Wednesday, March 19, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

God's cure for gays lost in sin

by SMH

Thanks to Gordon Wong for the link.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bspecial-investigationb-gods-cure-for-gays-lost-in-sin/2008/03/18/1205602385236.html

God's cure for gays lost in sin

Former residents say separation contracts, a ban on physical contact and teachings by an 'ex-gay' are part of Mercy Ministry's attempts to stamp out lesbianism in its flock, reports Ruth Pollard.

WHEN Mercy Ministries says it helps young women with "life-controlling issues", it means in part that it aims to teach them not to be lesbians.

In line with the Hillsong Church's strict doctrines teaching that homosexuality is an affliction that can be cured, Mercy Ministries is keen to ensure there is no lesbianism under its roof. It issues "separation contracts" to young women who make friends with each other and prevents any form of physical contact between residents.

"While I was there, we received much teaching on the evils of gay and lesbian lifestyles," said Naomi Johnson, who spent nine months in the ministry's Sydney house.

As someone with no issues about her sexuality, she was perplexed by the ministry's continuing focus on the issue.

"In particular, there was an ongoing teaching video series by Sy Rogers an 'ex-gay' - now reformed - married Christian," she said.

Rogers - an American who conducts speaking tours on Christianity and sexuality- spoke at Hillsong Church's Sense and Sexuality Workshop in Sydney last September and is due to address its Colour Your World Conference next year.

"Sy will bless you with his insights into identity and the heart," the Hillsong website says.

"Happily, homosexuality can be turned around," Mr Rogers says in a clip of his show, Turnaround, on youtube.com. "Homosexuality is out of tune with religion; it is not what God planned for human sexuality."

On its application form, Mercy Ministries used to ask young women if they had been involved in lesbianism, next to the question on whether they had been involved in prostitution. They changed that in 2006 to ask "have you ever been involved in any form of same-sex relationships?".

Another former resident, who did not wish to be identified, said: "Girls were asked on the application form, as well as in a telephone interview, if they have ever had lesbian or bisexual relationships. They asked if I had

been involved in drug abuse, witchcraft, or lesbianism. They bunched them in together like that."

In the house, residents were prevented from having any form of physical contact - no comforting hugs, no shoulder to cry on - and even though there were three young women to each bedroom, they were not allowed to change clothes if another person was in the room, she said.

Mercy Ministries denies it runs an "ex-gay" program, and Hillsong has stopped running its "ex-gay" program, called Living Waters, although both organisations remain staunchly conservative - anti-abortion and anti-gay.

The Herald asked Hillsong to explain its teachings on homosexuality. No response had been received last night.

One former member of Hillsong, who held several "leadership positions" in the church, revealed that he was shunned when he disclosed his homosexuality.

"The ostracising that occurred by fellow worshippers was severe," said the man, who asked not to be identified. "As soon as I came out my entire social network decided the best way to deal with the situation was to stop all communication with me.

"The only hope I had was my family and friends who were extremely supportive as they were not Hillsong members."

Hillsong Church taught that the devil inspired people to act on homosexual desires, he said.

"Hillsong believes that homosexuality is not normal and not a part of God's design for mankind - their belief is that it should be fixed and it's something that can be removed from someone's life."

One option presented to the man was to force himself into a heterosexual relationship. In the meantime, he was removed from his leadership role in the church and isolated.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 101 - 150 of 272 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

101. Comment #146800 by al-rawandi on March 19, 2008 at 12:20 pm

mero,

Yes the fact that it was acceptable to me was implied in the post itself.

Keep your inability to make simple inferences to yourself please.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

102. Comment #146803 by Geoff on March 19, 2008 at 12:23 pm

86. Comment #146767 by Rachel Holmes

Rachel, welcome back!

I think I speak for the majority of us when asking if there's anything we can do to help?
Testimonials? Publicity? whatever?

Other Comments by Geoff

103. Comment #146808 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Hi Geoff,

Thanks for the welcome back!

I'd like to include some testimonials as an appendix to my submission, to put a human face on the issue. If anyone here is gay/bi and had a rough time at the hands of homophobic religites, I'd be interested in reading your story. If I used it, I'd only refer to your age, sex and orientation, so you'd be reasonably anonymous.

If anyone wants to put in their own submission, the consultation is available on www.charitycommission.gov.uk. There's a link on the right side of the page. There are plenty of other things to have a go about: JWs and blood donation, Catholic teachings on contraception etc.

Not sure any of this will mke a jot of difference: public bodies seem terrified of upsetting religious folks, even when their practices are patently harmful (and certainly not for the public benefit). Worth raising the point though - you can be damned sure the fundies will be putting their ideas forward.

Other Comments by Rachel Holmes

104. Comment #146811 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Thomas 114:
Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of Heaven."

What!? No women in heaven either? Why does anyone want to go there? From what I understand there is absolutely nothing good about heaven, what is eternal life if there is nothing to do?

Incidentally, the "hate the sin, love the sinner" schtick is crap. For a start, homosexuality isn't about what you do, it's about who you are. Moreover, it goes to a pretty central part of being human - the desire to love and be loved, and to experience intimacy with another human being.

This is so very true. They don't seem to realize that sex serves more of a purpose than merely reproduction (which thanks to science can now be achieved for two women, if I understand it right. They can fabricate sythetic sperm from bone marrow) but serves as a bonding experience. It is about love and intimacy. Sex isn't enough the most intimate part of a relationship (at least not for me it isn't). Though it is arguably the most fun part.

For people that constantly talk about love, and romanticize "truth" to the point that it is a vacuous expression that means nothing, they seem to have no understanding of love and intimacy are.

Telling someone that their most deeply felt feeling, and emotions are wrong, and evil...how can that be anything but damaging to the person.

If there needs to be a charity focused toward homosexuals, it should be focused toward helping them coup is such a bigotted, religious world.

Other Comments by Wosret

105. Comment #146814 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Rachel, I for one applaud your needed, and important service to the world. Even if it doesn't seem to have a huge effect, I just think that these things need to be pounded away. Because you are right, and they are wrong, with time, and effort, I am confident that it will make a huge difference.

These issues need to be pushed and fought, until these lunatics are isolated in the fringe of society, where they can only yell from the outscurts of a civil society.

Other Comments by Wosret

106. Comment #146815 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Thank you Mitchell. And can I just say how much I like your avatar? ;-)

Other Comments by Rachel Holmes

107. Comment #146818 by Colwyn Abernathy on March 19, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Assumption: homosexuality is an aberration and not part of the human condition, and that "sin" is even a viable concept today.

Further Assumption: There is a god who gives a shit who you bone, and punishes sin.

Further Further Assumption: It's my business as to know who you bone, and to declare this person or that person as sinful.

I find the argument of reprogramming not just scary and vile, but completely illogical and repressive.

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

108. Comment #146819 by al-rawandi on March 19, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Colwyn,

You are saying (assuming) that homosexual is not an aberration?

What is the evolutionary advantage of being gay? I am curious about the opinions on the matter.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

109. Comment #146822 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Thanks, I also love my avatar. I'm a huge fan of yuri/shoujo-ai anime and manga (which is anime and manga that either focuses on, or involves romantic relationships between women).

These two are a fanart depiction of Natsuki (blue hair) and Shizuru (brown hair) from Mai Hime, and the sequal My Otome, they also appear in the OVA My Otome Zwei.

Though the series isn't about them, they are just side characters, and their relationship is not hugely touched on, only a couple episodes in each series focuses on it.

If you were going to watch some, I would suggest more yuri focused anime like "Kannazuki No Miko" (preistises of the godless month) "Strawberry panic," "Simoun," and "Revolutionary Girl Utena". Those are my favorites anyway. There are also several that I really like that involve romantic relationships between women, but it isn't central to the story, like "Mai Hime".

This is the short answer one receives for mentioning my avatar...so avoid asking me about anything, lol.

Other Comments by Wosret

110. Comment #146823 by Madmaili on March 19, 2008 at 1:11 pm

If there were an evoultionary advantage shouldn't gays be the norm and hetros be the benighted minority?

Other Comments by Madmaili

111. Comment #146825 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 1:15 pm

That is the naturalistic fallacy al-rawandi.
Something need not have an evolutionary advantage to be morally acceptable, and it need not be morally acceptable if it has an evolutionary advantage.

It also assumes that something that holds evolutionary advantage, doesn't start as an aberration

Other Comments by Wosret

112. Comment #146826 by Colwyn Abernathy on March 19, 2008 at 1:15 pm

"What rubbish. You have a problem with Practicing homosexuals. What happens when they get good enough that they don't need to practice any more?"

They go pro, of course! :) Jeepers, how far are we from an Olympic event?

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

113. Comment #146829 by al-rawandi on March 19, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Mitchell Gilks,

Please show me where I said anything about morality. Or better yet, don't make things up.

Don't hang your personal issues on my posts please.

Is there any evolutionary advantage? I am curious, I don't understand evolution well enough to know either way.

And, personally, I find homosexuality as morally ambiguous as heterosexuality. The morality of it depends upon how you conduct yourself. A rapist is immoral be he gay or straight.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

114. Comment #146831 by forksmuggler on March 19, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Mitchell Gilks:

I don't think al-rawandi is guilty of the appeal to nature fallacy: he didn't say that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore wrong. (Correct me if I'm wrong, al.) I think he's simply suggesting that homosexuality is an aberation because it doesn't seem to offer any evolutionary advantage. I'm not so sure about that myself, but it is an interesting question.

As far as "normal" goes, normal is just what you're used to.

Other Comments by forksmuggler

115. Comment #146835 by Colwyn Abernathy on March 19, 2008 at 1:25 pm

"RIP Gary Gygax, lover of icosahedra."

Gary shall be critically missed for 1D20 moments of silence :_(

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

116. Comment #146837 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Al's reponse was to someone specifically talking about the moral implications, who I assumed used aberration in that context to mean deviate from a moral norm. I thought the implication of this was far clearer in this instance than in the "my" "an" correction that you quickly dismissed as being interpreted incorrectly.

I would also agree with you that it is amoral (i.e. morally neutral.)

Other Comments by Wosret

117. Comment #146838 by al-rawandi on March 19, 2008 at 1:27 pm

forksmuggler,

I was asking why it isn't an abberation. It is not even close to the dominate sexual trait and it doesn't pass on our genes. So I am curious if it qualifies as an aberration.

I was also curious if there was some evolutionary cause, since I don't have a degree in biology or related field, I cannot comment but I was interested in others' opinions.

I was not ready for an insinuation of homophobia. Goes to show, careful what questions you ask around the lefties, you could lose a limb.

Political correctness is an impediment to learning and truth.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

118. Comment #146840 by al-rawandi on March 19, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Mitchell,

Wrong again.

It was in response to someone claiming that saying it was an aberration was an assumption. I was asking, that in the absence of evidence, isn't everything an assumption?

Then I asked about evidence. I am curious, that's it. Maybe I will go post elsewhere, somewhere where the PC crowd does patrol, armed with clubs.

I hope none of you discourage curiosity in your children.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

119. Comment #146843 by Frankus1122 on March 19, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Is there any evolutionary advantage? I am curious, I don't understand evolution well enough to know either way.

There was some research suggesting that gay men are good uncles and thus confer advantage to the offspring of siblings and thus confer advantage to some of their genes. However, I think this may have been shown not to be the case in other studies.

It is an interesting question and there is research being done on it.
It seems curious that homosexuality would continue to be present in a population when there does not seem to be any way homosexual genes (if there are such things) would be passed to the next genereation.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

120. Comment #146845 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Assumption: homosexuality is an aberration and not part of the human condition, and that "sin" is even a viable concept today.

He is clearly talking about what is preceived as a sin. Which is in a moral context.

Though, perhaps Colwyn Abernathy will clear this up, and enlighten us to what he/she meant but it?

It would also be great if you could stop being a dick about it?

Other Comments by Wosret

121. Comment #146846 by al-rawandi on March 19, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Mitchell,

Precisely,

And I was addressing "aberration" and not "sin". Because sin is a meaningless term.

EDIT: Thanks Frankus. That sounds like a great study to do. It could change the way people think about both sexuality and evolution.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

122. Comment #146847 by forksmuggler on March 19, 2008 at 1:38 pm

It seems curious that homosexuality would continue to be present in a population when there does not seem to be any way homosexual genes (if there are such things) would be passed to the next genereation.

What are you talking about, Frankus? With groups like "Mercy Ministries," homosexuals are reproducing all the time. Just look at Sy Rogers!

Other Comments by forksmuggler

123. Comment #146848 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 1:39 pm

And aberration can carry a meaning of "moral deviation" in certain contexts.

"3. deviation from truth or moral rectitude. "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aberration

Other Comments by Wosret

124. Comment #146851 by rod-the-farmer on March 19, 2008 at 1:41 pm

I think I will check into the requirements to become a charitable organisation, where the mission statement is to help fundies escape from their belief system. There are obviously a lot out there to "cure" homosexuality, non-belief in the xian Dog, etc. so why not me. I am currently not gainfully employed....this might be the start of a new career. Do you think I should offer to do house calls ? I can imagine needing a van to carry around all the science books, for a start. Recommendations welcome. Group rates available.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

125. Comment #146853 by al-rawandi on March 19, 2008 at 1:43 pm

MG,

And you went all the way to #3. What does #1 say? It says simply:

1. the act of departing from the right, normal, or usual course.
2. the act of deviating from the ordinary, usual, or normal type.

That is the standard definition, and the one I think of.

The only moral aberration involved is on the part of people who persecute homosexuals and treat them like lepers. That is the moral aberration.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

126. Comment #146854 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 1:43 pm

I personally doubt that sexual orientation is genetic, I think that there is more evidence that it developes at a young age. We are all definitely born with a sex drive. I think that no preference is genetic. I doubt there is a "hate onions gene" in me. Though I just do. Or a "love anime" gene in me. It is something that developed over time.

Though I don't think we necessarily choose our preferences either. I know I didn't decided to hate onions, or like anime. I just do.

Other Comments by Wosret

127. Comment #146855 by annabanana on March 19, 2008 at 1:44 pm

While this is merely speculation:

Gay people tend to be more open-minded and the gay couples that choose to have or adopt children would seemingly genetically transfer/teach their open-mindedness to their children which would be beneficial for evolution and the zeitgeist. Of course, as I said, this is mere speculation. I'm not sure if any studies have been done to confirm or reject this.

Other Comments by annabanana

128. Comment #146856 by Steve Zara on March 19, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Comment #146843 by Frankus1122

Absolutely. All the great ape species show homosexual behaviour. It probably has something to do with support from non-reproducing uncles and aunts for child-rearing couples, and also social cohesion. Well, someone has to write the musicals and design the clothes!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

129. Comment #146858 by Epinephrine on March 19, 2008 at 1:47 pm

If there were an evoultionary advantage shouldn't gays be the norm and hetros be the benighted minority?

If one looks at game theory and evolutionarily stable strategies, we can see how a population can allow for the use of strategies that couldn't be stable on their own. Hawk-dove situations can support populations of retaliators, bullies, and all sorts of other strategies in the right mixes, and without some elements others couldn't persist stably. Bullies can't invade a hawk population, but they can invade doves.

I don't believe that anyone knows with certainty, but there are reams of theoretical answers, varying from incomplete penetrance, multiple genes some of which provide advantages on their own, social advantages and kin selection and so on. Clearly non-reproduction doesn't make sense unless the genes help other copies of themselves, but there are many ways that can come about.

Other Comments by Epinephrine

130. Comment #146859 by Steve Zara on March 19, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Comment #146854 by Mitchell Gilks

I personally doubt that sexual orientation is genetic

Surely it has to be. The one thing that genes are going to code for is their reproduction (sexual preference).

Other Comments by Steve Zara

131. Comment #146860 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 1:48 pm

...Al...words have different meanings depending on the context. If I said I could prove that I was cooler than ice scientifically, I could use definitions of cool like "10. aloof or unresponsive; indifferent:"

The context would require that I use a term that actually relates to tempature.

Since the context of the comment was about sin, I think it was more than fair to interpret the word in that context.

Other Comments by Wosret

132. Comment #146861 by al-rawandi on March 19, 2008 at 1:49 pm

MG,

I was of the opinion that it is partially developed and partially innate.

I would cite the differences in the physiology and anatomy of the brain of homosexuals as evidence. Although this, I suppose, could change at a young age.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

133. Comment #146862 by Steven Mading on March 19, 2008 at 1:49 pm

(which thanks to science can now be achieved for two women, if I understand it right. They can fabricate sythetic sperm from bone marrow)

This method is guaranteed to always produce a daughter - never a son. (If you randomly select either the X or the Y from the male's XY genes, and pair it with one of the X's from the female's XX genes, half the time you get XX and half the time you get XY. But do the same thing with an XX paried with another XX, and all possible combinations result in XX.)
That's why I believe that if the technology you describe starts to become common and cheap, the human race will eventually become mostly female, or perhaps even entirely female. Even if only 5% of the population uses this method of procreation, eventually in enough generations that would shift the male/female ratio well toward the female side. And female homosexuality would probably become more commonplace as this happens.

So, fellow men, perhaps our days are numbered if women no longer need us to procreate the species. And the thing is, I don't really feel threatened by that. I find that I just don't *care* if that happens. It's not like it lessens my life any, or lessens my contribution to humanity.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

134. Comment #146863 by Colwyn Abernathy on March 19, 2008 at 1:49 pm

It was in response to someone claiming that saying it was an aberration was an assumption. I was asking, that in the absence of evidence, isn't everything an assumption?

A good point, al. Aberration was the wrong word to use, even though I was putting the assumption into a moral context, and not a biological one. The assumption is that it's an abberation because it's deviant from the personally accepted norm, and must therefore be immoral. Does that make sense? Apologies for any confusion.

As for my gay percentage (male) I'd say I'd top out at 15%. I can only count one guy I seriously thought about experimenting with. Tho I can see the aesthetic quality of the human figure in general. Two words: Hugh Jackman.

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

135. Comment #146864 by Frankus1122 on March 19, 2008 at 1:51 pm

I am just working from some vaguely recalled article I read and I am sure there is someone out there who can correct me... but I think that the same gene can express itself in wildly different ways depending on environmental factors.
What I am trying to say is that there could be a gene or genes that expresses itself/themselves as homosexual preference in one organism and completely differently in another organism in a different environment.
But I really don't know what I am talking about.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

136. Comment #146865 by Steve Zara on March 19, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Comment #146858 by Epinephrine

In view of comments on other threads, I am not just going to say "good post", but a post that I fully agree with. An excellent summary of the situation.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

137. Comment #146866 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 1:51 pm

As I said Steve, sexual drive surely is, sexual preference, I think is a whole other story.

Though I of course could be completely wrong. I don't know, it's just my guess.

Also, something doesn't need to be advantageous to be carried on in a species, it only need be neutral, not harmful or beneficial.

Other Comments by Wosret

138. Comment #146869 by Steve Zara on March 19, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Comment #146866 by Mitchell Gilks

Also, something doesn't need to be advantageous to be carried on in a species, it only need be neutral, not harmful or beneficial.

Not really. Selection pressure can be very effective. Even a minor lack of advantage can (in some situations) be removed from a population pretty quickly.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

139. Comment #146871 by al-rawandi on March 19, 2008 at 1:55 pm

How gay are you if you love pink? Like 5-10%?

I love pink shirts, it is a wonderful color. I am so angry (Steve I expect an apology) that homosexuals have stolen pastels, and pink in particular.

I feel like I am discriminated against.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

140. Comment #146872 by Epinephrine on March 19, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Comment #146865 by Steve Zara

Aw, thanks Steve :) You're pretty swell too ;)

Other Comments by Epinephrine

141. Comment #146873 by Goldy on March 19, 2008 at 1:57 pm

What is the evolutionary advantage of being gay? I am curious about the opinions on the matter.

Not sure there is a great evolutionary advantage - the sex drive is strong and can take over actions, as it were. I think it's more to do with the wiring in the body - we're pretty complex, after all and cannot all be the same. Hence we have very hetero people, half and half and very gay people, as well as all manner of inclinations in between.
I was watching Louise Theroux in a prison once - San Quentin, I think. He interviewed a white supremacist (I think - had just put daughter to bed and had to try and get the gist from what he was saying) who was having a relationship with a gay Jewish inmate. Outside, he was not gay. Inside, I guess we'd call him that.
I was at a boys boarding school and I have to admit quite strong urges for some of the other pupils. Once out and in a mixed society (university) I had no homosexual leanings at all - actually rather fancied girls who were adamant they didn't fancy a rather spotty youth (cursed acne!).
We all have the ability to be gay and we can all reproduce. Forcing your homosexuality underground and having children (a la the above article) probably perpetuates the stronger homosexual leanings (or not - all gays I know were from straight parents, but who knows how straight those parents were?).
As an aside, there was some study, if I can recall things correctly, about the brains of gay men being similar in structure to those of women (in the hippocampus? Tried looking it up and all I can find is something about gay men navigating as well as women - hmmm, wife is generally the navigator as I get lost easily...). Aha, I remeber them saying, see, it's biological. But as it isn't really possible to do biopsies of the brain throughout the life of the individual (hard to pinpoint gay at birth too), it's hard to say whether the the brain was born as the woman's or became as the woman's.
Either way, it's normal, natural, evolutionarily OK (doesn't really affect anything) though, as it doesn't lead to reproduction, remains as a minority.
Hope this doesn't make me sound bad!

Other Comments by Goldy

142. Comment #146874 by Steve Zara on March 19, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Comment #146861 by al-rawandi

I was of the opinion that it is partially developed and partially innate.

One of the important lessons of Dawkins' "Extended Phenotype" idea is that both "innate" and "environment" could both be genetic. The gene has a long reach! An individual could have a certain pattern of genes, but could be influences by the environment of the womb, for example.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

143. Comment #146875 by Frankus1122 on March 19, 2008 at 2:01 pm

I am so angry (Steve I expect an apology) that homosexuals have stolen pastels, and pink in particular.

I don't think pink belongs to the homosexuals anymore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WVV3l2nmXk

The Gavin guy is someone I used to plant trees with in Northern Ontario many years ago.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

144. Comment #146876 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 2:01 pm

What are the advantage of nipples exactly in men? How about the appenddix?

It is true that advantageous traits can overwrite neutral ones, but they don't necessarily.

I am definitely no expert, so I could be wrong though.

Other Comments by Wosret

145. Comment #146878 by Steve Zara on March 19, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Comment #146873 by Goldy

Not sure there is a great evolutionary advantage

There has to be, otherwise it would not be there.

I am not an extreme adaptationist (every aspect of an organism has to be selected for), but if we are going to give up on the idea that evolution is going to select for reproductive behaviour, we might just as well give up on evolution altogether.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

146. Comment #146879 by al-rawandi on March 19, 2008 at 2:05 pm

2:01 PM,

Mitchell goes for the nipples. I was waiting on that one.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

147. Comment #146880 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Al,

My view is that it takes a man who is very sure of his masculinity to don a pink shirt.

Go for it!

Other Comments by Rachel Holmes

148. Comment #146881 by The Reverend Dark on March 19, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Off the top of my head -

In a troop or whoop environment the presence of homosexuality could have a calming effect on the tribe as a whole, as it provides an outlet for sexual urges, without the same degree of inter-whoop/troop aggression required to achieve dominance.

There may be a Hollywood metaphor lurking, but I refuse to dig for it.

Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

149. Comment #146882 by al-rawandi on March 19, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Rachel,

I am going to make you proud! I like pink donuts and Christmas cookies too. I associate the color with a delightful flavor as well.

Duffman fears no shirt.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

150. Comment #146884 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 2:11 pm

And I usually slowly work my way to the nipples Al.

I remember hearing about a kid being beat up somewhere in Canada for wearing a pink shirt, so some kids got together and decided to make a day where they all wore a pink shirt to school.

I was very happy to hear about it ( not the part about the kid getting beat up...the after that part.)

Personally, I'm with Aerosmith, pink is my favorite colour.

Other Comments by Wosret

Reload Comments | Back to Top