Chronicling the follies of religion and superstition, the virtues of skepticism, and the wonders of the real (natural) universe as revealed by science. Plus other interesting and educational stuff.
"Tell people there’s an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure."
“If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed”.
“Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.”
On July 1 of next year, same-sex couples applying for a marriage license in Indiana will have committed a felony punishable by 18 months in prison an a $10,000 fine.
The new crime stems from the revival of a1997 law forbidding false information on a marriage license as a Class D felony. It will also make it a Class B misdemeanor — punishable by up to 180 days in a jail and a maximum fine of $1,000 — for clergy, judges, and others to perform a same-sex marriage.
The New Civil Rights Movement explains how the new rule works:
Because Indiana marriage license forms have a space for “male applicant” and “female applicant”, any same-sex couple filling out the form would automatically violate the law. The harsh penalties Indiana lawmakers have approved make it difficult for protest movements like the Campaign for Southern Equality’s “ We Do” Campaign, which encourages same-sex couples to apply for marriage licenses as a protest in states that prohibit same-sex marriages.
Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Indiana, but legislators are contemplating adding a ban in an amendment the state’s Constitution. The vote will be held in the January-March 2014 legislative session.
(Raw Story) - Fox Business personalities had a collective freak out on Wednesday night after learning that mothers were now the primary source of income in 40 percent of U.S. households.
Fox Business host Lou Dobbs asserted women earning more than their husbands was an indication of the dissolution of American society. Fox News political analyst Juan Williams agreed, describing it as a sign of the disintegration of marriage that would have negative consequences for generations to come.
Fox News contributor Erick Erickson went one step further, saying nature itself commanded that women be subservient to men.
“I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they’re anti-science,” Erickson explained. “But liberals who defend this and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology, when you look at the natural world, the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complimentary role.”
“We as people in a smart society have lost the ability to have complimentary relationships in nuclear families, and it is tearing us apart,” he continued, adding that “reality showed” it was harmful for women to be the primary source of income in a family.
Fox News contributor Doug Schoen concluded the freak out by claiming all these so-called breadwinner moms “could undermine our social order.”
This is the kind shit Fox News feeds it’s viewers.
For one thing, these people need to look at more examples in nature if they want to play the “nature and science” game. Last time I checked there were plenty of examples of animals where the female of the species does a good deal of the work and the male of the species are there primarily to provide genetics for offspring (lions immediately come to mind).
But aside from that, there is no good reason a woman can’t do the same job as a man, or be the primary breadwinner for a family.
All these excuses they make come down to pride and control.
Women being able to support themselves or be the primary breadwinner means they have more freedom, more independence.
What it all comes down to is these knuckle draggers are afraid of that.
1. The female hyena is larger than the male and, unlike most female animals, female hyena selects her mating partners.
2. The Bonobos are female-dominated animals. Because bonobos exist only in forested areas, it allows the females to forage independently, rather than depending on males for resources. As the bonobos comprise a female dominated society, it is evident that mothers play a vital role in the group’s social stability. Males are permanent members, maintaining close bonds to their mothers for a lifetime. Females are quite different, as they begin to distance their maternal bonds at the onset of puberty. The relationships shared between females, in the bonobo society, create their distinct sexual community. The most common sexual activity for bonobos is a female stimulating another female.
3. Red ruffed lemurs very rarely descend to the ground. They spend almost all of their time in the treetops. They live in female-dominated family groups averaging in size from 2 to 16 animals.
4. Mouse lemurs are forest dwellers that live in female-dominated groups of up to 15 animals. They spend most of their time in trees, and can move nimbly from branch to branch and tree to tree. Mouse lemurs sleep aloft during the day and forage at night for insects, fruit, flowers, and other plants.
5. Elephants are strict vegetarians, and live in female-dominated family herds. They are very intelligent, peaceful unless provoked, and unlike other animals, will take care of a sick or wounded family member.
6. A guenon monkey with several colour variations over its range. Females stay with their mothers, forming territorial female-dominated groups with only a single male.
Several insect species also have females dominating over the males like ants, bees, wasps, termites, spiders and the ever lovely praying mantis… etc.
Conservatives are so funny when they try to use “science”…
Topless Women in Public Not Breaking the Law Says NYPD
Ladies of New York , you are free to walk bare-breasted through the city! New York City’s 34,000 police officers have been instructed that, should they encounter a woman in public who is shirtless but obeying the law, they should not arrest her. This is a good step towards gender parity in public spaces.
This decision means that breast exposure is not considered public lewdness, indecent exposure, or disorderly conduct. It also notes that, should a crowd form around a topless woman, the officer should instruct the crowd to disperse and then respond appropriately if it does not. Relative coverage is no longer a factor.
This policy shift comes after several years of litigation and protest. In the 1992 case People v. Ramona Santorelli and Mary Lou Schloss, the New York Court of Appeals ruled in favor of two women who were arrested with five others for exposing their breasts in a Rochester park, holding the law void as discriminatory. The ruling was put to the test in 2005, when Jill Coccaro bared her breasts on Delancey Street in New York, citing the 1992 decision, and was detained for twelve hours. She subsequently successfully sued the city for $29,000.
In 2007, Go Topless, a national organization supporting gender equality in shirtlessness laws, established Go Topless Day. Dozens of women protest – often topless – in thirty cities around the United States, promoting equal rights to be shirtless. Protests usually include chants of “Free your breasts. Free your minds” and a song “Let ‘em Breathe” to the tune of the Beatles’ “Let it Be.”
While some who have witnessed these events have suggested that “[t]his is extreme liberalism and why America’s in decline” or “[i]t’s degrading to women,” others have been supportive. One man even said he would encourage his wife to join them.
Though bare-breasted women might shock the sensibilities of some in the public, it is encouraging to see the police responding positively to gender bias, even on such a seemingly small scale. After all, no one thinks twice about a man shirtless on a summer day. However, the female nipple or chest is still considered “lewd.” By reminding its officers of this, the NYPD is publicly declaring that it will no longer perpetuate unconstitutional gender discrimination, a standard to which all law enforcement should be held and a decision for which it should be applauded.