I believe 451 is the correct temperature...
February 9, 2005 6:05 AM Subscribe
Alabama lawmaker to introduce a novel new way to keep people from catching "the gay". I can hear the ACLU drooling from here. Does the state have any power to limit the books available in a public library?
They better start yanking those Bibles off the shelf too. Plenty of stuff in there that would be considered "actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of the state."
posted by SisterHavana at 6:19 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by SisterHavana at 6:19 AM on February 9, 2005
Books cannot be killed by fire. People die but books never die. No man and no force can put thought in a concentration camp forever. No man and no force can take from the world the books that embody man's eternal fight against tyranny. In this war, we know, books are weapons.
FDR said that, and it's no less true if you replace "fight against tyranny" with "quest for sodomy."
Obviously this is ludicrous; the wet dream of some nazi and his sympathizers. It's so bound to fail that it's funny. This guy thinks that if someone can't learn about the literary contibutions of homosexuals, that someone won't figure out how to be gay or will reject their sexuality for lack of role models. Like straight males read the works of Oscar Wilde and say "This shit is great. I want some cock."
And either Mr. Allen is a disgusting panderer to idiots who knows he's promoting a hopeless fascist ideal for inbreds' votes, or his sexuality is very boderline. He must have an internal interest in being gay if he thinks that a book could have convinced him to do it.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:23 AM on February 9, 2005
FDR said that, and it's no less true if you replace "fight against tyranny" with "quest for sodomy."
Obviously this is ludicrous; the wet dream of some nazi and his sympathizers. It's so bound to fail that it's funny. This guy thinks that if someone can't learn about the literary contibutions of homosexuals, that someone won't figure out how to be gay or will reject their sexuality for lack of role models. Like straight males read the works of Oscar Wilde and say "This shit is great. I want some cock."
And either Mr. Allen is a disgusting panderer to idiots who knows he's promoting a hopeless fascist ideal for inbreds' votes, or his sexuality is very boderline. He must have an internal interest in being gay if he thinks that a book could have convinced him to do it.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:23 AM on February 9, 2005
I live in Alabama and everyone I know with half a brain knows this guy is off. Unfortunately, there's lots of people in Alabama with less than half a brain...
posted by davenportmom at 6:27 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by davenportmom at 6:27 AM on February 9, 2005
Just a side-note about the link to WSFA...
WSFA stands for: "We Stand For America."
posted by jpburns at 6:30 AM on February 9, 2005
WSFA stands for: "We Stand For America."
posted by jpburns at 6:30 AM on February 9, 2005
Hopefully this crackpot won't get far with this. But if I lived in Alabama, I'd want to do something constructive to counteract this. Too often the crackpots get their way because the reasonable are too busy doing other things.
posted by orange swan at 6:36 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by orange swan at 6:36 AM on February 9, 2005
Middlesex did make me want to be incestual. And then a hermaphrodite. But I enjoyed that feeling.
posted by Plutor at 6:51 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by Plutor at 6:51 AM on February 9, 2005
He must have an internal interest in being gay if he thinks that a book could have convinced him to do it.
Though somewhat inflammatory, I'm amenable to the underlying premise. I suspect the "protest too much" principle has merit. I tend to think the most fanatical are the least convinced. Does this guy actually believe he is serving the public good? Does he think his proposition would strengthen the law rather than undermine it? I think he is seeking some kind of affirmation. He has esteem issues and he wants to indulge in therapy through enacting legislation (a popular past-time these days).
Maybe we need a system of judicial therapy. A way to get these kind of folks away from the creation and administration of law for a while so they can get some perspective to return capable of even-handed and judicious reasoning.
I find it difficult to consider the assertion that books cause behavior is an argument worth engaging. Banning books is so old school.
posted by effwerd at 7:00 AM on February 9, 2005
Though somewhat inflammatory, I'm amenable to the underlying premise. I suspect the "protest too much" principle has merit. I tend to think the most fanatical are the least convinced. Does this guy actually believe he is serving the public good? Does he think his proposition would strengthen the law rather than undermine it? I think he is seeking some kind of affirmation. He has esteem issues and he wants to indulge in therapy through enacting legislation (a popular past-time these days).
Maybe we need a system of judicial therapy. A way to get these kind of folks away from the creation and administration of law for a while so they can get some perspective to return capable of even-handed and judicious reasoning.
I find it difficult to consider the assertion that books cause behavior is an argument worth engaging. Banning books is so old school.
posted by effwerd at 7:00 AM on February 9, 2005
..there's lots of people in Alabama with less than half a brain...
Allen does feel supporters of the Marriage Protection Act will agree with him.
posted by three blind mice at 7:02 AM on February 9, 2005
Allen does feel supporters of the Marriage Protection Act will agree with him.
posted by three blind mice at 7:02 AM on February 9, 2005
Metafilter: This shit is great. I want some cock.
posted by tittergrrl at 7:08 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by tittergrrl at 7:08 AM on February 9, 2005
District 62 Representative, Gerald Allen, says he wants to ban books that, "...sanction, recognize, foster, or promote a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of the state."
Why is he only going after actions prohibited by the "sodomy and sexual misconduct laws"? The laws also prohibit murder, assault, rape, drug use, underage drinking, public intoxication, driving over the speed limit, and the selling of unpasteurized cheeses aged less than sixty days, to name a few things. Shouldn't we also ban any and all literature which "recognizes" these things? Why doesn't Gerald Allen have the decency to stand up and defend the citizenry from these crimes? Why does he hate America?
posted by casu marzu at 7:14 AM on February 9, 2005
Why is he only going after actions prohibited by the "sodomy and sexual misconduct laws"? The laws also prohibit murder, assault, rape, drug use, underage drinking, public intoxication, driving over the speed limit, and the selling of unpasteurized cheeses aged less than sixty days, to name a few things. Shouldn't we also ban any and all literature which "recognizes" these things? Why doesn't Gerald Allen have the decency to stand up and defend the citizenry from these crimes? Why does he hate America?
posted by casu marzu at 7:14 AM on February 9, 2005
You pull one book, you may as well pull them all. Hell let's burn the libraries, and stick the TV on.
How about 'The Adventures of Priscilla - Queen of the Desert'? Or 'La Cage Aux Folles'?
posted by mnemosyne at 7:15 AM on February 9, 2005
How about 'The Adventures of Priscilla - Queen of the Desert'? Or 'La Cage Aux Folles'?
posted by mnemosyne at 7:15 AM on February 9, 2005
You know... (I am not saying this is the case) but what if this guy is secretly a genius. What I mean by that is that this is almost the perfect example of Reductio Ad Absurdum. If we had more lawmakers who would look at the long term implications of things like this and then propose the outrageous laws which would follow, only later to say, "look, I was obviously full of shit - I did this to teach you a lesson" (only, of course, in softer, politicized speech) then might we not change some peoples' minds?
posted by Yellowbeard at 7:27 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by Yellowbeard at 7:27 AM on February 9, 2005
Banning books is so old school.
I hear you, burning book is, like so 1984.
On a serious note, the desire to preselect reading material is pervasive. I even heard people in library school saying they wouldn't give certain books out to people.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 7:31 AM on February 9, 2005
I hear you, burning book is, like so 1984.
On a serious note, the desire to preselect reading material is pervasive. I even heard people in library school saying they wouldn't give certain books out to people.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 7:31 AM on February 9, 2005
I dunno about this secretly gay argument. It gets a little old. I mean, it's pretty clear that people have a natural revulsion to any kind of sex they find 'abnormal', just as they have a natural revulsion to eating food they're not familiar with. Probably an evolutionary tick that keeps people from fucking animals.
posted by delmoi at 7:35 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by delmoi at 7:35 AM on February 9, 2005
I support this as far as I believe a gay book ban will keep me from wanting to have sex with other men. Because obviously not reading books keeps you from ever realizing who you want to screw.
posted by taursir at 7:45 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by taursir at 7:45 AM on February 9, 2005
effwerd
Maybe we need a system of judicial therapy. A way to get these kind of folks away from the creation and administration of law for a while so they can get some perspective to return capable of even-handed and judicious reasoning.
I like this idea. Maybe some form of diversionary therapy? Or maybe the healthy thing is not to try and divert them, but let them indulge their passion in a way that no-one's going to get hurt. Sim-Government, anyone?
This, of course, comes with its own set of dangers - we all know that violent video games cause people to do violent things ...
Maybe we'd be better off banning the behavior altogether. You know, pass a law making it illegal to pass new laws. But when lawmaking is outlawed, only outlaws will ... make... laws ... hmm.
Fuck it. Hang 'im.
posted by kcds at 7:54 AM on February 9, 2005
Maybe we need a system of judicial therapy. A way to get these kind of folks away from the creation and administration of law for a while so they can get some perspective to return capable of even-handed and judicious reasoning.
I like this idea. Maybe some form of diversionary therapy? Or maybe the healthy thing is not to try and divert them, but let them indulge their passion in a way that no-one's going to get hurt. Sim-Government, anyone?
This, of course, comes with its own set of dangers - we all know that violent video games cause people to do violent things ...
Maybe we'd be better off banning the behavior altogether. You know, pass a law making it illegal to pass new laws. But when lawmaking is outlawed, only outlaws will ... make... laws ... hmm.
Fuck it. Hang 'im.
posted by kcds at 7:54 AM on February 9, 2005
(singing) Craaaaazy laws! Everybody loves craaaazy laws!
posted by fungible at 7:56 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by fungible at 7:56 AM on February 9, 2005
...if I lived in Alabama, I'd want to do something constructive to counteract this.
One appropriate response might be the purchase and direct donation of gay and lesbian titles to libraries.
posted by Morrigan at 8:03 AM on February 9, 2005
One appropriate response might be the purchase and direct donation of gay and lesbian titles to libraries.
posted by Morrigan at 8:03 AM on February 9, 2005
delmoi
I mean, it's pretty clear that people have a natural revulsion to any kind of sex they find 'abnormal', just as they have a natural revulsion to eating food they're not familiar with. Probably an evolutionary tick that keeps people from fucking animals.
This is not, in fact, clear at all. At least, not the "natural" part. People certainly have a soceietally trained revulsion to certain sex acts, but that does not make it "natural."
If you could explain what fitness would be conveyed by such an "evolutionary tick" as you describe it then I might be convinced. However, I can't think of any fitness perk one would attain by not "fucking other animals." This is not to say that I condone it, just that it is not inherintly (I don't believe) any more unhealthy than sex with other humans. Actually, it's aruably less unhealthy, as humans definitely carry diseases which can be spread to other humans while other animals are less likely to.
posted by Yellowbeard at 8:25 AM on February 9, 2005
I mean, it's pretty clear that people have a natural revulsion to any kind of sex they find 'abnormal', just as they have a natural revulsion to eating food they're not familiar with. Probably an evolutionary tick that keeps people from fucking animals.
This is not, in fact, clear at all. At least, not the "natural" part. People certainly have a soceietally trained revulsion to certain sex acts, but that does not make it "natural."
If you could explain what fitness would be conveyed by such an "evolutionary tick" as you describe it then I might be convinced. However, I can't think of any fitness perk one would attain by not "fucking other animals." This is not to say that I condone it, just that it is not inherintly (I don't believe) any more unhealthy than sex with other humans. Actually, it's aruably less unhealthy, as humans definitely carry diseases which can be spread to other humans while other animals are less likely to.
posted by Yellowbeard at 8:25 AM on February 9, 2005
What a crackpot. I'm sure this bill will be killed before it has a chance to be voted on.
It's actually kind of interesting in how illogical the idea really is. What about Amazon, what about public bookstores, playboy subscriptions, universities. As well as the fact that there are millions and millions of books and manuscripts published that would have to be sorted through. It's not really even a feasible idea in the logistics of it.
It seems kind of quaint and old-timey to ban books about gay relationships, while at the same time not going after videos and movies.
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:33 AM on February 9, 2005
It's actually kind of interesting in how illogical the idea really is. What about Amazon, what about public bookstores, playboy subscriptions, universities. As well as the fact that there are millions and millions of books and manuscripts published that would have to be sorted through. It's not really even a feasible idea in the logistics of it.
It seems kind of quaint and old-timey to ban books about gay relationships, while at the same time not going after videos and movies.
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:33 AM on February 9, 2005
How do they get the books off the shelves without thumbs?
posted by unsupervised at 8:39 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by unsupervised at 8:39 AM on February 9, 2005
kcds, I was thinking of something involving pinatas and lots of hugs. But your ideas are pretty good. After all, hanging is just a kind of concentrated hug -- ;) just in case.
posted by effwerd at 8:43 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by effwerd at 8:43 AM on February 9, 2005
I dunno about this secretly gay argument. It gets a little old. I mean, it's pretty clear that people have a natural revulsion to any kind of sex they find 'abnormal', just as they have a natural revulsion to eating food they're not familiar with. Probably an evolutionary tick that keeps people from fucking animals.
OK, I have a personal revulsion to morbidly obese people fucking and Furries. This doesn't mean I want to ban either of these practices (hey, if it trips your trigger, go for it!) nor am I ranting on the evening news about how they're detstroying society or anything. Some people might find gay sex unappealing, revulsive even, but that doesn't mean you need to begin a crusade against it. I mean really, who cares?
posted by wicked sprite at 8:43 AM on February 9, 2005
OK, I have a personal revulsion to morbidly obese people fucking and Furries. This doesn't mean I want to ban either of these practices (hey, if it trips your trigger, go for it!) nor am I ranting on the evening news about how they're detstroying society or anything. Some people might find gay sex unappealing, revulsive even, but that doesn't mean you need to begin a crusade against it. I mean really, who cares?
posted by wicked sprite at 8:43 AM on February 9, 2005
I dunno about this secretly gay argument. It gets a little old. I mean, it's pretty clear that people have a natural revulsion to any kind of sex they find 'abnormal', just as they have a natural revulsion to eating food they're not familiar with.
See that's the thing: I don't believe that reading a book about eating rabbit poop will make anyone want to do it. If I told people "Ban that book! It will make you want to eat rabbit poop!" you could safely assume that something in my head wanted me to eat rabbit poop. Because I don't get that most people just don't want to do it.
Straight people don't engage in gay sex because it doesn't interest them. But this guy believes exposure to gayness tempts you to become gay. So either he finds gay sex tempting or he's putting on a show for attention.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:43 AM on February 9, 2005
See that's the thing: I don't believe that reading a book about eating rabbit poop will make anyone want to do it. If I told people "Ban that book! It will make you want to eat rabbit poop!" you could safely assume that something in my head wanted me to eat rabbit poop. Because I don't get that most people just don't want to do it.
Straight people don't engage in gay sex because it doesn't interest them. But this guy believes exposure to gayness tempts you to become gay. So either he finds gay sex tempting or he's putting on a show for attention.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:43 AM on February 9, 2005
(Note to offended people: I am not directly comparing gay sex to eating rabbit poop.)
(Note to people who eat rabbit poop: I didn't mean to single you out. Sorry.)
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:48 AM on February 9, 2005
(Note to people who eat rabbit poop: I didn't mean to single you out. Sorry.)
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:48 AM on February 9, 2005
The laws also prohibit murder, assault, rape, drug use, underage drinking, public intoxication, driving over the speed limit, and the selling of unpasteurized cheeses aged less than sixty days, to name a few things. Shouldn't we also ban any and all literature which "recognizes" these things?
So I guess I should stop working on my novel Lady Chatterly's Soft Cheese?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:58 AM on February 9, 2005
So I guess I should stop working on my novel Lady Chatterly's Soft Cheese?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:58 AM on February 9, 2005
Yellowbeard, an awful lot of diseases that affect humans have come from animals. AIDS is puported to have evolved from SIV, the simian equivalent. Also witness the current fears about avian flu.
posted by doozer_ex_machina at 9:43 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by doozer_ex_machina at 9:43 AM on February 9, 2005
Donnie Darko has a great web site, which explains some things that were confusing in the original cut (in its own equally obscure way).
I think Withnail & I is one of the best screenplays ever written, but it's so perfectly English that I'm not surprised many Americans are non-plussed by it.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:49 AM on February 9, 2005
I think Withnail & I is one of the best screenplays ever written, but it's so perfectly English that I'm not surprised many Americans are non-plussed by it.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:49 AM on February 9, 2005
^^^ Oh good grief, wrong thread, sorry.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:01 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:01 AM on February 9, 2005
I guess they'll have to ban the internet in Alabama too. At least it's not important to their daily lives.
posted by Four Flavors at 10:05 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by Four Flavors at 10:05 AM on February 9, 2005
I dunno about this secretly gay argument.
I think the intent is not to ban books that might cause readers to become gay but to erase of any mention of gayness. If a group is unmentionable in society, they will certainly not be able to effect change as regards justice or equality.
posted by Morrigan at 10:05 AM on February 9, 2005
I think the intent is not to ban books that might cause readers to become gay but to erase of any mention of gayness. If a group is unmentionable in society, they will certainly not be able to effect change as regards justice or equality.
posted by Morrigan at 10:05 AM on February 9, 2005
Feel like calling or writing him and telling him what you think of his plans?
DISTRICT NO. 62 - Tuscaloosa
Gerald Allen
Post Office Box 71001
Tuscaloosa, AL 35407
Work Phone: (205) 556-5310
posted by OhPuhLeez at 10:09 AM on February 9, 2005
DISTRICT NO. 62 - Tuscaloosa
Gerald Allen
Post Office Box 71001
Tuscaloosa, AL 35407
Work Phone: (205) 556-5310
posted by OhPuhLeez at 10:09 AM on February 9, 2005
I'm in favour of any legislation that protects our youth from dangerous books like "The Bible."
posted by mosch at 10:13 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by mosch at 10:13 AM on February 9, 2005
And Bush has invited him to the White House several times.
posted by Zed_Lopez at 10:30 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by Zed_Lopez at 10:30 AM on February 9, 2005
holy shit, this dude my goddamn represenetive! i'd like to apologize for not voting 200 more times to get this guy unelected, so his douchebag competitor could equally victimize us with stupidity.
well, i can tell you, 1) it won't pass, they have bigger fish to fry like a non-existant budget 2) even if it passed, it won't get enforced. it made a lot of internet news about the whole "alabama dildo ban" a while back, but i did in fact go into a seedy store downtown with my girlfriend and purchase one of those banned items and the alabama vibrator police have yet to launch their bible attack on my house.
but to tell you the truch, news like this is just background noise to me. much like the sound of airplanes taking off for someone that lives close to an airport. and you get used to it.
posted by yeahyeahyeahwhoo at 10:34 AM on February 9, 2005
well, i can tell you, 1) it won't pass, they have bigger fish to fry like a non-existant budget 2) even if it passed, it won't get enforced. it made a lot of internet news about the whole "alabama dildo ban" a while back, but i did in fact go into a seedy store downtown with my girlfriend and purchase one of those banned items and the alabama vibrator police have yet to launch their bible attack on my house.
but to tell you the truch, news like this is just background noise to me. much like the sound of airplanes taking off for someone that lives close to an airport. and you get used to it.
posted by yeahyeahyeahwhoo at 10:34 AM on February 9, 2005
When you catch this "teh gay" do you like break out or have a fever or something?
How can one know they have contracted "teh gay?"
Is "teh gay" spoor left on book pages or something?
posted by nofundy at 10:34 AM on February 9, 2005
How can one know they have contracted "teh gay?"
Is "teh gay" spoor left on book pages or something?
posted by nofundy at 10:34 AM on February 9, 2005
Just exactly how do they make those Mercedes SUVs down there without opposable thumbs?
Is the favorite food of the state bananas?
Know how many Alabamians it takes to screw a lightbulb?
posted by nofundy at 10:37 AM on February 9, 2005
Is the favorite food of the state bananas?
Know how many Alabamians it takes to screw a lightbulb?
posted by nofundy at 10:37 AM on February 9, 2005
I have to agree with Curley on this one... When I pop in Bring 'em Young Vol. 11, where this redheaded chick is riding some dude, and another guy comes up behind her and just when I think he's goin' for anal, he puts the DP in her snatch, I'm not thinkin, "Wow! Look at those two hot cocks rubbing against eachother." Nope... I'm all like "Wow, that girl is such a filthy whore, and that gets me hot!"
posted by Debaser626 at 10:47 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by Debaser626 at 10:47 AM on February 9, 2005
But if we amend the Constitution, we can pass all sorts of crazy laws!
posted by Saucy Intruder at 10:48 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by Saucy Intruder at 10:48 AM on February 9, 2005
we had this conversation at lunch.... about how threesome or greater (gangbangs etc.) pornos are inherently gay, as there's much more cock than hot girl, yet a ton of guys own at least one of these videos... For me at least, as well as most guys out there, IMHO, the draw isn't homosexual in the least... it's the utter debasement of the random woman, if you're into that sorta thing...
posted by Debaser626 at 10:50 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by Debaser626 at 10:50 AM on February 9, 2005
Dammit. I just knew that reading Catcher In The Rye would be bad for me, somehow. I just never knew that I'd like wangs quite this much.
posted by ChrisTN at 10:58 AM on February 9, 2005
posted by ChrisTN at 10:58 AM on February 9, 2005
doozer_ex_machina
I understand that humans can catch diseases from animals. In fact, the European prevailance of agrigulture is the reason that Europeans had and were immune to so many diseases that just wiped out the Native Americans. I understand that there is a theory (and, reputedly, a reasonable one) that HIV was acquired from simians.
However, I would think that humans are far more likely to catch infectious diseases from sex with other humans than they would be from sex with other animals. And even if they did catch disease from other animals, that does not necessarily make the act of having sex with animals an unfit enough activity for genetic behaviour modification. What I am really arguing against, here, is ignorance of the way genetics work, not for interspecies sex.
posted by Yellowbeard at 11:50 AM on February 9, 2005
I understand that humans can catch diseases from animals. In fact, the European prevailance of agrigulture is the reason that Europeans had and were immune to so many diseases that just wiped out the Native Americans. I understand that there is a theory (and, reputedly, a reasonable one) that HIV was acquired from simians.
However, I would think that humans are far more likely to catch infectious diseases from sex with other humans than they would be from sex with other animals. And even if they did catch disease from other animals, that does not necessarily make the act of having sex with animals an unfit enough activity for genetic behaviour modification. What I am really arguing against, here, is ignorance of the way genetics work, not for interspecies sex.
posted by Yellowbeard at 11:50 AM on February 9, 2005
How can one know they have contracted "teh gay?"
If you go by the logic of the people that sponsor legislation like this, you can tell that you have "teh gay" because you are overcome with desire for Spongebob Squarepants.
posted by casu marzu at 11:56 AM on February 9, 2005
If you go by the logic of the people that sponsor legislation like this, you can tell that you have "teh gay" because you are overcome with desire for Spongebob Squarepants.
posted by casu marzu at 11:56 AM on February 9, 2005
Fair point. I hate to sound like trying to one up, and it isn't my original point, but a tendency to have sex with animals (as opposed to humans), would be selected against, in that such a union would not have human issue, but rather some bizarre human-goat hybrid. That said, an occasional dalliance may not have any major impact.
posted by doozer_ex_machina at 12:35 PM on February 9, 2005
posted by doozer_ex_machina at 12:35 PM on February 9, 2005
I understand that there is a theory (and, reputedly, a reasonable one) that HIV was acquired from simians. However, I would think that humans are far more likely to catch infectious diseases from sex with other humans than they would be from sex with other animals.
Let's try to put something to rest here. The transmission of SIV to humans and the emergence of HIV was probably related to hunting, dressing and killing monkeys, not humping them.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:04 PM on February 9, 2005
Let's try to put something to rest here. The transmission of SIV to humans and the emergence of HIV was probably related to hunting, dressing and killing monkeys, not humping them.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:04 PM on February 9, 2005
Damn. If only I had known that I could have prevented the spread of HIV by not hunting, dressing, and killing my nieghbors.
posted by casu marzu at 2:41 PM on February 9, 2005
posted by casu marzu at 2:41 PM on February 9, 2005
Mayor Curley is extremely correct. I dare anyone to even attempt any sort of sexually related activity with a chimpanzee.
posted by Freen at 7:22 PM on February 9, 2005
posted by Freen at 7:22 PM on February 9, 2005
hunting, dressing and killing monkeys
I'd think it'd be easier to get the dresses on them after you killed them.
posted by kindall at 7:53 PM on February 9, 2005
I'd think it'd be easier to get the dresses on them after you killed them.
posted by kindall at 7:53 PM on February 9, 2005
Gay novelist, Michael Holloway Perronne, shipped a copy of his novel, A Time Before Me, along with a miniature shovel, to controversial Alabama lawmaker Rep. Gerald Allen on Thursday. ...“If Mr. Allen is determined to bury such great works as The Color Purple, The Picture of Dorian Gray, and Brideshead Revisited, then I would be honored to have my own work buried with such classics. Mr. Allen can use the shovel I sent him to start digging his hole.”
posted by amberglow at 1:13 PM on February 11, 2005
posted by amberglow at 1:13 PM on February 11, 2005
« Older movies | Noooooooooo !!!! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
He was talking about sodomy, but this quote dovetails nicely with his own ideas.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:11 AM on February 9, 2005