This Horsley guy sounds like a real idiot. Maybe he did it with a mule and maybe he's from Georgia and he's "Pro-life", but it does not follow that all people from Georgia and all pro-lifers from anywhere, are mule loving dickwads.

Yes, he is an idiot Royce - he is a right-wing christian extremist. And this bible thumping voice against choice believes gays are not normal. As for your second statement, not according to the animal-sexual Horsley (see top) - but I understand the mule consented. Of course, as a pro-choice city boy whose sexual experiences have all been with humans, I am far removed from reality.

Robert, just out of curiosity, when someone adheres to the Koran, do you call them a "Koran-thumping so and so"? Just not a phrase I've heard, I don't believe. I don't think abortion should be a political issue at all. And the argument about gays in my mind is not whether they are "normal" or not. They deny there is a creator and thus make themselves the creator. End of my input.

Heck, Bob...I liked it...and I might have given you 5's just for knowing that "Vic Mizzy" wrote the Theme Song...my Dad met him once a long time ago so we always looked at Theme Song Credits to TV Sitcoms back around then to see what other stuff Vic Mizzy might be doing...yeah, growing up in the early 60's was kind of weird...lol

Royce--Did you just say that gays "deny there is a creator and thus make themselves the creator"? WTF?!

Royce - perhaps you missed the point. I'm talking about activism on the part of Horsley - a man who is on a crusade to impose his values, morals and beliefs on society against the better wishes of the Consitution. There's no stopping him - next he'll want animal/human marriages (as I guess the bible only condemns gay marriages and not marriages between man and beast). But again, as Mr. Horsley said, I am "so far removed from the reality." Finally, your comment stating that gays "deny there is a creator" is not only extremely igorant but also very Horsley-esque. Glad you enjoyed the parody though. bob

PRob - thank you sir. I have the first season on DVD - but I'm anxiously awaiting "I Dream of Jeannie" on DVD. Creatix - it's amazing, isn't it?

Robert--Don't be fooled by the rhetoric of the intolerants. The bible does NOT condemn gay marriage.

It's OK to be a homophobe because Muslim extremists are worse than Christian extremists. I get it now.

Creatrix - oh, don't worry, I've never been fooled by the intolerant rhetoric of the right. Thumper - and apparently it's ok to have sex with animals as long as the animal is the opposite sex and you're pro-life. And the people who support this guy are anti-gay? Unbelievable.

Royce Miller: Would you also agree that it does not follow that every person who is pro choice is pro abortion? That every person who is pro gay marriage (pro human rights) is not out to convert the country to homosexuality? Would you agree with the statement that those who are anti-war are not anti-American? Why is it abnormal and immoral for two people of the same sex to have a relationship but acceptable for people who are "Christians" to engage in beastiality? Could it be because you feel that this person has now been saved? Why is homosexuality a disease and beastiality a "reality"? What would Jesus think???????????

Immoral Liberal--I don't think Royce Miller supports bestiality, but I'd like to hear answers to your first three questions. Then again, maybe I'd rather not hear another word from someone who claims that homosexuals "deny there is a creator and thus make themselves the creator." That's psychotic.

Immoral Liberal, Creatix: You'll never get an answer out of these people on questions like this. Extreme right-wingers such as Neal Horsley are their voice. bob

Mr. Bob is a very funny guy. A fantastic writer. Jay Leno - hire this man.

Some of my dates have been animals, but I still appreciate the humor. Bob is a talented, selfless, smart man. I think I am in love with his work. And maybe him. What is your number, my sweetie?

ROTFLMAO!! Shame on me for somehow missing this one! 5]s

Mr. Horsley deserves to be parodied, and this parody is well done, particularly the Manhattan and Miss Piggy lines. But someone who advocates having sexual relations with animals is not really familiar with the Bible, which states fairly clearly that such activities are sinful. So I think it might be a distortion to call him a Bible thumper. Also, Bob, may I suggest, that if you are trying to learn what Christians think, do not confine your research to articles in Playboy.

Touche, John Jenkins!

John: Thanks for your comments - they are always insightful - and I'm glad you liked the piece. (Glad you got the Manhattan reference). However, it is Mr. Horsley who preaches his familiarity with the bible, not me; so I stand by my label. Additionally, because of his extremist anti-abortion activities, he is welcomed by the fundamentalists in the republican party. Thank you for your suggestion, but I wasn't looking for this in Playboy, it just popped up. If you read the intro to the parody, the incident happened . (Like you, I suspect that many who wrap themselves in the bible don't really know it.) Adagio, glad you also liked the piece - lock up your animals. bob

You don't horse around when it comes to parodies, do you, Rob? Though apparently Neal Horsley does "horse around." Maybe somebody should send him a copy of this, and John Barry's "Goat Writhin' In the Sty." I guess the problem is that it's not the Bible that Horsley likes to "thump."

(SOTM) In regards to John's comment about "Bible thumpers"--seems to me that Bible thumpers generally contradict their reliance on the all-knowing, all omnipotent Book. So, I think it does apply well here. Anyway, good song with such a short length (although goodness knows I wouldn't have understood it without your explanation).

(SOTM) Sounds like a really strange guy. 5's

(SOTM) Short but sweet, like a shetland pony in heat. Funny that you got the D12 album link...

you are very very funny.

(SOTM) Already commented.

SOTM - Marriages between man and beast? Isn't that a feminist statement in support of gay marriage between men? :-)

(SOTM) Very well done Robert.

SOTM...I have nothing. Seriously. It's kind of a strange feeling...but I am beyond the point of speech. (it's perfectly written, of course...but oh my hell!)

(SOTM) What a BEASTLY parody. 555 zaps with a cattle-prod.

(SOTM) Excellent :-D

(SOTM) I don't usually enjoy autobiographical parodies, but this was a well-done exception.

(SOTM) Well done.

Wow, Bob. This one wins the "most comments per line of parody text" award. (If you don't count "Hittin' on EmiLoca.") The story in your intro sounded too good to be true, so I researched it a bit. Wow - that guy really DID say that. In fact, he's got a jaw-dropping website where he not only DOESN'T back off his comments, he plays them up.

I grew up in proximity to farms and farmers, and I can safely say that bestiality is much rarer than some people would have you believe. There was one kid who was rumored - RUMORED - to have test-driven a sheep, and his name (which I remember to this day) became a punchline for years among countless kids who never would have heard of him otherwise.

Personally, I stick with the inflatable plastic sheep.

All, thanks so much for the read and the comments. To EmiLoca - that's very funny - no, this is not about me - although I am right-handed. Spaffy - how the hell are ya? How's everything up in the land of Tom Robbins - well, Robbins being in Seatle means you're closer to him than I am. Spaff, I'm crushed - do you really think that I would intentionally libel a right-wing fanatic? There's no need to - that's why it's so much fun - of course it's true, I couldn't write this well. Thanks again all.

Hold on a sec... a mule? My ass. ;-)

Phil - don't humor yourself (and the rest of us) - Neal Horsley would prefer his mule over your ass.

Howdy back, Bob. Seattle is 827 miles from me. But out here in the West, that's what we call a short commute. Oh, and Robbins is cool and all, but I prefer to hang out with Batman.

Hey, did anyone do a "livestock humper" joke yet? It's too much hard work to check. Funny stuff as always Bob.

Claude Prez, ask and ye shall receive, baaaaaaaaahhhhh:

http://www.amiright.com/parody/80s/humanleague5.shtml

(SOTM) Quite moooving.

(SOTM) Wow! There's nothing like a good old night mare. 555

Bob, contrary to your statement that certain people like never respond to certain questions, I definitely have a response for you: you interpret the Constitution of the United States in your way, and it is, after all, just your interpretation. Other people have a different interpretation, and this challenge will go on forever. The challenge is, for people to use their common sense to draw common sense conclusions. The fellow you wrote about in this parody is obviously a nut, and anyone who "does it with an animal" is a nut. The Creator made male and female to be joined together, not animals and man nor man and man. When a person throws out the design that the Creator has created, and they come up with their own design, they have after a fashion, declared that they have created a better design. That's the explanation of my statement that Creatrix was so upset by. But instead of being decent and asking me to explain, she or he resorted to calling me psychotic--not terribly tolerant. I believe that there will always be gay behavior, but allowing them to marry is not right in any sense, and the people have spoken about this in alot of states, that marriage is defined as between a man and woman. This is our constitution at work, when the people speak. But will their will be upheld? Lastly, "Immoral Liberal", being pro-choice, which I am, does not mean that I don't think that abortion is wrong--I do think it's wrong, but I don't think the government needs to interfere with a woman's body. But God will be the final judge, and will judge everyone according to the deeds they have done, whether the government has or not.

Correction, Royce. Less than an hour after your bizarre comment, I did ask you to explain it. See August 29 at 3:29. You did not reply for over a month. Now you have replied by restating and defending your original comment, i.e., that homosexuals "deny there is a creator and thus make themselves the creator." That statement is still so far out of right field that, yes, it sounds psychotic. By the way, your calling anyone "not terribly tolerant" is laughably hypocritical.

In your latest comment, you imply that "The Creator" made everyone heterosexual. That's not true and you know it. The Creator obviously did not "design" all humans the same. Why prevent homosexuals from being the way they were designed to be? That invalidates some of the Creator's designs, and are you really arrogant enough to do that?

I really like to stay out of homosexuality debates, and this debate probably should be allowed to die, but...

Creatrix: How do you know that the Creator designed homosexuals to be the way they are? It seems that biologically, Biblically, and traditionally, homosexuality is an unnatural behavior. People choose that behavior; it is not the way they were designed. People who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle are able to be freed from its grasp through Exodus International and other groups and other methods. Also, how do you explain Ann Heche? It seems clear that people are able to choose to freely enter or exit the homosexual lifestyle, so that lifestyle cannot be the way they were "designed to be." Of course, homosexual rights should not be infringed upon, but this does not give them the right to redefine marriage.

John Jenkins: I do not know what any creator did or did not intend any more than you or Royce Miller or anyone else knows what any creator did or did not intend. "God" is understood and interpreted differently by everyone; anyone who claims to have all the facts about divinity should be viewed with the highest degree of suspicion.

Biologically: Homosexuality occurs in nature, so it is not, by definition, "unnatural." Biblically: Whether the Bible is divine is hardly a foregone conclusion. Whether it is or not, it contains no condemnation of homosexual marriage. Traditionally: Heterosexuality is far more common than homosexuality, and majorities have always imposed their views on minorities.

People of any orientation may choose to engage in heterosexual, homosexual, or other-sexual behavior; that is how I explain Anne Heche and Neal Horsley and your parents. The fact that all humans make sexual behavioral choices does not mean, however, that homosexuals in general have chosen to be homosexual--any more than heterosexuals have chosen to be heterosexual. You make the blanket statement that "people choose that behavior" as if it is true for everyone; it most certainly is not. You cannot claim to know how anyone but yourself is "designed." I would urge you to have in-depth conversations with people who have been homosexual since their earliest memories, or people who have, because of their orientation, been made to feel like pariahs. Ask them whether homosexuality is a choice, and how "free" they are to "enter or exit the homosexual lifestyle."

Once someone has accepted and become comfortable with their orientation, why not be happy for them? Why arrogantly assert that they're "trapped" in the "grasp" of their own orientation, or assume that they would want therapy to change it?

As for marriage, it is a legal ceremony and also, commonly, a religious one. Religions can and will determine who is barred from participation in their ceremonies. So be it. The laws of the land are different things, however, and I fail to see their need to get involved in the restricting of legal unions to couples with mismatched genitalia.

"People choose that behavior; it is not the way they were designed. People who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle are able to be freed from its grasp through Exodus International and other groups and other methods. " - by John Jenkins - you are kidding, right? What if tomorrow the ultra right, controlled by Neal Horsley wanted to free those trapped by the heterosexual lifestyle? I don't know these ultra, right -wing, religious extremist groups - but you and they have some nerve. Did you choose to be heterosexual? I would think that you religious nuts would have more tolerance, but apparently not - "you people are so far removed from [the] reality (to quote one of your leaders, Neal Horsley). What would Jesus think?

Royce, the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, was put in place to protect people from extremist views (such as Neal Horsley) from becoming the norm - and this is not up for interpretation. Royce, I must admit, because of your conservative ideology, I am truly amazed that you are pro-choice - a truly mainstream view. However, your party is bowing to the Christian-right on this issue; a truly minority view. Regarding debating you and Mr. Jenkins on your other comments - the Constitution is the law of the (United States) land, not god, nor the bible. The framers set this up this way so everyone would be free from religious persecution - they feared and knew the danger of religous views infiltrating society at the expense of others. Therefore I will not engage in political intercourse where god is used as reasoning by the other side. Not only is there no need to do so - but my brethern Creatrix and Immoral Liberal (what a great name, by the way - and I love your posts man) seem to be wetting your appetite just fine. Thank you all for your feedback. bob

(SOTM) DKTOS, Robert...but it sure generated some heated commenting!

Thank you Robert J., but it seems that those who have the patent on "Jesus" are the most intolerant and stubborn Americans. Normally, it wouldn't be worth arguing but I refuse to let the lies go unchecked. I may have forgotten to mention that this was a funny parody.

John Jenkins says "People who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle are able to be freed from its grasp through Exodus International and other groups and other methods."

Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, two of the founders of Exodus International, left the group to be together. They were joined in a "life commitment ceremony." The group's Board Chair, John Paulk, and his "ex-lesbian" wife Anne were the group's poster couple--they even made the cover of Newsweek--until John was caught in a gay bar, and it later was revealed that Anne was never a lesbian.

Here is a statement from the groups named within it:

"The most important fact about 'reparative therapy,' also sometimes known as 'conversion' therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a 'cure.' Health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through 'reparative therapy' and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm."

Kudos to you Exodus - great research, great post. And yet another example of the hypocritical Republican Culture of Corruption. This is better than the administration listing Pat Robertson's Right-wing christian extremist ministry as a place to send money to help those suffering from the aftermath of Katrina. I don't understand what these right-wing fascist extremist are so preoccupied with sex. Freud could probably have a field day.

What an interesting batch of posts but I think that Ms. Miller may need some help. One of the major Ideas in support of establishing this government was preventing the tyranny of the majority, so it's neither here nor there that "people have spoken about this in alot (sic) of states." Big deal. Again from Ms. Miller - "The Creator made male and female to be joined together, not animals and man nor man and man." And you know this because you had a talk with the creator? And another from Ms. Miller: " I believe that there will always be gay behavior, but allowing them to marry is not right in any sense . . ." Behavior? Let me better understand your ignorance - there is straight behavior and gay behavior? Do you really believe this? And why is gay marriage not right in any sense? Honestly, who do you think you are? Believe me, I know plenty of people who are gay and are a hell of a lot more tolerant than you and your teacher Neal Horsely. Candidly, you should hope that there isn't a creator - with intolerant views such as yours. Finally, I'd like to thank Mr. Pagliaro for not only a fine piece of writing but for also exposing society's extremists (and the ignorant extremists on this site).

Psychiatrist: In the time I've written parodies on this website and commented, I've had lots of comments similar to yours. I have a right to believe that something is wrong. I have the right to say it. And I simply believe that homosexuality is wrong and I have the guts to say it. I'm not God and I'm not sending anyone to hell, and I don't know how God is going to deal with people, that's up to him. Being tolerant does not mean that I have to say homosexuality is right. Homosexuals do not meet the criteria for marriage, and that criteria is two individuals of the opposite sex. They can live their lives, and they do, without inference from me. But they don't meet the criteria for marriage. And I know that people like you will never, ever, never, agree with me, and that's okay.

Ms. Miller, you still have not explained why homosexuality is wrong - except for alluding to what you think your god believes - and, let's be honest, you haven't the slightest idea of what "god" believes or even if there is a god. (Though I'm sure "he" is more tolerant than you are.) No one is saying that you have to say it's right, you just have to accept a person's lifestyle choice. So ban gay marriages in your church if you'd like to. But your intolerant views should not be forced on society. People are gay in this world, get over it. Our government should allow marriage between consenting adults (same sex or not). What is it that scares you into such an intolerant position? Do you really belive that if gay marriages are allowed that people will wake up some morning, decide they're gay and want to get married? No one says you have to marry someone of the same sex. And, the "criteria" for government sanctioned marriage can be changed - and religious organizations can do what they please. By preventing gay marriage YOU ARE INTERFERING. When in reality, the country should be more concerned with intolerant fundamentalists such as you. It is you who is imposing your beliefs on the rest of the country, not the gays. But I know that intolerant people like you will never, ever, never agree with a person's choice.

This is supposed to be a fun web site, and I much prefer to leave comments commending parody authors for how clever their parodies are. But after 5 months, Psychiatrist has revived a parody comment thread and made some statements that need to be responded to.

Psychiatrist: You are entitled to your opinions, but you have made at least one clear misstatement. You have linked Royce Miller to her “teacher Neal Horsely.” On the first comment about this parody, Royce labeled Mr. Horsley “an idiot.” What part of “idiot” don’t you understand?

Why is homosexuality wrong? The Bible says it is a sin (Romans 1:27 and other verses). I believe the Bible is divinely inspired. I also believe that we are all sinners and a lot of what Christianity is about is grace and forgiveness. Since homosexuality is not the only sin, what’s the big deal? From one perspective, it might be considered the least sinful sin because it is generally committed by consenting adults. But from another perspective, if it is a sin, then it might be the most sinful sin because it is the only sin for which the sinners do not repent.

Mr. Jenkins, you are correct - I did link Ms. Miller with this fundamentalist leader because it seemed natural. Afterall, they do agree on everything else but beastiality. However, rereading the post I must agree that she did denounce this animal loving, anti-choice, religious nut. Thank you for attempting to answer the question on homosexuality for Ms. Miller. I can only assume that she would agree with you. But the bible doesn't run our country; and its content has no jurisdiction on our governmental laws. And with good reason. Our founding fathers, while religious, did not want any government to interfere with how they do or how they don't worship. And let's be honest here, there are so many innaccuracies in the bible - we all know that Jesus wasn't born on the day we know as Christmas. Finally, I believe that the point the author was trying to make is that here we have some religious nut attempting to put this country under his morals and values; yet he has sex with animals. Keep your bible, live it if you like, but do not subject the rest of the country to your beliefs. Don't marry another man if you don't want to but do not prevent two consenting adults from professing their love for each other.