The Clenard Childress entry brings up a pet-peeve of mine. In general, and I'm talking about the subject in general - not Geo specific (though I'd love to hear his thoughts,) when there is an article regarding LBGT issues, there always seems to be the inclusion of it not being a choice. I don't know what the current science has to say on the subject, but why does it matter? It seems to be a flawed argument. It implies that the only reason a certain lifestyle is valid is because the participants didn't choose it. It still leaves some people thinking that there is something wrong and something that could or should be "cured." Any-sexuality is valid where the participants are un-coerced concenting adults engaging in non-distructive behavior. What do you think?

Yes, GLBT is the first thing I though about when I first heard about Glenn Beck's GBTV. That and the irony.

The exception that proves the rule does mean something. However, "proves" in this case actually means "demonstrates" or "confirms." The classic example is a sign that says "NO PARKING 9AM-6PM." The exception about not parking from 9-6 tells the driver that parking is allowed at other times, a rule she or he wouldn't know without the sign pointing out when she or he can't park.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

P.S. http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/ has GREAT English language trivia and tips. So worth reading.
P.P.S. Comment Clitern? Sounds dirty, captcha.

I like the Bird Poop Mary, personally.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/07/the_virgin_mary_in_bird_shit.php