I'm not even going to begin on how much is wrong with this column.

[TheMightyFavog]

Agian, from my local weekly paper here in the land of the brainwashed.

http://www.webmediainc.com/54157PT/PeshtigoTimes.taf?function=detail&Layout1_uid2=17871

The rant titled "Another kind of heat"

I'm way to fumed to even talk about this bigoted bullshit.

[Epiphany4z]

1. oh lol

from the article:

"Look at the animal kingdom. Except for a few frustrated pets you don't see drakes mating with drakes, hens mating with hens, or mares with mares. They pair off, male and female, which is what nature intended."


I am sorry but lmao...my dog tries to mate with legs both male and female, stuffed animals , my male cat...my bird..is in love my husband...and likes to show it by trying to mate with his foot.....lol......these people are sooooooooooo in denial...

"Union policies already required homosexuality to be treated with "tolerance". Not good enough. Delegates voted to replace that word with the phrase, "acceptance and respect"! The author of "New Business Item 52," which led to the change, argued, "We should teach acceptance and respect, not tolerance, of those who are different from us whenever appropriate."

OMG NOT ACCEPTANCE AND RESPECT!!!! THAT IS JUST EVIL!! :sarcasm:

[blogslut]

4. Notice how the guy doesn't bring up those animal

bastions of manliness - Bulls!

from http://www.lifestyleblock.co.nz/articles/cattle_behaviour/06_cattle_reproduction.htm

1) Bulls are regularly reared in homosexual groups so mounting and fighting behaviour is common, often leading to injury.

2) Bulls may have to learn how to mate a cow, and this may take a few days to learn (and waste time) at the start of mating to learn.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. That guy should be more concerned whether students can

write a cogent paragraph, add and subtract, understand what they read, and think critically. Leave the values to the family.

[tbyg52]

3. What a jerk.

Let's outlaw his having "relations" with his wife, and see if he classifies that as "behavior."

[TheMightyFavog]

5. You mean with her husband.

The columnist is female.

[tbyg52]

7. Oops...

Didn't even look at the byline. (Didn't look at the hateful article except just long enough to confirm.) I guess the conclusion I jumped to exposes my own prejudice, or at least my own default....! Must either work on resetting that, or learn to look at the byline!

Edited to add--in my own defense, some messages already posted say "this *guy*"......

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Don't think this guy knows what he's talking about, but that could be

assumed...since he doesn't like science or education! He is very mistaken.

<snip>From the JUN/JUL 2006 issue of Seed:

Joan Roughgarden thinks Charles Darwin made a terrible mistake. Not about
natural selection, she's no bible-toting creationist, but about his other
great theory of evolution: sexual selection. According to Roughgarden,
sexual selection can't explain the homosexuality that's been documented in
over 450 different vertebrate species. This means that same-sex sexuality
long disparaged as a quirk of human culture is a normal, and probably
necessary, fact of life.

By neglecting all those gay animals, she says, Darwin misunderstood the
basic nature of heterosexuality.

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php