Alabama needs better sex ed classes. Seriously.

The website pointed out an anti-gay “sex-ed” (no actual education included) pamphlet distributed by an Alabama Middle School that has a quote that literally made me snort soda out of my nose a few minutes ago.

These same sex “unions” cannot provide an adequate means of achieving a genuine physical relationship with another human being because this type of “union” is contrary to the laws of nature. There can be no real union because same sex bodies do not even fit together.

Somebody seems to have a lack of imagination, there. Apparently, they’ve never read my post on intelligent design, or they’d know better than that.

Continue ReadingAlabama needs better sex ed classes. Seriously.

I wanted to be a Darwinist, but I wasn’t selected

If you’re following the news at all, you’ve read that Kansas is having a second Scopes Monkey trial wherein they’re planning on teaching creationism in the classroom as a form of science. In 1999, Kansas decided to drop the teaching of evolution in the classroom (this decision has since been reversed). But today the Kansas Board of Education are having a trial to change state standards to allow the introduction of creationism under the guise of “intelligent design” the bonehead idea that the pattern behind natural laws is devised by a higher power.

So far the people arguing in favor of “intelligent design” have shown their intellectual level of thought: they admit they haven’t even read the state’s current standards for education, so they don’t even understand what they’re planning to amend. That’s some Republican smarts for ya, right there.

If plain common sense isn’t enough for you, read “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense” from Scientific American magazine to learn how to answer their inane drivel.

I have some more thoughts on intelligent design, but if you’re at all squeamish, you might not want to read on. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Here’s the best argument IN FAVOR of intelligent design, but I have a feeling that the creationists won’t be keen on arguing this point: God designed the male body for gay male anal intercourse. You heard me. God intended men to take it up the ass. Why else would the prostate gland, a gland that sits INSIDE the body, be a sexually-sensitive organ that when stimulated, causes an intense orgasm? Why on earth would God give this organ the ability to do that, unless he intended men to put something up there to stimulate it? In addition to that, men have much larger anuses than women do, and they’re angled differently, to accomodate something going in.

Something I’ve never understood about heterosexual men is how they are terrified of anal intercourse when it comes to two men doing it, but they’re all keen on getting their girlfriends to participate. Why is that? What is the appeal of it with a woman? Especially when it’s much more dangerous for women to do than it is for men, because of the way women are built. The same straight guys who will say crap like “it’s an exit, not an entrance” (untrue for men!) are the ones trying to persuade their girlfriend to turn over (where it really IS an exit!).

Another “intelligent design” conundrum for you: why is the clitoris outside the vagina? Why, if God intended for us all to use the heterosexual missionary position, didn’t God put the clitoris inside the vagina to encourage women to participate in penis-in-vagina sex? Why put the clitoris outside where it’s easy for, say, me, to reach? Yes, because God intended women to be gay.

That really is some intelligent design.

Continue ReadingI wanted to be a Darwinist, but I wasn’t selected