Limbaugh: "Democrats will bend over, grab the ankles, and say, 'Have your way with me' " to African-Americans and gays

SUMMARY: After being asked by a caller: "I want to know how the Republicans don't need Christians and conservatives, and they think we're 30 percent. Twelve percent black people in the population. Ten percent -- they claim -- homosexuals in the population. Rush, honey, when did 30 percent get to be a small number?" Rush Limbaugh responded, "Let me see if I can get your question right. You want to know why the Republicans are willing to say, 'Screw you,' to 30 percent or more of their voters and yet Democrats will bend over, grab the ankles, and say, 'Have your way with me,' for 10 percent and 2 percent of the population?"
On the June 23 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh was asked by a caller: "I want to know how the Republicans don't need Christians and conservatives, and they think we're 30 percent. Twelve percent black people in the population. Ten percent -- they claim -- homosexuals in the population. Rush, honey, when did 30 percent get to be a small number?" Limbaugh responded, "Let me see if I can get your question right. You want to know why the Republicans are willing to say, 'Screw you,' to 30 percent or more of their voters and yet Democrats will bend over, grab the ankles, and say, 'Have your way with me,' for 10 percent and 2 percent of the population?" He later stated: "There is an answer to your -- basic question is, 'Why don't the Democrats say, "To hell with you, you wacko nuts in the base," like Republicans do?' "
Purporting to answer the caller's question, Limbaugh said, "[T]here's a complicated answer to this and I'm going to have answer some of it in the monologue in the next hour, but one of the simple answers that will require some elaboration is that a lot of money is coming from these kooks -- and I'm not talking about just the blacks -- I'm talking about a whole kook-fringe base because George Soros is running it and they need the money."
Limbaugh later returned to the caller's question, saying, "So her question was, how can it be that the Republicans are willing to just throw away 30 percent of their base and the Democrats will do everything they can -- they will grovel, do whatever they can to make sure their base hangs in with them. One of the multiple answers to this -- but one of the first answers is money. ... [T]he politically active gay community on the left is worth a lot of money. These people send the Democrats more money than you can possibly imagine. A lot of it from Hollywood, and the arts and entertainment." Limbaugh later asserted: "But in addition to the money aspect of this ... is the anti-war kook fringe. And it is huge."
Limbaugh has invoked the "bend over, grab the ankles" image on his radio program before, as Media Matters for America has noted. On his July 14, 2005, broadcast, Limbaugh blasted former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman's plan to apologize for the party's race-based Southern Strategy at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Limbaugh asserted, "Republicans are going to go bend over and grab the ankles."
From the June 23 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Kathy in Fort Worth, Texas, you are next.
CALLER: Hello. I want to know how the Republicans don't need Christians and conservatives, and they think we're 30 percent. Twelve percent black people in the population. Ten percent -- they claim -- homosexuals in the population. Rush, honey, when did 30 percent get to be a small number?
LIMBAUGH: I don't -- I think it's actually larger than 30 percent. But let me see if I can get your question right. You want to know why the Republicans are willing to say, "Screw you," to 30 percent or more of their voters and yet Democrats will bend over, grab the ankles, and say, "Have your way with me," for 10 percent and 2 percent of the population?
CALLER: Delicately, yes.
LIMBAUGH: Well, I -- nothing delicate about me on these matters. These are just innocent figures of speech --
CALLER: I understand.
LIMBAUGH: -- that I was using. There is an answer to your -- basic question is, "Why don't the Democrats say, 'To hell with you, you wacko nuts in the base,' like Republicans do?"
CALLER: Mm-hmm.
LIMBAUGH: The -- there's a complicated answer to this and I'm going to have answer some of it in the monologue in the next hour, but one of the simple answers that will require some elaboration is that a lot of money is coming from these kooks -- and I'm not talking about just the blacks -- I'm talking about a whole kook-fringe base because George Soros is running it --
CALLER: It's true.
LIMBAUGH: -- and they need the money. We'll be back after this. Stay with us.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: We had a caller with an interesting question just before the conclusion of the previous hour, and this -- in fact, grab sound bite number one because sound bite number one today is what spawned her question.
As you know, ladies and gentlemen, I have been warning you that the Republican Party, especially as currently constituted, is doing its best to deemphasize the importance or the influence of the traditional conservative base, which is not just the so-called evangelical Christian Right or the pro-lifers or whatever. But you have all kinds of people in the Republican base that are conservatives, from values conservatives, social conservatives, even fiscal economic conservatives. Conservatism has been the base of the Republican Party and because the conservative base does include pro-lifers and because many of them are from the South, there are many in the Northeastern corridors of power in the Republican Party who are embarrassed to be in the party with those people.
[...]
And the caller said, look, the black population totals 10 percent, don't know what the voting population is. The gay population -- what is it? One percent, 2 percent -- that's -- 12 percent, and we're not even factoring out the adult population, the voting population there. So her question was, how can it be that the Republicans are willing to just throw away 30 percent of their base and the Democrats will do everything they can -- they will grovel, do whatever they can to make sure their base hangs in with them.
One of the multiple answers to this -- but one of the first answers is money. The far-left -- and don't -- I'll tell you something, the politically active gay community on the left is worth a lot of money. These people send the Democrats more money than you can possibly imagine. A lot of it from Hollywood, and the arts and entertainment. They're not -- money -- you know, key number one, you might be saying, well, don't the pro-lifers donate a lot of money to the Republicans? Yeah. Yeah, they do. But it still embarrasses them. It still embarrasses a lot of the country club Rockefeller types.
The Democrats -- what are they embarrassed about? They're not embarrassed about anything. The Democrats have never set any standards for themselves. As far as they're concerned, everybody's a victim, even on their side. So, I mean, yeah, these victims are just fighting to be heard. Fighting for their rights, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The conservative rights -- conservative right is viewed as trying to deny people rights, blah, blah, blah, you see.
But in addition to the money aspect of this -- and don't forget, the left-wing base is not even talked about by Mickey Edwards there -- is the anti-war kook fringe. And it is huge. From MoveOn.org to Think Progress to My Base Book -- whatever these things, these things -- well, maybe not MySpace or Face, whatever it is. But, there are so many of these 527 groups out there that are just raising money left and right and the Democrats are scared to death if these people take their money and go away or go to a third party or what have you. And so they will cater to them left and right.















'Why don't the Democrats say, "To hell with you, you wacko nuts in the base," like Republicans do?' "
I am going to use cap, because I simply cannot belive what Limbaugh is saying.
BLACKS AND GAYS ARE THE "WACKO FRINGE" OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY?
>>Well he is a racist.
Come on now! He didn't say blacks want to screw you, he said African Americans want to screw you. See, he's a compassionate big tent conservative!
Gay's as the whacko finge? Nah. Sick? Yeah, but not whackos.
Black's as the whacko fringe? No higher a percentage than whites are of either party.
Now, if we want to talk about the democratic members of Code Pink, Green Peace, the NAACP...need I go on.
For not accepting that someone likes to stick something up their *** and enjoy it? Hardly.
You can try to coin your acceptance on someone else, but it won't work on me.
Yes, and there's plenty people out there who enjoy kiddie porn...doesn't make it right, or socially acceptable.
When I think of gay's, I often think of the scientfic principals of a magnet. The two positive ends reject each other, the two negative ends reject each other...and only the positive and negative ends connect.
Its considered the riskiest method of intercourse for diseases and parasites. Also, the anus is not a part of the sexual reproduction system...and for good reason.
Didn't your mom ever teach you, dont play where you s***.
I just can't resist...
I wonder what Columbus feels when he goes for a physical and he has to get his prostate checked...?
Columbus is only physically 28, so he has a few years.
Maturity-wise, he's about 12....
Paraphrasing columbusxxx:
"Ewww, yucky, icky, gays doin' gay stuff. Ewww. I'm totally not gay. Totally. I won't even touch my own penis when I'm peeing!"
Dude. You are so freakin' closeted it's not even funny.
"I'm saying they shouldn't do it at all." I'm saying I hope you haven't reproduced. You're a waste of space and genetic material.
Sorry, anal isn't my sort of thing so your lame attempt at a personal 'shot' failed miserably. Anyway...
Not to get too clinical here... but the anus is considered an erogenous zone so, even though it has no role in sexual reproduction... you are right on that point, ka-ching, it does have a role in sexual pleasure.
"the anus is not a part of the sexual reproduction[sic] system...and for good reason."
So you have never had oral sex either? Maybe that explains why you guys are so uptight.
I guess you cannot keep track of your contradictions. One of your objections against anal sex was that it is "not a part of the sexual reproduction[sic] system..." ...and oral sex is?
Anal sex, in terms of homosexual and heterosexual relations is not a part of the reproductive system. And neither is oral.
However, you will read in my other claims that I am not against anal because of this...its because of its associated health risks.
Im not against homosexuality because they like anal...im against it becuase of the lifestyle and principals.
Come on, you're against the anal because you find it 'sick'. Especially the idea of two men doing it.
You're just trying to switch with the 'principles' crap. So... now that you have decided to go there... tell us what 'principles' gays have and why they are 'wrong'?
Gays are just too fabulous for Columbo to handle.
If "tight is right", then I'd bet you poop diamonds.
: )
So you have never had oral sex either?
Yea, once, but...left a bad taste. ;>)
So you have never had oral sex either?
I'm starting to get the feeling that the only sex Columbus has ever had involves his right hand...... :-)
I knew it wouldn't take long for you to conflate a gay person with a child molester. Asshole.
You guys are as predictable as the sun.
Not obessed, against. Big difference. I have the freedom to not accept their lifestyle, just as a secular progressive has the freedom to not agree with someone's religion. Fairly simple concept.
Gay's as the whacko finge? Nah. Sick? Yeah, but not whackos.
People who call gays sick have had gay thoughts. Several. It's a fact.
I can shens on that one...
My wingnut-to-English dictionary is broken. Can you re-post in English?
Thanks.
So now you equate Gays to "murderers, rapist, and nazi's"
So, that's all you have is hate.
Columbus, You have every right to disagree with anything you like which makes it okay for people to do whatever they desire...Agree? Of course you do. If you don't like anal sex or talking about it, call Rush and tell him to quit using it as a prop. Agree? Of course you do.
But I must ask, do you bedroom police type have badges? Can you suck it up and explain your stand on oral sex...giving or receiving? Then you can be on record for that also.
I dont care what Rush says, or what Dan Savage says to be honest.
But I must ask, do you bedroom police type have badges? Can you suck it up and explain your stand on oral sex...giving or receiving? Then you can be on record for that also.
Bedroom police? Hardly. I disagree with the unnatural lifestyle, not what people do in the bedroom. The anal part, I disagree with between a man and woman because of health issues, and many doctors will tell you the same.
If a vote was put out to the public as a yes or no to make an ammendment change to ban gay marriage, then yes, i would vote to enact it.
However, if a vote was put out, and gay marriage was legalized by popular vote, I would not protest against it. I would maintain my mindset that I personally do not find it acceptable, and leave it at that.
"Never said it was a choice to be gay or not, did i?"
So now you are saying that it's a choice? Below this you answer my question about things beyond people's control with two "yes" responses. If you think it's a choice why do you accept the premise that it's beyond their control?
You're not making a hell of a lot of sense.
The reverse is also true. You cannot scientifically prove that it is NOT something they are borned with. In the absence of scientific proof either way then you are forced to take the word of someone who is gay and right down to the last person asked they all say that it is not a choice. Or is logic on the list of things you don't agree with???
The reverse is also true. You cannot scientifically prove that it is NOT something they are borned with.
Not so, Rendesign! They know everything there is to know about them-thur ho-mo-seck-shuls from their dear pastor, the Right Reverend Rush Whosiewhazit of the First Bible-Beating Baptist Church...
People's sexual orientation is beyond their control, but it's wrong and sick to act on that orientation?
yes, and yes.
You are simply a bigot. Embrace it. Don't run away from it.
Just like that Detestable Mark Rotten Levin. A couple weeks back, when the court in CA made its ruling on the gay marriage issue, His Rottenness rambled on and on about how the court was soooo out of line with its ruling. Blah blah blah. But he DID let it slip out that he is opposed to gay marriage for 'personal' reasons, aka HOMOPHOBIC BIGOT. So his whining about the 'legality' of the ruling was just a smokescreen to cover up his true feelings about the issue.
Why can't these lunatics just come out with it? Why can't they just say 'you know, I'm a racist bigoted homophobe and I'm proud of it'. Why can't they stand up for what they truly believe in? Why do they have to be such miserable little cowards?
So even if homosexuality is innate, natural behavior, then you don't think it should ever be socially acceptable because you personally find the mechanics of the sexual relations to be distasteful.
I see.
The mechanics of sexual relations to be distasteful? Uh no. Is that how you're trying to coin the acceptance for it now?
When one guilt statement fails to yield universtal acceptance, try another
"...because you personally find the mechanics of the sexual relations to be distasteful."
Are you denying that you've made several posts talking about how you find the activity of anal sex "sick"? That's the mechanics of the sexual relations. How am I misrepresenting your sentiments, exactly?
You know, it's about time a gay man stepped in here. I appreciate all of the great things fellow posters have said - and for the most part, I agree. However, I do want to point out that sexual relations between two men do not necessarily have to end up with anal sex. I've been with my partner for quite some time now, and we've NEVER engaged in anal sex. We just don't do it. There are many reasons why we don't do it, but mostly because for both of us, part A is too big for part B - and it freakin' hurts. Some couples engage in it - which is fine - because what you do in your bedroom is your business. Not mine - and not Columbus'.
In the Jewish tradition, anal sex is important with regards to birth control.
There are many gay couples who engage in what is called "frottage". Look it up, if you're that interested. It's based upon neither party being the "male" or the "female" of the relationship, but having total equality, in and out of the bedroom. Couples who engage in frottage don't engage in anal sex, and most times don't even engage in oral sex.
It's also very interesting that Columbus never brought up lesbian sex. I'm sure he more than approves of lesbian sex. Two hot girls, gettin' it on...turns you on, doesn't it? It's OK for two women to do it, but not for two men. That makes Columbus a hypocrite - just like most narrow-minded right-wingers.
WrongWay PeachFuzz wrote:
"Not obessed, against. Big difference. I have the freedom to not accept their lifestyle, just as a secular progressive has the freedom to not agree with someone's religion.
So what, exactly, did you mean by writing "their lifestyle"?
Never said it was a choice to be gay or not, did i? But I did say its my choice on whether to accept it.
People used to say the same thing about blacks, Columbus. You're as bad as the racial bigots of the '50s.
This shit gets posted out of the right-wing authoritarian's general sense of repression, sexual and otherwise. And a raging need for validation.
Yeah, it does kinda disgust some heterosexuals like I'm sure it would disgust some gays to think about heterosexual sex.
For not accepting that someone likes to stick something up their *** and enjoy it? Hardly.
What about women who engage in anal sex?
That just makes them disgusting and asking for a disease. If you worked in healthcare, and knew the results of what could happen from this type of activity, you would know why its just not right.
Safely? Seeing as how there is no 100% proven contraceptive, or STD prevention - outside of abstinence, that is an incorrect statement.
However, its not only STD's that are the problem The tissue there is some of the thinnest of the body, and prone to tearing ... opening up additional areas to contract some sort of disease. Not to mention, parasites.
But hey, if parasites are your thing...keep on keepin' on.
I dont really want to know what position you like to take it in.
However, I'm not against a woman taking anal sex because of sexual reasons, but more less because of the associated health risks. But hey, its like smoking...people do what they want to do, regardless of the risks. Just dont come crying to me if you come down with something like AIDS, since its commonly known that anal sex is the most risky form of intercourse in terms of disease passage.
Okay...you win. YOU DON'T HAVE A COMPASSIONATE BONE IN YOUR BODY!
There...satisfied?
Next time one of you Libs squawks about a thread being derailed I hope you'll remember this thread.
It's not Columbus that took this discussion into the netherlands it was Lib posters.
So the guy is uncomfortable with Homosexuality & the Gay lifestyle. That's his opinion.
All I've seen here was sanctimonious posturing by so called tolerant folks...isn't tolerant what you Libs claim to be?
You are not going to change minds, no matter how you try to browbeat folks. Call them bigots. Or suggest they must be Gay if they don't accept Homosexuality as a normal alternative lifestyle.
Here's a newsflash: Just because someone doesn't agree with you or what you believe it doesn't mean you're the be all end all in deciding who is correct, fair, bigoted, or tolerant.
Here's a clue: You can't force folks to think like you. They are entitled to their own opinions, especially on what makes them comfortable or what they will tolerate.
Me? I say live & let live if it doesn't hurt anyone else. But that doesn't mean I don't still find a guy-guy, or gal-gal pairing a tad different. But I don't need or want you to tell me I can't feel like that. K?
Jeter,
He isn't just "uncomfortable" with it. I think that is the difference here. Heck, even I am uncofortable with homosexuality (I just don't think it is really any of my business and I realize I may make gay people uncomfortable with my own rampant manly heterosexuality). This guy called gays "sick". That is more than just being "uncomfortable" - that was a judgment. He is getting back what he put out IMO.
Open_Mind,
I agree "sick" is a harsh judgment, but if that's his opinion no one is going to beat that opinion out of his head by suggesting he's a bigot or that he's a closet Gay.
Homosexuality is one of those topics that often produces a variety of points of view.
Twenty years ago I would have called it "sick"...but that was probably because it seemed strange & totally bizarre to me & I didn't actually know any Gay folks [or thought I didn't]. Over time I did meet Gay folks/couples, found out they were "just people" & I'd like to think it helped me evolve & be more open minded.
That doesn't happen to everyone. So if Columbus or others still view Homosexuality as "sick", no amount of chiding them or calling them names is going to change their views.
I guess I was just a tad amused how folks around here get pissed about thread derailment, unless of course they are the ones doing it ;-)
"I guess I was just a tad amused how folks around here get pissed about thread derailment, unless of course they are the ones doing it"
I think there's a slight distinction to be made between criticizing homophobic bigots and things like making unsubstantiated charges against people or demanding some grand solution in order for other people to complain about irresponsible behavior on national television.
Oh please.
Anal & oral sex took up a great part of the thread. Calling him a closeted Gay & discussing his sex life was hardly a serious debate.
He thinks homosexuality is "sick". Did you really think you'd change his mind by trying to shame him or poke fun at him.
The thread got derailed because folks here couldn't let a chance to poke at a fellow poster with an opinion they didn't approve of go by.
Did you miss my other post? He admitted to being a bigot. He thinks even if you're born gay you're unacceptable in society. Why should we respect these sorts of opinions?
If someone came on here throwing out racist remarks, would you object to the blowback because we're not going to "change his mind"? Would that just be his opinion and that's the end of the matter? Think carefully.
Did you really think you'd change his mind by trying to shame him or poke fun at him...
Yes. Enlightenment is always a good thing. If you have to get there through shaming and or poking fun, so be it.
Did you read the thread? He thinks that homosexuality shouldn't be socially accepted even if it's innate. That is bigotry, plain and simple. How on earth is that a respectable opinion? He even admitted to being a bigot, so it's not really up for determination anymore. I think it's fair to criticize this sort of person, perhaps you disagree.
I have a post waiting for you on yesterday's Morris thread. If you haven't seen it, I would greatly appreciate a response. Thank you kindly.No Brab, you just don't accept anything without over thinking it & delving into minutia. Sometimes things aren't worth parsing, slicing & dicing. Sometimes it's simple.
You obviously find that difficult to understand.
Oh, you mean how like not allowing certain people on the air simply means networks upholding high standards as opposed to advocating political censorship? That sort of parsing, dicing and splicing of the word "allowed" when there's a much more obvious explanation that you shouldn't have to "overthink" so much?
Not your brightest moment there, not by a long shot.
Next time one of you Libs squawks about a thread being derailed I hope you'll remember this thread.
Complaining about thread derailment has no political affiliation.
I hope you could be strong enough to put your personal gay-fearing obsession aside for the sake of a loved one. Who knows. I was once a bigot like you when I was in my twenties and I changed.
Good for you then. At least you're being honest.
And for every one who responds to Columbus1492, didn't your mother ever tell you not to scratch a mosquito bite, it only makes the itch return and return and return.
Sort of like Colombus 1492.
Yikes! Now I'm responding to him.
Excellent post, WK! Insightful - and inciteful. ;)
Cheers!
Has anybody considered the possibility of homosexual behaviours likely being mistaken for such associated with transvestism, transsexualism and/or hermaphroditism?
(In case you need some evidence to that effect.)
I knew that eventually, Limbaugh would be able to discuss something that's in his area of expertise.
Well done, Mr. Chrisite
I apologize for that remark. It was out of line and certainly not true. Especially since I don't think he can reach his ankles.
Democrats will bend over, grab the ankles, and say, 'Have your way with me,' for 10 percent and 2 percent of the population?" ...Rush
===================================================
Something the former Jeff Christie apparently has extensive experience with ....
Hmmm..... I noticed a while back Mark Levin starting to copy Michael Savages' personal life musings style a bit with the dog talk and writing a book about his deceased pet and what-not. I presume he's doing this to both improve ratings and to humanize himself (after telling his listeners to vote against their self interests for most of his show).
Limbaugh may be doing the same sort of thing here. Maybe they have the same radio consultant or something........... Limbaugh went out of his way with the gardenia scented candles riff. It was no slip. He was very consciously getting out the massage ("let the word go forth...") that he is one very big scented candles fan, and the place where he gets his from--- jo malone.
Oh, danm, I missed it! Darn darn darn darn darn ...
Was he slurring or speeding yesterday?
Yes, I found the audio. Sounds more like slurring than speeding, maybe with a little cough medicine chaser?
You can't imagine why people listen to him? I think you are bit confused.
I would be almost willing to bet that there are more people who support Rush, than those who actually like McCain. After all, I dont think its that they support McCain, but that they don't support Obama. Lesser of two evils.
I would be almost willing to bet that there are more people who support Rush, than those who actually like McCain.
So, in other words, what you are saying is that the Republican Party is getting ready to bend over and grab it's ankles...?
I flagged your comment. Hopefully MMFA will get around to removing it. We don't need to advocate violent fantasies and stupidity like the rightwing sites so often do. Let Rush talk all he wants. Shutting him up only proves to him and his dittoheads he was right all along.
I suspect you came here to pretend being a liberal. Either way, grow up.
Interesting how this imagery has popped up in Limbaugh's speech more than once:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507140004
A few questions for ditto heads; inquiring minds want to know -
Rusty appears to be obsessed with the gay lifestyle; what if it turns out that he is gay? Will you turn him off or simply light a candle and ask him to grab his ankles? Why or why not?
Rusty appears to be obsessed with race. (If you have any doubts do a nexus search). Why do you think he brings it up so often?
Rusty is so far out there that he has no idea that he is actually the kook-fringe. Will someone please be a friend and inform him of this?
Finally, what was the last thing you learned from Rusty?
(No, I'm not completely anti-Rusty. I do think he is entertaining in a train-wreck, circus clown kind of way)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm
But you're all too busy making fun of Rush with your vicious name calling than demonstrating your reading and comprehension skills. - webelibtards / Wednesday June 25, 2008 9:11:15 AM EDT
I always thinks it's funny when someone with a nick like "webelibtards" shows up to decry name calling.
" . . . there's a complicated answer to this and I'm going to have answer some of it in the monologue in the next hour,"
Read: I'll answer your question once I have a nice script written for me.
Well your post is a real test of comprehension. Near as I can figure you define the normal part of the Democrat(ic) population to be the blacks and the homosexuals (the so called 12%?). So the caucasian and latino democrats are all orbiting moonbat central?
A major part of posting here is to give your opinion. Backing it up, despensing current and historical conservative talking points, derailing the topic, and a little comedy (sometimes intenional), cover the marjority of what happens here.
Most of us are not fans of the fetid miasma that oozes out of the MSM. Occasional gold stars are awarded, but hey the site is about critiquing the MSM, what kind of post would you prefer?
...what kind of post would you prefer?
Uhhh...something about Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright, perhaps.
Another sidestep. The point was when are the majority of the dems going to tell the lunatic fringe of your party that they do not accept their viewpoint? We supposedly turned our backs on our fringe element, when are you going to do the same? I already know the answer: never. Because the inmates run the asylum.
...that the Democratic Party is prostituting itself to blacks and gays...
Sorry for the typo...
When did the Republicans "supposedly" do that? Last I knew, you guys put your fringe element in charge of everything, from the President on down.
This Limbaugh bag of filth is a new type of scum...
the likes of which America has never experienced before.
We supposedly turned our backs on our fringe element, when are you going to do the same?
Inquiring minds would like to know when the Republicans did this?
@science101 -
I'm surprised, given your nick, that you aren't up on the latest in the science of gayness...
...the researchers genetically altered synapse strength, independent of GB. They also gave flies drugs to alter synapse strength. As predicted, they were able to turn fly homosexuality on and off, within hours.
Also:
In an experiment, men and heterosexual women sniffed a chemical from the male hormone testosterone. The homosexual men's brains responded differently from those of heterosexual males, and in a similar way to the women's brains.
And damn those sick, unnatural animals...Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.