The Right Opinion
A Dust-Up Over Gays
I concluded a recent article, "Things That Bug Me," with the following three paragraphs: "Speaking of political cowardice, isn't it high time that judges and legislators stopped coddling homosexuals? While it's true that, as a rule, being childless, they have a fair amount of money to contribute to those politicians who bow to their wishes, it's not as if they represent a lot of votes outside of San Francisco, L.A. and New York.
"Frankly, I don't know just when it was that sodomites became a protected class, but it's rather obnoxious when politicians curry favor with them by promoting same-sex marriages and pretending that it is the equivalent of uprooting slavery and repealing Jim Crow laws.
"One of the sillier things about homosexuals is the way they like to insist that inside every heterosexual is an interior decorator screaming to be let out. If you buy that, perhaps you also believe that inside every liberal nutcase is a rational conservative begging to be set free."
I didn't think I had written anything particularly offensive, unless people took exception to my referring to those who practice sodomy as sodomites, so you can understand why I was so taken aback when I received an email from a friend whose opinion I greatly respect, and who, by the way, is a heterosexual conservative. It began, "I don't know if you realize it...or care...but you come off as an out and out bigot. I re-read the last few grafs of your column several times to see if I was over-reacting. I wasn't."
He went on to say some complimentary things about me, but then went on: "You paint with such a broad brush that...you sound like the Christian evangelicals who don't seem to understand that the same God they worship every second of every day created gays just as He created straights.
"You don't have to be for same-sex marriage, but your distaste at best and hatred at worst for gay people -- as a group -- is evident. I suspect you won't take this well and I'm prepared for whatever comes."
As I said, I like and respect this fellow very much, and I therefore felt that I owed him, along with all of you, an honest response to an email I knew he had not enjoyed writing.
I replied: "I'm not angry. You are a decent human being. For all I know, you may have gay family members and took what I wrote personally, as an attack on your loved ones.
"If I say that what people do in private is their business, you may discount it with the same skepticism you and I would display towards an anti-Semite who claimed that some of his best friends are Jews, but it happens to be true. My negative attitude is not Bible-based, as I am not an evangelical Christian, as you know.
"But I contend that nothing having to do with gays is private these days. Here in California, not only are they always parading around, but they have intimidated politicians to such an extent that teachers now have to devote time to promoting homosexuality...and classroom discussions regarding the negative aspects of the life style are forbidden.
"Gay pride? What in the hell is there to be so proud of? Their only distinction as a group is that they play in poop. If you knew someone who got his sexual gratification from sticking his fingers in excrement, you would think he belonged in a loony bin. But because it's their sex organ, you feel obliged to leap to their defense, as if I were attacking their religion or their race.
"Out here, when Proposition 8 was defeated, homosexuals intimidated people going to church, but only so long as they were Catholic or Mormon churches; they gave a wide berth to black Baptist churches, even though blacks had voted against same-sex marriages by an even wider margin than whites had. So we can add cowardice to the list.
"Finally, and on a personal level, a gang of gays confronted the wife of a friend of mine who owns a restaurant because the wife, who actually manages the place, is a Mormon who had contributed $100 to the "No On 8" campaign. It was bad enough that the gays waged a boycott against the restaurant, even though several of the cooks and waiters were gay and would have been laid off if my friends hadn't made accommodations so that nobody had to be fired when business inevitably decreased. Even so, the gay pickets screamed vile epitaphs at her for days on end. She finally had to leave town and visit out-of-state relatives because she was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
"Having been employed in show business for several years, I have worked with a great many homosexuals and I have even liked some of them. But the same is true of me and liberals. But those were different times, and these days we are dealing with a very different brand of left-winger and a very different sort of homosexual."
After mulling it over for a few hours, I sent along the following postscript: "I neglected to mention it earlier, but just for the record I also don't like heterosexuals whose identity seems to be totally wrapped up in their sexual exploits and in keeping count of how many women they've had sex with.
"Yet another item on the negative side of the ledger when it comes to gays is the way they demonized Ronald Reagan because he didn't devote every last federal medical research dollar to finding a cure for AIDS, even if it meant taking it away from finding a cure for childhood leukemia, cancer, Parkinson's and AZ.
"In a related matter, even when it became quite clear how the HIV virus was transmitted, the San Francisco gays descended on City Hall and demanded that their precious bathhouses be kept open. Then, for good measure, the gay activists concocted the term "homophobia," so that they could suggest that people who objected to their behavior be seen as suffering from a psychological disorder, as if disapproving of sodomy was the same thing as fearing great heights, spiders and dark, enclosed spaces. An unwarranted fear of gays? I don't think so.
"But perhaps the last straw was their insisting that depriving them of the right to marry each other is akin to slavery or Jim Crow laws. "I'm not trying to convince you to believe as I do, but it's not every day I wake up to find that a friend has denounced me as a bigot, and I just felt I should make my position clear.
"Finally, unless you take strong exception to the use of the word 'sodomite' in my article, I would hardly describe those final three paragraphs as hateful or even out of place in a piece dealing with things that bug me. I would even go so far as to suggest that the final graf was somewhat amusing, although I take it you disagree.
"Regards, Burt"

100 Comments
BofromTexas in Fredericksburg
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 3:41 AM
The homosexual community is without a doubt the most obnoxious group of people in the U.S. Their numbers are quite small, but their mouths are quite large. If they were to attempt to stage a homosexual gay pride parade in my town, I am fairly certain the discouragements would be persuasive. It is an unnatural practice, vile in nature, anti-life, unhealthy, and unGodly. God did not "make" homosexuals, rather homosexuals choose a lifestyle that, according to the Bible, God abhors. Burt, you are dead on and I commend you for your boldness in the face of the political correctness that rampages across this nation, which used to be great, but whose moral foundations as established by the founding fathers are being corroded by homosexuals, Hollywood, and hedonists.
Dennis in Farmington, NM
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 3:57 PM
You forgot to mention violent, to the point of psychosis.
Aussie of Asstrayler in Australia
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 8:22 PM
Good on you mate for NOT using the word 'gays.' Every time a heterosexual uses the word "gay' instead of the CORRECT word "homosexual," the heteros (oops...am I now guilty of 'vilification' and 'abuse'?) are bowing to the insistence of homos (ditto?) that they have some arbitrary right to change our language. Perhaps some re-thinking is needed. Alternatively, if the homos continue to insist on their being called "gay," well then I guess that, to ensure no 'negative' connotations are associated with being heterosexual, we need to insist on heteros also being described by some or other 'nice' word. My suggestion for a replacement is "decent". In the spirit to equal rights, all suggestions will be equally considered.
G Dub in Lee's Summit, MO
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 4:23 AM
"plays in poop" - Gota love it. But, at least they usualy do not reproduce.
Jim in Alabama
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 9:45 AM
Unfortunately they DO reproduce. Its understood that pedophiles begin as the victims of pedophiles. Abuse begets abuse. My own suspicion is that all homosexuality is a learned behavior, that it all springs from the actions of homosexual predators. Take away the Genetics Myth and that's what's left. No one figures that stuff out on their own.
Aaron in CA
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 6:55 PM
Indeed, predatory predilection parading as parenting. Preposterous!! Also, see http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/26/san-francisco-gay-rights-activist-reportedly-arrested-over-child-porn/
EW Riggs in Lawrenceville GA
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 7:56 PM
@Jim in Alabama - In some very small percent of cases, you may be correct. I subscribe to the multiple causes theory. For some, there are genetic factors. For some there are developmental factors - such as hormonal and nutritional factors in pregnancy. For some homosexual men there are the old Freudian things: overbearing Mother and weak Father. And then there is plain old arrested development. For some women, the road to lesbianism may be rooted in improper sexual experiences either as a child or as an adult (molestation, rape, abuse). I suspect there are at least as many other paths to homosexuality as I've listed here. A psychiatrist I once knew used to say he was devastated when homosexuality became so accepted - because helping them change orientation was SO EASY! But now, of course, they don't want to change orientation - they are invested in their RIGHT to be GLBT (sounds like a sandwich). Well, that's my 4 ha' pence. Have a nice day. And EAT MOR CHIKIN! Cheerio! Elizabeth
OKBecky in Tulsa, OK
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 11:58 PM
There are any number of motivations people might have for choosing a homosexual lifestyle, including convenience (for instance, at a women's college I attended, some students would adopt lesbianism because it was more convenient than trying to find a male date off-campus). However, it is also true that people can train themselves to be comfortable with almost anything. It is quite possible that, without any taboos, that people would explore - and find enjoyable - most any form of sexual activity. After all, the Roman emperors and their families and friends tended to engage in some pretty debauched activities, but no one was going to tell them no.... How could they, if they were "gods"?
I've read that it is quite likely that a number of people try to avoid the difficulties of building a relationship with someone Other (male-female) by staying with someone of the same gender. How many times do we hear men say that women are impossible to understand, and women gripe that men are clueless? So staying same-sex would mean cutting oneself off from true growth, because you're choosing not to get to know someone who truly does think differently and respond differently than you can intuitively grasp, and that takes a lot of work. It's intimidating. (Of course, homosexuals would argue that adopting an openly-gay lifestyle and engaging in same-sex relationships is harder than "heteronormative" relationships, because they're going contrary to society.)
Miguel in TX
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 12:43 AM
One could even go so far to say that if you have masturbated to any porn with a man in it then you might be gay.
Clark in Columbus, Ohio
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 5:49 AM
Burt, as usual, you shoot straight in a crooked world. You put to words what I'm sure many think but can't elucidate. Like the last writer, "plays in poop" just cracks me up. I like cracking up!
Clark in Columbus, Ohio
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 5:51 AM
BTW . . . Eat chicken!!!
Doktor Riktor Von Zhades in Western KY
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 8:39 AM
In reference to the E-mailers comment on God being a loving God, yes this is true, He is indeed loving. However, he is also a righteous arbitrator of justice. He is indeed the final Judge of our lives. This always seems to escape those that use His compassion as an excuse to live within the boundaries of licentiousness. The scripture that is commonly tossed about "he who is without sin, let him throw the first stone", is also used as justification, however in the rest of the passage, Christ also says to the adulteress to "Sin no more".
There is no way, absolutely none, that any of us can reach the righteousness of God Himself. The best we can hope to ever do is to walk in His righteousness, and do our best to put on the face of Christ. It would do wonders if the Gay community, would understand the old adage; love the sinner, hate the sin.
Doktor Riktor Von Zhades in Western KY
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 8:40 AM
Oh, yeah, eat mo' chicken....
Miguel in TX
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 12:47 AM
Love the sinner and cast a hell of a lot of stones at him. That should do it. I'm not sure you folks read what you write after the fact. God is loving and there a rules Christians must follow, but last time I checked he said he who is without sine cast the first stone. I'm pretty sure it also says that we've all sinned and come short of the glory of god. He went to the lepers and prostitutes and told them to be healed and sin no more, but he didn't beat them up if they chose to disagree or be different from him.
If your truly believe the Bible then stop outsourcing God's job to yourselves. He's a pretty good judge, but the more vile condemnation you throw out gets you closer to the churches he rebuked in the Bible.
Brian in Virginia
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 1:51 PM
The story in the bible where Jesus challenged the sinless man to cast the first stone was not intended to be a metaphor for dealing with all sin in the world... he meant what he said, to those he said it, quite literally.
You want us to "stop outsourcing God's job." I guess you mean we should not speak out against sin? Did not Jesus and the Apostles do just that? Should we not follow their example? How does the child (or the adult for that matter) know right from wrong if he is not told?
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do (and say) nothing."
Craig in Cleveland, TN
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 8:49 AM
It's funny to me that gay people constantly want everyone to support their choice of a lifestyle, but at the same time they are unwilling to support the lifestyle that the majority of society leads. Gays are a very small minority who have used mind control tactics to make everyone think they are a majority. You know most people will go through life without ever running into or meeting a gay person, but yet we are told that gay people are everywhere. Society, the media, and politicians need to realize that gay people are nothing but whiny hypocrites who are mad because they don't have the open arms support to practice unnatural sexual practices. So instead of keeping their private lives private, they attack anyone who speaks about against their private lives and demand we give into them.
It is a sad day when our young children are basically forced into believing that sex between two guys or two girls is perfectly natural and that the lifestyle that goes along with it is more acceptable than the traditional family.
Miguel in TX
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 12:50 AM
Most people will go through life not meeting or "knowing" a gay person because they know there are bigots in the world who will judge them based solely on that one piece of information. Now that you know there are gay service men/women do you hate them too?
Brian in Virginia
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 1:59 PM
Boy Miguel, you sure are narrow-minded. If someone speaks against homosexuality, that means they are a bigot?
I am retired Navy, 23 years. I bumped into a few gays in my years, and I had no problem with them, because they kept it to themselves. They did not require that I "celebrate" their lifestyle, or give them special protections because of it. It is just the opposite today.
Personally, I could care less what two consenting adults choose to do in private, but don't force me or my children or anyone else to "affirm" their choices. God called homosexuality an "abomination." Who are we to say otherwise?
OKBecky in Tulsa, OK
Wednesday, August 1, 2012 at 12:05 AM
Something I have noticed is how historians are now combing through history trying to determine the sexual leanings of every famous or accomplished individual, in an attempt to prove that homosexuals are more creative, more open-minded, more "holistic," wiser leaders, and just plain "better" than boring old stiff-shirt hide-bound traditionalist heterosexuals. It's part of what Jonah Goldberg talks about in "Liberal Fascism," how identity politics is now the name of the game, and identity (whether gender or race) is conceived of as immutable. "If race matters, HOW does it matter?" with modern liberals deciding that "black" is now "good," and that only contact with inherently good Blacks will bring salvation to Whites. Same thing with LGBT - homosexual advocates and their "allies" present gays as morally redemptive, saviors of corrupt and sinful heterosexual communities who have wrested the Bible away from its message of love and compassion....
Son of Liberty in Colorado
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 8:57 AM
If GOD was so accepting of the lifestyle, then why did He call it an ABOMINATION in the Book of Leviticus? No, what has happened here folks is that the Giblets (GBLTs) decided they were tired of hiding in the closet and wanted to fudge pack in the light of day with public approval. SORRY but I don't approve. Don't want anything to do with 'em either. I would just like them to SHUT UP and leave the rest of us in peace and quiet!
Bob James in Virginia
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 12:03 PM
"Giblets." Bwahaha! Beautiful.
Your comments are spot on. Hey, sodomites: Shut the hell up and leave normal people the hell alone.
Great follow up column, Mr. Prelutsky. Took a lot of guts to post it, even here. No doubt, the sodomite termites will presently discover it and swamp this site with hateful vitriol.
Bob James in Virginia
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Oh, and eat mo' chiken!!
Miguel in TX
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 12:52 AM
Sir have you read the entire book of Leviticus? or any of the old testament from which you pull your condemnation of gay people? I bet they even have Bible for dummies these days. There are hundreds of laws in that same book, hell in that same chapter that you would freak out about if you had to follow them.
Daylo in Georgia
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 2:15 PM
Miguel, have you read the entire book of Romans in the New Testament?
Jim in Alabama
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 9:51 AM
Burt, I don't want to bloat your ego, but I have to say it. You just get better with age. I don't know how you do it. I think you must have been born without a gene for pretense. A wonderful mutation! Hope you've re-produced abundantly!
Kathy in West Texas
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 9:56 AM
Burt, your friend sounds like my father-in-law. He too thinks people are born that way because nobody would choose to live like that. Like us, you & your friend will have to agree to disagree, because people DO choose that life style. I know people who have switched from heterosexual to homosexual even after having children. That's the part that truly disgusts me; raising kids in a gay household. Ugh. It gives me the heebie-jeebies and I wish they'd all go back in the closet and shut up.
And why do we have to call it gay? That just ruins a perfectly good word/name.
BNgranny in MO
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM
Mostly I wish they'd shut up. How does this subject even arise in a workplace or social event? They want what they do in their bedrooms to stay private then don't bring it up. Can you imagine the ranting, hair-pulling reaction to a heterosexual pride parade? I read that homos are only 2% of the US population -- but looking at broadcast TV programming you'd think there are a whole lot more.
Love the "playing in poop."
Eat more chicken.
Richard Ryan in Lamar,Missouri
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 1:35 PM
Kathy, I`m glad you pointed out the fact that the word "gay" which was at one time a beautiful word has been ruined. I have a bluegrass/country band and there is a song with the words, " I sing because I`m happy, I sing because I`m gay" which I don`t use any more because of the connotation associated with that word. There is actually nothing gay about the homosexual life style. They can be some of the most violent people on the face of the earth.
By the way; Eat more chicken.
Kathy in West Texas
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 6:05 PM
I had chicken today and I'm going again Wednesday!! Y'all sign the petition yet??
Miguel in TX
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 12:59 AM
GAY: The word had started to acquire associations of immorality by 1637[1] and was used in the late 17th century with the meaning "addicted to pleasures and dissipations."[8] This was by extension from the primary meaning of "carefree": implying "uninhibited by moral constraints." A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer and a gay house a brothel. Could you people pick up a history book some time before you start whining about things you have no clue about? Not every comment that comes from your mouth has to be derogatory. And as far as gay people wanting to "fudge pack" in public....um just came back from New Orleans and saw all kinds of packing and not just from gay people. Hopefully we are all bright enough to know that if there is a couple no matter the combination that something sexual is occurring behind closed doors.
Robinius in Broomfield, Colorado
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 3:16 PM
Miguel, I don't have a 1637 dictionary lying around to check your facts. You say "GAY: The word had started to acquire associations of immorality by 1637[1] and was used in the late 17th century with the meaning "addicted to pleasures and dissipations."[8] This was by extension from the primary meaning of "carefree": implying "uninhibited by moral constraints." Could you please provide a source for this? Merriam-Webster's online dictionary contradicts you on the word carefree: care·free adj \ˈker-ˌfrē\ Definition of CAREFREE : free from care: as a : having no worries or troubles b : irresponsible See carefree defined for English-language learners » See carefree defined for kids » Examples of CAREFREE
She has a carefree attitude toward life.
They spent a carefree day at the lake.
First Known Use of CAREFREE 1621 Related to CAREFREE Synonyms: blithe, debonair, devil-may-care, gay, happy-go-lucky, insouciant, lighthearted, lightsome, slaphappy, unconcerned
I see nothing about "uninhibited by moral constraints." It's easy enough to tell everyone else to "pick up a history book some time before you start whining about things you have no clue about." Maybe you could enlighten Merriam-Webster and the rest of us from your vast store of knowledge?
Ragweed in West Virginia
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 3:46 PM
Miguel - WOW, you must be a high level practicioner of the probing arts to have that must history on that word. You were prepared in advance for that argument, weren't you?
By the way, I'm 64, and I know what "gay" meant for the first several decades of my life, despite your scholarship on the word. I agree with the others, a ggod word has been ruined.
mark in massachusetts
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 9:57 AM
I wish people would stop using the word gay to describe homosexual depravity.It is an insult to people who have to live with it as a surname.One such man,who may or may not still be alive,was Ensign George Gay.He was the only survivor out of a 15 plane squadron that attacked the Japanes carriers during the Battle of Midway.It seems a terrible injustice that a heros name is sullied for use by a bunch of homosexuals. They are not gay...they are queer!
Jayve in ABQ, NM
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 2:28 PM
Hear, Hear Mark! My mothers middle name is 'Gay' and it ticks me off to no end how the word for happy got so skewed by the queer crowd. Same with one of God's most beautiful creations..... the rainbow.
KN in Arkansas
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 7:08 PM
Enola Gay is another name ruined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enola_Gay
Vicky in Fl
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Mark, I often use the word queer or simply homosexual. Both are correct. I too cringe at the use of 'gay'. Why should they be allowed to choose for everyone else? It's ridiculus on all fronts. As I believe about the word nigger, no group or person exclusively owns the use of any word. Thats insane.
Brian in Virginia
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 2:02 PM
There is (was?) a men's clothing store in Eugene, Oregon, that used to be called "The Gay Blade." A number of years ago, they changed that to just "The Blade." Wonder why.... negative connotation to that word maybe?
alex torello in connecticut
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 11:04 AM
Burt: Ain't it something, when you gotta devote some of your best thought and excellent writing in order to answer one critic just because of your principles? It's why I always turn first to your columns. Stay strong! "Humankind cannot bear very much reality." --TS Elliot
enemaofthestatistquo in GA
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Greetings Burt; "Then, for good measure, the gay activists concocted the term "homophobia," so that they could suggest that people who objected to their behavior be seen as suffering from a psychological disorder..." The gay activists also concocted the term "pedophile", to provide cover for NAMBLA and other independent child molesters. Try to look the word up in any unabridged dictionary published prior to about 1970, it may be in a 60's, but definitely not before 1960.
TRudy in alabama
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 12:46 PM
Well, I have a relative who is homosexual & now has AIDS. Guess who is paying for his care--John Q Taxpayer. None of his 'friends' give a rats behind about him. He doesn't want to hear that he got himself into this situation--I'm not the one who gave him aids, but I know how he got it. And he did it on purpose. I, for one, don't like being on the hook for the bad behavior of others. Why should I pay for the single mother's child care? Taxpayers don't offer me a plugged nickel to fund my vices. It's time for a taxpayer revolt! When will 'they' show compassion to 'us'? Never, we are on our own.
Miguel in TX
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 1:06 AM
Quick fact for you TRudy: The majority of infections occur not among homosexuals but underserved populations that will reuses needles thanks to their drug addictions. Also the leading carrier of AIDS in the US currently...black men and women. Second...white drug addicts. I serve a community of HIV patients and can without a doubt say only 2% are gay. Your Vices?!?! If you smoke(lung cancer/emphysema), eat fast food(cardiovascular/stroke/heart), drink(liver/domestic abuse), or lose your house to gambling, and drugs there are programs available to you as well.
Scotch62 in O-town FL
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 1:52 AM
Miguel- What is an underserved population? Who is supposed to serve them? Us? Did we not serve them enough clean needles to do their drugs with? I'm fairly libertarian with an occasional (hence the name) vice of my own and don't care what one does as long as they handle their business. I also believe if one is irresponsible then they are also accountable for their poor behavior, something not taught in schools for the last 50 years. I'm sure TRudy can handle her business and doesn't need one of your gubmint programs to tell her how it was someone elses fault and that it was because she was underserved.
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” Ben Franklin
George in Santa Ana
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 3:09 AM
Hey Miguel, where do you think the Aids/HIV came from? It wasn't around until the gays got it. The "underserved" (whatever that is supposed to mean) got it from used needles used by gays with Aids in the first place!
Richard Ryan in Lamar,Missouri
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 1:45 PM
Stay strong Burt. I have a granddaughter who professes to being lesbian. My wife and I don`t approve of her lifestyle, but we don`t make a big deal of it. She also has a 10 year old son, and I think it`s sad that the boy is being raised in that atmosphere. I too hate the words gay, and homophobia. The granddaughter had to point out to me that the owners of Chick-fil-a are against homosexuals, so I informed her that they only said they supported traditional marriage, and that by the way, so do I. Too many people out there are sheep who follow the wolves.
Eat more chicken, specifically Chick-fil-a.
Miguel in TX
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 1:08 AM
why not teach your grand daughter to eat more vegetables or how to grow a garden? Right we want her to have heart disease before she's 30.
David Nash, DVM in Gallatin, TN
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 7:37 AM
I'm curious Miguel - do you work for a non-profit or governmental agency?
Ragweed in West Virginia
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 3:57 PM
I'm sorry Miguel, but you are nothing short of pathetic. I eat a steak, and (aghast!) fast food occasionally, and my cholesterol is just fine. Now you are injecting veganism into a discussion about homosexuality. Don't deflect the subject.
Carol Covert in S.C.
Monday, July 30, 2012 at 1:56 PM
It has already been medically proven that there is no "gay" gene.