An impressive capacity for self-delusion

Gayle Haggard, wife of meth-snorting fan of gay prostitutes Ted Haggard has just had a press conference in which she announces that Ted Haggard is completely heterosexual…to which I can only reply with this song.

Mrs Haggard also says "Our sexuality is conditioned, and we can be conditioned in any number of ways," which I think is partly true, but I also think is a bit disturbing. It can't be a boost to Gayle Haggard's self-esteem to think that her husband needed the Clockwork Orange treatment in order to find her sexually attractive, and to stop his eye from wandering to the willowy young man with needle tracks in his arm living on a street corner in the bad part of town.

There's also a poll with the story.

Do you think a gay person really can be 'cured'?

Yes - It is a choice a person makes.13%
No - It is how a person is born.79%
Not sure.7%

I don't care for the simple-minded dichotomy — I think your sexuality is a product of both unavoidable predispositions and early experience — but I detest that "you choose your sexual preferences" line. No, you don't. I suspect that not one person in the history of humanity has ever reached early adolescence and made a conscious decision about what stimuli trigger a little hormonal surge.

Tags

More like this

OK, I wasn't planning on writing on the whole Haggard imbroglio again. (Famous last words, eh?) Then, via Andrew Sullivan, I came across this little post by a blogging evangelical pastor from Seattle named Mark Driscoll: Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and…
Updated: Haggard has apparently confessed. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals and pastor of a huge megachurch, has stepped down as NAE leader after a male prostitute went public and said that Haggard had been paying him for sex regularly for 3 years. Mike Jones, 49…
Eh, I don't think I really believe this, but since South Park thinks its funny to portray Richard Dawkins as a tasteless sodomite, it seems only fair to mention that the joke might have stung more if it had been applied to Ted Haggard. A gay man and admitted male escort claims he has had an ongoing…
I'm proud to report that Ted Haggard is no longer gay since he underwent three whole weeks of very intensive counseling. He was so impressed with his counseling that him and his wife are going to attend university and get their masters degrees in psychology (I'm psyched he's joining me in my…

I don't believe anyone is "born with" a tendency to seek out meth-addicted prostitutes, or a specific preference for high-heeled shoes or a particular hairstyle. So Haggard almost certainly could choose/learn to avoid prostitutes and meth users.

As for whether he's bi enough to be happy with a woman instead of a man, or in addition to a man, I have no idea. (We don't have a great deal of evidence that he's monogamously inclined, either.)

By v.rosenzweig (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Yes, the stimuli that excited me when I was twelve still excites me.

As for Haggard, it's kind of lame to have your wife proclaim your heterosexuality. I suppose this will work for Haggard's followers until he gets caught with a man again. I am sure they'll put their "faith" in him.

Oh, the question also implies that homosexuality is a sickness as it uses the word "cured." This is something the born-againers and homophobes believe that their homosexuality is a sickness.

EVEN if you could choose your sexual orientation.
EVEN if you could change it...

Will you PLEASE stay the hell out of their lives and stop trying to destroy their lives? Mind your own damn business and stop trying to treat them like 2nd class citizens! Not everyone sticks to what your hateful fictional sky fantasy boy thinks.

By Michelle R (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Roy Zimmerman is brilliant.

Qwerty, that's exactly right, except there is no "implication." It's explicit in the question "can homosexuality be cured."

Regardless of the qualifiers on the yes or no options, the answer is a definite, resounding no, since homosexuality is not a disease or mental illness.

By Acronym Jim (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

I usually find Zimmerman's songs to be amusing at best. This one is absolutely hilarious! Thanks, PZ.

By boygenius (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Didn't Haggard come out and say he was wrong about Homosexuality? As in its not bad, nor a sin?

By asdettmer (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Amazing video.
Thanks for the post, PZ!

but I detest that "you choose your sexual preferences" line. No, you don't.

I have a dream that someday I'll be a pundit on some television bobblehead political show with some religious righter arguing that homosexuality is a "choice". To which I'll reply, "Fine. Prove it. Make yourself gay for a year. Switch your sexuality, go have a homosexual relationship -- and enjoy it. That'll be the perfect way to prove, once and for all, that it's a 'choice'."

To which they'll probably respond something along the lines of, "I can't do that," to which I'll reply, "It isn't really a choice, then, is it?"

By skullsinthestars.com (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

I am reminded, inappropriately and irrelevantly, of some lines from "Blackadder":

Sally Cheapside: Papa, you did nothing to defend my honour.
Duke of Cheapside: Oh shut your face, you pregnant junky fag-hag!

By Pinkydead (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

I agree with everything so far on this thread. There is no decision to be made at the attraction level; that just happens. Poll results so far:

Do you think a gay person really can be 'cured'?Yes - It is a choice a person makes. 13%No - It is how a person is born. 80%Not sure. 7%
By aratina cage o… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

The entire homophobic fundie fabrication of a 'cure' for homosexuality drives me to such fits of teeth grinding frustration that I should probably sue them to recover the costs of the dental work I will likely need in later life.

Why can't they get it through their skulls that homosexuality is not a disease? Or a mental aberration? How narrow does one's mind have to be for a person to automatically assume that different = wrong? Where does this pathological fascination with the form of sexual congress other people enjoy even come from? One must be sunk into the deepest conceivable pit of paranoia to genuinely believe that what two (or more) consenting adults do behind closed doors is somehow a threat to civilisation at large.

Actually, homphobes express such obsessive behaviour types, are so prone to paranoid delusion and fixation, that a case could be made that it is the homophobes themselves who are suffering from a mental illness.

This is perhaps all the more applicable in the case of a man like Ted Haggard who, despite obvious homosexual tendencies as evidenced by his choice of, ummm... lets just say paramore, cannot accept that he has such impulses and so chooses to project his self-revulsion onto the wholly innocent homosexual community at large.

This man does not need to be 'cured' of homosexual urges. He does not need his wife to stand up and say 'Oh no, Ted's not gay. Honest Injun!'

What he does need to do is simply accept that he has a sexual aesthetic that includes attraction to men. He needs to accept that there is nothing sinful or shameful about this. He should also probably steer clear of drug addicted prostitutes of either gender. If he does these things he will be a happier, healthier man.

Oh and Ted? Don't worry about what god would say. I have a sneaking suspicion he's not really up there, don't ya know.

By Gregory Greenwood (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Is this the second or third time that Haggard has become "completely heterosexual"? One loses track after a while, particularly when one could care less who some fundagental is screwing.

By 'Tis Himself, OM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

I mean, I'll happily concede that it's a step forward. "Homosexuality can be cured" is a big leap forward from the days of "Witch! Burn the witch!"

So, you know. Hurray, progress.

Sure, Ted is heterosexual - until he gets caught with his pants down with another man, again.

The thing that continually pisses me off is that even if homosexuality were a choice (and I really don't think that it is), who the hell cares? Why should anyone care if 2 men want to have sex, or 2 women, or 2 men and 2 women, or a whole rugby team's worth of pile-ons for that matter? As long as sexual relations are between CONSENTING adults, it's no one else's business. What's so hard about that?

One must be sunk into the deepest conceivable pit of paranoia to genuinely believe that what two (or more) consenting adults do behind closed doors is somehow a threat to civilisation at large.

What two or more adults do behind closed doors sometimes does become a threat to civilization at large - conspiring to invade Iraq or gut civil liberties, for instance.

If the Bushies had just stripped down and gone at it, this would be a far better world.

Zifnab @ 17 - I think that might be a side step.

It is magic words time! Saying Ted Haggard is completely heterosexual enough times will make it true! You too can help Ted Haggard be straight by chanting those words over and over again. Can't you help a man when he is down?

By Janine, Mistre… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Janine - Down on his knees?

"It can't be a boost to Gayle Haggard's self-esteem to think that her husband needed the Clockwork Orange treatment in order to find her sexually attractive."

From a certain point of view, it probably IS a boost. Consider:

"My husband is a man of such faith and spirituality that Satan himself has targeted him personally for destruction.
I am so important to my husband's well-being that Satan is trying to ruin my husband by destroying our relationship with his demons of homosexuality."

Utter rubbish, of course, but probably very seductive rubbish.

By xth_scholar (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

The Pint @ 18: This is one of many moral "problems" that are simple or absent for the humanist but damn near impossible for the theist.

Haggard's brand of religion thrives on making people feel guilty about themselves for no good reason whatsoever while numbing/dumbing them to actual important issues.

"I am so completely straight. It's only gay if the dick is in MY mouth"

I bet his wife is pegging the shit out of him.

The link is missing an l at the end.

Do you think a gay person really can be 'cured'?
Yes - It is a choice a person makes. 13%
No - It is how a person is born. 81%
Not sure. 7%

Vote total not shown.

By David Marjanović (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

As long as sexual relations are between CONSENTING adults, it's no one else's business. What's so hard about that?

It flies in the face of their belief that they know best for everyone.

Pinkydead at #13: Any comment that brings up Blackadder is full of WIN. :)

Srsly, the Haggards are pathetic, and pathetic excuses for human beings.

By Kausik Datta (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Azkyroth @ 19;

What two or more adults do behind closed doors sometimes does become a threat to civilization at large - conspiring to invade Iraq or gut civil liberties, for instance.
If the Bushies had just stripped down and gone at it, this would be a far better world.

You have a point there. I probably should have said the form of sex that two or more consenting adults have behind closed doors.

Also, I like the 'make love not war' part of your post at the end. Very life affirming. Apart from the idea of Former President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick 'I lovez me gunz' Cheney having any form of sex with anyone. That is the stuff of the worst kind of nightmare. *shudder*

By Gregory Greenwood (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Maybe science could help the Gayle Haggards of the world. Scientists could come up with the Stimulometer which is inserted into a mans briefs or boxers and sends a message to his spouse when stimulation occurs.

Then, she can call him and say, "Hey, get out of that hotel room and get your ass home! NOW!"

As long as sexual relations are between CONSENTING adults, it's no one else's business. What's so hard about that?

If you looked at the bible, sexual relation is hardly a matter of consent. Or to be fair, one person consent while the other(s) can be dragged into it if they don't.

By Gyeong Hwa Pak… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Damn, it took less then a minute for Qwerty to hit my innuendo.

By Janine, Mistre… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

paramore

Paramour.

By David Marjanović (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Do you think a gay person really can be 'cured'?
Yes - It is a choice a person makes. 12%
No - It is how a person is born. 81%
Not sure. 7%

Vote total still not shown.

By David Marjanović (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Besides, I don't believe anyone is straight till I see them in a porno.

Ray Moscow @ 24 - "This is one of many moral "problems" that are simple or absent for the humanist but damn near impossible for the theist."

Rationally, I know that - but it's practically impossible for me to wrap my mind around the concept that consenting sexual relations between adults can be used to induce guilt on that scale and is able to generate the kind of idiocy one hears spouting from Haggard and the like. It's so obviously pointless. Unless, as you've pointed out, you want to distract them from more important issues that can actually be addressed and acted upon.

I've asked some of the more conservative Christian relatives why God would make sex pleasurable and create the desire for same-sex relations if he didn't want us doing any of it in the first place. Not one of them could come up with an answer other than God wants to tempt humanity in order for people to prove their worth and sex should only be for making kids anyway, which I said really makes God kind of a dick. They didn't particularly like that conclusion.

Also, on a completely different note, it's impossible for me not to read Haggard's name and not think of the lonely, evil king of the same name from Peter S. Beagle's the Last Unicorn, and even that guy is more sympathetic than Ted.

I've asked some of the more conservative Christian relatives why God would make sex pleasurable and create the desire for same-sex relations if he didn't want us doing any of it in the first place.

I want to know why the big sky daddy placed the park in the middle of the sewage treatment center.

By Janine, Mistre… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Janine @ 37 - even more importantly, oh Mistress of Foul Mouth Abuse, is why the sky daddy hasn't yet deigned to tell his followers how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Or what is the sound of one hand clapping?

(sorry, I blame the silly on the double venti mocha today.)

Posted by: The Pint | January 28, 2010 1:00 PM

The thing that continually pisses me off is that even if homosexuality were a choice (and I really don't think that it is), who the hell cares? Why should anyone care if 2 men want to have sex, or 2 women, or 2 men and 2 women, or a whole rugby team's worth of pile-ons for that matter? As long as sexual relations are between CONSENTING adults, it's no one else's business. What's so hard about that?

Yes. I have said much the same thing before during other similar discussions. I sometimes get irritated when I see an especially vehement comment about how homosexuality is not a choice. My irritation stems from the fact that the homophobic freaks are so stupid and or dishonest that the factually correct "homosexuality is not a choice" must be the position staked out in opposition to them because the much simpler and more moral position of "who gives a fuck? (as it were) is too far beyond their ability to ever come to terms with.

By Darrell E (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

@38:
But... but... the said followers KNOW that -
If a woodchuck could chuck wood, a woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck wood!

See, no mystery there.

*Mine was a white chocolate mocha... I hope they didn't put something extra>/i> in there!

By Kausik Datta (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

I wonder why everyone is concerned about the 'is homosexuality a choice' thing. I mean, I get the political implications of it - for a lot of people, it follows that, if it's how you are born, you deserve the same rights as everyone else because you 'can't help it'. But that makes it sound like it's unfortunate or something. Why can't someone - a senator or an MP (in my case, being British), or anyone for that matter - when asked about that question just come out and say 'Look, I don't care one bit if it's nature or nurture. It's still none of your business who anyone else has a relationship with.'? I think the line people take on it, 'it isn't their/my choice!' is a mistake because it implies that if it was their choice it would be a whole different situation. If it was discovered tomorrow that every LGBT person on the planet chose to be gay or bi, it wouldn't change a thing in my perspective. LGBT people deserve the same rights as everyone else, not because of some gene or inborn tendency, whether or not it exists, but for the same reasons anyone else has rights: because it's none of your business who anyone has a relationship with and because there's nothing WRONG with same-sex sexual activity.

By Whatevermachine (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

So, Pint, you refuse to take responsibility for your own silly. Blame the drink!

'snicker'

By Janine, Mistre… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

I personally think that homo- or hetro-sexuality is a continuum, with most falling in between in the realm of bisexuality. If one could look into the true hearts of people, the distribution would be bi-modal for sure, but not that extremely weighted to the ends. I suspect lots of gay bashers actually fall over nearer the gay end, but are so conflicted and torn up by their inner feelings, and their inability to integrate these feelings with their family, peers, and life view. They over compensate by hating themselves and by projection, others who are out about their true feelings. I suspect these people are also the ones that Dan Dennett calls the ones that "believe in believing". In their heart, they know there's no god, but they go through the motions to preserve their place in society and with friends and family, but feel no guilt breaking the codes when no one might notice(or one one of sufficient age to know whats going on would notice).

By chuckgoecke (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Whatevermachine @41: Well said.

LGBT people deserve the same rights as everyone else, not because of some gene or inborn tendency, whether or not it exists, but for the same reasons anyone else has rights: because it's none of your business who anyone has a relationship with and because there's nothing WRONG with same-sex sexual activity.

The same point was made eloquently in the last thread by Bill Dauphin IIRC. The ideal focus is to be on 'Human rights', not just 'Gay rights'. However, having followed the Prop 8 trial proceedings for the past few days, particularly the testimony of the anti-gay side, I don't have much hope left for the intelligence of humanity. 'Gay rights', therefore, may be a good starting point, the proverbial foot in the door.

By Kausik Datta (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

I want to know why the big sky daddy placed the park in the middle of the sewage treatment center.

God is a civil engineer.

BS

By Blind Squirrel FCD (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Maybe Mrs. Haggard is using "hetero" in the sense of "mash-up"...

By DesertHedgehog (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Kausik Datta @ 40 - Yeah, but do they know what the sound of one hand clapping is? Or even more pressing - What is the question that reveals the meaning to 42 as the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything? (Might want to have that white chocolate tested - my coworker got one as well and has been giggling like a school girl all morning. Rather disturbing coming from a man in his mid-30s.)

Janine @ 42 - well, it you're going to put it like that, I repent! I repent! I fully take responsibility for my own silly as it was ultimately my choice to request a double venti mocha despite knowing that much caffeine and sugar would result in inevitable silly. Because unlike my sexual preference, I have complete control over my urges for the divine nectar of double-dosed coffee and chocolate syrup. I beg forgiveness!

Hey, I own up to my silly. Hell, it is a natural silly.

What is the sound of one hand clapping in a forest if there is no one there to hear it?

By Janine, Mistre… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Whatevermachine @41 said: "LGBT people deserve the same rights as everyone else, not because of some gene or inborn tendency, whether or not it exists, but for the same reasons anyone else has rights: because it's none of your business who anyone has a relationship with and because there's nothing WRONG with same-sex sexual activity."

THIS. Exactly this. I haven't been following the Prop 8 trial much because I'd like to avoid stirring up the urge to throw something at my monitor, but I suspect that the arguments of the anti-gay side fly in the face of basic decency and respect for their fellow human beings. It's depressing how "gay rights" are being referred to rather than "human rights," as if being gay somehow makes one less than human.

Janine @ 48 - "What is the sound of one hand clapping in a forest if there is no one there to hear it?"

If Zen koans are meant to clear one's head of all chattering thought, it's not working. :-)

The just completed trial portion of the suit against Prop 8 in San Francisco is full of this kind of bullshit. The pro-H8 forces just got their asses handed to them, totally pwned by the forces of love and rationality (in the person of David Boies no less,talk about ironic). I am predicting a win at this level. The judge, Vaughn Walker, appears to be intelligent and reasonable, Boies was brilliant and the H8 forces silly and misinformed. We'll see. Regardless of the ruling, (probably April) this one will be going to SCOTSUS.(San Jose Mercury News has great coverage)

Even I can clap one handed. There's no mystery to it.

@49

I haven't been following the Prop 8 trial much because I'd like to avoid stirring up the urge to throw something at my monitor

oh, you missed some real joy. The pro-8 side only had 2 witnesses, and the first was totally destroyed during cross and the second was forced to admit that ss marriage would be good for GLBTs and their families, and would be more American than not. He also made some real boner statements that childless marriages should only be domestic partnerships, because they weren't real marriages... oh, and a lot of other stupid or anti-8 statements. He basically made our case for us. go to http://prop8trialtracker.com/ and read the liveblogging transcripts.

|I want to know why the big sky daddy placed the park in the middle of the sewage treatment center.|

Actually, a sewage treatment center is a pretty interesting place, if you can stomach the smell or tolerate the proximity to all that bacteria.

For me, though, my nose is way too sensitive and my fear of sepsis is pronounced.

By bbgunn071679 (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Some of the more pernicious thoughts I've seen behind the "homosexuality is a choice" arguments come across as super-paranoid. The idea is that since it's a choice, and since no-one in their right mind would make that choice, and since the number of gays is not decreasing, that the gays must therefore be doing something to keep up their numbers.

In particular, they must therefore be recruiting. Recruiting whom? Your children, of course.

It's in the same vein as the perverse thinking behind why evolution must be a conspiracy: since nature must show God's work, and since God's work comes from the bible, scientists must be doing this on purpose as some sort of grand conspiracy.

The alternatives, that homosexuality is all deliberately chosen, that scientists are coming to the only sensible conclusion, never enters into the equation.

Expand that to "liberals think...", "atheists think..." and even popping outside of fundamentalist dogma to alt-med dogma with "skeptics think...".

Ascribing false motives, false feelings and false opinions to others for solidarity, superiority, power and out of fear of being wrong... it's one of the most damaging things about the various religopolitical groups against which we generally fight.

The slightly more self-aware of the bunch must be aware of the falsehoods at the heart of their protestations, but I imagine many of them imagine we must be doing the same thing. After all, we feel superior and pitying, lobby to keep their views out of the public education system, etc.

Even when you account for the personal "they do things out of emotion, I do things out of logic" bias that nearly everyone has, though, our avatars of people and the natural world generally pass muster; theirs often fail even the most faintly odor-detecting smell tests just a step outside of their usual uncritical - for various reasons - audience.

They could go see whether they were correct, go beyond the protestations of their "cured" ministers out into the real world to get a sense of whether their views of gays were actually true, but they don't. Better to keep knowledge shallow. Better to refrain from rocking the boat. Better to keep the enemies subhuman. "I know for a fact, but I don't care to check it out".

It is out of such an out-of-tune-with-reality mindset whence come atrocities.

By ritchie.annand (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Becca @ 53 - thanks for the link, I went through and skimmed over some of the testimony, I'll have to go back and read it more thoroughly after work. But still, from what I did read - Jebus! THOSE are the best witnesses the defense could come up with?

But that makes it sound like it's unfortunate or something. Why can't someone - a senator or an MP (in my case, being British), or anyone for that matter - when asked about that question just come out and say 'Look, I don't care one bit if it's nature or nurture. It's still none of your business who anyone else has a relationship with.'?

Happy to say that Pierre Trudeau, then Justice Minister, later Prime Minister of Canada, commenting on the decriminalisation of homosexuality famously said, "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation", adding "what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code". Pretty close to what you're asking for, given the context. That was in 1967. To top it off, PET was a Catholic.

Tis @16
"One loses track after a while, particularly when one could care less who some fundagental is screwing."

May I suggest the term "fundagenital" instead, or is that what you meant?

Janine @ 48

What is the sound of one hand clapping in a forest if there is no one there to hear it?

Hmmm... depends on whose hand?
Stogoe @52

Even I can clap one handed. There's no mystery to it.

I tried that - four fingers hitting the base of my palm. While the sound wasn't as robust as a clap, it sounded closer to 'fap'...
Ahem! Mi scusi!

By Kausik Datta (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

The pro-8 side only had 2 witnesses, and the first was totally destroyed during cross and the second was forced to admit that ss marriage would be good for GLBTs and their families, and would be more American than not.

Don't forget the odious Hak-Shing William Tam!

By Kausik Datta (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

"The ideal focus is to be on 'Human rights', not just 'Gay rights'."

Well, actually, I think it's good to name your cause, otherwise it just gets ignored. Like people say 'why talk about women's rights, why not just talk about human rights?' my reply is usually that whenever people talk about human rights they simply overlook women's rights. The same with gay rights. I don't think we should exchange one term for the other, but I agree that the emphasis should be on 'human rights'. We just need to emphasise that gay rights ARE human rights. I think that's a great slogan, actually, because it really highlights to me what the problem is.

By Whatevermachine (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Kausik Datta @ 59 - Actually, if I remember correctly from my single semester of Japanese culture class back in my college days, we got that particular koan and there apparently was an answer to it. As I recall, the prof posited that the correct answer to a koan wasn't necessarily a phrase, but the most "natural" reaction to the question posed. In the case of "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" the answer was for the person being questioned to move a single hand as if to clap. He did note that this was not the same as trying to smack the palm using the fingers on the same hand as "it is not clapping."

As I recall, the prof posited that the correct answer to a koan wasn't necessarily a phrase, but the most "natural" reaction to the question posed. In the case of "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" the answer was for the person being questioned to move a single hand as if to clap.

I thought it was "Wait ... what?"

I'm waiting for Haggard to come out with a statement like, "Sure I suck cock, but I never swallow, so I'm not gay."

Just read the article and my reaction is: Wow, lady, if you really love your husband, you should tell him that he's not broken, that he should fully accept his sexual orientation, which obviously includes a long-standing attraction to men. It's not something he has to suffer from or hide from the world. If he needs to have a boyfriend on the side to feel fulfilled, then tell him choose someone safe and mentally healthy. Otherwise he should divorce you and get married to a man. What's so hard about that?

David Marjanović @ 33;

Thank you for the heads up. Just one more spelling fail for me. I really must try harder in future

By Gregory Greenwood (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

tsg @63 - to be fair, "Wait... what?" could arguably be the proper response to almost any Zen koan. :-)

I'm waiting for Haggard to come out with a statement like, "Sure I suck cock, but I never swallow, so I'm not gay."

"Mr. Haggard, are you gay?"

"You mean right now?"

@The Pint #67:

That's why I thought it was the best answer.

tsg @ 69 - Indeed. Alternately, "What the fuck?" and "Huh?" are also acceptable. Oddly enough, those are also appropriate responses to Ted Haggard's repeated assertions that HE'S NOT GAY.

The choice issue is a complete red herring and doesn't even need to be debated. One's religious affiliation is a choice--at least in some countries--and that's a protected class.
When my local atheists group marched in a gay rights parade, some of the other participants asked why we were there. We explained that the only significant obstacle to equal rights for gays comes from religious groups*.

So...could we say that denying gays the right to marry whom they choose is a kind of religious discrimination?

*Of course the questioners knew this already. They just hadn't put atheists/gays together.

By CatBallou (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Oh, I get it. Ted Haggard is the social smoker of homosexuality: only while drinking or if he's been under a lot of stress (or, you know, when he just needs one). But it's not like he does it everyday....

#8 - -

Also, another Really Important Poll that needs (further?) Pharyngulation: Bill O'Reilly wants to know what grade Real Americans (or Real People with Web Browsers) would give Barack Obama for his first year in office: http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/# (gleefully pointed to from Wonkette).

What the hell happened to O'Reilly's poll?

Grades --
A. 94% 341,882

B. 0% 982

C. 0% 1126

D. 2% 6915

F. 4% 14,000

364,905 total votes

That is not just Pharyngula, is it? Can't believe Billo will be quoting that on his show.

By K. E. Decilon (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

@73: The poll's closed now, but I wish I could hear him say it and see what spin he would be putting on it.

By Kausik Datta (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

The argument I've heard often made here in France by the homophobes for whom it's important to be convinced that homosexuality is a choice, goes like this :
1.It's a choice.
2.This means it can be promoted.
3.This means there won't be enough good heterosexual couples that can raise children.
4.Because everybody knows that a child education is best done by a mother and a father.
5.Want some evidence : the countries that have allowed gay marriage and are therefore actively promoting the gay lifestyle don't have enough children.

You might think this is utterly stupid, but it's still the kind of thing we're dealing with in France with some of our right wing politicians, and one of the reasons why neither gay marriage nor gay adoption are allowed.

Oh and I forget : officially religion has nothing to do with this. Because we're supposed to be the country of Laicité.

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Whenever I hear people talking about how homosexuality is a choice, I think of my mom's cousin Leo. From the moment he could walk he was emulating the women in his life and swishing his hips. When playtime would come and his older brothers would be rough housing about, he was playing by himself or any female relatives with a shirt like long hair on his head playing dress up and house. Choice my ass!
I always love asking the "sexuality is a choice crowd" when they chose to be heterosexual. I know I never asked to be attracted to women, I just never complained about it either. They always come up the tired old "everything is a choice except what I do, which is how Jebus made me" bullshit.
Speaking of being born again to "cure" the "disease" of homosexuality, I always come back to this clip from the Mr. Show with Bob and David about the "ex" gay movement. In my opinion, one of the funniest from that show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRT3zs23sLk
WTN: The What to Think Network
PRICELESS!!

No Gods, No Masters
Cameron

You know, Haggard is so determined to claim heterosexuality. So let's say it's true. That means that he only had sex with that male prostitute out of a desire to do something he thought was perverted. So if Teddy is a heterosexual, he's also a pervert.

(Just to be absolutely clear, I do not think two men having sex is at all perverted. In fact, along with a number of other straight women I think it's kinda hot.)

From the moment he could walk he was emulating the women in his life and swishing his hips. When playtime would come and his older brothers would be rough housing about, he was playing by himself or any female relatives with a shirt like long hair on his head playing dress up and house.

Personally I wasn't aware that being gay automatically meant also being effeminate, or visa versa.

By Rev. BigDumbChimp (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Scientists could come up with the Stimulometer which is inserted into a mans briefs or boxers and sends a message to his spouse when stimulation occurs.

It already exists, though I can't remember its name. They used to use them (and I assume they still do) while showing imprisoned UK sex offenders porn of various kinds. (I had a temporary job in a prison when I first graduated, and my boss was one of the pioneers of this kind of research.)

By Knockgoats (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Plethysmography.

Funny how the atheists, liberals, and pro-homosexuals use the word CHOICE as it best fits them!

By professordendy (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Fuck you're an idiot dendy.

By Rev. BigDumbChimp (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

otrame @ 77;

Just to be absolutely clear, I do not think two men having sex is at all perverted. In fact, along with a number of other straight women I think it's kinda hot.

It is funny you should say that. Just to be absolutely clear, I do not think that two women having sex is at all perverted. In fact, along with a number (ok, probably a big number) of other straight men I think it's kinda hot.

Unfortunately, that probably does make me some kind of pervert. I apologise in advance for any offence I may have given to my fellow Pharyngulites. ;-p

By Gregory Greenwood (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

All of the high IQ points are wasted on old fuckface. He could easily get by on having a score of 85.

By Janine, Mistre… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Dandy has choice not to appear an idjit. But he posts here anyway, proving he is one. Dandy, you still haven't presented any evidence for your imaginary deity. That makes you a delusional idjit fool.

By Nerd of Redhead, OM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

professordendy @ 81;

Why do I get the strange sensation that the list you include in your post could easily be extended in your eyes to include baby eaters, paedophiles, mass murderers and the like?

I am most likely wasting my time here, but we atheist, liberal 'pro-homosexuals' (whatever you mean by that term. I am 'pro-homosexual' in so far as I believe that all members of the LGTB community are fellow human beings deserving of the universal right to human dignity and are indeed every bit as deserving of repect and fundamental human rights as heterosexuals. I take it that this is an opinion you do not share?) are not three headed sub-human monsters bent on 'recruiting' children to a given sexuality.

We simply believe that all people should be treated equally before the law irrespective of things about themselves that they cannot control like racial grouping and ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. If this end is to be acheived, law must be free of religious dogma or any other corrosive ideology that would set one community against another over such irrelevancies as the putative wishes of an at best hypothetical deity.

By Gregory Greenwood (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Denby, you can't "cure" homosexuality anymore than we can "cure" your stupidity. Go back to your blogs and keep posting the idiotic poop pictures and photo-shopped pictures of cats with rabbit ears.

Dearest Dendy,

I am not "pro-homosexual". I am pro-human being. Even you. I don't care what you believe or who you sleep with (provided, of course, we are talking adult and consenting).

Haven't you figured out yet what you sound like when you post things like #81? And in all bold yet, so you can be sure we see you. You remind me of a three-year-old trying to get attention by throwing a tantrum, making as much noise a possible.

You are not a very good spokesperson for what you say you believe. Really. You aren't.

What about the "unborn child's" choice... if you are pro-human being then you must be anti-abortion, right? Or are you going to throw the old argument, a fetus isn't a human being, at me?

By professordendy (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Hey, looky here! Old fuckface is pulling his knowledge of biology!

By Janine, Mistre… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

How can homophobes like dendy say it's a choice to be gay ? How do they know ? Were they ever confronted with that choice ?

By the time I realised I was more attracted by boys than girls, I had never actually met a gay man (well I might have, but I didn't know it). The only "exposure" I had had to teh gays was this comedy la cage aux folles (the early french original version of the bird cage, with Ugo Tognazzi and Michel Serault). For me then, being gay would have meant being like them. And I definitely didn't think I was going to become like those two men in that comedy. I didn't know else, small town in the south of France 30 years ago. So I wasn't gay.
I would masturbate in the toilets in front of the male underwear pages of my mother's mail order catalog, but I wasn't gay.

Later, I once saw two real gay men in a white convertible car. They really looked like the couple in the bird cage. I had seen some gays for the first time. I wasn't one of them, that was clear. I was still masturbating in front of the male underwear pages of my mother's mail order catalog though.

It took me quite a few more years to understand and accept that I was a homosexual. That's the choice I made. I never chose to be sexually attracted to men.

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Dandy, you are wrong as usual. You aren't a scientist who understands evidence. Otherwise, you would understand the difference between inside a woman's body versus outside of it. You are just a stoopid fool who believes in imaginary things like god. Nobody to listen to. Just a fool.

By Nerd of Redhead, OM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Dendy, if the plight of the unwanted child concerns you so much, I suggest you adopt a Haitian orphan.

I am sure you are only anti-abortion as it gives you a great feeling of moral superiority. I guess, as stupid as you are, you need it.

professordendrophiliac wrote:

What about the "unborn child's" choice... if you are pro-human being then you must be anti-abortion, right? Or are you going to throw the old argument, a fetus isn't a human being, at me?

Is it possible that you're you comparing homosexuality to abortion? You are cementing your position as one of the stupidest people to ever post here.

A person being homosexual has no effect on any other person beyond what the person chooses to feel, i.e. homophobic morons like you being offended by it.

A foetus depends on the woman to bear it. If the woman does not want it, making her bear it against her will makes her a slave to it - and, despite what your bible says, we think slavery is bad. Bearing it may also kill the woman. Despite what your bible says about women, we think this is wrong, too.

Can you grasp that, dumbass?

By WowbaggerOM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Dendy's moronic posts in this particular thread seem to be awfully in concordance with this thread's topic title: An impressive capacity for self-delusion.

... the major delusions being, of course, that he has something intelligent to say, that he knows anything about anything, and that we care at all about what rancid tripe he decides to pull out of his arse every time he drives by here - amidst others.

By Kausik Datta (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

So you, Nerd of the Redhead are saying or implying that the unborn child is not a human being? Or did I misunderstand you - do you believe a human fetus that is alive in a woman's body is a human being?

By professordendy (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Kausik Datta @ 95 - I just had the same thought, but I am sure you expressed it far better than I would have.

Ray Moscow (@24):

I'm coming late to this party, but...

Haggard's brand ofMost religion thrives on making people feel guilty about themselves for no good reason whatsoever

I won't say "FTFY," because what you wrote was perfectly true; I just broadened the application

By Bill Dauphin, OM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Brilliant WowBagger... you are so convincing... so you say that "everyone" should have equal rights, EXCEPT when it comes to the unborn child and then it has no rights unless the mother is okay with the unborn child living...

By professordendy (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

woh... Deja vue!
Just yesterday I was watching a documentary that was talking about Alan Mathison Turing who was prosecuted in 1952 for "gross indecency" (I guess that's how they called homosexuality back in the days). He apparently committed suicide taking "a bite" out of an apple laced with cyanide, as a result of his depression derived from the fact that as a sentence he had to take -female hormone injections-!!! I guess we haven't changed much since then...

Dandy, it is not a human being until it is outside of the womb and breathing on its own. Anybody who understands the situation will know that. Which leaves your meager intelligence out, with you inane presuppositions that your imaginary deity exists and your babble is a book of mythology. Evidence, something you lack, and it makes you a fool. For example, the biggest abortionist on earth is your imaginary deity. So, you must believe in abortion if you believe in him. Fool.

By Nerd of Redhead, OM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

professordendy @ 89;

What about the "unborn child's" choice... if you are pro-human being then you must be anti-abortion, right? Or are you going to throw the old argument, a fetus isn't a human being, at me?

Well, if I wanted to be pedantic I would say that the unborn child does not have the cognitive functionality to be capable of making a choice per se, but I take your point to be in relation to the 'rights' of the foetus.

At law, a foetus is not considered to have equivilent rights to an adult human being, and with good reason. A foetus does not form emotional attachments and relationships. It does not have hopes, fears or ambitions. In short, a foetus cannot be rationally considered comparable to an adult human being.

Despite this, however, you expect an adult human being (who has all the faculties of a human in terms of hopes, fears, dreams, relationships et al) to sacrifice her rights in order that your vision of the moral treatment of a foetus should be upheld. In short, so called 'pro-lifers' (never was a name more bitterly ironic) demand that a woman's status as human be contingent upon whether or not she is pregnant. Once those gametes fuse, then all bets are off. She is immediately reduced to a glorified uterus, an incubator on legs, a delivery mechanism for the next generation. Once she falls pregnant her body is no longer her own. Instead it belongs to the State.

The message of the pro-life position is unambiguous - a woman's worth to society is determined solely by her capacity to bring forth children. She has no value outside this function. For the most extreme of exponents, the message is even worse. Abortion is never an option, not even in cases where taking the pregnency to term will cause irreparable injury or death, not even when incest and rape are involved. So a woman who has been raped once by her attacker can face being effectively raped again by the State by being forced to carry a child to term against her wishes. Such an idea is truly unconscionable.

I oppose all slavery. Procreative slavery is no different.

By Gregory Greenwood (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

One would think that old fuckface would have enough IQ points to know there is a different between a blastocyst and a baby.

By Janine, Mistre… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

'I suspect that not one person in the history of humanity has ever reached early adolescence and made a conscious decision about what stimuli trigger a little hormonal surge.'
Didn't make a choice? Hell yes I did. Consider the choices for a 14 year old -
Girls. Unlikely to put out without at least 3 long, tedious dates, expensive dates, and even then, no guarantee.
Boys. Likely to put out not only on the first date, but most likely at the first point in that date where conditions allow.
Who would choose heterosexuality? No one in their right mind. So I guess it must be something you are born with after all. But I am sure it can be cured. If just with a course of common-sense therapy.

AAAAAAAAAAAARRGGGHHH!

So you, Nerd of the Redhead are saying or implying that the unborn child is not a human being? Or did I misunderstand you - do you believe a human fetus that is alive in a woman's body is a human being?

Just when I promised myself that I am not going to respond to your bilge, I see the same shit over and over and... my... fingers... get... drawn... to... the... keyboard...

Fetal "rights" beyond reasonable limits do not matter because the fetus can NOT exist independently outside the mother's body before reaching a certain age; even premature babies need special equipment to survive. Until parturition, the fetus is a part of the woman's body, to do as she pleases with it. The woman is NOT a passive incubator for fetuses outside of your bible-driven, rotten, pathetic excuse for a mind.

By Kausik Datta (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

professordendrophiliac wrote:

Brilliant WowBagger... you are so convincing... so you say that "everyone" should have equal rights, EXCEPT when it comes to the unborn child and then it has no rights unless the mother is okay with the unborn child living...

It's really very simple - if you're capable of actually thinking for a change - the rights of the woman outweigh the rights of the fetus. If she don't want it, it don't get had.

How, exactly, does this compare to homosexuality? Please explain how your rights are affected by another person's homosexuality.

By WowbaggerOM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Please explain how your rights are affected by another person's homosexuality.

He loses his God-given rights to murder us. - Leviticus.

Otherwise, he doesn't lose anything. He's free to hate and despise us all he wants. He's free believe we are wicked. He's also free to receive all the repercussions for being utterly absurd and bigoted.

By Gyeong Hwa Pak… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

go away dendy

you are trolling

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

#18 - 'Why should anyone care if 2 men want to have sex, or 2 women, or 2 men and 2 women, or a whole rugby team's worth of pile-ons for that matter? '
If there is a whole rugby team's worth of pile-ons goign on somewhere, then it would definately be of concern for me.

Professordendy;

Further to my last comment, I fail to see any linkage between homosexuality and abortion. I am curious as to why you decided to 'jump ship' between two such unrelated topics. How exactly does homosexuality relate to these hypothetical foetal 'choices' you mentioned?

On the face of it, it looks like you switched topics to one you believe is more emotive in an attempt to bolster your position. I must say that I feel that this action was ill judged, and in point of fact acheived the diametric opposite effect to that which you intended.

By Gregory Greenwood (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Dandy can post, but I won't touch his blog. After all, he deletes/fails to post any comments against his idjiticy. Talk about a hypocrite...

By Nerd of Redhead, OM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Personally I wasn't aware that being gay automatically meant also being effeminate, or visa versa.

It's not automatic but this happens. I had this happen with a student of mine who I followed from the age of 8 to 16 at summer camp. He knew he was different from the first and hated it. I had to be careful when choosing him in a group to not appear to be including him as a girl. The last year he came out to us and the difference was remarkable. Much more relaxed and very popular.
I let him sleep in the girls tent at the girls request. The female CIT did kick him out of the girls lavatory, however.

BS

By Blind Squirrel FCD (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

The perfesser had better be anti-capital punishment or else he's a hypocrite.

What am I bet that he's a hypocrite? Or are you all too smart to take sucker bets?

By 'Tis Himself, OM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Nick @ 109;

If there is a whole rugby team's worth of pile-ons goign on somewhere, then it would definately be of concern for me.

Now that's what I like to see. Women, men, a little something for everybody, whatever they are in to.

Massive, all-inclusive orgies - the basis of the only type of utopia worth aspiring to...

By Gregory Greenwood (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Argghhhh! Blockquote fail! Apologies all.

By Gregory Greenwood (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

How, exactly, does this compare to homosexuality?

You need an IQ of at least 156 and an impressive capacity for self-delusion to understand dendy's logic.

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

You need an IQ of at least 156 and an impressive capacity for self-delusion to understand dendy's logic.

Maybe tree-fucking rots your brain.

By WowbaggerOM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

I am most definitely anti-capital punishment! Thank you for allowing me to clarify that!

By professordendy (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Apologies all.

Wrong thread.

dendy,

The question is not whether the fetus is human or not, not even whether it has rights or not. Even allow that a fetus has all the rights and privileges of an adult, it does not have a right to control someone else's body for any length of time without that persons consent. Your right to life does not give you a right to my life. This is what "pro-lifers" want to give to the fetus, the right to someone else's life without their consent.

Still a delusional fool Dandy. Your imaginary deity doesn't exist and your babble is fiction/myth. You haven't show otherwise, so you are still a delusional fool, without any evidence. Nobody to tell us anything. In fact, we tell you the truth...

By Nerd of Redhead, OM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

I am most definitely anti-capital punishment! Thank you for allowing me to clarify that!

You're still a hypocrite, though - just in one fewer area than we anticipated. And you're also still an inane fucking moron.

By WowbaggerOM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Notexactlyaprof Dendy, don't you have a few comments to approve on your own blog? (insert something about getting your own house in order before tracking up ours.)

BS

By Blind Squirrel FCD (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

If you can choose your sexuality, then I choose salmon banana pizza. That's right, I am now a pizzasexual. Everybody should celebrate their new-found freedom of choice by picking something fun and unique!

SteveM - Well, if the fetus had the right to sue its bearer, how would it get to an attorney?

Dendy, if the supreme court did overturn Row and anti-abortion laws were passed. Would you imprison women who had underground abortions? This question was asked of some anti-abortion protestors and most of them thought that the person having an abortion shouldn't be punished.

So, what is the purpose of having anti-abortion laws? Would they be like the recently overturned sodomy laws which were ineffective in keeping gays and lesbians from having sex and/or forming long-term relationships.

In case you've forgot, many states had legalized abortion prior to Row and woman still had abortions in those states where it was illegal.

I still think your anti-choice on the abortion issue is simply a way for you to claim the moral high ground. Besides, your a male, and would have no conception as to what child-bearing entails.

So, go back to your blog and post your poopy pictures.

Obviously Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse you know nothing of the what constitutes human life...

And this is what I know and remember of human development from my "limited" graduate class in human reproductive biology from my limited "graduate degree" from the University of Maryland, College Park (which I am sure would be on the atheists' list of approved Universities)

By day 6 following intercourse, the blastocyst sticks to the endometrium, by day 10 implantation is complete... let's see, from there I'll skip to the end of 30 days - heart has formed and is beating and other body systems have begun formation.

End of 3 months the heartbeat is detectable and external ears present.

By month 5, many bones are present and joints begin to form...

but until that sucker pops out of that woman's womb - it's not a "human being" is it?

By professordendy (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Hey, looky here, old fuckface finally gets some facts right. Still does not explain that the fetus is a human who's rights trumps that of the mother.

By Janine, Mistre… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

That's right, I am now a pizzasexual.

Sounds like a painful variation on American Pie (pardon the French)!

Then again... leftover pizza straight out the fridge wouldn't be too bad....

By Bill Dauphin, OM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

but until that sucker pops out of that woman's womb - it's not a "human being" is it?

You keep on blathering about this, but it's irrelevant. Until it can survive on its (not it's, btw) own then it has no right to enslave another human being in order to live.

What part of that don't you understand?

By WowbaggerOM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

By the way Dandy, it is Dr. Nerd. I have a PhD., and we also have a few MD's who disagree with you, and trump anything you have to say on science and human development. So, crawl back to your hole of imaginary deities and biblical ignorance. Anything you say is irrelevant to us, except for our amusement at your idjiticy.

By Nerd of Redhead, OM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

You are nuts Wowbugger... so you say there should be personal responsibility or accountability for one's actions... I know, you will not admit it... go ahead with your free thinking and when somebody blows your brains out... don't hold anyone accountable...

By professordendy (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Another wasted post by the Dandy. Just lights on, nobody home. As if he is an authority on anything. I wouldn't even trust him to find his own fly...

By Nerd of Redhead, OM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Qwerty:

Dendy, if the supreme court did overturn Roe and anti-abortion laws were passed. Would you imprison women who had underground abortions?

Not merely imprison! On the (obviously ludicrous) theory that a fetus is a human being, an abortion cannot possibly be seen as anything less that conspiracy to commit murder for hire... a capital crime, by any rational definition, in any jurisdiction that has capital punishment. Since Dandy has already declared that he opposes the death penalty, he would no doubt feel honor bound to settle for life-without-parole, but still....

Note, of course, that when so-called pro-lifers agitate to criminalize abortion, they invariably call for penalties that would be laughably lenient if the fetus were truly a human person: In So. Dakota a few years back, the proposed law called for 5 years for the doctor and nothing for the mother!

I take this discrepancy as a sign that even they don't actually believe their own crap.

By Bill Dauphin, OM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Because, as all right thinking little fuckfaces know, the theory of evilulution leads people to murder. Just watch Expelled. Ben Stein proved it.

Wowbagger, you best put on old fuckface's mental blinders, it will protect you from bullets to the head.

By Janine, Mistre… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

professordendrophiliac wrote:

You are nuts Wowbugger... so you say there should be personal responsibility or accountability for one's actions... I know, you will not admit it... go ahead with your free thinking and when somebody blows your brains out... don't hold anyone accountable...

What the fuck are you talking about? Please feel free to cite the post number that corresponds to me writing anything that you could have interpreted as what you just wrote.

By WowbaggerOM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Hey not-prof Dendy - do you agree with the recent situation in which a woman who WANTED to carry her pregnancy to term was ordered on bedrest by her doctor, wanted to get a second opinion because she didn't quite trust that one and had two children to take care of besides, but was ordered by a judge to remain hospitalized and in the care of that particular doctor, with the end result of a stillbirth? Because that's what happens when you start to tell pregnant women that they don't have bodily autonomy.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100126/D9DFDKLO0.html

But she didn't like the care she received at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital. She said her doctor, Jana Bures-Foresthoefel, was brusk and overbearing. Her lawyer said bed rest for difficult pregnancies is a controversial issue because it can cause some complications like blood clots.
The mother said she wanted the option to seek care at another hospital or to go home so she could care for her two daughters.

"I was desperately hoping to receive the care I needed to save my baby," Burton wrote in her statement. "However, after a few days there, I did not feel I was receiving the care I needed, and instead of being allowed to leave or go to another hospital, I found myself being ordered by a judge to stay at Tallahassee Memorial and submit to all medical care from its hospital
staff, whether I agreed or not."

Abrams said Burton's condition didn't merit such extreme action. Her symptoms were not that unusual, she wasn't in active labor and the state failed to show why bed rest at Tallahassee Memorial would have been any better than at another hospital or home, he said.

The judge ruled the best interests of the fetus overrode Burton's privacy rights, but Abrams disputes that. He notes the Florida Constitution, unlike its federal counterpart, has an explicit and strong privacy right, which the state Supreme Court has said guarantees a competent person the right to "choose or refuse medical treatment."

"If you apply the best interest of the child standard, the woman becomes nothing more than a fetal incubator owned by the state of Florida," Abrams said.

dendytroll, you're being a disingenuous fuckgnome again.

since I, a fully grown adult with full rights, cannot legally force my mother to donate a kidney to me if I ever needed one, even if I were to die without it, how can a fetus(or a proxy) legally demand that the woman donate her uterus to it?

bodily autonomy is absolute: the law may not force me to use my body for the benefit another person against my will. so even if a fetus were a person, it still wouldn't have the right to use the mother's body against her will.

By Jadehawk, OM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

oh, and I should add that getting an abortion when you can't have a kid at that time IS taking responisbility.

Children are not a punishment, you deranged troll.

By Jadehawk, OM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

quoting #137
"so even if a fetus were a person, it still wouldn't have the right to use the mother's body against her will."

Am I the only non religious person here being a little freaked out by this? I understand that following trough a pregnancy is a woman's choice. But would it hurt anyone on here to show just a little less detachment towards life? It's still a tough call to make for anyone and a traumatic choice for some.

Anywhoo... my two cents!

Wow. Ok. I miss out on so much only reading the comments here once or twice a day. SO much for me to rant and froth and flail about in this thread.

This is the preliminary post. Hopefully when I get home from work I'm going to compose something thoughtful that addresses everything I want to respond to. Either that or I'm going to have a couple jack and cokes and post something half assed before I got to bed.

The suspense is killing me.

Hey, Dendy, since you're all for people hijacking others for extended periods of time, if I kidnap you and hoist you up to be my own personal dialysis machine for 9 months because I'll die soon without, with you having no consent in the matter, I'm sure you'll be fine with that. After all, you don't mind if my body is in the same situation.

Maybe I'll annoy you for years afterwards to boot.

By Rutee, Shrieki… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

You know, I find it kind a funny* that folks like dendy are against "government making health care decisions" yet insists that the government makes the health care decisions for all women by limiting their choice.

So, I'm I right to say that the issue here isn't about the fetus at all? It seems to me that the real reason they are opposed to abortion is that it destroy the right of a patriarch to control the body. Especially since many people who are opposed to it are also for the patriarchal family system where the man is the head of the household. I might be using too much anthro reading here, but I seems that the risk involved here more about maintain a certain power status-quo and not about life at all. Do correct me if I am wrong.

*funny means hypocritical

By Gyeong Hwa Pak… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Rutee, are you sure you would like to live with old fuckface for eighteen years? And then after that, move into his basement?

By Janine, Mistre… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Hey "professor" Dendy,

Why don't you allow comments on your blog?
You must be very insecure in your faith delusion if you cannot tolerate dissenting opinions.

You seem to be happy to leave your unwanted troll droppings all over this blog.

May be time to make acquaintance with Lion (IRC), Pastor Tom Estes, Alan Clarke, and the rest of the insipid godbotting crew in the dungeon ...

By Suck Poppet (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

May be time to make acquaintance with Lion (IRC), Pastor Tom Estes, Alan Clarke, and the rest of the insipid godbotting crew in the dungeon ...

All of which had blogs, but allowed no dissenting opinions. Notice your undeleted posts here Dandy. That is call freedom of speech and freedom of ideas. All you have is delusional presupposions, which you protect from the truth...

By Nerd of Redhead, OM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

I understand that following trough a pregnancy is a woman's choice. But would it hurt anyone on here to show just a little less detachment towards life?

Interesting that you interpret a comment showing respect for a women's lives as expressing detachment towards life.

It's still a tough call to make for anyone and a traumatic choice for some.

Even if this is 100% true, no one is arguing the contrary, so I don't know why you're pointing it out.

Gyeong Hwa Pak @ 142

Oh, you have it just right. Making reproductive rules for women is about having control over the next generation of soldiers and priests.

Dendy says the funniest things when he's riled. FWIW, if someone were to blow my brains out, I doubt that I would be in much of a position to hold them accountable and I'm sure that would apply to Wowbagger as well. Nevertheless, I am unnerved by the violent tone of his comments, linking homosexuality, abortion, and blowing out people's brains. There is something unhealthy happening there.

Rutee, are you sure you would like to live with old fuckface for eighteen years? And then after that, move into his basement?

You think he'd let himself be locked up for 9 months as a dialysis machine, allowing someone else to hijack his bodily functions?

I mean, the answer is no, but that's not really the point.

By Rutee, Shrieki… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Sorry Rutee, I got the point. I was making a joke. I was playing with the concept of annoy him for years. Methinks that you would be much less annoying than old fuckface.

By Janine, Mistre… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Wowbagger, I understand what you meant and completely agree, but I can't help pointing out that the construction of this sentence could imply something you didn't intend:

Until it can survive on its own then it has no right to enslave another human being in order to live.

That is, it implies that once it can survive on its own it would have the right to enslave another person.

@146

Semantics? In that instance I was talking about the life that grows inside a woman's body.

I agree the last statement in my post (#139)might've been an emotional overkill.

Izzy (#139)

But would it hurt anyone on here to show just a little less detachment towards life?

Abortion and abortion rights aren't about "life." That's way too broad and way too simple at the same time. It's about how we choose to define humanity at its different stages and what status and rights each stage gets. All life is not equal, and without the definitions, how do we even know what to be emotional about? Not that emotions always bow to reason, of course, but you end up carving out these categories no matter what, consciously or unconsciously. It's best in this case to be as conscious as possible. That may look like detachment, but it's not.

It's still a tough call to make for anyone and a traumatic choice for some.

Wouldn't be a tough call for me. If I'm ever so unlucky, it might be a rotten experience, but I have no doubt that any of the alternatives would be much worse.

Izzy (#152)

Semantics? In that instance I was talking about the life that grows inside a woman's body.

Her gut flora? Do you feel the same about antibiotics as you do about abortion? I'm not making fun of you. I'm trying to point out why people here are so meticulous. It's not detachment. It's that generalization simply doesn't help.

Semantics? In that instance I was talking about the life that grows inside a woman's body.

And ignoring the fact that that comment was showing respect for women's lives. It didn't imply any sort of detachment or callousness, and it's strange that you interpreted it as if it did.

I agree the last statement in my post (#139)might've been an emotional overkill.

Yes, and unconnected to anything being said. Unless anyone arguing for women's bodily autonomy is obliged to include a statement about the pain often involved in making certain choices, to prove...what, exactly?

Hey Sock Puppet... I do allow comments and they don't have to be in line with my opinion... you must not know that you have to *click on "make a comment" to leave a comment or *click on "comments" to read the comments... and you are calling me the dumby! That's laughable!!!

I think I'll go watch a movie... maybe not as entertaining {smirk} but certainly more real!

Note: "click on" means to move the cursor with the mouse to the word or picture you want to click on and then press the left mouse button

By professordendy (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

oh look, another argument dendytroll has run away from.

but hey, when you're a pathetic liar, then maybe you really do think you're being clever when you insult others and pretend like the refutations of your idiotic claims don't exist.

By Jadehawk, OM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Personally I think that we all sit on the some point of the Kinsey scale.

Personally I sit in quite near of the heterosexual end. But I can freely admit that there has been few persons with whom I could have imagined a homosexual relationship.

For each man I could dream to have sex with there has been thousands of women (if you count the gifs) which I have dreamed to have sex with. I assume that if I would have lived in more pro homosexual culture, like ancient Greece, I would have had some actual homosexual relationships too.

Notquite a prof Dendy, Lying sack of lizard shit. My comment on this pathetic post of yours has been held in moderation for 2 days. Is that what you call allowing comments?
Just in case, here is my comment:
Judy, Judy Judy, I know science is hard, what with all those big words, so I will keep it simple, like Notquiteaprof Dendy; The theory of evolution does not claim that “if evolution were true, … babies being born (would) have ‘new’ limbs or growths”, which NQAP Dendy would tell you if he had any integrity. But hey, what is the harm of a little lie if it is in the service of god?

BS

By Blind Squirrel FCD (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Dendy spake thus:

I do allow comments ...

Liar.

you must not know that you have to ...

I think everyone here knows exactly how to comment on a blog. Give me a break. *rolls eyes*

... and you are calling me the dumby!

Don't remember doing that, but cheers for saving me the hassle.

{smirk}

The attitude of every christofacist in a nutshell.

By Suck Poppet (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

@153 & 154
I like your explanations very much A.Noyd. I see your point. Thank you!

I think this is part of old fuckface's brilliant strategy. By being so outrageously over the top in his smugness, he hope that we will just go after the latest bucket of chum and forget about the lies that we have been asking him to address.

So, old fuckface, why do you call yourself a professor when you are not one?

Assclam.

By Janine, Mistre… (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Hey Sock Puppet... I do allow comments and they don't have to be in line with my opinion... you must not know that you have to *click on "make a comment" to leave a comment or *click on "comments" to read the comments... and you are calling me the dumby!

'Dumby'? What hell's a 'dumby'? Do you mean 'dummy'? If so, then yes. Unless, of course, 'dumby' is a word meaning 'lying, cowardly sack of shit even by contemporary Christian standards'; if that's the case then yes, you are indeed a 'dumby'.

I think I'll go watch a movie... maybe not as entertaining {smirk} but certainly more real!

Movies are more real than people? No wonder you've got no clue why you're getting your stupid ass owned everytime you post here.

Note: "click on" means to move the cursor with the mouse to the word or picture you want to click on and then press the left mouse button

Hands up anyone who's surprised that our resident supergenius doesn't know about mouse button reconfiguration?

By WowbaggerOM (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Izzy (#161)

I like your explanations very much A.Noyd. I see your point. Thank you!

Glad to be of service. And thank you for considering my point!

"Some day, when prophecy is being fulfilled upon this world and Christ returns with His Saints to rule the whole world, they will BELIEVE!"

Some day bald eagles might fly out of my ass. Then YOU will BELIEVE!

Brilliant Wowbugger! I don't post comments with foul language on my blog... you should know that... are you some kinda dumby?

By professordendy (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Notevenaprof Dendy, please address my post @159, you lying coward.

BS

By Blind Squirrel FCD (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

what a perfectly titled thread for Dendy to be posting in!

why, it's almost as if it were made just for him.

Thought you were leaving to watch cartoons. I get the feeling you're the kind of guy that stands in front of his class and brags about how he teases godless heathens on the internet.

It worries me to no end that this guy claims to teach ANY biology, even elementary school level biology, let alone at the community college level.

One can only wonder at the level of lies and bullshit he "teaches" as "biology" in his class.

One also wonders why he is even bothering to try and get a PhD, since he so clearly does not agree with any of things he's been taught.

Some day bald eagles might fly out of my ass. Then YOU will BELIEVE!

Brilliant Wowbugger! I don't post comments with foul language on my blog... you should know that... are you some kinda dumby?

Eagles are not fowl. Eagles are Accipitridae.

From the Urban Dictionary: dumby

Common misspelling of the word dummy, almost always used by the people who can easily be described by the word itself. Just because dumb has a "b" at the end, does not mean dummy has to. Also, dummy does not rhyme with Gumby.

I get the feeling you're the kind of guy that stands in front of his class and brags about how he teases godless heathens on the internet

Without ever mentioning the fell name Pharyngula, lest they visit the site and witness the deluded fool's virtual evisceration.

BS

By Blind Squirrel FCD (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

methamphetine use = "willowy young man with needle tracks in his arm living on a street corner in the bad part of town"

Good FSM there are a lot of fallacies in that statement! Way to push a ridiculuous, 70's, knee-jerk, media-promoted stereotype, PZ.

By TimKO,,.,, (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Dendy spake thus:

I do allow comments ...

Liar.

seconded. He most assuredly is lying about this.

...or at least about only not posting comments that have "foul language" in them.

Yes, Dendy, you're an established and proven liar.

The whole point of free labor is that labor is bartered and not coerced. I don't see how anyone can believe in capitalism and simultaneously not accept the basic right of a woman to not go through with a pregnancy. It's 40 weeks long, and it's called labor for a reason.

If you think that it's a social good to have women go through with pregnancies, you can start incentivizing them to do so by paying them for their labor.

But unpaid, compulsory labor is called slavery. "You know what the worst thing about being a slave is? They make you work all day but they don't pay you or let you go."

Some day bald eagles might fly out of my ass.

and

Brilliant Wowbugger!

followed immediately by

I don't post comments with foul language on my blog

but you are happy to shit it out on other's blogs aren't you?

Are you aware how much a new irony meter costs you shining example of christianity?

By Suck Poppet (not verified) on 28 Jan 2010 #permalink

Yes, Dendy, you're an established and proven liar.

Yep, we had his number from his first inane posts. And he hasn't gotten any better with time. Dandy lives in a fantasy world of imaginary deities, inerrant babble, and his need to get the fictional word out. He tries to the be authority, but when challenged to provide real evidence, runs away and cries we are mean. What a delusional fool.

By Nerd of Redhead, OM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Dendy is definitely lying about allowing comments on his blogs. I looked specifically at a comment posted by a Pharynguloid on one of Dendy's blogs. The comment contained a link to a local California news station KCRA report that called Dendy a "Dr.". For whatever reason, possibly to hide the truth, Dendy eventually deleted that comment but not his response to it.

FWIW, here is the link to that news report where Dendy was misrepresented as having a doctorate:
http://www.kcra.com/news/19573819/detail.html

By aratina cage o… (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Why is it that pro-lifers are completely uninterested in taking any sort of action that will actually reduce the incidence of abortion? Overturning Roe v. Wade will successfully make abortion unsafe, but it won't make abortion go away. Worldwide studies have shown that the legality of abortion has precious little effect on its incidence. Overall, abortion is just as common, sometimes more common, in countries where it is illegal as it is in countries where it is legal.

Just look at a Catholic country like Brazil. Abortion is illegal except for cases of rape or to save the mother's life, and yet a Brazilian woman is MUCH more likely to get one, or more, abortions in her lifetime than an American woman. Abortion is typically unrestricted in Western Europe, and yet Western Europe has the lowest incidence of abortion in the world. (sources: World Health Organization, Guttmacher Institute)

What WORKS in decreasing abortion is comprehensive sex education and availability of low-cost, effective contraception. What predicts whether abortion is common or uncommon in a nation is not its bans or lack thereof. It's whether or not that nation makes a priority of educating its citizens about sex, and whether or not those citizens have access to doctors and contraception.

Dendy, if you are at all interested in actually preventing abortion (I suspect you are only interested in the moralistic high you get from telling people how evil they are for being pro-choice) then you shouldn't be protesting outside a Planned Parenthood clinic. You should be inside helping them. Planned Parenthood prevents more abortions in one year than the pro-life movement will prevent in a lifetime. Want abortion to go away? Stop being a moralistic, punitive asshole and start working to make unwanted pregnancies a thing of the past.

By ButchKitties (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Excellent rant ButchKitties. Especially the part on how to lower the number of abortions. Are you listening to reality Dandy?

By Nerd of Redhead, OM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Wow. I have never run into this Dendy person before. Is this his first time posting here? He is a perfect example of how a college degree does not necessarily require any particular intelligence. You are a seriously fucked up individual Dendy. You really should seek help before you injure yourself or someone else. What is it that has caused you to be so insecure about your manhood?

Posted by: nickgorton | January 29, 2010 7:15 AM

Ted, you cannot run from gay. (Gail, you might want to watch this too.)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-6-2006/headlines---from-…

That was friggen hilarious. I had not seen that before, Thank you.

By Darrell E (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

In other news, it seems the article in PZ's link is gone. Not just archived, an exhaustive search of the site will turn up nothing at all relating to Ted Haggart.

Surprised? I'm not.

By ThisIsGrand (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Destigmatizing homosexuality which is clearly a non-procreative sexual behaviour, and giving proper respect to the procreative nature of sexual interaction between men and women would also help deal with the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

This looks like a good thread to post this question (tangentially related).

Years ago I watched a Canadian documentary about homosexuality in society. It featured clip (among many) of a gay comedian who ridiculed the "choice" meme by saying (very ironically) yes, I choose it - from a menu. He then proceeds to pantomime holding a menu, leafing through the pages, rattles off the pros and cons. I think among the cons were "becoming a pariah" (or words to that effect), danger of physical attack, etc. and the pros were fabulous friends (and I can't remember the rest, sorry). He had me ROFLOL.

I realize given the paltry information I can recall it may prove difficult or impossible for anyone to identify the comedian and it may be too much to ask if he's put anything on YouTube, but if this rings bells for anyone, I'd appreciate any info anyone cares to share. Thanks.

By Steven Dunlap (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Putting labels, like "Gay", "Straight", or "Bi-sexual" on people isn't destigmatizing those aspects of human sexual behaviour.

I ditto Nerd on ButchKitties take on abortion with the exception that overturning Row will only lead to back alley abortions in those states that prohibit abortion as overturning Row would put the decision to legalize abortion in the arena of state legislatures.

Roe, not Row.

You know, it's weird, Ted Haggard and the media and everyone else keeps talking about whether or not he's "gay". You would think bisexuals didn't exist or something. Not to be too picky, but people always lump bisexuals into the category of "gays" even if they are more attracted to the opposite sex than the same one, and that's only when they acknowledge the existence of it. Most of the time nobody even mentions the possibility of being bi.

By Whatevermachine (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

A little drop here and a little drop there...

By professordendy (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

A little drop here and a little drop there...

Yep, the IQ here every time you post. Still no evidence for your imaginary deity Dandy. What a failure as a scientist...

By Nerd of Redhead, OM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Dendy, sorry to hear about your prostrate problem.

By John Morales (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

thanks Morales... hadn't thought of that! Gee, if your mother had of aborted you Morales, then you wouldn't have been able to make that profound statement... and if Nerd's mom had of thrown him in the trash, I wouldn't be blessed with all his wisdom... gee, I wonder why anyone would want to abort a child?

Oh... but Gladiatrix made it clear why she would abort one... because it may just be a Jeffrey Dahlmer, or a Ted Bundy or perhaps another Adolph Hitler... Oh, and I bet Janine would abort her living fetus for fear of the same thing... it could be the next Saddam Hussein or even worse Nancy Pelosi!

By professordendy (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

isn't it pathetic that dendy can't imagine someone actually wanting a child? I mean, why else would he assume that everybody wants to abort every pregnancy, if it weren't for the fact that he sees children as punishment for sex at worst, a duty at best?

By Jadehawk, OM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Dandy, you are pathetic. If you have a point get to it. That is easy to do. Say "this is what I think, and this is the evidence to back it up". Since you appear to not have a point, why bother posting? You are supposedly an intelligent person, at least by your account, so start acting like one. Still no evidence for your imaginary deity. Still no evidence your alleged and imaginary baby is anything other that a fetus/parasite sucking the life out of the woman. You will be reminded of that to ensure you understand what is required to be taken seriously.

By Nerd of Redhead, OM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

not according to the folks on this blog, Jadehawk... all I have heard is that they're like little parasites inside a woman's body... they aren't even a human being... not until they have popped out like pus out of a zit!

That's the picture the commenters here have painted!

By professordendy (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

That's the picture the commenters here have painted!

The is the biological evidence and definitions. So, where is your evidence? Can't present any? Unless, of course, you attempt to cite your mythical babble. Or call on your imaginary god, who is the biggest abortionist on earth...

By Nerd of Redhead, OM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Dendy, you're trolling, and trying to derail this thread topic towards the issue of abortion.

By the way, nobody can abort a child. That you fail to distinguish between a fetus and a child indicates your lack of comprehension.

I also note that you may indeed be a writer, but your inadequate use of grammar (as indicated by your solecisms @192) and your inability to coherently organise your thoughts (as shown by your abuse of ellipses) make you a rather inferior example of one.

By John Morales (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

So you too Nerd think that a fetus is just a parasite... I am sure you don't have any kids and if you did you shouldn't have being as you say they are or have been parasites.

By professordendy (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Dandy, you are the parasite. Here's the thing. At some point you have to present your evidence. Put up or shut the fuck up. Welcome to real science, as it is done by real scientists. You can't put up, but you can't shut up. That territory is for liars, bullshitters, and religious delusional fools like you. So, where is the conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity? Put up or go away...

By Nerd of Redhead, OM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

If you look at it that way Nerd you, me and everyone else on God's green earth are just parasites... because nobody can sustain their own life at some expense to others... the food you eat, the air you breath, the space you take up... so why don't you save us all from your poor pathetic thinking, parasitic self and off yourself?

That's the POINT I am making!!!!

By professordendy (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

So you too Nerd think that a fetus is just a parasite... I am sure you don't have any kids and if you did you shouldn't have being as you say they are or have been parasites.

Good grief. For what seems to be the thousandth time, you're missing the point - no matter what you call the foetus, it doesn't have the right to enslave a woman against her will.

Can you grasp that? Or would you like me to use smaller words?

By WowbaggerOM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

That's the POINT I am making!!!!

Then you don't have a point. Look up the definition of parasite. It is exactly what fetus is. You know that. You can't accept that. So you try inane sophistry to try to get around that fact. Which is why you are a delusional fool. Still no evidence for your imaginary deity...

By Nerd of Redhead, OM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Perfesser, you're a guy aren't you? You never have to worry about having or not having an abortion. The old saying "if you don't like abortions then don't have one" isn't applicable to you.

That leaves me to believe it's not the fetus you're concerned with. You don't like women having control of their bodies. Like many Christians, you're afraid of losing the patriarchal authority the Bible decrees you should have.

By 'Tis Himself, OM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

not according to the folks on this blog, Jadehawk... all I have heard is that they're like little parasites inside a woman's body... they aren't even a human being... not until they have popped out like pus out of a zit!

pathetic liar. many commenters here are parents, and some others want to be parents in the future. this stands in no relation to the fact that nothing and no one has the legal and moral right to use another person's body without their explicit and continuous permission.

get it in your dense head that people who support abortions and people who have abortions don't hate children. People like you who see them as a chore and a punishment for sex who hate both children and women, and treat them like tools.

That's the POINT I am making!!!!

the point you are making is that you are against women having bodily autonomy. For you, women are incubators, not people; and children are punishment for women having and liking sex. It's very pathetic and hateful.

By Jadehawk, OM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

dendy, if you're so interested in preventing abortions you must support adoption, since if more women knew their children could be cared for they mightn't end up having an abortion. My question is this: exactly how many kids have you adopted? Because if it's not a whole lot more than zero it means you're a total fucking hypocrite.

Oh, and I posted something similar on your blog - but, since you're a coward and a liar, I doubt it'll be make it through your 'moderation'.

By WowbaggerOM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

You obviously didn't read what Gladiatrix had to say about about children!

My wife and I have three great children that are a true blessing to us and I love them dearly! I did not supply the sperm, my wife was previously married, but I have been their dad for 14 years and have loved them unconditionally, supported them, and will continue to be their father!

By professordendy (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

By the way... they all have the same loser, drug addicted, father that lives only 15 miles from them but has no contact (his choice) and owes, let's see $196,000 back child support!
So don't go talking to me about not raising others peoples kids!!!
How dare you... AND my wife and I are trying to adopt a Ugandan orphan!

By professordendy (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

You guys hide behind your little pokemon character names and pictures and your pathetic little, I'm not accountable to anyone or responsible for anyone but myself philosophies... if I wanna plug some holes or she wants some filled... let's do it... heck we can always dump the result in the garbage!

By professordendy (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Dendy:

So don't go talking to me about not raising others peoples kids!!!

You again show your lack of comprehension. Raising your wife's children is not the same as adopting children, nor are your wife's children "other peoples [sic] kids". You are a step-father, not an adoptive parent (assuming you're telling the truth in this case).

By John Morales (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Fuck you, Dendy.

By aratina cage o… (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

I did not supply the sperm...

Heh heh heh. Well, at least they've got a fighting chance if they don't have your substandard DNA; all they have to do now is wait until they're old enough to think for themselves and reject your nonsensical belief system and its appalling effects on their worldviews.

You probably lie awake at nights trying to think of ways of preventing them from learning the truth, don't you? It really eats you up inside when you think that maybe your kids (or your not-kids as the case may be) are going to one day come home and say, 'Dad (well, stepdad), I realised today that there are no compelling arguments for religion - so I'm coming out as an atheist.'

Heck, I'm smiling just thinking about it.

How dare you... AND my wife and I are trying to adopt a Ugandan orphan!

Uh-huh. And I'm the pope.

By WowbaggerOM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

I am not a "step-father"!!!!!!!!! I have raised these children and Morales... you do not mention my children again or I will personally hunt you down and make you wish you hadn't!!!!!!

By professordendy (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

PATHETIC!!!!

By professordendy (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

if I wanna plug some holes or she wants some filled... let's do it... heck we can always dump the result in the garbage!

your pathological disgust with sex has been duly noted.

You obviously didn't read what Gladiatrix had to say about about children!

you obviously are too dishonest to not quote-mine.

By Jadehawk, OM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

I am not a "step-father"!!!!!!!!! I have raised these children and Morales... you do not mention my children again or I will personally hunt you down and make you wish you hadn't!!!!!!

your inability to understand what words mean is no reason to commit cyber-crimes or play Internet Tough Guy. you're a truly sick and pathetic individual. get help.

By Jadehawk, OM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

1,2,3,4,5...
Damn, that's a lot o' bangs!

better watch out

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Not surprised that Dendy is hopping mad and threatening physical violence. The guy came off as a dangerous bigot with his first post here.

By aratina cage o… (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

I have raised these children and Morales... you do not mention my children again or I will personally hunt you down and make you wish you hadn't!!!!!!

Bring it on, you cowardly lying shitstain. You don't deserve to be responsible for anyone's children; I just hope they realise that, despite how unlucky they are to have you as a stepfather, they are lucky enough to not have your piss-poor, defective genetic material to make them as much of a loser as you are.

Fear the day they come home atheist - you fucking loser.

By WowbaggerOM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Dendy:

if I wanna plug some holes or she wants some filled... let's do it... heck we can always dump the result in the garbage!

You are a vile, vile person, to imply that most women who choose to abort do so as a form of contraception, or do so lightly and for convenience. Perhaps you can minister to your withered and twisted sense of human empathy by seeking out and reading some of the traumatic stories by women who have actually done so.

As for your little explosion, I can only say "wow!".

By John Morales (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

your pathological disgust with sex has been duly noted.

Combine this with the fact that he's got no kids he's the biological father of and I think we've just found the reason this particular topic is setting him off.

Does your wife disgust you on some level, dendy? Have you ever wondered why that is?

By WowbaggerOM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Here you have been calling me an idjit and a number of other unappealing names...

well, I just want to tell you that, it has been worth it...

I just wish I could see the looks on your faces now when I tell you that you guys are the idjits! LOL...

You should have listened to the poor guy that stumbled in the room the other night and made an observation... he said, I have been on Dendy's sites and he has Adware so he's making money on every hit.

And you didn't listen the other day when you called me a troll for the umpteenth time and I said no, I was just casting and reeling in!

You guys and all your wisdom... HA!

I have Chikita ads embedded too, so I have been making double money!

Thanks guys for all your wonderful support, you really have been a big help pushing my numbers to over 5,000 in just two short weeks!

Praise God! Hallelujah!

It's sure been fun!!!... hope you guys have had fun too!!!

My guess is you are pissin and moanin and wondering how stupid you are... am I right? You wouldn't admit it anyway!

LOL

By professordendy (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Oh I forgot WowBagger... you wanted to know... "Are you getting stupider?"

Not as much as you are!!! lol

By professordendy (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Oh one more thing... tell Blind Squirrel, Rev. Big Dumb Chimp, Janine, and my other contributors I said Thanks!

By professordendy (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

As for your little explosion

John, may I interject? The term of art here is "starfart".

You know who Sortaprof Dendy reminds me of? A duller DaveScot.

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

professordendy, you didn't answer my question - does your wife disgust you? Is there a reason you don't have any biological children with her, and why you find the whole idea of sex to be so repulsive?

Maybe all those fractions of cents your ad revenue brings you can help you pay for some more 'pray away the gay' tapes.

By WowbaggerOM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

I'm against the denigration of adoptive parents or of step-parents, but even I can't raise any ire about this on Dendy's behalf.

You can't square

My wife and I have three great children that are a true blessing to us and I love them dearly! I did not supply the sperm, my wife was previously married, but I have been their dad for 14 years and have loved them unconditionally, supported them, and will continue to be their father!

and

By the way... they all have the same loser, drug addicted, father that lives only 15 miles from them but has no contact (his choice) and owes, let's see $196,000 back child support!
So don't go talking to me about not raising others peoples kids!!!
How dare you... AND my wife and I are trying to adopt a Ugandan orphan!

(emphasis added)

If they're your kids, whether biological, adopted, step, or just good old-fashioned living in sin, then you are not raising 'others peoples kids'. You're raising your kids.

If you're raising kids that are not your biological offspring for bragging rights, as the 'Ugandan orphan' non-sequitur would indicate, then threats of violence for talking about them (and not in a creepy 'hole-plugging' way, just as people) just seems like psychotic raving. Given that there is no threat being made against your kids, it's psychotic raving even without qualifiers.

So which is it, Dendy? Are you raising your kids, or are you raising someone else's?

Is there anyone in the history of the world who wasn't raising someone else's kid to some extent? We aren't to human cloning, yet, so even your own biological kids are also someone else's kid.

I knew you guys wouldn't admit you're the stupid ones! Taken for a ride by some dumb idjit... it must feel pretty bad!

By professordendy (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Yeah, those five or six visits are really going to keep those kids that aren't yours living the high life, dendy.

By WowbaggerOM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Wowbagger,

I highly doubt that this is the reason, but Dendy indicates that he has Wilson's disease, a genetic disorder. Heritable genetic disorders are a good reason to not have biological children.

One of the symptoms of Wilson's disease is also psychosis. Make of that what you will.

Just wait until he defriends us on Facebook. Hoo! I can't wait to see our faces then!!!!!!!!!

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

...Dendy indicates that he has Wilson's disease...One of the symptoms of Wilson's disease is also psychosis. Make of that what you will.

Ah, crap - now I feel bad. Here I was thinking I was dealing with a fully functioning adult; that dendy has mental problems he's unable to control explains a great deal. It makes a lot of sense - no-one with all their faculties intact could possibly think what he thinks.

I'm sorry, dendy - you have my pity.

By WowbaggerOM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Oh WowBagger, you can play it down all you want... in the first three hours after I entered Pharyngula, I had 769 hits on one blog, 432 on another. And it just got better and better and I kept casting and you guys kept going for me... who do you wanna call an idjit...?

See it is so funny that you will not even admit that you guys are the idjits... go ahead and live in your self-denial...

Sure, I will feel a little drop in my numbers after this revelation to you guys but it will not be significant, and I find some other dumb atheist/evolutionist group to play with... lol

Heck, you say there is no God, so who am I accountable to but myself?

By professordendy (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Heck, you say there is no God, so who am I accountable to but myself?

This is one of the clinical indicators of psychopathy. Here's a checklist. Bingo time?

Don't pity me... WowBagger... pity your own pathetic loser self!

By professordendy (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

See it is so funny that you will not even admit that you guys are the idjits... go ahead and live in your self-denial..

It must be very satisfying to lie so much in the name of Jesus Christ that one begins to believe his own lies. In the weeks that he's been here, Dendy's mental stability has diminished greatly. I suspect that he'll be another Mabus shortly, wandering around online like some type of cyber zombie.

By Gyeong Hwa Pak… (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

I can't kick dendy any more, now I know how down he is. Heck, I don't even know how much of what he said was real. We know he's not really a professor - does anyone think he actually has a wife he's disgusted by and kids that aren't his? It's probably all in his mind.

Seriously, I hope you get the help you need, dendy. Once agin, I offer you my pity.

By WowbaggerOM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Dendy, your admission to trolling is somewhat unusual but hardly a revelation; however, your triumphant crowing about the moolah you claim rains upon you from such seems a tad exaggerated, to say the least.

(Due to my brief visit, your site might have recorded a few page hits, but of what advertisements to you speak? My hosts file is well-configured and up to date, and I didn't enable scripting. :) )

You might also note that your visits here, conversely, also add to PZ's coffers.

By John Morales (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Oh... but Gladiatrix made it clear why she would abort one... because it may just be a Jeffrey Dahlmer, or a Ted Bundy or perhaps another Adolph Hitler... Oh, and I bet Janine would abort her living fetus for fear of the same thing... it could be the next Saddam Hussein or even worse Nancy Pelosi!

Old fuckface, you shitstain on the panties of life. You cannot bother to explain why you lied about being a professor. Instead you create fantasies about people who do not believe as you do. If you actually read my posts, you would know that I am a dyke. I never had sex with a man. And why would any sane person allow herself get pregnant for the express purpose of having an abortion.

About being the teabagging troll that you are, you would paint Nancy Pelosi as being a monster worse than Hussein.

Instead of being an internet tough guy, threatening to hunt down people and engaging in elementary school taunts; explain why you misrepresent yourself.

But being a self righteous scumbag, I expect you to ignore the fact the people have caught you in your lies and bellow like a half wit.

By Janine, Mistre… (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

If you actually read my posts, you would know that I am a dyke. I never had sex with a man.

I don't think dendy has the capacity to grasp what you're saying, Janine. Remember, he - in his mentally deficient state - is disgusted by the idea of sex, and his three kids have been fathered by someone else.

The mechanics involved are way beyond him. I think he thinks his god magically impregnates all women like he did to create Mithras Jesus - peenies are for going number one, not for putting in nasty girl-holes.

Remember that he's not a fully-functioning adult, so we shouldn't make fun of him. He needs our pity.

By WowbaggerOM (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

Wowbagger, not a fully-functioning adult, teabagger, it is kind of hard to tell the difference. Anyone who thinks that Nancy Pelosi is worse than Hussein really does not have a good grasp of reality.

Perhaps we should ask old fuckface if he thinks if Obama is a secret muslim nazi communist.

By Janine, Mistre… (not verified) on 29 Jan 2010 #permalink

PATHETIC!!!!

Good way to describe your useless posts Dandy.

You guys and all your wisdom

That's right, compared to you we are smart and see beyond imaginary deities and mythical babbles.

Taken for a ride by some dumb idjit.

No, we amused ourselves with the dumb idjit. But it is a good description of you Dandy.

pity your own pathetic loser self!

As usual, you get it wrong. You are the pathetic loser. We know that from your first inane and insane post. Still no evidence presented for your imaginary deity. Just invective, attitude, and platitudes. What a loser.

By Nerd of Redhead, OM (not verified) on 30 Jan 2010 #permalink