ForumGarden

Accountable wrote:



What do the lack of responses say about my fellow Gardeners?



I wish to offer a heartfelt yet relatively feeble apology to all I insulted by this experiment.


ACC....

I was too shocked to reply...it was so unexpected. I guess I was scared to express my true feelings for fear of destroying a freindship....rather shallow I guess. Had your 'experiment ' been repeated, I would definitely have expressed my feelings.....or sent the men in white coats to GET YOU !



Quote by BR...

"The bad part is, we are considered "un-PC" and bigoted etc, etc, yada yada, because we don't accept the practices of these people. I'm still with ya' anyway, it is after all, still an opinion, something we are all entitled to."



BR....Differing opinions in no way change my feelings about the people at FG....I have great affection and respect for everyone here and 'un-PC' and bigotted doesn't come into my thoughts when I read your posts. If these discussions didn't exist, FG would be a pretty boring place. Very rarely do personal insults come into the discussions...that's the main thing. Respect and tolerance rule as they should...

Bez wrote: BR....Differing opinions in no way change my feelings about the people at FG....I have great affection and respect for everyone here and 'un-PC' and bigotted doesn't come into my thoughts when I read your posts. If these discussions didn't exist, FG would be a pretty boring place. Very rarely do personal insults come into the discussions...that's the main thing. Respect and tolerance rule as they should...
I should have clarified again, Bez. Here is a different story than the real world. We all appreciate each other specifically for all the diversity found here. The same thing that keeps FG alive and interesting is what is frowned upon in real life. Attitudes like mine are not commonly accepted outside my immediate social circle, no matter how intelligently or benignly I present them.

BabyRider wrote: I should have clarified again, Bez. Here is a different story than the real world. We all appreciate each other specifically for all the diversity found here. The same thing that keeps FG alive and interesting is what is frowned upon in real life. Attitudes like mine are not commonly accepted outside my immediate social circle, no matter how intelligently or benignly I present them.


Here is different, you're right. I rarely have opportunities to get involved in the same type of conversations in the 'outside' world as I do here. I have posted personal stuff that I would never speak about elsewhere....wonder why that is ? Maybe sitting in the comfort of your own home makes things more benign...who knows. Being here is a release for me from the mundane and routine...real but not real if you get my meaning.

Accountable wrote: Clint,



As you saw, I tested your idea that similarly disrespectful jokes about Muslims and gays would not be tolerated. I tossed in a joke insulting black people for good measure. I'm really sorry to say you were wrong, at least this one time.



I got two negative responses for the black joke, one or two positive responses for the gay joke, and no responses at all for the Muslim joke. It may have been because it was I who posted the jokes. I think I might have gotten a different resonse if I had logged on as someone new. It might have been different if the jokes were posted in a different order (the Muslim joke was between the other two). Whatever the reasons, I was disappointed.



Posting those disgusting jokes affected me physically. I unfortunately had quite a few black jokes to choose from, and chose the most insulting one I could find that didn't use inflamatory language that might get me banned (choosing my battles). I was physically shaking with a mix of anger and anxiety as I posted it. I laughed aloud at the gay joke. The Muslim joke, the longer one, was the only long joke I could find about Muslims. It didn't really affect me one way or another.



What does this say about me?



What do the lack of responses say about my fellow Gardeners?



I wish to offer a heartfelt yet relatively feeble apology to all I insulted by this experiment.


I think the lack of response was because it was you who posted them and people were willing to let it go thinking you must have just lost your marbles for a day. Because we know your not a bigot, and it was confusing to see your jokes.



I do think if a newbie, who we didn't know had posted them we would have said something about it.



I think this shows people are more tolerant, forgiving and diplomatic with their friends.

Bez wrote: Here is different, you're right. I rarely have opportunities to get involved in the same type of conversations in the 'outside' world as I do here. I have posted personal stuff that I would never speak about elsewhere....wonder why that is ? Maybe sitting in the comfort of your own home makes things more benign...who knows. Being here is a release for me from the mundane and routine...real but not real if you get my meaning.
It makes me wonder....

What would each of us do if presented with another member here, not knowing who they were from Adam? I mean, can you imagine, say, one of the proper English men here visiting America and coming across me and my brothers somewhere? I'd bet they'd either give us a wide berth, or look at us with total disdain.

There's a thread in there somewhere.... :yh_think

orangesox1 wrote: I think the lack of response was because it was you who posted them and people were willing to let it go thinking you must have just lost your marbles for a day. Because we know your not a bigot, and it was confusing to see your jokes.



I do think if a newbie, who we didn't know had posted them we would have said something about it.



I think this shows people are more tolerant, forgiving and diplomatic with their friends.


I have to aggree with Orange AC, for a moment yesterday I thought you'd gone mad!!:p

BabyRider wrote: It makes me wonder....

What would each of us do if presented with another member here, not knowing who they were from Adam? I mean, can you imagine, say, one of the proper English men here visiting America and coming across me and my brothers somewhere? I'd bet they'd either give us a wide berth, or look at us with total disdain.

There's a thread in there somewhere.... :yh_think
I look forward to it. :-3 I think.

Betty Boop wrote: I have to aggree with Orange AC, for a moment yesterday I thought you'd gone mad!!:p
You guys might not believe how hard it was to post those. I held off pm'ing Anastrophe half a dozen times to ask permission/forgiveness. I also resisted sending Clint a message letting him in on it.



You'll not see that from me again, I think.

Accountable wrote: You guys might not believe how hard it was to post those. I held off pm'ing Anastrophe half a dozen times to ask permission/forgiveness. I also resisted sending Clint a message letting him in on it.



You'll not see that from me again, I think.


Good, I did get worried that you'd get banned when Anastrophe appeared though!!:wah:

Well I'm gonna say this even if it means everyone hates me....

A joke is a joke and every joke is putting someone down whether it be, Irish, blondes, gays, sex,drunks, people dying, blacks, pakistani's, etc.etc.......

I enjoy most jokes, and I dont think of myself as racist or a bigot or anything else. I am very broad minded about most things.

I say again a joke is a joke and is often funny but not meant to be taken as serious, if they were then there would be no place for all the comedians in the world.

pina wrote: Well I'm gonna say this even if it means everyone hates me....



A joke is a joke and every joke is putting someone down whether it be, Irish, blondes, gays, sex,drunks, people dying, blacks, pakistani's, etc.etc.......

I enjoy most jokes, and I dont think of myself as racist or a bigot or anything else. I am very broad minded about most things.

I say again a joke is a joke and is often funny but not meant to be taken as serious, if they were then there would be no place for all the comedians in the world.
I guess we could use them in battle to go first and hurl insults at the enemy. They'd be so mad they wouldn't be able to shoot straight, then we could tease them about that as well! :wah:

ArnoldLayne wrote: Well, I am an English gentleman but dont be fooled. I have been scraped off the floor/road on more than a few occasions. Not all our pubs are salubrious hostels for the partaking of an occasional beverage. I know a few spit and sawdust establishments that would think you were posh if you didnt have odd socks on. My good friend is the landlord of a pub that is often frequented by what you might refer to as *rednecks*. I have often been emroiled in heated exchanges. I'm familiar with the Biker community a little too. I lived in the same road, in my early 20's, as the president of the Kent Chapter of Hells Angels. I knew him well enough that he didnt eat me alive when I broke his nose, on a visit he made to our Karate club.(In fact he hardly noticed). He just strode up to me and said "You've broke my ****ing nose", and laughed, thank God. He was a giant who would impress the local kids by picking his Harley off the floor.



So I would be comfortable in your and your friends company and I am sure you would make it so.


I have no doubt there are exceptions, Arnold! I'm just trying to come up with a good example of two diametrically opposed groups represented here in FG who would balk at the sight of each other in real life, if they didn't know how they knew the other. Do you get what I'm trying to do here?? If you do, could you please explain it to me? :yh_rotfl

BabyRider wrote: I have no doubt there are exceptions, Arnold! I'm just trying to come up with a good example of two diametrically opposed groups represented here in FG who would balk at the sight of each other in real life, if they didn't know how they knew the other. Do you get what I'm trying to do here?? If you do, could you please explain it to me? :yh_rotfl
How about you & LC?

Accountable wrote: How about you & LC?
Actually, Acc., LC and I have more in common than you would think. Bikers and cops have strangely parallel ideals and lifestyles. True brotherhood is understood by both groups very well. Both groups understand and practice the "kill for and die for" commitment. Both groups close ranks when needed, and cover for each other as needed. Both groups have an allegiance to each other that no one can touch. When you mess with one, you mess with them all, biker OR cop.

One major difference would be that cops are sworn to uphold the law, where as bikers practice getting around it.

Accountable wrote: How about you & LC?BR and i are very good buddies off the forum...i have always found bikers to be extremely respectful of LE, always give each other a thumbs up on the street. of course there are some groups that identify themselves as outlaws, that is a different species....but i have seen many bike weeks down here and that element does not show up en masse. mostly people wanting to party down and that's fine, we just want to keep them alive.

BabyRider wrote: Actually, Acc., LC and I have more in common than you would think. Bikers and cops have strangely parallel ideals and lifestyles. True brotherhood is understood by both groups very well. Both groups understand and practice the "kill for and die for" commitment. Both groups close ranks when needed, and cover for each other as needed. Both groups have an allegiance to each other that no one can touch. When you mess with one, you mess with them all, biker OR cop.

One major difference would be that cops are sworn to uphold the law, where as bikers practice getting around it.
Understood. But if you & LC didn't recognize each other and you were in "uniform" - leathers for you, blues (I assume) for LC - would you "balk at each other"?

lady cop wrote: BR and i are very good buddies off the forum...i have always found bikers to be extremely respectful of LE, always give each other a thumbs up on the street. of course there are some groups that identify themselves as outlaws, that is a different species....but i have seen many bike weeks down here and that element does not show up en masse. mostly people wanting to party down and that's fine, we just want to keep them alive.
I'm tryin' to help BR. Got any ideas?

Accountable wrote: I'm tryin' to help BR. Got any ideas?help her in what way Acc? i haven't really been following this thread...does she need to see the error of her ways? that's not my place.

Accountable wrote: Understood. But if you & LC didn't recognize each other and you were in "uniform" - leathers for you, blues (I assume) for LC - would you "balk at each other"?
Ahh...I see where you're going now.

Bikers have a universal signal to let each other know when there is a cop in the vicinity, so no, I wouldn't visibly balk, I'd let my brothers know, quietly, that there was a LEO around and make sure I wasn't doing anything to draw attention to myself.

Generally though, we (I speak only for the Angels and the clubs we associate with) don't start crap. So we usually don't have to worry about cops that are nearby. We let each other know one's near, then go about our business.

so BR what's the secret signal?

lady cop wrote: help her in what way Acc? i haven't really been following this thread...does she need to see the error of her ways? that's not my place.
ROTFLMMFAO!!!!

There is a potential thread for discussion lurking just outside my grasp here, LC, and Acc is doing his damndest to help me pin it down.

The way this thread drifted got me to thinking about how some of us, if we were confronted with certain other members here, not knowing who they were, would shy away, or be nervous around, or any other sort of odd reaction, based only on what we looked like and the fact that we didn't know who we were meeting.

I'm still not expressing what I'm trying to say here, darnit.

Sorry my last post was abrupt. I had to rush off. Glad to see I didn't **** anybody off. It's nice having a good rep. I think I'll keep it. :-6

Accountable wrote: You guys might not believe how hard it was to post those. I held off pm'ing Anastrophe half a dozen times to ask permission/forgiveness. I also resisted sending Clint a message letting him in on it.



You'll not see that from me again, I think.
You are to be commended for your courage. Thank you for what you did.

I don't mean to deminish your effort but I still wonder what reaction you would get if you posted a joke about the Koran itself...using its content as the brunt of the joke. Please, I'm not actually suggesting that anyone actualy do it.

Clint wrote: You are to be commended for your courage. Thank you for what you did.



I don't mean to deminish your effort but I still wonder what reaction you would get if you posted a joke about the Koran itself...using its content as the brunt of the joke. Please, I'm not actually suggesting that anyone actualy do it.
I know what you mean. I really think that if I had posted even those jokes under a new name I'd have been flamed, drawn & quartered, banned, then invited back so everybody could do a Brave Heart on me before banning me again (no to put too fine a point on it):D .



I truly think you over-reacted to the irreverance, but I also have a raw nerve or two hanging out there, and would (will? have?) react similarly under the right circumstances.

posted by clint

I don't mean to deminish your effort but I still wonder what reaction you would get if you posted a joke about the Koran itself...using its content as the brunt of the joke. Please, I'm not actually suggesting that anyone actualy do it.


If it's funny why not? It will be a sad day when you can't poke fun at the self righteous of any religon. Arnold's original post and point about using selective bits of the bible could equally be made about those who use the koran in the same way. It is exactly that same point that those musliims who oppose islamic extremists want to get across. If they are banned from pointing out the hypocrisy of it all what chance will they have?

It's exactly the same thing with exactly the same end in mind, to control and tell people what to believe and how to live instead of allowing them to make their own choices.

We in the Uk have a bit of controversy just now as the govt is trying to stop people inciting religious or racial hatred. One of the problems is that a strict interpretation could make a religious joke a criminal offence if someone decides it is offensive. Offensive jokes are usually just that, funny is funny.

I was at a Burn's supper in a staunchly protestent part of lanarkshire, the band, from northern ireland were coming out with sectarian joke after sectarian joke all to be met with a kind of muffled hysterical laughter (not quite PC now you see it was actually embarrassing even if the jokes were quite funny) with the odd sexist joke thrown in. Then the catholic priest stood up and started in with a series of ian paisley jokes.

There's a difference between laughing at someone who is different and laughing with someone at the differences, one leads to conflict and the other to greater understanding.

You can't make fun of belief but you can of the sanctimonious

I think you have to earn the right to tell jokes about things that people take personally. An attorney may tell attorney jokes to other lawyers but be offended when a businessman tells the same joke. It is easy for us to say the attorney shouldn't be offended.

I probably did over-react to your original post. I don't think I would have had the same reaction if someone who belonged to a Bible study group read it to the group though.

I think this is funny...and right on too.

Mildred, the church gossip, and self-appointed monitor of the church's morals, kept sticking her nose into other people's business.

Several members did not approve of her extra curricular activities. Never the less, feared her enough to maintain their silence. She made a mistake, however when she accused George, a new member, of being an alcoholic after she saw his old pickup parked in front of the town's only bar one afternoon. She emphatically told George and several others that everyone seeing it there would know what he was doing.

George, a man of few words, stared at her for a moment and just turned and walked away. He didn't explain, defend, or deny. He said nothing.

Later that evening, George quietly parked his pickup in front of Mildred's house ...walked home....and left it there all night.



Don't ya just love ol George . .

Hmmm.. lot of reading to catchup on this thread..

I do have a question for Far and all of you that share his views on this topic...

What would you do if your child or grandchild announced they were gay or lesbian??

would that alter your views on alternative lifestyles or would you do as you said in your post, be cordial but not go out of your way to have contact with them..

I would be sad for them. I would be concerned for their physical, mental and spiritual health. I would hope they would soon see what they will be missing in life such as being natural parents, social acceptance, and the growth that comes from sharing your life with someone of the opposite sex. I would realize that if I cut them off, if I treated them badly, I would be adding to their list of reasons to do what they are going. I would continue to love them and let them be a part of my life, no less so than those I have worked with and known outside the family.

I personally like listening to pseudo-religious debates, especially with people I respect and who's company I keep. Not being one who reads the Bible or a devotee of a particular faith, I enjoy hearing differing views.

It gives insight to all those whom don't already have a preconceived idea about God and what He wants.

Wolverine wrote: I personally like listening to pseudo-religious debates,


I certainly do hope that it's not Clint to whom you are referring as "pseudo-religious" because he's one of the most devout Christians I've ever heard.

As for the whole homosexuality debate, scientists have found the males and females have differing structures in their brains. And sure enough... homosexuals have the wrong structures for their sex.

Therefore homosexuality is a form of birth defect. Why would I have a problem with them anymore than I would a club-footed person or one with webbed toes? It's the same thing, just bad genetics.

Moreover, it's also been proven that this birth defect occurs at exactly the same rate in every species of mammals. There are homosexual dogs, cats, pigs, dolphins, giraffes, etc, and etc. Something like 15% of every species, if I recall the American medical Journal's article.:rolleyes:

From the article:



From this previous work on the anterior hypothalamus, LeVay hypothesized that the INAH 2 or 3 would be larger in men who sexually prefer women than it would be for men who prefer males. In essence, LeVay proposed that male homosexuals have brains that are different from heterosexual men and similar to the brains of women. LeVay examined post-mortem tissue from 41 subjects most of whom had died from AIDS. His research found a correlation between brain structure and sexual orientation. LeVay found a significant difference in the size of the INAH-3 in heterosexual men and homosexual men. The INAH-3 was two to three times larger in heterosexual men than in gay men. He found no significant difference in size between homosexual men and women. Regarding his results, LeVay said, "The discovery that a nucleus differs in size between heterosexual and homosexual men illustrates that sexual orientation in humans is amenable to study at the biological level."

Jives wrote: I certainly do hope that it's not Clint to whom you are referring as "pseudo-religious" because he's one of the most devout Christians I've ever heard.


don't be putting words in my mouth, kid. the discussions are pseudo-religious.

I like listening to passionate people talk and debate things that they really care about.

the whole "gay thing." Good for you. God's free will thing, is how I see it.

You're gay, good for you. I'm not, so please don't hit on me.:wah:

Thanks for the honest answer Far. I am impressed by the depth of your belief and even though I don't share that same amount of conviction your defense of your stance on a highly controversial topic is admirable.

As for myself, if my child or grand child "came out" so to speak, it would not make an iota of difference to me. I honestly believe that gays and lesbians are born with a different genetic makeup. This is not something that they chose, to be gay or lesbian, at least that is what I have found in my discussions with gay friends. And the ones that have tried to live the straight lifestyle to please parents have expressed the pain that they lived with, lying not only to their parents, but themselves. A diffficult dilemma to say the least.. risking going bonkers because you are not living your life.. or risking being shunned by your parents because they don't agree with the alternative lifestyle that you live..

Wolverine wrote: don't be putting words in my mouth, kid. the discussions are pseudo-religious. I like listening to passionate people talk and debate things that they really care about.


Well thank goodness, but I'm still confused, why do your think this debate is "pseudo religious"?

You're gay, good for you.


Mrs. Ives would beg to differ with your remark. See her picture below.

I'm not, so please don't hit on me.


Methinks thou dost protest too much.:wah:

Attached files

Jives wrote: I certainly do hope that it's not Clint to whom you are referring as "pseudo-religious" because he's one of the most devout Christians I've ever heard.

As for the whole homosexuality debate, scientists have found the males and females have differing structures in their brains. And sure enough... homosexuals have the wrong structures for their sex.

Therefore homosexuality is a form of birth defect. Why would I have a problem with them anymore than I would a club-footed person or one with webbed toes? It's the same thing, just bad genetics.

Moreover, it's also been proven that this birth defect occurs at exactly the same rate in every species of mammals. There are homosexual dogs, cats, pigs, dolphins, giraffes, etc, and etc. Something like 15% of every species, if I recall the American medical Journal's article.:rolleyes:
Schizophrenia is a condition that people are born with. It is not something they desire to have nor would a normal society encourage people to participate in its behavior. If you made a TV show about someone with the problem that made it sound wonderful or laughed at it, there would surley be a strong objection to it.

Homosexuality, if it is something people are born with, shouldn't be a behavior society accepts as "normal" or offers to its childeren as an "alternative".

Jives, the numbers I saw in a recent report were more like 2%.

Your words about me are very kind. I hope, yet doubt that I deserve them.

Courtesy of the St Petersburg Times. I hope you all enjoy:

Column

Be wary of those who claim to speak for God

By DONALD R. EASTMAN III

Published April 29, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The frequent appearance of scribes and Pharisees in the Gospels of the New Testament of the Christian Bible creates an important theme linking the various stories of Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ: The conviction that one is speaking for God, or that one knows God's ways and God's will, or that one knows with certainty what is good and what is not, is foolish, misleading and arrogant. Time after time, Jesus shows up the false certitudes of the scribes and Pharisees - who were representatives of official religion of the day - with his characteristic humility and wisdom.

Perhaps the most chilling words in the Christian Bible are God's stricture on human understanding from Isaiah 55:8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," says the Lord. "For as the heavens are higher than the Earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Man's struggle, so often a failure, to understand God's ways and God's judgments is the constant story of the Bible, from Adam and Eve to Job to Abraham to Paul and the prophets. There is nothing in either the Old or New Testament that excuses man from extreme circumspection regarding God's will.

This is the fallacy behind the attempt by so many ministers and politicians nowadays to speak for or presume to know the will of God with respect to contemporary issues of high moral concern: Neither the actions of judges, nor research on stem cells, nor the putative follies of the liberal media, nor the sad life of Terri Schiavo, nor the use of the filibuster are addressed in the Bible, and no one - no one on this Earth - has been given direct access to God's views on these matters, not to mention so many others. No amount of tub-thumping and high moral indignation should convince us and our fellow citizens otherwise.

"Christian values" do not amount to specific political positions, and they are simply manipulated when such claims are made. Christian values are much less political and much more specific and difficult than "Christian" politics. The values Jesus described in Mathew 25:35-36 are to feed the hungry, visit the imprisoned and clothe the naked. Jesus asks us to forgive our enemies and all others, and to give away all we have to follow him.

Most of the current ranting on behalf of "Christian values" or "people of faith" reminds me of the pompous self-importance of the scribes and Pharisees of the New Testament, whose righteous indignation contrasts so starkly with the values evidenced by Jesus at every turn. I am also reminded of the words of the Texas congressman who was not joking when he said, in rejecting calls for the use of Spanish in local schools, "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me." This is the kind of educational and cultural ignorance that has afflicted our national polity throughout our history. As Abraham Lincoln said of both the North and South in his second inaugural address, "Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes."

Colleges like mine that seek to maintain a historic and on-going conversation with the Christian church make a determined effort to separate defining and advocating the essential values espoused in the Christian Bible from acting as if we know - as if anyone knows - how God would prefer to see those values encoded in contemporary law and civic practice. Even as highly educated teachers and scholars in the disciplines of biblical studies and sacred texts and values, we have no right to act as if we know God's will with respect to current events, and neither do our present-day scribes and Pharisees. The Almighty has his own purposes, and those who would pretend to know his will deserve only our enmity and our scorn.

Donald Eastman is president of Eckerd College, which is related by covenant to the Presbyterian Church, USA.

[Last modified April 29, 2005, 10:59:01]

Clint wrote: Homosexuality, if it is something people are born with, shouldn't be a behavior society accepts as "normal" or offers to its childeren as an "alternative".


Boom. And I absolutely agree with you! But it does put a different spin on people who are trying to "reform" homosexuals. This research would seem to imply that would be almost impossible, although I'm fairly certain people could be programmed to deal with it more effectively, just as you would teach a club-footed boy to walk better. Hmmm...I'm not sure how that would apply here, though.

Jives, the numbers I saw in a recent report were more like 2%.


I stand corrected. What I found fascinating, though, was the fact that it happens in other mammalian species. For some reason, I always thought it was only humans that could be homosexual.

Your words about me are very kind. I hope, yet doubt that I deserve them.


Your modesty proves my point.

Jives wrote: I stand corrected. What I found fascinating, though, was the fact that it happens in other mammalian species. For some reason, I always thought it was only humans that could be homosexual.


I have heard of this and read the "findings" about homosexual animals other than humans, and I just have to say....I am not buying it.

Why not? It seems very logical to me. The difference between a house mouse and yourself is a measly 0.09% of your DNA. If humans could be born homosexual, why not animals? Especially mammals?:rolleyes:

Jives wrote: Why not? It seems very logical to me. The difference between a house mouse and yourself is a measly 0.09% of your DNA. If humans could be born homosexual, why not animals? Especially mammals?:rolleyes:


I think I heard a story about a homosexual lion some years ago. And lets not forget the homosexual dogs in Legally Blonde II, starring Reese Witherspoon.

Jives wrote: Why not? It seems very logical to me. The difference between a house mouse and yourself is a measly 0.09% of your DNA. If humans could be born homosexual, why not animals? Especially mammals?:rolleyes:
Why not? Because it's been human practice to anthropomorphize animals for decades, and animals and people are not comparable. If you want my honest "big brother" opinion on it, it's a ploy to make homosexuality seem more "acceptable."

"Hey, if the innocent animals do it, it MUST be ok!!"

I think it's a load of typical skewed media bull-sh!t.

The claim that animals are homosexual is something that I also have a hard time buying. I also think that homosexuality isn't something that is "normal" and that just like other abnormal things that crop up, we should be seeking a cure for it. As it is it is being held up as an alternative for our children rather than something needing to be cured.

BabyRider wrote:

"Hey, if the innocent animals do it, it MUST be ok!!.


LOL. Nope I never said it was "OK"! I just said the poor buggers are screwed up genetically. Doesn't mean I like it any more than you do.:wah:

Clint wrote: The claim that animals are homosexual is something that I also have a hard time buying. I also think that homosexuality isn't something that is "normal" and that just like other abnormal things that crop up, we should be seeking a cure for it. As it is it is being held up as an alternative for our children rather than something needing to be cured.


Again I agree, we should be treating this just like a genetic predisposition to cancer, or better yet, like muscular dystrophy! I have high hopes that the decoding of the human genome will result in the identification of homosexuals before they are born and the treatment of them genetically.

We could eradicate homosexuality in our lifetime!

Kind of puts a funny spin on "Jerry's Kids" doesn't it?:wah:

Jives wrote: LOL. Nope I never said it was "OK"! I just said the poor buggers are screwed up genetically. Doesn't mean I like it any more than you do.:wah:
Not "you" personally, Jives, just the people trying to cram it (along with every other freakin' PC thing they think should be accepted) down our throats. :yh_bigsmi