Funny song Ghetto John

Heh, not bad. But your descriptions are too close for comfort - too graphic and accurate - for you to be a real homophobe ;) Ps. You free Saturday? :Þ~~

that was really funny John....see, you still got a few good songs in you

it suxed, nothing but homophobic from that guy. but then again, thoses that are homophobics are usually homos themselves!

Like Billy said, I don't know why you're giving up on parodies... you need to keep writing, you're doing great, keep it up.

That was WAY too graphic - I don't know how they allowed you to post this cruel, homophobic sex parody. the last time I checked, you weren't allowed to use sex like this in parodies!

Dude, you still got it.

Thanks guys, And hey, atleast Im not getting bashed for grammatical errors. ;)

And this song is kind of a "Point Of View" song. Its the point of view from the perspective of a young man who has to deal with the fact that his brother is gay. I didnt intend it to be an actuall bash on Gays. But I guess you can take it the way you want to.

And may I say, I like the fact that I have some competition. "Suburban Steve" I like that, makes me feel like I inspired someone to make a name similar but totally opposite.

So now I am a racist/homophobic. So should I write a song protesting Democracy and be called a Communist or whatever?

I just liked the idea of having Ghetto in my name too, but then i live in a £80k so that would just be sad - even if it were meant to be ironic. So, although i live in a tiny village full of middle-class English people, i don't think it's pretentious to use a nick with 'suburban' in it. Anyway, you didn't answer my question, you free on Saturday? And if you are Communist as well then that's just perfect, Communists are naïve and easily manipulated...i'll have you in bed in no time. :)

Lol! This is really funny. And in your defence: So this kid doesn't want to be subjected to his brother and his boyfriend. Wow. I don't think any kid wants to know/hear/see a relative of his doing... um... bad stuff. No wonder he wants his mom to make them stop!

What is this gay rights stuff anyway. There is no such thing and there will never be. There is no such thing as a predisposed nature to be homosexual. They say they have no choice. If that is the case then what about bisexuals? Everytime they have sex they make a choice. Hmm, whats for today? Do I want AC or DC? And here is where gay rights falls on it's face. Say I'm competing for a job promotion and I am tied for first with a collegue. All I would have to say is that I am homosexual and get that extra point to edge out the competition. Now how are you going to be able to say I am or I am not? Do you want to even go there? Any other minority can be identified by skin color, ethnic origin, religious affiliation, etc. How do you tag a homosexual? Is there some secret handshake, or worse? Gay rights is an oxymoron and is right up there with freezer burn, pretty ugly and jumbo shrimp. Go figure. Anyway, Ghetto you make a point here and we should not be taken in by this movement that is based on unfounded scientific findings and faulty social standards amongst other things I can say, but I don't what this to flame.

I didn't know your Affrimative Action stuff covered queers. :/

Can't say that i agree it's a conscious choice at least for people to be gay either, otherwise in places like where i live (where you can get beaten to death with baseball bats for it - no lie) being gay would be classified as a suicidal tendency. But then again the mainstream view of them isn't exactly flawless either.

I've known people who 'decided' that they were bisexual just because it was the 'in' thing to be. If that doesn't tell you that there is no choice but to be what you were born to be, I don't know what will.

I think there's a difference between people following some bizarre trend and people who 'do the right thing' married and live very unhappy lives as a result cos they don't 'love' their partners on any level.

Personally, i think it's neither a conscious choice nor anything innate. I think it's subconscious and to do with early experiences.

that should be " 'do the right thing' and get married"

Well if anyone thinks it is not a choice then how do you explain the thousands of people who have abandonded this life style and married and have a normal healthy relationship. And just because someone does "the right thing" and marries does not mean they have to be unhappy. In order to have a healthy relationship, both partners must respect each other and this begins with courtship and I don't mean going out on dates and jumping each other's bones. Also I'd like to make the point that even though I am anti homosexual I do not condone violence against anyone and this includes people like Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion centers. The only way to overcome the wrongs is to not compromise on the behavior. In other words you love the person but hate the behavior. If you are unconditional with your fellowship of your fellow human and stand by your convictions about wrong behavior then you have a chance to have someone else see things as they were intended to be seen.

But at the end of the day, i don't see it as 'wrong behavior'. My point there was, in a - for lack of a better word - homophobic society, why would anyone 'choose' to be queer? They aren't going to get anything extra out of it apart from stigma and in some cases abuse. There's no real plus side to 'choosing' to be gay so why would anyone sane *consciously* decide to be gay?

Steve, see my answer and Guy's answer...they get affirmative action and it's considered in some crowds to be the 'in' thing. I know...I've seen the 'in' thing in action for myself. They 'choose' the behaviour because in most cases it is just acting up to get attention. But, like Guy says, love the sinner...hate the sin.

But there's no affirmative action where i live and it's definitely not trendy to be gay, but it still happens. And i know the mainstream take a liberal view to gays psychologically but i think if they did it for attention or even for self-harm in the case of people who live in my area, i think in that way it would be classified as a mental cry-for-help like Anorexia and the like.

Ghetto John, after being called to task for your comments in the Alien Ant Farm story, you said "I try my hardest to write clean and half way sane parodies. Im sorry that vulgurness and what not isnt on my agenda." And then you submitted this parody--I assume to prove your point?

Guy DiRito, "gay rights" is simply normal rights and legal protections extended to homosexuals. Your argument that such rights don't (or shouldn't?) exist is disturbing, to put it lightly. For those who are not discriminated against, it is easy to sit back and view those who have to stand up for their rights as being irksome or even threatening. Question for you: Are you straight because it's the "in" thing, or were you born heterosexual? If it's the latter, surely it's not too much of a cognitive leap to understand that others who are born different from you in countless other ways can also be born different from you in terms of sexual orientation. I had a friend who, from his earliest recollection, was attracted to males. He was also firmly religious and was taught (and believed) that homosexuality is wrong and is unacceptable in God's eyes. So he never acted on his homosexuality, and he battled for over 30 years to change himself. He went to therapy, he counseled with church leaders, he dated women, and he prayed and prayed and prayed to overcome his homosexuality. It didn't work and he was finally overcome with so much depression and self-loathing that he killed himself. So don't you dare tell me that he chose that "lifestyle." And "love the person but hate the behavior" is an easy maxim, but if you hold to it and encounter a situation were the "behavior" is an inextricable part of the person, you'll end up hating the person, as does so much of society. Suggestion: rather than being another person who rails against gays, why don't you get to know some gay people on a deep personal level? Once you really know them, ask them about the true nature of their orientation. It may surprise you, and will very likely stop you from labeling yourself "anti-homosexual."

i don't know trace. From the terminology these lads are using (sin, sinner etc), i think their views stem from their religion..so i don't think there's much chance of them changing their minds unless they renounce their beliefs totally :/ But i'm just assuming....

Trace - You assume a lot. You have no idea if I have ever undergone any kind of discrimination and if I have ever known any homosexuals and if I am 'homophobic" or not. Or for that matter ever been touched by suicide. And it is obvious that you do not understand what this movement is actually asking for. Sexual orientation is a broad term and covers a lot of territory. The law changes that these 'rights' address is way more than just same sex partnership. Sexual orientation means just that. The object that the person is attracted sexually to. Ths is to include pedophilia (sexual activity of an adult with a child ), bestiality (sexual activity between a person and an animal ), necrophilia (an irresistible sexual attraction to dead bodies), just to name a few. These rights will extend to all groups that can be defined as having a sexual orientation in any area. I for one do not want a NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) member to be able to use sexual orientation rights in a court of law as any kind of defense. Do you? I know I am off the topic slightly but this is where this gay rights issue takes us. The rights issue is tied strongly to sexual orientation and that is what any rights issue will be based on. And Steve if it is a religious stimulus that propels my views on this it has no bearing on the facts that speak for themselves about the subject. I can go on and will if anyone challenges the anti homosexual stance as to what is wrong with it and why this group is not underprivileged but on the contrary better off on a standard of living then any other group, One of the attributes if not the main attribute that defines an underprivileged group in a rights issue sense is standard of living. Homosexuals as a group are not in this category.

I think it's not an obscure idea that when you are talking about people's rights - sexual or not - you have to factor in the rights of anyone else involved. Two gay persons' right to be gay and free from discrimination doesn't really effect other people's rights as much as child abuse.

Steve, do I see a trace of anti-religion there? Religion is definitely protectected by American rights. We, Guy and I, are speaking of love the sinner, hate the sin. What is wrong with loving someone who is sexually confused? Trace, Guy said that you know nothing about what he faces...same goes for me. Don't judge until you are God...I certainly wouldn't dare.

Not sure what you mean by anti-religion really. I don't know where you got that. I know about America's freedom of religion bit, not sure what point you are trying to make.

i spose since i'm not Christian, you could say i was anti-religious; but i don't have anything against Christians personally, just as long as they don't interfere with other people's lives. And, not being Christian, your terms of 'sin' and 'sinner' are a bit alien to me.

ok, this is not what I would call a vulgar parody. This is not exactly something that I would let my grandmother read, but trust me, I have seen worse. And in response to what I said in the AAF story, I have some much needed apologizing to do. My head hasnt been screwed on to tightly lately, and I didnt think about what I said. Peace---Ghetto John PS, I think Im up for the "Most Arguments Started By A Parody Author" Award : )

Yeah, i was gonna say like...this parody is at least provocative, which is something i'd like to do. So i admire you for that.

John - You need not apologise for your parody. We all should realize that this is just that, a parody. It is meant to make fun of life in general and if you do happen to get a lot of comments then it says that you got a lot of attention for your effort. Isn't that why we write out here? We are all extroverted ADHD affected head bangers who use this forum to channel our creativity that our hyperness demands of us. Besides, I like to debate out here almost as much as I like to write and submit parodies. So don't apologise - your parody pokes good fun at something we now hear about each and every day that this modern culture seems to embrace. Call me old fashioned but this gay thing was way better left in the closet. I am sick to death of having this stuff coming into my house through the media. But since it is out here it is fair game for any of us who want to take pot shots at it as is almost everything else.

Guy DiRito takes an all-too-common anti-gay stance, grouping homosexuality with such things as pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality. Reasonable people understand that there is no link--or, at best, just as strong a link to heterosexuality as to homosexuality. Claims like Guy's that those other things are what "this movement is actually asking for" are ignorant and hateful. It's also a common paranoia (shared by Guy) that "gay rights" is going to lead to the legalization of that other stuff. Ridiculous. If legislators were to wake up some morning saying "Good heavens--by extending basic human rights and protections to homosexuals, we've also legalized the buggering of dead baby kittens," rest assured that there would be a flurry of new legislation--pronto. (Note that our laws are remarkably able to offer freedom of religion while prohibiting human sacrifice, and to offer the right to bear arms while keeping your neighbors from mounting uzi's on their cars.) Guy, don't make this about anything other than what it is. The bottom line is that you are, as you put it yourself, anti-homosexual. It's simple intolerance.

Thanks Trace for making the point about factoring in other people's rights; using common sense etc that i was trying to make, much clearer. By the way, what's ADHD?

There is a big difference between being homophobic and recoginizing that some things are just not natural. This is a slippery slope and it will ultimately lead to the protection of NAMBLA members, don't be so nieve. Have you been under a rock as congressional session after session passes bills with all kinds of little things tacked on to them that you never know about unless you really dig into it an d look. And this is not about wanting to stop anyone from the freedom to practice unnatural acts if they so desire. That is their choice and everyone has free will. I do draw the line when they try to make their cause as one that needs rights because they somehow see themselves as underprivleged. Any human rights legislation is always based on a negative bias that causes a loss of opportunity or income. Gays do not have this problem as a group. They are just the contrary. This group has more liquid assests than any other group and the reason why is that they do not procreate. This means they do not contribute to the normal determinates of national power. Western countries especially the US are currently facing a low birth rate which will cause us grief in the near future when a job market is hungry for workers will come up short. People who are now 30 years old may not be able to recieve all the goods and services they need when they reach retirement age because there will not be enough people in the job force to support them. Gays do not contribute to the population growth and thus irritate the problem. Another point of statistic is that homosexual men have a life expectancy of around 47 years. If they are AIDS positive this number only drops to about 43 or 44 years. The only positive they have on society is that most don't live long enough to collect social security. So we 'punish' smokers by making health insurance costs higher. By the same token homosexuals should have higher insurance rates since their life style is so susceptible to STDs. Their health costs are staggering and you and I are paying for it. I am not acting paranoid. I give these facts to back up my reasoning. Paranoia is fear without solid basis. I do not fear this group I just call the shots as I see them. And one lst thing. He how ignores history is bound to repeat it. Look at the Greeks, Romans and almost every otherworld power of their time. Each one fell from within and each embraced homosexuality in their final days. This always seem to culminate in a great powers undoing. Do you have problems reading and comprehending? I wrote that I do not hate homosexuals, I just don't condone what they are doing and I'll thank you to retract that statement that says I am hateful and intolerent. You are inaccurate. I am making no assumptions about you and I'll thank you to not make them about me. You have no idea what I am really about and what living experiences I have that allow me to make the statements that I do.

Erm....how do you define unnatural? And actually, statistically, most gay men don't actually engage in sex and stay at the touchy-feely stage. Granted, it's the promiscuity of the ones who do and an anti-condom (i was going to say 'anti-contraceptive' but that's not really the right word) culture that causes the problem with STDs.

Let's see, Guy. You call yourself "anti homosexual." You've now blamed gays for the impending legalization of bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia; the health care crisis; the inability of future generations to care for the elderly; the crap "coming into your house through the media"; and, oh yes, the fall of Greece and Rome. And yet you're not homophobic, hateful, or intolerant. OK--glad we cleared that up.

wow, this is freekin insane. Continue : )

Trace - So what part are you having trouble understanding? If you had anything substantial to counter with except attacking my reasoning and credibility I'd offer some more for you to counter with but it looks as though you are out of ammo. And no I have nothing personal against gays, and no, not a lot of my best friends are gay but those that are understand that I do not condone the act and they understand this. I challenge you to prove that I hate anyone. And yes I am intolerant of the act of homosexuality, which is my right so get over it, OK?

Guy - i don't mean to repeat myself but, when you say homosexuality is unnatural, how do you define that?

This just in: Michael Savage was fired by MSNBC for telling a gay caller to "get AIDS and die." MSNBC spokesperson Jeremy Gaines told the Associated Press, "His comments were extremely inappropriate and the decision was an easy one." What the hell, Savage can always get hired at Faux News. He's not too extreme for them.

Guy, my "ammo," as you term it, is simply the self-evident truth that homosexuals are first and foremost human beings; they are, therefore, created equal and are equally entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, their actual lot is to go through life facing the bewildering closed-mindedness of self-described anti-homosexuals such as yourself. And yes, intolerance is your right, one which you are clearly proud of. Hooray for you. Now, at your invitation, I have "gotten over" the desire to hear any more from you, so you can direct your future rants at Suburban Steve or elsewhere.

Steve - To answer that question, it is unnatural to try to plug a male electric prong on a coffee maker into another male electric prong on another coffee maker. The result is not productive and you will have no coffee and anyone that would persist in trying to get something productive from this is obviously plagued with an 'unnatural' system of logic. So with that I will quote you in a previous post: "Granted, it's the promiscuity of the ones who do and an anti-condom (i was going to say 'anti-contraceptive' but that's not really the right word) culture that causes the problem with STDs" If this were natural then the 'anti-contraceptive' term you wanted to use would have been appropriate. So a man and a woman have a God created function and command to procreate. It was not my idea to call it unnatural, it was God's.

I don't think sex is meant to be productive these days. I don't think anyone is persisting 'in trying to get something productive' from gay sex - it's purely for pleasure and, you could say, and extension or expression of love (although, i do realise that my previous post [promiscuity and touchy-feely] indicates this would be an extremely rare situation, i'll grant you). If you are going to say that any sex that isn't aimed at producing children is unnatural, then homosexuality should be grouped with all the various 'positions' other than the regular one (i don't want to go into much detail, considering this site's policies on 'adult content', let's say, putting your prong into any of the wrong female sockets) that straight couples engage, protected sex, sex that involves one or more infertile persons, casual sex, and..erm...self-relief.

\O/ Steve - You have missed the entire point of this. I just don't have the need to explore all kinds of kinky sexual practices and risk getting STDs or get caught up in others emotions that play out in this scenario. Sex was made pleasurable for the purpose of procreation. Animals do not engage in any of these deviations because they do not have a free will. Don't you think that if a genetic defect causes people to be predestined to act this way that you would not see the same thing in animals? Man has free will and this is where he gets into trouble. Sex was meant to be engaged between two people within the sanctity of matrimony. It is the only way to eliminate STDs and a lot of other hangups that go along with unsanctioned sexual relationships. All I know is that I am glad I am not like you guys appear to be.

'Animals do not engage in any of these deviations because they do not have a free will. '

Actually, hasn't homosexuality in the animal kingdom been well documented? In fact, one of my favourite music albums (and not for this reason) has a picture a male...either a deer or something like...mounting another one - the picture isn't fabricated or due to human meddling. I'm sure you don't watch South Park but an episode of that, with 'Big Gay Al`s Big Gay Animal Sanctuary' was made because of a zoologist had published pieces about gay sex in the animal kingdom.

You see this all the time with animals. This has nothing to do with sex. Where do you get your info? This is simply a way for animals to establish their pecking order. You always see this with social animals, especially dogs or any animal species that herd or run in packs. You cite a cartoon as a reference point for your source. What's wrong with this picture. Why do you think AIDS research is so far behind? Because there are some things lab animals will not do.

'Steve Farrar in The Sunday Times, 6th. June, 1999, page 12. "A detailed survey of sexual behaviour in the animal kingdom has shown that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Over 300 species of mammal and bird have been shown to exhibit a range of homosexual behaviour."...'

http://www.sbu.ac.uk/stafflag/zoology.html

I'm confused, what are you saying they do to establish a pecking order? AIDS research is far behind because animals won't have gay sex? But AIDS or HIV can be transmitted heterosexually.

Lighten up - That was a joke about the lab animals. And do you believe everything you read out here on the internet? I'll bet you at least 45% of stuff written out here is not true. And check out my parody on the Clowns of Science. What you think is scientific fact a lot of times is just stuff these geeks put out so they can keep their grant money coming in. Oh come now - You point me to a site that is called the knitting circle and I'm supposed to read what is out there as Gospel. These vultures were not gay. This article was written by some gay wise guy who is pushing his agenda on the rest of us. This is why I hate what they are doing. It is all lies. Wake up and smell the coffee. You are making assumptions about me that are not true just based on what you are reading that I wrote. For instance you said that I probably didn't watch south park. What do you base this assumption on? You have no idea who I am or where I am coming from. I'm off the air for about the next eight hours. Have a nice day or night whatever it is where you are.

That quote is from a university website. Granted, South Bank Uni isn't exactly Ivy-League-Equivalent, but it's not exactly a Tech either. And the Sunday Times is a reputable newspaper, it's not even as extreme as the Guardian or the Telegraph. Well, i didn't say 'you don`t watch South Park', i said that you probably don't. And as you probably already know, i base it on you being Christian. Just the same way i came to the assumption that you'd dismiss science, which you did. I should probably be off to bed too. Hope to continue this later. :)

If you checked out the story all you saw there was an endangered species trying to survive. How those bozos ever came to the conclusion that these vultures were somehow gay was a stretch at best. They were doing what they were 'programmed' to do. The instinct to procreate is indelibly etched into their being. Did they actually engage in some kind of sexual encounter? I didn't read that. And when it comes to scientific fact vs fiction if you do a little math on some of the things they claim to be true you will find that they indeed could not possibly be true. Take for instance the idea that man has been around for about a million years. If you take a normal population trend and work it over 1,000,000 years you would find that there would not be enough room on the planet for this many people. The Apollo missions to the moon are another example. Scientists said that by the age of the moon and the amount of cosmic dust settling there they expected to encounter about 10 feet of dust. They built special outriggers on the landing craft for this purpose. I'm sure you have seen the photos of the foot prints on the moon that are about 2 inches deep. Using the same calculations that the scientists used to determine dust depth one comes up with an age of around 12,000 years which just coincidentally seems to work out to about the same with the population growth. What did the scientists do about the problem with the dust on the moon? They simply used a different math calculation to make the end result match with the age they say the earth and moon are. They could not have this fact mess with their theories which are cash cows for these guys. They did not want to risk loosing grant money due to their own errors. Yes I do reject this science when I can use math and dispell it. I do not reject all science. Just those parts where math or some other logic prove it to be faulty. So please quit making all these generalizations about me. I do not see things as just black and white. I question what others say and just seek out the truth. And yes I do use the Bible for answers. Any book that can predict so many things coming to pass exactly as is stated thousands of years in advance gets my attention. Read it sometime and check it out against history and see if this is not so.

I've got a e-bible (KJV) on here that i use for reference. I've never actually heard of these accurate predictions before, maybe you could direct me to a few passages?

Just a small sentence in here from me, but I worked on many fronts with pro-life groups and one of the favorite methods used by anti-life was to simply MAKE UP statistics and survey results. I have been reading all the entries that I missed and this would seem to be very much the case with the issue at hand. And the 'media'...shoot, don't get me started on most of those so-called objective reporters! I have seen enough of them in my work to KNOW that you can never take blindly what they say, unless you are some kind of foolish sheep. Make up your own minds on this...don't follow so-called statistics. You know where I stand, and I didn't get it out of a newspaper or a website either.

[It may sound it but there's no hostility intended in the following] If we're on the subject of assumptions: I'm going to take it as an implication that i'm pro-choice from your mention of them using the same methods. :Þ I actually describe myself as an anti-choicer. You can suggest these statistics are fabricated but they certainly weren't fabricated by me. I'm no stranger to the idea that the media and the government's utterings should be taken with a pinch of salt, but personally i see homosexuality as a fairly neutral subject in the case of my citation.

I'm not suggesting - nor do i think - you are part of the left, but the left make the same case for dismissing statistics - 'you can prove anything with statistics'. But at the end of the day, i can't get all my opinions conveniently from one book. So how am i supposed to form opinions on things that i don't often encounter personally? Statistics and science are the only things that really come to mind

Steve, I believe that I said that they use the same methods....no mention of your stance on life or insinuating that you make up statistics. I was merely borrowing from my own experience in pro-life work to show you how this happens and to suggest that it happens with any kind of statistics you may run across. Be very wary of statistics..one I know is made up...I will not mention it. Why don't you make up your mind on this instead of letting others make it up for you.

Well, obviously, if the issue is of certain importance to me - and it's not something i can work out from my daily encounters - then i'll read up on it, try and read what both (or all, i spose) sides of the argument have to say and make my mind up from there. But i can't just arbitrarily decide on my opinion without looking at some kind of evidence. :/

The following is meant as good-natured humor: Guy is now comparing human beings to coffee makers? Maybe he's had a little too much coffee. Guy, you need a vacation. May I suggest San Francisco? Or perhaps South Beach, Miami? Maybe down the road in Key West? How about Fire Island, New York? Or New Hope, Pennsylvania? I understand there are cruises you can book. Oh, and as for God thinking it's unnatural, let the record show that the Bible was written, and translated, and re-translated, by human beings, based on what they think God said, and what they think the previous translations said. And, as I recall, there's also a few words in there about love and compassion and forgiveness. But you have to go beyond Deuteronomy to find them. Maybe on this vacation, you can use the time to do so.

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Leviticus+18%3A22&KJV_version=yes&language=english&x=12&y=8

Erm...yup. That's that famous bit of the Bible on the subject of homosexuality. There is another longer passage in another part...i forget where...but it goes into more detail. But the passage in the link above - i think, personally - suggests that being bisexual is wrong and not necessarily homosexuality. But i'm taking it out of context from the rest of the Bible.

This passage suggests nothing. It speaks plainly and clearly and means exactly what it says. It says it is abomination, period. noun: hate coupled with disgust . This is what God thinks of it. This is one of those Biblical attention words. It means don't even think about it. Leviticus 18 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. It means that you do not lie with a member of the same sex. Where did this idea that this applies to bisexuals come from? This is exactly my point. The Bible says that this action is hated by God. It says nothing about the person who disobeys this command. This is exactly where I am coming from. I hate the action just as God does, but I do not hate my brother. God expects me to help my fallen brother. It is up to the fallen brother to take responsibility once the honest broker lays the Word on him. All a human can do for another human is plant the seeds that will open their eyes in this regard. This is what I do. So I have a little fun with it. It makes a good point. Remember this is parody and almost nothing is sacred.

Well it says 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind' ... i take that to mean, don't lie with men in the same way as you lie with women, so if you don't lie with women in that way then you can lie with men in that way, because you aren't lying with mankind as you do with womankind. As i say, that's taking it out of context. I think, from other parts of the Bible, it's clear that's not what it means.

OK, whatever, I can see you must be playing with me because this makes absolutely no sense. Just on the off chance that you are not playing with me I shall pray for you because I feel that God is not finished with you yet. God Bless you.

Genesis:19: 1-29, Romans 1: 24-27, 1 Corinthians 6: 10 and 1 Timothy 1 :10

HEY! DON'T BRING ME INTO THIS! FOR MILLENNIA YOU HUMANS HAVE TRIED TO BOLSTER YOUR SMALL-MINDED POLITICAL AGENDAS BY CLAIMING I SAID THIS OR THAT OR THE OTHER THING. WELL, I'VE HAD ABOUT ENOUGH OF IT. DON'T MAKE ME SMITE YOU WITH A PLAGUE OF FROGS. OH, AND THOSE MISERABLE PSALMS--THEY'RE SO DEPRESSING. NOW, KNOCK IT OFF!

GOD - I'm an atheist and even i'm insulted by the idea that God would talk like an American. :'(

Guy - i'm not playing with you. I'm just saying that's one way the passage could be interpretted - it is rather ambiguous. I'm not sure what you mean by God not being finished with me yet either.

Nice, Steve, taking something out of context as a tribute to gay-basher Michael Savage! And Guy -- "God is not finished with me yet" is a favorite quote of Jesse Jackson. You really wanna be compared with him?

It is true no matter who says it. God is never finished with any of us until He calls us home. I have never heard him say that but I say it all the time and I doubt if anyone would compare me to him. You see we are of different, er how should I put this? ah Heights, that's it yeah. And Steve, since you are an atheist I am certain that God is not finished with you. And I do not mean that in a bad way. I just mean that I believe that He made you and never had an intention of ever throwing you away. I'd like to make you a challenge, Steve. Convince me that God does not exist. If you can do this I will join you in being an Atheist. You may have the rest or your life or mine, which ever comes first to convince me. And if you can't, then it will be just that. I need nothing back from you.

Good Lord Drop It Allready!

This is too funny!!!!!!!! great job, hahahahahaha lol

Michael - i have no clue who Michael Savage is.

Guy - I have no absolute proof that God doesn't exist. Just as you have no absolute proof that he does. It just seems like the most likely possibility.

Steve - I'm not challengeing you to prove that He does exist. Just to try to prove that He does not. I am willing to climb on your side of the fense if you can be convincing enough. I am not asking you to change your life and get onto my side of the fence I'd just like to know what it is like to be an athiest. I have been taught about God since I was able to remember. Who knows, you may have the right answer. I never had a choice. It was just thrust upon me.

I'm saying i have no absolute proof that he doesn't exist.

Ok, Steve - Don't have to prove it to me, just convince me.

Wow! If this song had half as many votes as it had comments, It be doing good! : )

It's good!!!!

This is where Guy DiRito admits he's anti-homosexual (July 06, 2003 3:18:01 PM) and links homosexuality to pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia (July 06, 2003 8:37:53 PM), not to mention the fall of Greece and Rome (July 07, 2003 4:27:16 PM). What a guy.

F**k you all.

But the song anyway was just a bit too graphic for my tastes...534

Its been a little more then a year since the "My Brother Is Gay" war came to an end. Lets have a few moments to reflect on what we have learned.......ok well that was nice, how bout them dodgers?

Huh huh The Vandals came out with an original song of this title