Nice comment over at JoeMyGod from BobVT "And when there's just a salad bar, I become a vegetarian".

Pretty much nails it.
Dan, save your dick for your man and volunteer some other choicer's dick.
This Carson idjit is really the perfect GOP tool:
1. Says crazy things to
-- (a) sow misinformation, and
-- (b) drag the debate towards the Looney Right.
2. Is African-American, therefore harder to attack for his idiocy and toolishness.
If being gay is a choice, prove it. Choose it. Choose to be gay yourself. Show America how that's done, Ben, show us how a man can choose to be gay. Suck my dick.

I do believe, Dan, that you've thrown down this particular gauntlet before. What I'd really like to know is, uh, any takers yet?
Nice label game you got going. For a person not to believe neo-conservatives' explanation for 9/11 ("them evil Islamz did it!") makes he or she a "deranged conspiracy theorist" who can't be dissuaded by science or evidence or facts? Isn't the whole "truther" movement based on science? Science is what attracted me.

I am a fan of yours, but not a fan of how causally you lump certain groups together. It's the same strategy that's used to prevent the general public from differentiating Islamic extremists and regular followers of Islam.
Dr. Ben Carson is a NEUROSURGEON and really ought to know better. Classifying this alongside his views on evolution by natural selection.
Also, you know what it takes to turn a straight man gay? A MASSIVE STROKE RESULTING IN BRAIN DAMA….

@1: Word.
@5: Being a "truther" is based on a fuzzy and incomplete understanding of science. Example:
What Truthers Know: jet fuel burns at a lower temperature than steel beams melt.
The Whole Picture: steel beams lose much of their tensile strength once they get warm enough to soften slightly, which occurs at a temperature well below that of a jet fuel inferno.
@5: Your reduction of the 9/11 attacks to a choice of "them evil Islamz did it!" or it was a false flag inside job kind of proves Truther nuttiness. The fact that radicalized Islamic terrorists hi-jacked planes and flew them into buildings does not equate "Islam is evil". And the "science" you purport to believe is ginned up to prove what you want to be true (hence "Truther").
@7 I know that science doesn't solve the mystery, my complaint was that if I believe it's remotely possible that what we've been told isn't 100% sound, I am a deranged conspiracy theorist.
@8 I apologize for simplifying an argument for the sake of space in a comment section. On the other hand, I don't have that coveted dissertation I've been working on in my mom's basement available either. I'm fully aware there are nuts who claim they represent a movement. There are a lot of people who are not part of a so-called movement who just don't buy what has been accepted by most Americans. I'm really not looking for an interweb fight, just annoyed that a progressive writer I like a lot is casually blending very polarizing groups as a mass of psychos.
Well people like Jesse Helms and Michele Bachman have given us proof that you can be a complete idiot and somehow get through law school (and pass the bar). Now we have proof that you can also be a complete idiot and somehow get through med school.
My pet theory--judging from my experience with crossdressers, who are generally more bisexual than the non-crossdressing population--people who are bisexual are drawn to conservative worldviews. Having an authoritarian worldview helps keep their non-standard desires in check, and even if later in life they decide to be easier on themselves, the authoritarian mindset sticks.

So yes, I believe that for many conservative men being gay is a choice, because I believe many of them are bisexual.
The really irksome thing is, it shouldn't matter whether homosexuality is a choice or not. What two (or more) consenting adults do with each other should have no bearing on their rights under the law.
It's just the fact that he's a neurosurgeon that's so fucking befuddling. You know he must be ok at this whole science thing on some level. You can't pad your resume into a fucking brain surgeon career. So he's excelled at science and logic on some level; and yet he's making an argument that is fundamentally illogical. I think the only logical answer is that this is yet another smart man saying stupid things in a misguided attempt to appeal to other stupid people.
Let's please not fucking allow the very premise of Carson's "argument" to go unchallenged, because he has built a terrible argument upon a foundation of total, complete horseshit:

“Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight and when they come out, they’re gay"

Oh really? A lot of people? NAME THREE. Because unless you've got actual numbers to back that up, your assertion that it's common for 100% straight men to exit prison with an insatiable hunger for dick is complete and total nonsense.
Hey Dan, wtf? Aren't you all going to say something about the Alabama clusterfuck that happened yesterday? I mean same sex marriage in that state is dead right now. And only story we got in the last 24 hours was about Slovenia.
(Confidential to all: Ben Carson and Ken Mehlman are secretly dating! FACT! I have the photos of proof...)
@17 - We are able to cite Hitchen's Razor at this point:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
@16 - No, he's more likely a GOP psy-ops plant.
That's the most logical conclusion.
@20: I expected better of you than this sophistry. gay IS NOT A CHOICE. nature not nurture.
Am I allowed to lump anti-vaxxers in with choicers, 9/11 truthers, birthers, deathers, climate change deniers, and vegans?
@20 is a confessed troll/parody. I go back and forth between he's funny and he's obnoxious.
I know some absolute morons (from Iowa) who think that Obama is the antichrist but that Dr. Ben Carson is a wonderful man. They're too stupid to pay much attention to him, or even comprehend what he says. They mostly like him both because he's a conservative and liking him "proves" that they're not racists.
Someone has been conspicuously absent from these pages for a little while. In fact, last time I recall seeing one of his posts was when he declined to answer a question from Matt asking if he'd lied about having an African-American wife, which I now firmly believe he did.

It's kinda sad too, in that I seem to recall gaining a tiny amount of respect for him upon learning of his (imaginary) spouse. Something about his perhaps actually judging people based on their true character and not some superficiality, as we had all long presumed he does.

On the plus side, I'll bet he was also lying about having evicted those lesbian tenants of his, also figments of his sad, ideological imagination.

@30: like a recurring fungal infection, seattleblues comes and goes without much warning. I expect he'll show up again, more's the pity.
@20.. congrats you've just made the most stupid statement this year, but you can do better.
@30 Oh he was just weighing in the other day on that thread about the people in eastern WA being tried for growing pot. After pontificating about how we can't go around selectively ignoring laws he quickly disappeared when someone brought up his habit of ignoring anti-discrimination laws.
Dan should add the stipulation that the choicer has to also enjoy it, and to be uninterested in women, and for both of these to be temporary.

After all, the anti-gay-rights side has no lack of closet cases. A really weird amount of this comes from gay men who think they're straight, and think that other gay people are making the "choice" to be gay, rather than to suffer through a life of tormented false heterosexuality, because they don't realize that some (other) people are actually straight.

Orson Scott Card is the best and most demonstrative example. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
@30, according to his profile (…) he was just here yesterday but apparently the majority of his comments were deleted. I wonder what wonderfully racist homophobic hateful shit he was spouting.
@9, 11: The issue is that we DO have scientific evidence (starting with dissections of the brains of deceased homosexual and heterosexual men, and later moving on to tomography scans of the living) that the brains of homosexuals differ from those of heterosexuals. Additionally, those differences are of a nature where the brains of gay men resemble (at certain loci known to be involved in sexual arousal and romantic attraction) those of straight women, and the brains of lesbian women tend to resemble (in that manner) those of straight men. And those parts of the brain are known to be fairly fixed since around the time of birth.
There is a relative wealth (compared to twenty years ago) of research on the origins of sexual orientation, and yet some politicians ignore it all because it doesn't fit their narrative. Dr. Carson, who is a NEUROSURGEON and a very good one at that, should know better, having presumably read some journals about human neurology.
When people cleave to one side or another in a legitimate controversy (say, the causes of colony collapse disorder), that's one thing. But when the evidence all points to one thing and people (who are in a position of prominence where they should have been apprised of the evidence on the topic) say the opposite and refuse to even ACKNOWLEDGE the evidence against their opinions, then we call them nuts. Willful ignorance is an ugly thing.

@37: He called Dan a piece of subhuman trash, told everyone else to follow laws to the letter, got called on his hypocrisy (see: lesbian tenants), whined about people calling him mean names, denounced all liberal causes and our highfalutin' census numbers, and left in a self-important huff.
Thank you for making the point about religion. People choose to be religious, and they are afforded numerous rights. People choose to be jerks, and they're still allowed to marry the person they love.

Men (and women) who engage in homosexual acts in prison is what's called "situational homosexuality". While they may prefer the opposite sex, if that's not an option, they'll have someone of the same sex take care of their needs.

But do you really want Ben Carson anywhere near you? Tell him to go suck Marcus Bachmann's cock.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

I am straight. I am repulsed by the idea of having sex with a man. My sexuality is absolutely not a choice.

Many of my gay friends are similarly repulsed by the idea of having sex with someone of the opposite gender to them.

Any straight conservative activist who says that being gay is a choice is one of three things:

1) A closet homosexual who has made the "choice" of pretending to be straight.
2) A closet bisexual who genuinely can choose whether to have straight or gay sex.
3) A liar. Because other than (1) and (2), there is no possible way for homosexuality to be a choice.

So, Mr Carson.... Are you gay, or bisexual, or are you lying? It absolutely has to be one of these things. Taking the "Dan challenge" seems a good way of working it out.
@6 To get through the eleven years of medical school, residency, and post residency. Neurosurgeons tend to come across as all knowing, and many have a pretty high opinion about themselves..

Dr. Carson, is probably not looking at his statements as truth, as much he is stating nonsense to out crazy his opponents to get the crazy wing of the Republican Party that weighs heavily in the GOP Presidential primaries...

Besides, if Neurosurgeons are just hearing stuff only in a right wing vaccum, they are not going to be questioning it.. Much like I was in South Carolina, recently, and all the Plasma TVs were turned to one Cable Tv station: Fox News, the campaign channel for the Republican Party..

I met a couple neurosurgeons, most are very brilliant, but also incredibly arrogant, which one needs to survive 11 years of 24-7 training..
@37 I would add 4) Dr. Carson is being very disengenuous..

Dr. Carson doesn't care about being right, he wants to appease the very large hate wing of the Republican Party by tossing the usual "Homosexuality is a choise" talking point as a hush puppy to the Psychotic/Crazy wing of the Republican Party..

What Dr. Carson will find out, the Psychotic/Crazy wing of the Republican Party hates African Americans as much as they hate LGBT community..
Here's my question: What difference does it make whether serial orientation is a choice or not? The Christian right's attitude is "well, if its a choice then we can force you to make the right choice." Insisting that sexuality isn't affected by environment or conscious choices just unnecessarily boxes people in, and only makes sense if you accept the above framework.
Ahhhh, well. Good to hear he's still alive & spoutin'.
@46: Lemme guess, you figure that if you're going to have some sordid affair with a conservative lawmaker, it at least should be with a good-looking young dude who will take you on trips to awesome vacation spots. (Not pictured: the taxpayer money with which Rep. Schock took lavish vacations.)
@13 please differentiate between out (at a young age) bisexuals, who are in my experience very liberal, and delayed-out / closeted bisexuals

@36 well said, this is the real issue

plus Carson types are talking about the "sin" vs. "the sinner" -- they want gay people to be tortured and unhappy, and they want to shove their religion down our throats

@39 neurosurgeons are highly educated and skilled, in surgery and the functional anatomy of the brain; they need to study a lot of chemistry and bio and neuroanatomy but they are not neuroscience researchers -- the studies you speak of are common knowledge but a brain surgeon would not have to read them to stay current on surgery, some MDs are pretty ignorant about science outside of their narrow range of practice yet still qualified to do their thing
Religious conservatives are purity-code fetishists, deprecating human will and desire in favour of which body parts touch. As such, they can easily class as 'gay' a lot of guys who will beat the crap out of you, and quite possibly rape you, if you say they're gay.

Their desire to feminise the guys they fuck, if that's real and not just a cliché, speaks those of us who care more about what people want.
@48--agreed. At my age, the crossdressers I meet have generally spent their lives in the closet, leading double lives.
`Their desire'-->`Inmates' desire'
The author of "On Bullshit" claimed that its defining characteristic is that it's spouted by someone who doesn't care if it's true or false, they [sic] just want it to work.

An even more effective measure would be to encourage lesbianism.
If I pretend to be straight, can I suck Dan's dick? Please?
Well, situational homosexuality is a thing...that is real. Love the JoeMyGod quote @1.

Here's the thing - and I've encountered a lot of this with the AA community in my neck of the woods - their point and logic, which eludes most people, is that even if you are gay inside, you can pretend and pass as straight.. There is no "mark of gay" stamped on your body somewhere which everyone can see. You can hide in the closet. Passing is something a lot of Black people did - and plenty would have if only they could have, just to escape the structural racism of America. What's fascinating is that this breeds contempt - self-contempt, self-loathing - and is so prevalent in Conservative African Americans. Clarence Thomas radiates this. I'm just always amazed by the up-is-down mental defenses people come up with. They resent the hell out of gays for not taking the option of hiding and "passing" - of not being self-loathing. That's where this crap comes from. I doubt Carson very much believes what he's saying - doubtless it's just red meat demanded by the mob he needs to love him to feed his ego...God-Surgeons are some of the worst narcissists.
@9 (I know I'm late to the game) If what you believe is that we got an incomplete story and that some of the details have been deleted/enhanced then you're probably not a "truther". If you believe the government faked 9/11 by firing missiles at the Pentagon and twin towers then you're a truther and deserve to be lumped with the other conspiracy theorists.

@Dan, You know more than anybody (based on your advice column) that sucking a dick doesn't mean you're gay. Performing straight or gay acts does not mean you're straight or gay. The act is always a choice (except in rape of course) that doesn't change who/what you are.
Sorry to be repetitious, but the anti-gay side care much more about tabou violation than about what people want.

But yes, really, Dan's dare should really be 'Come out [heh] on stage and want to suck some guy's cock.'---but in the absence of good brains-scanners (or the Lasso of Truth)....
@48 - I was an honest to goodness real chemistry student, and witnessed a lot of pre-med psuedo-chemistry students[1], and happen to be very close to two surgeons (wife and best friend). Let me assure you that their approach to chemistry as science is non-existent. There is a notion - frequently demonstrated by conservative MDs (see the recently departed groinocoloist turds Ron Paul and Tom Coburn) - of seeing the human body as an elegant watch made by the Celestial Watchmaker ($deity_of_choice) - of which they are merely a talented repairman. It is the difference between being an engineer and a service technician. The approach is entirely consistent with Creationism and has little to do with hypothesis and testing; surgeons are more like athletes or artists than theorists.

[1] I tutored a hell of a lot of them through Orgo precisely because as brute-force rote drones they were overwhelmed, whereas, with a basic understanding of a few principles, nearly everything can be derived. It' s a hell of a lot easier than memorizing all that crap. The overwhemlming majority of MDs are merely the best rote drones in the class, not the smartest people - the selection bias is very strong.

@marrena - I hadn't read all the comments when I posted @54, but we are on the exact same wavelength.
I do believe Mr Carson is saying that he's bisexual—so for him "not being gay" is a conscious choice ...must be tough for him with all those cute young male interns in Republican-land.
So assuming that is sane and not a deranged person who entertains us with his insane and often lewd remarks that he uses to attempt to hide the pain he has for failing to live a moral and decent life like his parents wanted.
1.) apparently no one is gay until they perform oral either in front of Mr. Savage or on Mr. Savage. meaning that despite his heroic efforts only about 300 people are gay if we include the people he has also serviced....
2.) Science which has proven that porn addiction has altered and reversed sexual orientation in both heterosexuals and homosexuals incorrect science is whatever Mr. savage says it is even if he uses data that is over 10-20 years old. (we know more now and yes sexuality is considered either plastic or fluid)
3.) Homosexuals are somehow less than human according to Mr. savage because they lack the capacity to control their behavior........ Strange statement from a person who is a self admitted homosexual.
I find it funny how people like this can ignore hard science and mountains of data in service of their ideology. HE starts out by making the only valid part of his comparison that homosexuality is more like religion than like race. He then loses it and having exhausted all rational arguments starts saying vile and despicable things that would damage his credibility if he had any left. I think Mr. Savage should apologize to Mr. Carson. His behavior was crude and uncalled for. I would love to Dan savage debate some one like Mark Levin or Ben Shapiro on this subject. I doubt he would because he's a bully and a coward who only picks on people who won't hit back.
A straight man in prison keeps right on being a straight man, regardless of where he puts his dick. And sometimes a straight man will employ any stratagem to get at any woman who "becomes available" through proximity. I think a bunch of inmates at Riker's Island had to remind one of their fellow prisoners -- oddly enough, a convicted heterosexual child rapist -- that prison rape is incredibly declasse not too long ago.
@13 The idea that people who think someone can "choose to be gay" might actually be bisexuals themselves is a really interesting theory to think about.

I think everyone has a tendency to think that other people experience the world exactly the same way as they themselves do. Which, as the recent dress-color controversy points out, we do not. So I imagine someone could easily be bi and assume that everyone else has the same level of being able to choose either gender at will that they themselves perceive. Therefore they could think that it's only a minor adjustment for anyone to forego one of the sexes they're attracted to for the other, and "choose to be straight".
Where to start? It's like shooting fish in a barrel!
Okay, let's start with the obvious: homophobic bigotry is horrific and inexcusable, and everyone, regardless of sexual orientation/identity/preference and its ontology, should have the same rights vis-a-vis the state, including, of course, marriage and child-rearing. Twenty years from now this simple assertion will be a non-issue and those who espouse the opposite will be as excoriated as anti-miscegenation racists. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's move on:
1. Typically, the debate over gay rights, to the extent that it hasn't been won already, gets quickly reduced to ontology: homophobes argue it's a choice, homophiles argue it's innate, immutable, what-have-you. The reason for that is that American Constitutional law typically awards rights, or sets up the standard of review for them, based on whether the category of awardees is a "suspect class", and one of the considerations for this right has been immutability. This means that folks advocating for gay rights resort to studies, including studies of fruit flies, to show that sexual orientation is a genetic disposition.
2. Actually, what is assumed to be innate and unchangeable is a lot more malleable than both sides are willing to admit. First of all, the science distinguishes between male and female homosexualities in ways that are uncomfortable for the immutability crowd to admit. Second, there are many folks whose sexuality lies anywhere between the two extremes. While some of us are exclusively gay or exclusively straight--always were and always will be--a large number of us is bisexual, or heteroflexible, or homoflexible. And sometimes our preferences for romantic partners and bedfellows changes over time.
3. Any geneticist worth their salt will tell you that genetic traits can be vastly influenced by situational factors. Of course straight people fall in love and have sex with people of their own gender in prison. People are people, and everyone needs love and intimacy and human connection. People have fallen in love in war zones, in ghettos, in concentration camps. Everyone needs love and closeness and belonging. What that has to do with choice or immutability, I don't know. Nor would I make proclamations about the data on this, which is actually exceedingly sensitive, as is the question of consent and prison regulation with regard to all this.
4. The consistent conservative "it's a choice" argument is absurd. Suppose sexual orientation *is* a choice: if my choice brings me joy and satisfaction and companionship, and does not hurt anyone, why shouldn't the state support it to the fullest extent of the law?
5. The consistent progressive "born this way" argument is equally poor. I'm bisexual. Should one of my avenues for marriage be blocked because I am "born" in a way that enables me to choose another path? Are we only defending people's rights because they can't help who they are? What kind of a debilitating, disempowering argument is that?
Some of us feel very strongly that they were born the way they are. Some of us feel that they could really go either way, but the world has thrown particular people in their path that they've found a precious intimate connection with, regardless of gender. Let's leave this immutability debate behind, infantile dares aimed at idiot politicians aside, and move on to a legal system that awards people rights not based on why they are the way they are, but based on what will bring them happiness and growth.
Oh, and not everyone who has sex with someone of their own gender in prison is "ass raped". Junk prison TV and faulty enforcement of PREA would have you believe that. There is a range of relationships, from non-consensual and exploitative to consensual--as there are on the outside. Of course, the conditions in prison mean we're more concerned about non-consent. But what the guards might see as exploitative, the folks involved might see as consensual. See here:…
I love this. Ben Carson really shoved his foot down his throat with this latest needless attack on the LGBT community.

...I am an ex convict...this guy is full of shit...the vast majority of convicts do not practice homosexuality even while in prison...let alone are they homosexual when they come any place or experience, if you haven't been there you can KNOW...but these people care little for the truth or reality...they just want to sell you their lies for votes...
Here's something to consider. First, let me emphasize that I am pro-gay marriage, and more-or-less consider sexual attraction to be a personal and philosophical matter. That said, I need to weigh in to clarify things.

Is being gay a choice? Recent neuroscience would indicate "probably". Long ago, Sigmund Freud argued - quite rightly, I believe - that human beings are inherently bisexual.

Let me get down to the nitty gritty of neurobiology. First, the human brain is built phyleticly - which means our brains are structured along evolutionary principles. That is, the lowest elements (brainstem) are traceable to evolutionary older animals (reptiles), while higher elements (neocortex) are found in higher mammals. This is a basic, indisputable fact of the evolution of animal nervous systems.

Next, what would be required for homosexuality to be controllable - or, to be brought under conscious control? There would need to be some sort of connectivity, which, there happens to be in human beings. The human right hemisphere has connections that project to every part of the brain, and surprisingly, deep into the brain stem nuclei and the ventral vagal complex.

Now, to make things clear: there is no evidence, and there will probably never be evidence, for an 'object-relation' gene. Object relation is a psychoanalytic term for a specific, abstract, mental content. Evolution does not work like this, but rather, works through neurochemical systems (and environmental contexts) to shape how we become "gendered" - in the psychological sense - and develop sexual orientation. We do have different genes for different the same hormones, such as for dopamine, serotonin, noradrenaline, etc. But it becomes far less plausible, from an evolutionary standpoint, to argue that evolution - or genes - code for things that become a part of our far-more malleable mental life.

So why don't we study this? I would argue the answer to that is fairly obvious: political correctness. No respectable neuroscientist would ask for a grant to study sexual orientation, because, it wouldn't be looked upon in a nice way.

Lastly, when I say probably, I mean that it COULD, I YOU WANTED, be brought under mental, executive control, but to do so would be a matter of choice, and not anything that could or should be coerced upon anyone. The psychoanalytical and psychotherapeutic literature is laden with transformation stories of people who "earn secure attachment" after growing up, from cradle to adulthood, with developmental trauma borderline personality disorder, and other conditions that retard personality and affect development. Through intensive psychotherapy - that is, a "safe" environment and informed guidance - these people learn to develop what prof. Allan Schore calls 'affect regulation' of subcortical and brainstem nuclei that have become habituated, via years of abnormal neuropsycholofical development, to instantiate higher cortical areas to 'think in certain ways', which is to say, to orient to the world in certain ways, to experience self in certain ways, etc.

I see absolutely no plausible or scientifically valid reason for supposing that sexuality is some 'special' force that cannot be brought under control, when the same area of the brain (hypothalamus/PAG/Nucleus accumbens) involved in emotion regulation are involved in sexual experience.

Beliefs fixate and rigidify neural-dynamics. What you think is possible - what your able to imagine - opens up, relaxes, and finally enables conscious experience. If anxiety - a deep subcortical/brain stem generated event - exists, you cannot experience what you want to experience. This is true whether you're gay and want to be straight, or whether you're straight and too afraid/paranoid with homosexual fantasies. That's just how it is.

To sum up: homosexuality probably is under mental control, but to say, willy nilly, that its a 'choice', is incredibly insensitive to what many people who have grown up gay have come to experience. It is HARD to change these types of dynamics: it entails a very deep level of self-awareness and interoceptive sensing. Many, if not most of these people, have a history (neurological and mental) of inner struggle against these affects. To have come to 'accept' who they are, is finally, to have allowed them to experience life in a way where they can be happy and relaxed, that is, to pursue their goals in the one life they have.

So even if homosexuality is something that can be 'changed' through mindful techniques, taking advantage of the brains fundamental neuroplastic properties, this really doesn't touch the heart of the deeper sociological issue: WHO CARES! Being gay really doesn't hurt anyone. What hurts people, fundamentally, is believing you can impose your beliefs without inducing tension in the interpersonal and social systems.
As some have said, who the hell cares if being gay is a choice? There's nothing wrong with it, so back the hell off.
As some have already said, who cares if it's a choice? There's nothing wrong with it. Ben Carson might as well argue that vegetarians or people who like Crate and Barrel shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt.
Let me say that I am a married, heterosexual woman. I've been married to the same man for over 18 years.

When my husband and I met, I became
bisexual. I just decided to for various reasons that don't matter here since your challenge was to simply choose to be homosexual/lesbian. I testify to it absolutely being a choice. No one said anything about it being a conscious one. You don't control what attracts you or turns you on but attraction does not equal truth!

I was bisexual for a couple of years and then the Lord Jesus redeemed me from it. All things are possible with Christ who strengthens me.

Just the fact that bisexuals exist is proof that sexuality is a choice. Plus there is a high percentage of men and women who choose to experiment while in college. That is a choice.

Your silly, unscientific claim, makes you all look like fools. Many attempt comparing themselves to animals, who do not choose, so they can't be compared. I mean, if we base what normal and true by what animals do, I want to know about the other things they do like animals, like eat their feces, eat their young, etc. Come on Einstein's who believe it's normal because animals do it, share your stories of all the other animal behavior you mimic, since it's natural. Lol

Please wait...

and remember to be decent to everyone
all of the time.

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.