What if there was an anti-gay vaccine

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:28 pm

What if there was a vaccine for homosexuality.

What if there was a shot a mom could get that would reduce the likelihood that the children she bore would be gay. What would the social, moral, religious, ethical and political impact of that be?

And, more to the point, would you get the shot?

Hear me out. It may not be as far fetched as it seems.

We don't know what causes homosexuality. The best explanation is that it arises out of a variety of factors involving biology, environment and choice. Those factors, present in varying degrees in different individuals, can lead someone to same-sex attraction. It's different for different people, but there are some general trends.

In terms of environmental factors, being sexually abused as a child is one. Those who are abused end up with greater rate of adult homosexuality than do those who weren't abused. Recruitment is also a factor. Those who are exposed in adolescence to homosexual recruitment by an adult have a higher rate of adult homosexuality themselves.

In terms of biological factors, number of brothers seems to be a possible factor for males, as does maternal hormone levels during gestation.

Genetics may play a part, but that doesn't appear very likely now. We've mapped the genome, and looked at it like crazy, and not found any genetic markers for homosexuality.

But let's look at biology. If a fluke in mom's hormones early in pregnancy can increase the likelihood of homosexuality in the child -- as some seriously theorize now -- you have to wonder if that hormonal spike can be medically controlled. The presumption is that, with research, it can.

Let's presume, for the sake of discussion, that that hormone bump is the biological piece of a tendancy toward homosexuality. And let's presume that it can be controlled.

The question, asked again, is: Should it?

If a woman could get a shot that would remove from her children the biological inclination to be gay, should she?

Would medical science -- in today's politically correct world -- allow such research or the development of such a shot? Would a pharmaceutical company bring out such a medicine, or would it be swayed by fear of protest, or its own values?

How would gay people and gay activists respond to this? Would they see it as something akin to genocide?

Would they argue that medical treatments are for medical disorders, that you treat diseases, not lifestyles? Would a treatment like this imply that homosexuality is a disorder that -- like any other birth defect -- ought to be avoided if at all possible?

Would your health insurance cover it? Would Medicaid cover it?

Would the same people who insist on the right to abort a child fight against the right to de-gay a child?

And where would religion figure into this? Would religions which are opposed to fertility treatments -- as messing with conception -- but which are opposed to homosexuality, allow such a vaccine or not?

And how closely would public opinion polls track reality? By that I mean, political correctness -- which enthrones homosexuality -- would lead people to publicly say that they would not use the vaccine. But how many of them, in the privacy of the doctor's office, would actually get it?

It's an interesting question because, no matter what the politically correct answer is, a large majority of Americans believe that homosexuality is a burden and a defect, that it brings dysfunction and difficulty to life. And while Americans don't tolerate gay bashing, they don't really want gay children either.

At least most of them don't.

I think a very large majority of women would get a vaccine that made it less likely their children would turn out gay.

But I also think that the pressures and power of political correctness and the homosexual political agenda are so great that research in this area will not go forward and inquiries into whether or not a treatment of this sort could be devised will likewise never materialize. This will be an area in which scientific and medical inquiry will be stifled by social convention. The will of the people and the frontiers of science will be held back by politics and cultural conflict.

There are no conclusions in this, just questions. Hypotheticals about what isn't yet, but which is easily imagined. They talk a lot about medical ethics. I just wondered what the ethics of this would be.

So, what do you think?

Bob Lonsberry Â© 2009

http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=2538

Kindle · Post by **Kindle** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:30 pm

What a novel idea. I couldn't yet begin to comment, as I've never ever considered such a thought. I need to ponder this and will get back to you at a later time..................

Great question BTS! I'm looking forward to what others think on this..........

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:34 pm

I think the idea that you would start modifying the genetic makeup of human beings because of some social or religious agenda is terrifying.

If your going to eliminate the tendency for homosexuality, why not try and develop a way to make sure that no babies are born with a tendency to be short, or too tall, or aggressive, or have red hair, or hook noses, or be shy, or not quite "fit in" or in fact any of the traits that human beings innately have that don't fit some self-created social "ideal" of what a proper "person" should be. In other words, all the things that make humans, human in the first place.

In a couple of generations you will have a perfectly formed little master race that all look, think, and act the same. It would be great for corporations and governments as they would no longer have to deal with the difficult aspects of people being individual and unpredictable, and not always rational, and not fitting into neat little boxes, instead just nice, good looking, socially acceptable, predictable little automotons designed to order, whatever the order of the day was.

What a vision of hell that would be. Human beings finally just becoming another commodity to be designed at the whim of some agenda. probably one sponsored by upstanding "family" corporations like Nike, Disney, UBS, News Corp International, Airbus, Toyota, Nestle, IBM, McDonalds, Lockheed Martin, Intel, and Unilever.

Beautiful.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:30 pm

Nothing wrong with being gay.

YouTube - Gay Bar - Blair and Bush

These two don't mind

:):)

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:34 pm

Meh I'll be honest i don't want Gay kids plus i don't think it's genetic. No one has been able to prove yet that it is, it's just a hypothesis.

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:15 am

What possible difference is there between that and an alternative "this treatment will stop your child from being female" or "this treatment will destroy your child's ability to hear"?

The last one's a good point actually. In the UK at least there are militant deaf people who consider deaf to be a culture rather than an illness and who fight against, for example, cochlear implants for their congenitally deaf children because that would enable the children to hear and consequently they'd not grow up as a part of deaf culture any longer. These people fear that deaf culture is becoming endangered by successful medical intervention and that within a couple of generations deaf culture will be extinct, a part of history. Prats, you might think, but they're absolutely right in what they say.

We're starting to see these effects of pre-birth intervention in societies. India has a significant imbalance toward male rather than female children. Either can be selected for and they have a preference toward males and that's where they're going. The US has a preference to eliminate Gays? Go for it, it's your culture, just don't send your troops abroad to inoculate women in the rogue Gay States and convert their offspring into little anti-Gay capitalists. You can bet your socks the US would have inoculated itself against being black through most of the twentieth century if it had had the opportunity. This whole argument is a discussion of prejudice and the application of force, not one of choice.

Victoria · Post by **Victoria** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:05 am

As the mother of a bi-sexual son I have to say this idea makes me feel sick.

My son is perfect just the way he is thank you. He is a caring loving and responsable man.

I have met his girlfriends and boyfriends and there have been the mummy moments ( where you think please god dont let this be 'the one') and that applies to the guys and women.

He was engaged when he was 19 but that didn't work out he is now married and is very happy.

That is the most important thing, he is happy.

To be a parent you must first understand that children do not come with a guarantee

to turn out just as you planned.. they all come with their own blueprint.

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:51 am

Sickening idea. Horrifying to even ponder. And really not rational thinking.

So much of the information cited to even formulate such possibility is wrong.

If a crew of genetic specialists were to ever work on something like this, they would be an ignorant and dangerous bunch of people.

Sexual abuse a factor? Wrong

Recruitment? Wrong

And a shot for the mother? The genetic predisposition for sexual gender is determined by GENETICS, that is mother and father.

What a boring world this would be without our gay and lesbian population.

Now, if there were a a shot that homosexuals could take, Id go for that.

A cure that would enable them to escape being targets of misinformed, narrow minded, frightened and cruel people in this world, would be a God sent. But since so many of the gay people I know are courageous, commited, sincere, and happy people, I doubt that there would be many who would seek out the "treatment."

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:01 am

jimbo;1125817 wrote: this vile posted vomit does not get one post saying how vile a thread it is ..charming

I thought I'd come close.

el guapo · Post by **el guapo** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:59 am

is this not a anti happy vaccine

what the hell ya on about

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:49 am

weeder;1125825 wrote: Sickening idea. Horrifying to even ponder. And really not rational thinking.

So much of the information cited to even formulate such possibility is wrong.

If a crew of genetic specialists were to ever work on something like this, they would be an ignorant and dangerous bunch of people.

Sexual abuse a factor? Wrong

Recruitment? Wrong

And a shot for the mother? The genetic predisposition for sexual gender is determined by GENETICS, that is mother and father.

What a boring world this would be without our gay and lesbian population.

Now, if there were a a shot that homosexuals could take, Id go for that.

A cure that would enable them to escape being targets of misinformed, narrow minded, frightened and cruel people in this world, would be a God sent. But since so many of the gay people I know are courageous, commited, sincere, and happy people, I doubt that there would be many who would seek out the "treatment."

I was thinking that the whole time I was reading that garbage. It is genetics! I've seen Carson Kreesley and he said he knew he was different by the age of 4. I also know alot of gay people and they are really great peeps. My one friend grows a huge garden and gives us all sorts of veggies in the summer. Well, one day, somebody said to me "ducky, he's gay and I was like so what". My cousin is gay also. I don't see what the big deal is and I do support gay marriage. There is no reason in the world why we should deny gays the same rights that heterosexuals have enjoyed for eons and that includes marriage. Nobody even winks if gays are living together, setting up house, etc. but they freak out when they want to get married.:-5:-5

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:00 am

Don't care what it is - these people are the way they are and have the right to be that way if they want to. Don't fancy it myself, but no-one ever said you had to say "Yes".

It might be interesting if you could have an injection and switch sexuality, and then have another injection and switch back. A month on and a month off, as it were?

Hmmm. I can't decide if that is tempting or not!:wah:

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:03 am

Gender boundries are getting broader and broader by the day. This concept frightens heterosexuals to death. The concept that the definition of love is not limited to the rigid rules people impose upon themselves, as to what is acceptable. I have been a heterosexual my entire life..... so far.

Ill tell you this, if I could have one year of happiness involved in a relationship that is as comfortable and happy and fufilling as some of the gay couples Ive observed... Id take that over spending one minute with any of the dysfunctional, boring, useless men it has been my misfortune to have known in the past.

As far as the sexual activities of gay couples that gay haters seem to be so obsessed with, how many heterosexual couples have you known, who have no sex at all?? If everyone could just keep their inquisitive and dirty minds from wondering.... gay people would be just people. Judged for their personality, integrity, honesty, and talents.

Kindle · Post by **Kindle** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:18 am

weeder;1125825 wrote: .................Now, if there were a a shot that homosexuals could take, Id go for that.

A cure that would enable them to escape being targets of misinformed, narrow minded, frightened and cruel people in this world, would be a God sent. But since so many of the gay people I know are courageous, commited, sincere, and happy people, I doubt that there would be many who would seek out the "treatment."

This concept reminds me of the third movie in the X-Men Trilogy, X-Men The Last Stand.

The movie is about a controversial "cure" where mutants can choose to retain their superhuman powers or give up their unique gifts and become "normal."

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:21 am

Kindle;1125910 wrote: This concept reminds me of the third movie in the X-Men Trilogy, X-Men The Last Stand. I doubt that's entirely by chance.

Kindle · Post by **Kindle** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:24 am

spot;1125914 wrote: I doubt that's entirely by chance.

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:45 am

Kindle;1125916 wrote:

I think the whole X-Men trilogy was written as a deliberate metaphor about the gay community. Ian MacKellen says as much: "It's abhorrent to me, as it would be if a person said I need curing of my sexuality, or if someone said that black people could take a pill that would cure them of being black". And, elsewhere, he wrote "Marvel says that the demographic for the comics is young blacks, young Jews and young gays. They respond most to the idea of mutants. They, more than most teenagers, are taught to believe that they are mutants. So when you get a story like this one in which a cure is found, a cure for being Black, a cure for being gay, a cure for being a mutant, it comes right home".

Kindle · Post by **Kindle** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:52 am

spot;1125946 wrote: I think the whole X-Men trilogy was written as a deliberate metaphor about the gay community. Ian MacKellen says as much: "It's abhorrent to me, as it would be if a person said I need curing of my sexuality, or if someone said that black people could take a pill that would cure them of being black". And, elsewhere, he wrote "Marvel says that the demographic for the comics is young blacks, young Jews and young gays. They respond most to the idea of mutants. They, more than most teenagers, are taught to believe that they are mutants. So when you get a story like this one in which a cure is found, a cure for being Black, a cure for being gay, a cure for being a mutant, it comes right home".

Ah ha.....................

I love the mutants.

If you were a mutant, Spot, which one would you like to be?

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:56 am

Kindle;1125963 wrote: Ah ha.....................

I love the mutants.

If you were a mutant, Spot, which one would you like to be?

The only qualification seems to have been an innate ability to sound Shakespearian in a crisis, I can do that blindfold.

Kindle · Post by **Kindle** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:58 am

spot;1125973 wrote: The only qualification seems to have been an innate ability to sound Shakespearian in a crisis, I can do that blindfold.

:yh_rotfl

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:40 am

I think everyone is born exactly the way they're meant to be and if we judge other people at all it should be for what's on the inside and not who they choose to have sex with, or the color of their hair or skin or whatever else.

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:05 am

sunny104;1126031 wrote: I think everyone is born exactly the way they're meant to be and if we judge other people at all it should be for what's on the inside and not who they choose to have sex with, or the color of their hair or skin or whatever else.

And whether they shave. I won't tolerate a bristly beard.

Singh-Song · Post by **Singh-Song** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:13 am

There is actually evidence that such a- not so much 'cure' as medication for the 'condition' could be possible at some time in the near future, through the wiring of the area of the brain that has now been proven to define sexuality, and instead of appeasing the vocal, uber-aggressive homosexual community, I have to say I personally feel that research into this possibility, and the creation of such a treatment, would be a good thing. I hold all of these posts on this thread claiming that the discrimination suffered by the homosexual community is somehow a greater injustice than the centuries of anti seminitism against Afro-Americans, in contempt for such claims. This is not even because of the clear overstatement of the suffering endured by what is one of the most affluent social groups in American society, but for the simple reason that while they may in some cases have a medical predisposition towards homosexuality, entering same-sex relations, unlike race, is a decision which every gay or lesbian makes him/herself. In this respect, the choice of sexuality is more akin to the choice to convert between religions; or taking the element of biological pre-determination into account, perhaps more comparable to a person with APD deciding to assault someone. In the case of the latter, or even with far less extreme mental conditions such as autism or epilepsy (two conditions which have the same or a greater degree of prevalence than open homosexuality), most welcome the prospect of treatment with open arms. Why must the homosexual community alone continue to spit in the face of medical science?

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:16 am

Singh-Song;1126157 wrote: Why must the homosexual community alone continue to spit in the face of medical science?Because it's not an illness. As for your suggestion that groups can only establish a right to existence through suffering and persecution I can't see the link. Why? Homosexuality may be a predisposition or a lifestyle choice or a mixture of both but it's no concern of society regardless of its cause. It's there. People do it. People used to go to jail for it, get blackmailed for it, commit suicide because of it. Long live civilized values, that's what I say.

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:26 am

Its not an illness, and there isnt a cure. No treatment either. OOPs there is a treatment.. The mistreatment of homosexuals in our society by citizens who believe the life style is an affliction. If anyone goes to the trouble to research medical information regarding treatment for homosexuals, why wouldnt they go to the trouble to research and come to a true understanding of what homosexuality is? I can never understand that.

almostfamous · Post by **almostfamous** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:15 pm

I think the idea is preposterous.

As for a detailed explanation... I couldn't word it any better than Galbally already has. So, nuff said on my part.

almostfamous · Post by **almostfamous** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:18 pm

well, maybe not 'nuff said'

just for shits and giggles...

"What about a vaccine that increases the likelihood of a gay child?"

I say hell to the yeah :wah:

I love bein a faghag :p

scholle-kid · Post by **scholle-kid** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:28 pm

The more of the OP I read the more 'Hitler' came to my mind. Didn't he have a whole theory about changing the generic makeup of the human race?

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:31 pm

scholle-kid;1126266 wrote: The more of the OP I read the more 'Hitler' came to my mind. Didn't he have a whole theory about changing the generic makeup of the human race?

Yes..and my kids would have failed.

scholle-kid · Post by **scholle-kid** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:48 pm

qsducks;1126273 wrote: Yes..and my kids would have failed.

Two of my kids would have failed 'Hitlers' tests. one because he was born with a heart defect and my daughter was part Irish/German on my side and Italian on her dad's side.

Singh-Song · Post by **Singh-Song** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:08 pm

As for your suggestion that groups can only establish a right to existence through suffering and persecution I can't see the link.

Am I saying that? No. I am saying that the suffering and persecution of the gay community is blown out of all proportion. Why should not wishing to share the use of a changing room, or an open urinal, with someone who finds me sexually attractive, be any more 'discriminatory', any less reasonable than the segregation of male and female facilities on the same grounds?

A member of a racial group does not choose whether or not to be. You make the choice, live with it.

Homosexuality may be a predisposition or a lifestyle choice or a mixture of both but it's no concern of society regardless of its cause. It's there. People do it.

So is bestiality. Is that enough justification for it? Racial supremacism, Rape, Murder- can these be justifified purely by saying, 'it's no concern of society, 'cause it's there and people do it'? 'Freedom of expression', and the concept that people should be totally uninhibited in their choice of lifestyle, continue to be used as an excuse to purge all traces of ethics and morality from our society, and you believe that this will further 'Civilised Values' :-5. No wonder the KKK is still going strong, no wonder paganism and Voodoo are the two fastest growing faiths in America. The standpoint that 'if someone wants to do it, no-one should be allowed to object to it', doesn't cut dice as long as society has laws to abide by; and we can only pray to God that it never will...

Singh-Song · Post by **Singh-Song** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:59 pm

Oh, and if other far more unnatural, ethically questionable uses of medical advances in technology can be used in the favour of the homosexual community- like the research being done into designer IVF babies for lesbian couples, creating the possibility of the (inherently female) child sharing the genetic progeny of both the mother and her partner, making both biological parents- then how can the potential for research into homosexuality as a condition and abnormal social trait, which at the moment is limited to the bare outline of coming 'to a true understanding of what homosexuality is', become construed as a Hitler-esque attempt at 'changing the generic makeup of the human race?' in comparison? :-3

(p.s, what's the point of a poll that only has the options; a, the world is stupid, b, ha ha it's funny, c, let's end human natural reproduction by making everybody in the next generation gay, and d, I don't want to be gay any more? Maybe if support for the concept was included as an option, a more complete image of the observers' true opinions might be gathered?)

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:31 pm

jimbo;1125827 wrote: so you did spot :-6

sorry i just cant believe some people think it is ok to say that gay people are a diisease it really gets my goat ,i have a few gay friends and they are the nicest of the nice ,it is upsetting to think that some morons can see no further than their own nose and would want to wipe them out of the DNA of future generations ....ok rant over

:o

You know me Jimbo..always ready to slip in a track by my hero's relevent to the thread. Well, here's one for you. Not their best i must admit apart from the bass guitar by JJ. Listen to the words. By the way, that's Eintstien he's quoting at the end.

Asterpix Interactive Video - The Stranglers - Genetix

Now the really spooky bit..... this song was written and produced in 1979......................30 years ago :-3:-3:-3

scholle-kid · Post by **scholle-kid** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:13 pm

Singh-Song;1126364 wrote: Oh, and if other far more unnatural, ethically questionable uses of medical advances in technology can be used in the favour of the homosexual community- like the research being done into designer IVF babies for lesbian couples, creating the possibility of the (inherently female) child sharing the genetic progeny of both the mother and her partner, making both biological parents- then how can the potential for research into homosexuality as a condition and abnormal social trait, which at the moment is limited to the bare outline of coming 'to a true understanding of what homosexuality is', become construed as a Hitler-esque attempt at 'changing the generic makeup of the human race?' in comparison?

IMO, It all reeks of " Hitel' and his tests.

I'm a frim believer in the 'natural' way of doing the pro creating thing humans do. all a medical person is needed for (and that's even questionable ) is to 'catch' the end product as he/she comes out to greet the world.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:06 am

Jester;1126537 wrote:

People who practice sodomy are more likely to die of HIV and spread HIV to practicing heterosexuals. People who practice the gay lifestyle are more likely to commit suicide.

Do you have any factual statistics to back that claim or a link?

Or is it more homophobic propoganda?

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:08 am

It is always assumed that homosexual men participate in anal ( sodomy) sex.

That is not true. Sodomy is an activity that is quite common in heterosexual relationships. The spread of aids can be blamed on promiscuity , multiple sex partners, and unprotected sex. Lesbians do not practice anal sex. How do they spread aids? And yet, they are persecuted as well.

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:59 am

Jester;1126537 wrote: I suspect that was the point of the article and I think ya'll pretty much proved him correct.What puzzles me is that you seriously think it's so. You could read the thread and see it's not so, you could work it out from what we've said that it's not so, you'd rather be an ostrich and bury your head rather than find what the world's really like.

What did the gays ever do that's so upset you? Or, to use a rather more appropriate word, the LGBTs, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender/transsexuals? They're not merely harmless, they're decorative, they add to the world's joys. Ah, I'd forgotten - they've offended against your interpretation of the Will of God and you stubbornly cling on to this fantasy that you know God's Will or that, even if you did it, we should implement it when it's so blatantly unjust.

I'll give you an example of where some form of genetic compulsion wouldn't go amiss, some sort of pre-birth adjustment parents could choose to select for which would help the planet. Aggression. The ability to pick up a weapon without puking and passing out from shame. Here's a bit from a book I've been reading this week, "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. I'd recommend it though I doubt whether you're likely to cooperate. It's about two Polynesian societies which had been apart for so long they'd forgotten each other existed.An Australian seal-hunting ship visiting the Chatham Islands en route to New Zealand brought the news to New Zealand of islands where "there is an abundance of sea and shellfish; the lakes swarm with eels; and it is a land of the karaka berry ... The inhabitants are very numerous, but they do not understand how to fight, and have no weapons".

On November 19th 1835 a ship carrying 500 Maori armed with guns, clubs and axes arrived, followed on December 5th by a boatload of 400 more Maori ... and attacked en masse. Over the course of the next few days they killed hundreds ... and enslaved all the others, killing most of those too over the next few years as it suited their whim. A Maori conqueror explained "We took possession ... in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped. Some ran away from us, these we killed, and others we killed - but what of that? It was in accordance with our custom".And here we are, two hundred years on, still watching the same thing happen in Iraq and Palestine. Because it's the God-given task of your societies to change the rest of us. It's your custom.

I'm not offering to use an anti-violence vaccine on the US - that would be compulsion - but I'm demanding that international law takes the place of this sort of outrage and if the US feels it's above paying attention then it can go the way of history. Manifest Destiny might have been your freakish greedy custom in the past but it has no place in the 21st century.

Meanwhile, if anyone comes up with an anti-violence vaccine for parents to adjust their offspring before birth, I'd rather see that handed out where it might do some real good than one aimed at perpetuating prejudice.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:25 am

jimbo;1126762 wrote: when i was at school there where butch butch girls that were just like boys and there where girlie girlie boys just like ranaldo :sneaky:

and guess what they all turned out gay

they were just born with the right bits for the wrong gender or the wrong bits for the wrong gender

no to sure what went wrong with ronaldo though :yh_rotfl

most men that are really homophobic are really scared they are gay

fancy going out for a pink gin with ronaldo next week jester :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

MAKE SURE YOU PUT SOME OF THOSE NICE UMBRELLA'S IN AND A STRAW, AND FROST HIS RIM :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:05 am

jimbo;1126793 wrote: you really are one of the funniest people i have ever met online :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

i dont post about 75% of the funny stuff i think of in case i offend people :wah:

but you just come right out with it and ram it down peoples throats and if they gag they gag :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

i'm also going to post this on the uk/usa fight thread

Yeah post it but we don't want any FISTING :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Tis Oscar's duty to her Prime Minister to be pesky. :-6:-6

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:31 am

Jester;1126988 wrote: Yup, pretty much. Everything I think is so.

It's entirely in your own head then. The content of the thread contradicts your claim about what's been said.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:40 am

jimbo;1126832 wrote: i mean that is just so wrong :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

you are going to rub someone up the wrong way in a minute :sneaky:

BTS and jester on the way to the fg meetup in bristol should of known better to of followed oscar'a directions :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

YouTube - The Blue Oyster

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl