Thursday, May 11, 2006

Gay Homosexuality

I've come across a lot of gay stuff lately. First, this blog has been listed on Gayblogs. I blame Butchie for this. I also blame him for pointing me to "Generation X-Pose", the blog of a radical Christian fundamentalist who, among other ridiculous things, believes that homosexuality is a perversion. She even posted a pic of a bumper sticker reading "eliminate perversion". Genocide is funny!

This got me thinking about homosexuality. Whenever I come across debates on this topic, there are a few things that always come up, but I think people (on both sides of the issue) often miss the point. Let me blab for a while about three aspects of one of these issues: Choice.

First: Is it a choice? Usually, it comes down to homophobes saying being gay is a choice, and homophiles saying it's not a choice. I am indeed straight, so perhaps I'm not qualified to comment on this (though apparently everyone reading my blog is), but I think it is obvious that being gay is not a conscious choice. You don't even need scientific evidence to figure this out...a simple thought experiment will do.

Try this: Imagine yourself being of the opposite sexual orientation than you are, and (this is key), enjoying it. If you're a straight dude, imagine yourself sucking on another dude's dick and loving it. If you're a straight female, imagine being extremely happy about burying your face in a nice wet vagina. Can you do it? Not just imagining doing it, but LIKING it? Can you just turn a switch back and forth that determines your preference? I doubt it. I certainly can't. And therefore it can't be a choice. If a straight person can't choose to be gay, how can a gay person choose to be straight? And if you can imagine it, then you're bisexual. Congratulations, your choices for a partner just doubled.

Second: People say that if it's not a choice, it must be genetic. This is not true. Genetics and choice do not go hand in hand. People can have characteristics which were not put there by genetics, but which they did not choose to possess either. Many people are afraid of clowns. They were not born afraid of clowns, but neither did they choose to be afraid. More likely, it's bad experiences with clowns (the movie "It") and clown-like things (Carrot Top). Certainly nobody said to themselves, "hey, I think I'll choose to have a clown phobia today". They would be no more likely to do that than to choose to be gay in a world where the insane hateful woman from the blog above exists.

I'm not saying this parallels homosexuality at all (there is evidence of a genetic contribution to it [one example]), I just mean to point out that something being a choice and something being determined by genes are not mutually exclusive.

Third: My previous two points are actually irrelevant. It doesn't matter if being gay is a choice or not. Why should I, or anyone else, care what people rub their genitals against in the privacy of their homes? It doesn't affect me. Even if sexual orientation is a completely conscious, deliberate "lifestyle" choice (it's not, but if it was), who cares? I'm not gonna say "don't judge people"...that's stupid...judge people who do bad things to you. Judge people who do bad things to other people. But don't judge people based on one aspect of their life which is, for the most part, private, and even the public aspects don't affect anybody but the people involved.

I prefer Pepsi to Coke, but I really don't give a shit if other people drink Coke in their homes. I don't even care if I see them drinking Coke in public. If my religion had a bible that told people to drink Pepsi, hey, the Coke drinkers are the ones going to hell. They chose their preference, right? Has nothing to do with me. Besides, my religion is probably wrong...It's one among hundreds, so what are the odds that mine got everything right? Not good. Maybe us Pepsi drinkers are the ones going to hell.

Conclusion: Kill all gay people. Oops, I mean, Conclusion: Don't treat people badly based on their sexual orientation, whether it's a choice or not, and it's not.

Wow...I spent an hour writing this when I should have been working on my thesis. Ah well, it's good to get these thoughts out of my brain.


sarah said...

this is cool a post, Phronk. I agree with you bigtime, but don't like your clown example. Many people claim that homosexuality is a result of abuse and traumatization (WRONG!), and your clown example parallels this idea too much for me to be comfortable with in this context (I know you didn't mean that, but I argue with many people about how homosexuality is natural, so I know quite a few of the stupid arguments). I would put your clown point with your pepsi point and argue that you just happen to prefer Pepsi. You didn't have a bad experience with Coke as a child and you didn't choose to prefer Pepsi, you just do (or so I assume).

When it comes to sex, I'll use myself as an example and say for some reason, I prefer guys. I usually prefer tall, dark-haired, clean-cut, baby-faced men to short, fat, blonds, right? This is my preference. Nothing happened to me to prefer this type, I just do. However, if I met a short, fat, blond guy who I fell in love with, well then shit... I guess I would be in love him right? Labels be dammed! Given that fact, I think that even though I label myself as 'straight', if I met a women who I loved, well that would be cool too. We're all just individuals and gender, race, sexuality etc are socially constructed labels that are easy to think outside of if you try a little bit.

Oh, and sorry I insulted David Blaine. :) I see your point, although I don't really think in those terms you described. I will take your word for it though, cause you rock out!

Anonymous said...

When it comes to sex, I'll use myself as an example and say for some reason, I prefer guys."

Sarah is all lies, half-truths, and falsities.

Phronk said...

Thanks Sarah.

I see how the clown example could be taken the wrong way. Perhaps I should have use the example of loving clowns, but that just makes me uncomfortable. I just meant to show that something can be a result of experience, but still not a controllable choice. Obviously I don't think homosexuality is a result of childhood trauma, any more than disliking licorice is a result of being beaten with it as a child. That would probably hurt though.

I do wonder, any preference, whether about soft drinks or who you wanna boink, something you "just do"? It seems that way to us, but it must have come from somewhere. Either we were born with it pre-wired in our heads, or it's a result of our experiences, or (likely in most cases), a bit of both. E.g., you like dark-haired guys...maybe it's because people have a genetic predisposition to prefer people who look like themselves, plus you've always had good experiences with dark-haired guys. That would never preclude you from dating a blonde, but the preference had to come from somewhere.

And I have a bit of a problem with the "gender is socially constructed" thing. Sure, society creates rules and stereotypes about gender. But society didn't create penises and vaginas, which are the defining differences between genders. Those differences are real, and will always exist. Society can alter how we deal with those differences though, which is perhaps more what you were getting at (that stuff isn't really my area, so I'm just talking out of my ass here). Same goes for race and orientation.

Anonymous said...

As one of the straight readers and a medical researcher, I have to tell you that there is literature and published research that suggests being gay or lesbian is biological. Brain function in gay men is different than st8 men some of the research argues. Regardless, it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not. People should be allowed to live their lives. Being gay or lesbian doesn't hurt anyone.

Great post!

Jason said...

Excellent and v. intelligent post Phronk.

Anonymous said...

You prefer Pepsi. You'll be executed right after us gays.

sarah said...

hmm.. you bring up some good points. Maybe if I traced it back I would find a reason for my preferences... this is probably out of my league to speak about, being a straight person, but that idea of conditioning is tricky too. The idea that something triggers gayness or straightness... i don't know. It's like this gay comedian I saw once where his mom put a plant in his room as a child and his dad told her not to cause it would turn him gay said, "yeah, I'm going to walk into my room at 6 years old and said 'Oh, Botany! I'm going to be a florist!' If you can, through experiences, be 'turned gay' when you're young, does that mean you can be conditioned out of being gay? or you can be conditioned to be gay if you consider yourself straight? It's interesting. Also, considering tastes change throughout your life, like I used to like coke, but now I much prefer a pepsi. I don't know if you can compare sexual orientation to soda pop preference... or maybe you can? hmm...

However, I think that sexual preference is becoming more flexible as society becomes more accepting. In my perfect world no one would ever call someone "straight" or "gay", people would just boink who they wanted to boink. People are way more different and complex than the categories we place upon and society is beginning to reflect that more and more. Then again the religious right keeps stepping up and challenging gay rights... I don't know... I just wish it was just not a big thang, you know?

Sorry to babble on here, but regarding your everything is 'socially constructed thing', I agree with you. Biology does have a lot to do with it... I have just heard from a lot of people who's biology and labels don't jive. one of my friends was born with a vagina, but feel wrong about the way society treats her and identifies more with the labels of a man and would rather be treated that way. Another one of my friends is Vietnamese and gets confused when people treat her like an Asian, cause she considers herself 'white'. Whatever that means, right? When talking about life in terms of how much is biology and how much is social, I personally believe that it's a complex interaction of both parts. It's easy for me who is straight, white, female who doesn't really have very many behavioral urges or preferences outside societal expectations to take for granted the norms which society places on us. It's interesting to step outside that box and think about the implications of being 'different'. Sometimes I feel lucky that I am mostly the same as everyone else, cause then life is so much easier for me because I don't challenge any expectations and no one gets threatened by me... This is a fucked up thought.

Nölff said...

I look foward to many LOLZ and rofle and OMGWTFBBQLOLZ from gen-X.. blog.

Butchie said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Your blog will never be as gay as mine, homo!!! I'm gonna post a picture of two guys doing it and link it to your blog!!!

Mia said...

Very good post. I followed you through the comment path. Well put, its all just personal preference. I say potatoe, you say potata well you get what I mean. Good conclusion.

toobusyliving said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Butchie said...

Peter, if you are inviting Phronk to the gangbang, I'm gonna invite someone else, also.

George Larson said...

Can I come?

Elle said...

Experiment in progress, 'kissing' competition:

Someone is blindfolded, be they straight or gay, and they believe that someone of their gender choice is about to kiss them and that the object of the exercise is to describe said kiss...perhaps even a fondle (this a concentual experiment). They are relying purely on sensation..soft lips, etc. At the end they say that they think it is the greatest kiss/fondle ever, only to find out that the person was not of the expected sex.

I have reached no conclusion. I believe we all have natural preferences, but...?? Not that it matters :)

Ultimately I believe the goal of life is happiness...for myself and others as far as is possible. So to live happily - helping where possible, and without doing harm at the very least, is my goal.

Happy Atheist.

Jason said...

I don't feel like playing gay softball tomorrow. Help!

Phronk said...

Thanks for the comments y'all.

Sarah: I think we're totally on the same page about this stuff. What you said sums it up best: "I just wish it was just not a big thang, you know?" Yeah, exactly, I wish my post wouldn't even be meaningful...that people were just people. Yeah.

Spammy: Interesting'd certainly challenge some peoples' beliefs and/or fuck them up. But obviously sexual orientation is about more than good kissing. And stubble would usually give away someone's manliness. :)

Everyone else: You rock too. But I'm not coming to your softball orgy. Have fun though. And Peter, you may have removed your phone number from the comment, but this is the Internet where you can't take anything back. Consider your identity stolen.


Tyler Dawbin said...

Imagine if you get to the end of your life...and find out that God was God all along, and not you?

Where would you be then?

Gerrod said...

^ What a fuckin jerkoff.

Butchie said...

Yes, Gerrod, he is a jerkoff.

Phronk said...


Let me be a dick and answer your question with another question:

Imagine if you get to the end of your life...and find out that God was actually the Egyptian death god Anubis (or one of the thousands of other gods you've rejected) all along, and not your Christian God? Where would you be then?

Anonymous said...

In one big state of....

sarah said...

did you claim to be god, Phronk? wha? I must have missed the part of your prose where you said you were God.

anyway, what puzzles me about people like Tyler up there is okay, fine, let's just say for a moment that god thinks that gay people are perverts or whatever and the Christian God actually exists, which is a big leap already, but fine. all that's true, let's assume. the next logical step in my head would be to ask why go through all this trouble to demonize gays? Sure, God hates them, so let them go to hell if that is what you believe and teach your children that homosexuality is wrong, FINE. Why are there so many anti-gay activists who spend so much time trying to prove that being gay is bad? Why are y'all so threatened by gay people if they are so outside of your world? It's suspicious, you know? I have my theories on the matter... but anyway.

If I was a Christian and had that much time on my hands I would start a blog in the name of Jesus to, I don't know, do something productive like a charity to feed the poor or provide medicine or something. You know, like Jesus would have done. Jesus never spread hate. It's quite curious to me why all these people are so fired up about gay people... unless ofcourse they have gay urges that their spirituality seeks to oppress and they use this energy to channel toward denial and hatred... but you know, that's just me trying to empathize. Following the lines of my earlier assumption: God created everyone and loves everyone. It's human beings that hate. If you can't accept people that's your baggage, stop blaming God. I don't think He would want you to hate in His name.

Phronk said...

Anonymous: Please finish your sentences. Thanx.

Sarah: I don't think I ever claimed to be God, but it's fun to put words in peoples' mouths, then dispute those made-up words instead of the original issue. Whatever.

I too wonder why some people put so much time into negative things. I guess some of them actually believe that gay people will corrupt their children and the world population will dwindle because gays don't reproduce. Who knows where they get that crap. Some also have personal issues that they take out on others. That Dani person I linked to in the post has said she was once a she is a bisexual (or maybe gay) dealing with the conflict between her religion and her own feelings. I know I shouldn't make assumptions about other peoples' motivations, but to her, it is obviously a deeply personal issue. Too bad she couldn't be constructive with her passion.

sarah said...

yeah about the claiming you were god, i was making a sarcastic comment about the dumb guy that said you were claiming to be god...? nevermind... it made sense in my head.

Yeah, I looked at Dani's site. Apparently a lot of people wish that her children become lesbians or something. I don't wish that upon her. I just wish that she learns to love herself for whatever she is instead of denying that and calling other people perverts cause she can't deal with herself.

Anyway, good posts and good responses... I should be writing an essay now... that's why I keep coming back here to ramble. :)

Anonymous said...

"Conclusion: Don't treat people badly based on their sexual orientation, whether it's a choice or not, and it's not."
Maybe you should also write an essay on how 2+2=4...

Phronk said...

Yeah Sarah I got your sarcasm....I was referring to that dude too. Sorry for being confusing. And thanks for the's good to know that there are some sane people out there.

Anonymous: If my conclusion was as obvious as 2+2=4, there wouldn't be psychopaths writing blogs about the opposite conclusion. I wish it was that simple.

Tyler Dawbin said...

Anyone who believes that THEY know what is best, and refuses to acknowledge God's sovereignty, is putting themself in the position of being their own God.


Phronk said...

That's a loose definition of God...but OK, whatever. I doubt that's how God's described in the Bible, so maybe you're falling prey to the same God complex you accuse me of, but yeah, you believe what you want.

Also - I don't "refuse God's severeignty"...I don't remember saying anything about God in my post, actually. But if I did, and if I was arguing the atheist postition (as I often do), it wouldn't be refusing's a matter of belief, not acceptance or refusal. If I don't believe God exists, I can't refuse any aspect of Him. That would be like you "refusing" the imaginary dragon in my head's reign over mankind. Or refusing the fact that he can breathe purple fire and turn people into cats when he blinks. You don't refuse simply, passively, don't believe he even exists.


Now how about responding to my earlier query. Where would you be? And how is my response to your question any different than your original question? What makes your God special?

Tyler Dawbin said...

Phronk, I don't have to worry about where I would be...I know who God is, and I know that Jesus saved my soul.

That's what faith is all about, but my faith is indeed coupled with my reason, as I am an electronics design engineer. I spent years believing that "this all just happened" and the Bible is "a bunch of stories." But as I started to really study the Bible, I found so much information in there that I could not get away from.

Did you know that the Bible even says that the earth is round? It's in the book of Job...the earth is described as a sphere, hung in the heavens.

This was long before any scientist figured out that the earth was round.

It's little things like that, and big things like Jesus' life and his death on the cross, and His resurrection, that have led me to the understanding that the creator of the universe loved me (and Phronk, and everyone else reading this) so much that He chose to become a man (Jesus) and live a perfect life, and pay the price for my sins (death), just to be able to spend eternity with Him.

And to that, I can only say Thank you, Lord!

Phronk said...

It's nice that you believe that, Tyler, but it doesn't really mean anything to us non-believers. All religions are just as convinced of their beliefs as you are of yours. Again, why would yours happen to be special?

I'm glad you brought up the round earth thing, though. At least that's real, factual evidence, using a bit of logic to get at your beliefs. But that specific example is not convincing.

"Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor." (Matthew 4:8)

How can one see all the kingdoms of the world from a mountain, if the earth is a sphere?

You could say the passage above is a metaphor...but how do you know the sphere passage wasn't the metaphor? Is there some secret code to distinguish metaphors from literal passages a priori?

And even if the Bible got one fact right, it's full of other errors. e.g. "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..." (Lev 11:6)

Hey God, hate to break it to ya, but hares don't chew their cud. It's almost as if humans wrote the Bible, with all their human imperfections and lack of omniscience.

Dani Kekoa said...

Phronk - Thanks for writing about me. Sorry I haven't taken the time to comment sooner.

So my question is - What about the pedophile who says that their sexual preference is not a choice either, so it must be genetic too, right?

Is it okay for grown men to sodomize young boys? What if no one gets hurt? Can we judge them for what they do in the privacy of their homes even if it doesn’t affect us?

So in conclusion, what you are saying is we should not treat pedophiles badly based on their sexual orientation, whether it's a choice or not.

Phronk said...

Hey Dani, thanks for stopping by.

A few things:

1) I guess you missed my point about choice and genetics not being equivalent, eh?

2) The degree of genetic contribution and/or choice does not dictate whether something is right or wrong. Pedophilia is probably partly genetic. It might not be a choice. I haven't done the research, so who knows. Whether it's genetic or not, a choice or not, it is clearly wrong.

3) Again, my whole point was that choice is irrelevant. So I don't see why you even bring it up in the pedophile example. Pedophilia is wrong for reasons outside of choice. It does hurt people. This should be shouldn't need a bible to point it out. You say "what if it doesn't hurt anyone?" Well then it would be fine. Like homosexuality. Is this really hard to understand? Hurting people = bad, not hurting people = good.

4) I was obviously talking about gay-straight sexual orientation in my post, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. Some sexual practices ARE wrong. Sleeping with the same sex is not one of them.

Dani Kekoa said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dani Kekoa said...

What IF it is "obvious" to some that homosexuality hurts people too?

After all - Being a pedophile is just another "sexual orientation" isn't it?

Is it wrong for a brother and sister to commit incest together? What about a mom and her adult son who are sleeping together?

You said, "Some sexual practices ARE wrong."

According to who -- You? Where do you base your decisions for right and wrong?

The pedophiles don't think they are hurting anyone either, so how can you really say they are wrong?

Phronk said...


Being a pedophile is not the usual meaning of sexual orientation. You're the only one using it that way. Whether they think they are hurting anyone or not is irrelevant...the harm they cause can be objectively measured.

I base my decisions of right and wrong on the amount of harm to others. What's right causes the greatest amount of happiness and the least amount of suffering. Didn't I just go over this?

Incest with direct relatives hurts people because the offspring produced by it are at greater risk for defects. With more distant relatives, it seems icky to me, but the risk is negligible. That's why it's not illegal to fuck your 2nd cousin in most places.

The only people I've met who think it's "obvious" that homosexuality hurts people are religious nuts. They are as biased as the pedophile who thinks it's "obvious" that fondling kids causes no harm. Again - I'm not bashing religion here - just the misuse of it. The use of it to cause, you know, harm.

Dani Kekoa said...

Hey Now – "Religious nuts" are people too, ya know? Just like homosexuals are people too. Don’t discriminate against Christians or treat us badly simply for our beliefs -- Play fair.

And by the way, I’m not religious. I just happen to believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

Whereas the homosexual community completely mocks God, rejects fundamental values and undermines the family which is the basic foundation of a healthy and successful society. Homosexuals hurt a society primarily because they cannot reproduce and because they are dying off from disease, murder and suicide.

Here are just a few facts about homosexuals: (Keep in mind that homosexuals only make up 2-3% of the U.S. population.) *For a full list of homosexual statistics & references go to => Free Republic

· The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75.

· The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79.

· 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization.

· Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, "Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities."

· Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, "30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals."

· Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, "Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person.

· Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident.

Apparently, some psychologists, sociologists and other officials seem to think it's "obvious" that homosexuality hurts people, so it's not just the religious nuts.


Here is something else that is OBVIOUS -- Homosexuals Prey on Children:

· 33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex.

· Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molester, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molester.

· There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association ( NAMBLA ). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is "SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE." This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.


True Christians, like me and Tyler believe that sex should remain within a marriage relationship between one man and one woman. How does that hurt anyone? Just because that view also happens to align with the Bible, why do you automatically reject it?

Researchers are finding that marriage has a much greater impact in our lives than many have assumed. This is especially true in the area of adult health and well-being.

Sociologist Linda Waite and researcher Maggie Gallagher explain -- “The evidence from four decades of research is surprisingly clear: a good marriage is both men’s and women’s best bet for living a long and healthy life.”

Men and women who are in their first marriages, on average, enjoy significantly higher levels of physical and mental health than those who are either single, divorced or living together. The research on this is very strong.

Leading social scientist, James Q. Wilson, explains -- “Married people are happier than unmarried ones of the same age, not only in the United States, but in at least seventeen other countries where similar inquiries have been made. And there seems to be good reasons for that happiness. People who are married not only have higher incomes and enjoy greater emotional support, they tend to be healthier. Married people live longer than unmarried ones, not only in the United States but abroad.”

Read entire report here=> Social issues of marriage and family

Studies also show that children who grow up in a home with a mother and father are far more happy, secure and healthy than children who don’t. But *THAT* should already be OBVIOUS to everyone!

Phronk said...

Ok ok sorry, I shouldn't be calling names. I'll stop calling you religious nuts if you stop calling gay people perverts. Fair enough?

I thank you for bringing some actual argument and data to the table. This is the kind of discussion I enjoy.

Unfortunately, most of your information is rubbish. Without going into detail about every "fact", a few points to bring up:

1) Look at your source: Catholic Apologetics International. Any data coming from such a biased source is bound to be biased itself. They can pick and choose which data to highlight and which to conveniently ignore (e.g. the incidence is probably higher than 2%...I think it was Tyler's blog we were discussing this in...and they leave out the mounds of evidence for a genetic contribution to homosexuality). If you want real data, go to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. They have no religious agenda, no "homosexual agenda", and people of various faiths and orientations make sure it's unbiased before it goes out for publication.

Like, where did the info about NAMBLA come from? Do a little more research and you'll find that A) All gay/lesbian groups deplore them. B) For all practical purposes they don't even EXIST any more. Marching in pride parades is a bit hard for a group that doesn't exist, eh?

2) Even if every fact you present is correct, it's all rather meaningless. Correlation does not equal causation. Does being gay cause, say, early death, or is it some third factor (e.g. genetics, hormones, hedonistic lifestyle) that causes both. Or is there some unecessary link between homosexuality and these "harmful" effects (e.g. gay = social stigma from religious nut- er, people = stress = early death). Remove social stigma, remove the problem.

The stats alone say nothing. You can't stop when they seem to align with the need to look (and think) deeper.

3) Allow that being gay is not a choice (plenty of peer-reviewed evidence for that...and if you're going to start quoting data, you can't ignore, say, the genetic data, and focus on the anti-gay data). Then everything falls apart...these stats will probably be many times worse for people who are gay but suppressing it.

4) Much of this "evidence" is anecdotal quotes from individuals who may or may not be sane.

5) Regarding the benefits of marriage...simple solution to that...allow gay marriage. Canada is a bit ahead of the USA in the whole civilization thing, so we'll have data about gay marriages in a few years. I doubt it will support your agenda.

To conclude, I repeat that I think the stats you present are false. But I have shown that even if they are true, they do not support your point.

Tyler Dawbin said...

Phronk, Hares pseudo-ruminate.

They actually defecate special pellets that they later eat.

Hey, Phronk, hate to break it to ya...but God knew what He was talking about...

Lagomorphs are herbivores that practice coprophagy, the re-ingestion of fecal droppings. On first "pass", these soft, green pellets pass through the digestive system only partially digested. These pellets, rich in protein and B vitamins, are re-ingested directly from the anus. After reingestion, the pellets are a drier brownish in nature. This practice allows the animals to spend relatively little time exposed to predators while in the field actually feeding. They consume green vegetation rapidly and then make optimum use of it in the safety of their cover. This process is also called "pseudo-rumination", since it is functionally the same as cows chewing their cud. Coprophagy is also practiced by beaver and voles and, apparently, by some shrews.(from

Dani Kekoa said...

Phronk - You can call me a "religious nut" if you want. Call it like you see it - hey, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, well you know...

Anyway, I will refrain from using the word "pervert" out of respect for your blog.

1) Sure, Catholic Apologetics International may have put the entire report together, but if you actually look down at the references you will see that the data contained in this report came from many different Psychological Reports, including the Medical Journal of Homosexuality, Science Magazine, Statistical Abstract of the U.S, United States Census Bureau, United States Congressional Record, and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association.

2) So you say it's all rather meaningless. The link between homosexuality and these "harmful" effects is a direct result of the lifestyle they chose, not social stigma. Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands. As a result, 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs. Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne. Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 2% of the population. All of this helps explain the “harmful” effects and why the median age of death of homosexuals is in the early 40s. Granted, some of the studies were done several years ago, but I think it’s safe to assume that things have not gotten any better since then.

3) Whether homosexuality is a choice or not, it is still wrong!

4) Here is some “evidence” for you - Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. "Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence". Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels "subjective distress").

5) Okay – generally speaking, is it better for children to grow up in a home with a mother and father who are married, as opposed to not?

Is homosexuality really just their "sexual orientation"?

This is a phrase made up by homosexuals to try to make themselves look less filthy than they really are. The purpose of the phrase is to take the spotlight from what these homos do, and put it on the notion that they are just poor, mistreated people, who simply are attracted to members of the same sex - as if they aren't engaging in activity forbidden by God Almighty. "Sexual orientation," as used today, has nothing to do with sexual activity (yeah, right), but only refers to who or what a particular person is attracted to. If you think that people of other "sexual orientations" are just fine, let's see what other "sexual orientations" you would necessarily have to accept as wholesome and pure. If you're not going to discriminate based on "sexual orientation", then you must not discriminate against any of the following: Bestiality, pedophile, necrophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, masochism, sadism, transvestitism, voyeurism. If you discriminate against any of these, you're a hypocrite. These "sexual orientations" are generally known as "paraphilias", and according to the American Psychiatric Association, are mental disorders - just like homosexuality used to be.

Phronk said...

Tyler: You're really reaching here. The passage said "cheweth his own cud"...even the most generous interpretation would not allow that to be meant as "sucketh up his own shit backeth into his ass". I don't chew with my ass. Do you chew with your ass?

Dani: You fail to address the core of my arguments. But I'll briefly poke a few more holes in your crumbling position:

1) OK, fair enough. But note that it is quite easy to pick and choose certain stats from certain studies to support a position. Even easier if many are quotes from informal sources. I'm sure you can find similar web sites supporting the opposite conclusion.

2) I repeat - correlation does not equal causation. Seems like promiscuity is to blame for your (greatly exaggerated) tragedies. Straight people are promiscuous too. Taking away the choice of how one wants to spread their love around would be an even greater harm than any you have mentioned.

3) Well, I'm glad you're finally at least considering the possibility that it's not a choice. Now work on the "it's still wrong" part, and you've reached enlightenment. Hallelujah, she's seeing the light Lawd Jay-sus!

4) That has nothing to do with what I said.

5) Leave the God Almighty crap out of it, and stop misusing the term "sexual orientation". Like I said, you're the only one trying to 'pervert' the term to mean something it doesn't.

Oh and just for fun, let's run through your list and judge wholesomeness!

Bestiality - Booo. Hurts animals (they have souls too, believe it or not). NOT WHOLESOME.

Pedophile - Boooo. Hurts children. Badly. NOT WHOLESOME.

Necrophilia - Booo. And eeewwww. NOT WHOLESOME.

Exhibitionism - Part booo, part yaaaay. Flashing people in public hurts people through fear and embarassment. Getting naked on camera so people on the internet can pay to watch? A bit shifty, but usually good wholesome fun for all involved.

Fetishism - Yaaaay! Fetishes make us all unique and nobody gets hurt! WHOLESOME!

Masochism/Sadism - Yaaaay! Ok, well people get hurt, but in a good way. WHOLESOME!

Transvestitism - Yaaaay! People get to dress however they feel like dressing. WHOLESOME.

Voyeurism - See exhibitionism.

No hypocrisy involved....some cause more harm than good, some don't. And just to be clear...obviously exteme forms of any of these can cause harm. One's sex life would be troublesome if their fetish was only being turned on by the sight of diamonds being smashed. But see, I don't need to grab a book to look up whether every action is right or wrong. I just think about it and follow my heart, and most situations are pretty easy to deal with. Hallelujah, praise Satan!

Tyler Dawbin said...

Phronk, you didn't read it...the rabbit EATS that dropping, and it is considered to be a form of chewing the cud.

Or were you just trying to be funny?

Tyler Dawbin said...

My mistake...the article isn't clear about that...but I do know that the rabbit eats some of it's own droppings in the process of pseudo-rumination.

Phronk said...

I took "reingested directly from the anus" to mean something different than what it actually meant. It's a lot funnier my way though.

Whatever though. "Chewing cud" is different than "eating shit". That's why it's called pseudo (i.e. false) rumination.

sarah said...

so wait, do rabbits take their poo after they pooed it and then chew it up in their bums, or what? I can't help but giggle at the image of a rabbit looking behind himself to sit back down on his own poo. What kind of twisted God do we have that would create such a thing? He doesn't mind that I said that, He knows He's got a twisted sense of humour. He knows everythng really, doesn't he?

Wow Phronky, you're awesome. I would have given up by now after the endless cutting and pasting of biased studies and bringing up points that are beside the point. If anyone can keep at the arguing and doing it in a respectful and logical way, it's you. :) That Dani sure sounds like a tasty ass though eh? I'd like to do some "unwholesome" things to her yummy boobies!

You can ignore me as it doesn't contribute in any way whatsoever to your discussion. I would like to now just thank both the heathens and the messengers of our Lord and saviour for your entertainment value. it's a fun show!

Dani Kekoa said...

Phronk - Sorry to jump off your original topic.

Let me state that the core of my argument, in not if homosexuality is a choice, because clearly it is. What I am trying to present is that ALL sex outside of marriage is wrong and destructive, to not only the people involved, but society at large.

Your opinion of what you declare as WHOLESOME is uninformed, incorrect and perverted in nature.

The following is a clip from a similar debate my husband was in not too long ago, so I cannot take the full credit. But, great minds think alike and this is exactly what I was going to say. (Sorry Sarah, here is another "cut and paste" for you, but it is worthy of posting here.) Enjoy the show...

Sex outside of marriage so easily dominates our perverse culture that it is now a tolerated component of the collective psyche, unfortunately. But this perversion makes sex outside of marriage an excellent example for answering the above questions. First, we’ll define “sex outside of marriage.” Next, we’ll identify results of each definition. Lastly, we’ll list which results are positive and negative, if any. Following this formula will yield results of the behavior (actions) and enable us to determine whether or not the behavior is right or wrong, correct or incorrect, in accord or with discord, smart or dumb.

SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE is Defined: (1) Fornication; (2) Homosexuality; (3) Adultery

(1) Fornication: results in strife, both personal and interpersonal (violence, jealously, instability, depression, selfishness, death – murder/suicide); disease (Herpes, HPV resulting in sterility, cancer, etcetera; AIDS resulting in death); “unwanted” pregnancy (abortion), “unwanted” children, (children without mothers/fathers/married parents – children grow to hate/resent parents; usually, children repeat this process of their parents). - NOT WHOLESOME!!!

(2) Homosexuality: results in strife, both personal and interpersonal (violence, jealously, instability, severe depression, selfishness, death – murder/suicide); far more prone to disease than heterosexual sex (colon designed for absorption, not for sex which results in rectal bleeding increasing risk of exposure) - disease (Herpes, HPV resulting in sterility, cancer, etcetera; AIDS resulting in death); shorter life-span compared to heterosexuals. - NOT WHOLESOME!!!

(3) Adultery: results in strife, both personal and interpersonal (violence, jealously, instability, depression, selfishness, death – murder/suicide); disease (Herpes, HPV resulting in sterility, cancer, etcetera; AIDS resulting in death); “unwanted” pregnancy (abortion), “unwanted” children (children without mothers/fathers/married parents – children grow to hate/resent parents; eventually, children repeat the process of their parents); abortion, divorce. - NOT WHOLESOME!!!

NEGATIVE Results: The aforementioned results are exclusively replete with NEGATIVE results, and the list is not an exhaustion of NEGATIVES resulting from sex outside of marriage. NEGATIVE, in the world of logic and reason, connotes a disposition of “unhappiness” to put it mildly considering the context of the list. Believing otherwise demonstrates a severe lack of wisdom and basic understanding as well as an overabundance of foolishness. To be sure:

1. Violence: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
2. Strife: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
3. Jealously: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
4. Instability: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
5. Severe depression: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
6. Selfishness: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
7. Death: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
8. Murder/suicide: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
9. Far more prone to disease than heterosexual sex: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
10. Disease: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
11. Herpes: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
12. HPV: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
13. Sterility: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
14. Cancer: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
15. Etcetera: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
16. AIDS resulting in death: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
17. Shorter life-span: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
18. “Unwanted” children: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
19. Abortions of unwanted children: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
20. Children without mothers/fathers/married parents: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
21. Children grow to hate/resent parents; eventually, children repeat the process of their parents: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)
22. Divorce: unhappiness (NEGATIVE)

POSITIVE Results: The list is devoid of any POSITIVE results; the list is exhaustive concerning POSITIVE results. The exclusion of POSITIVE results transcends mere opinion for the MECHANICS of this SYSTEM ensure only NEGATIVE results. POSITIVE results from sex outside of marriage cannot be measured for they do not exist. Furthermore, a behavior which yields an extensive list of NEGATIVE results – a list yet to be exhausted of NEGATIVES – is additional evidence of the inanity of the hope that anything POSITIVE can come of sex outside of marriage. (**If it smells like crap, tastes like crap, etcetera, it’s CRAP.)

Therefore, I submit that the results of so-called immoral behavior can be determined by mere observation and logic, and just as easily the results declare the behavior IMMORAL (unhappiness: NEGATIVE). When the moral law prohibiting sex outside of marriage is violated, the consequence is readily apparent for all to see, and unfortunately, experience.


When a man and a woman get married and enjoy sex exclusively within the marriage relationship as it was originally intended, they do not experience all of the NEGATIVE aspects listed above. But the POSITIVE aspects are overwhelming for both partners, the children involved, and society at large. When people are married, healthy and happy, they benefit society and guarantees the success of our future.

Just to clarify: Marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman.

(4) SEX within Marriage: results in ultimate pleasure and satisfaction, happiness, fulfillment, no diseases, security, comfort, trust, loyalty, good physical health, good mental health, long lifespan, companionship, contentment, life partnership with your friend and lover, real purpose and meaning for living, and of course, sweet little babies. - VERY, VERY, VERY WHOLESOME!!!

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the devastating results that plague our society when people are selfish and seek first the kingdom of their personal satisfaction.

Phronk said...

This is really too ridiculous too even respond to. You sound like one of the crazy people handing out flyers downtown. I thought I'd seen unbalanced opinions before...but man, you define one-sided, biased, completely oblivious to the real world opinions.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go be a human and engage in some extramerital fornication. Then I'll continue living and loving my life, free of all your negativity and baggage. Sheesh.

Dani Kekoa said...

I'm sure your girlfriend feels sooooo special knowing that you are just USING her to fulfill you own personal satisfaction while you wait for something better to come along.

Careful Now - Don't want to knock her up - that would definitely be NEGATIVE! Talk about baggage!

If you really love your girlfriend and care about her, why not make her your wife instead of just playing house together?

your judgemental aunt said...

It's you guilt ridden bible thumpin' Pepsi drinkers that believe in hell. Us Coke drinkers don't believe in hell.

Phronk said...

You're right Dani. I'll just go club her over the head and drag her to the nearest church to "make her my wife." Then she can pop out babies and do my dishes for all eternity. I have seen the light! Praise Jesus!

Phronk said...

Oh and just to clarify for everyone: Rabbits don't suck their poo back up with their bums. I wish it were so, because that image is so funny that I've LOLed several times at this conversation, but alas. They actually suck the poo "directly from the anus", using their mouth.

Actually, that's pretty damn funny too. ROFL.

Tyler Dawbin said...

And that, my dear Phronk, is why the Bible is accurate in saying that rabbits chew their cud. As "sick" as it may sound, it's true.

Phronk said...

Yeah...except, like I already said, eating poo is different than the cud chewing that cows do. The cows which were mentioned in the same bible verse.

I guess the same God who thinks the earth is flat can't be expected to bother with such details though. Oh and hey, you conveniently abandoned the flat earth issue when it started going sour for you, so how about that?

Tyler Dawbin said...

I didn't realize that we were still debating the flat earth issue...where were we again?

Had you said something about "four corners" or was it about Jesus seeing "all the kingdoms" from the top of the mountain?

I guess you can see it whatever way you want to see it...only a small group of Christians believed that the earth was flat back in the 1700's, because most Christians understood the earth to be round from the verse I pointed out in Job.

When the Bible talks about the "four corners", that is the same vernacular we use today to describe North/East/South/West. And when Jesus is shown "all the kingdoms" I guess that would mean all those within view...have you ever heard someone say "you can see EVERYTHING from up there!"?

Your argument is valid, in a sense, because you've made some great points. But I have to take those verses in light of the languauge of the day, and when doing Bible exegesis you must apply the principles of hermeneutics and use other verses in conjunction with the verses you are examining.

No single verse in the Bible is all-definitive when it comes to the doctrines of God. That's like saying that only what I do today matters in life...while it is true that TODAY I can make a difference, it is the sum-total of my life that really gives insight into my whole being.

Phronk said...

Ok, but as I said, how do you know when the Bible is being metaphorical, and when it is being literal?

If the earth turned out to be flat and square, you'd be saying the "four corners" thing was literal and the rest was metaphor. If it turned out to be flat and circular, you'd be quoting the passages that describe it as a disc.

The fact is, it's inconsistent at best, and completely wrong at worst. But hey, maybe God was just trying to fuck with us when he wrote it. Whenever something makes no sense, it's just "God testing us", right?

Sure, it's the sum of your life and not one part that defines you. But if you define yourself as "someone who always tells the truth", and there's evidence that you told even one lie, that's enough to shatter your definition. Similarly, if you claim the Bible is perfect, one flaw proves you wrong.

Tyler Dawbin said...

I challenge you to read one chapter a day from the book of John, and then tell me who Jesus is based on your reading of that book. It will take you about ten minutes a day, for three weeks.

Here's Day 1 which you might find interesting. It may, or may not, change the way that you see Jesus. Try to read it with an open mind, and you might even ask God to show to you that He is real. You never know, this could be the beginning of the most incredible journey you have ever been on. Are you ready to take the first step?

Phronk said...


The fact that you avoid every tough issue with God and the Bible just strengthens my position and makes me more sure than ever that it's all bullshit when taken literally.

Look, I'm not interested in understanding Jesus. What you don't seem to understand is that to me, Jesus is a mythical figure. It's like me saying to you "please read one issue of Superman per day. Read them with an open mind, and Superman may show you that He is real. There's shit Superman can do that will BLOW YOUR MIND."

Tyler Dawbin said...

What about Jesus is mythical? His existence, His teachings, or His deity? Just curious...

Anonymous said...

Hey Phronk,
couple things...
1)Calling Jesus "mythical" and comparing him comic book character is about as ignorant as ignorant gets. Christians, muslims & jews all accept Jesus as a prophet of god. So congrats in offending three religions in one shot.
2) Your in way over your head commenting about the bible. Start by reading the bible first and we'll take it from there...

Phronk said...

Tyler: His deity, mostly. Though I'm sure many details of his life are exaggerated too, if he did exist.

Anonymous: Nice anonymous post, mister anonymous. You must be really confident in your opinions to post them anonymously. Anonymous.

Oh, and:

1) If you're implying he's not mythical (i.e. all things attributed to him actually happened, including miracles), then that flies in the face of what we know about the world. Congrats on offending all the world's scientists. And there are many more religions that don't worship Jesus than those that do. So congrats on offending hundreds of religions in one shot.

2) "Your" way over your head commenting here unless you've read every religious text known to man. That's the only way to reject all of them except the Bible, right? Oh...didn't think so.

Tyler Dawbin said...

Mike, we are having this conversation in three places at once. You choose where we want to pin it down to, or you can e-mail me at, cool?

Tyler Dawbin said...

So are we going to continue the conversation where we left off, talking about the human figure that you made out of clay?

Phronk said...

Sure. Do your spiel.

But remember, it was Sculpey, not clay.

Tyler Dawbin said...

What is Sculpey? Is it clay like?

So you made a figure that was human-like, right? You put some effort into making an image of you, or of some other human, and it had some human-like qualities?

It's not a shpiel, it's a discussion, bro ;).

Phronk said...

Haha yes, Sculpey is clay-like. It's more plasticy, and you bake it in a normal oven.

Yes, I made a human-like figure. More of a gnome than a human, but human-like. And I say spiel because you're obviously going somewhere with this, or you wouldn't be asking random questions about clay. :)

Tyler Dawbin said...

Where would I be going about you making something out of clay that looks human-like, but isn't?

Phronk said...

I suppose you're trying to say that God didn't actually create us in his image? That we're just clay to his magnificent God material (Sculpey?)? I dunno.

But if we're created "in his image", there must be some fundamental similarity between us and God. Like how my clay figure looked like me in most ways. Do we look like God? Act like God? What part of the image are we?

Tyler Dawbin said...

Ahhh, now you are starting to ask the good questions. Just like your sculpey clay rendition of a human (gnome/phronk) isn't fully human, neither are we fully God. He gave us some of his, compassion, kindness, anger, judgement, forgiveness, cognitive thought, etc. So when the Bible says that we are made in God's image, it doesn't mean that we are "little gods" as some people means that we have been specially given some of God's qualities...something that no other creature on earth can enjoy.

As I believe I have said before, can you imagine dolphins sitting around a table trying to decide what to do with the poor elephants in Africa that are being pushed out of their habitat? No...yet we, as humans, have compassion on one another (generally) and we even have compassion on the animals. We understand that we are to try to take care of the world...which fits right in with the charge given to Adam in the Genesis account.

Does this make sense to you?

Phronk said...

Well I thought we started this thread with you saying something like "we are nothing like God". Clearly we are something like God...and he's something like us.

I still think it's more likely that he was created in our image. While what you say makes sense, it doesn't argue against that.

Tyler Dawbin said...

I guess if God was a construct of man, then you could say that he would look something like us...but since I believe in God, and I believe that He is the creator, then I firmly believe we are a little like Him, and He is far more intelligent, wonderful, loving, righteous, etc., than we are.

I really do enjoy our conversations, and the fact that you changed your picture to that monstrosity that you have killing me!!!

sirbarrett said...

I find the imagine-sucking-a-dick-and-enjoying-it test extrememly useful. Thanks. Really helps to clarify the issur re: choice over sexual orientation.

Shora said...

Wow, I just came across this post /comments thanks to Dani referring to it in her last post. I gave up trying to get into it with her as it's just too frustrating and I don't have the time or patience... not mention the writing skills. I've decided instead all I need to do is say "Yeah! Ditto what Phronk said! Woo hoo! Go Phronk!". You rock, bud.