues with real & imagined gender-in/equality, for example actor/actress, comedian/comedienne ... the latter of both almost out of use completely. Sometimes it's confusing, but by the time someone's name reaches household use it doesn't matter so much. What are your thoughts on having a different word for "marriage" involving homosexual couples?

Mercedes Lackey, Anne McCaffrey (& son Todd), Sara Douglass, Charlaine Harris, Sharon Shinn, Maria V. Snyder, & J.K. Rowling are my favorite authors. Also enjoy some Jim Butcher & Robin McKinley among others. Yeah, I'm a fantasy/SciFi gal.

When you try explaining things to family/friends who aren't on BD (their loss) about a new puzzle/riddle/joke/etc. ... and you expect them to magically know who you're talking about when you refer to your friends' user names.

This time I'm putting it down & staying in bed ... 2nd one I've seen & come back for.

Had considered that one for 2D, but guess not! Edit for: Can't spell ... just saw 6 down from the letters.

Edit for:

I'm not any better at your 'easy' riddles than your 'regular' riddles, Shakee, but I still like!

In general we appreciate a note somewhere in the topic post that you are searching for the answer and don't know what it is. But other than that, sure, go ahead & post it if it hasn't been posted before!

Diet Coke > Pepsi > Coke > Diet Pepsi Thus speaks the food scientist super taster, who CAN tell the difference.

As a Christian woman who is also a scientist, I see (and hear) a lot of things that seem to conflict between the two. In the end it's a personal decision, partly based on my upbringing (yes, I was born into a Christian household), but also through my own life experience. I've seen and felt too many things that science can't explain to my satisfaction ('miracles'), just like the Bible can't satisfactorily explain, if taken literally, the existence of the dinosaurs & the earth being billions of years old. Right now, science can't explain everything. So what? The Bible doesn't explain everything. That's why there's so much interpretation in both, often leading to theories and ideas which may conflict. In time, some are proven right, others wrong. Some just continue on as they are and become accepted, without anyone knowing for sure whether it's something that should be believed or not. This holds true for both science & religion. My religion is personal. I'm one of those Christians who isn't very happy with most churches, but that doesn't mean I give up or change my mind to unbelief or agnostic. Just because I don't go to church often doesn't mean I'm not a 'good' Christian ... I'm not, and I know it, and I try to do better. That's part of what being Christian is about, accepting that we are flawed and trying to improve ourselves and the world for God's glory. I believe in God because I've felt the existence of Him in my life. It's a belief, not something I can fully explain or even comprehend. That's why I'm a Christian, why I continue to believe and follow my religion. Your beliefs are personal. They're part of your upbringing, but in the end you are the one who chooses what you do or don't believe. I'm glad that your parents taught you to think critically, to examine the evidence as it's presented to you. Keep doing so - you never know what you might learn. It's a lifelong process.