They also spelled "its" wrong. It should have been it's.
Six words. Three spelled wrong. Then there's the fact that the whole message is absurd.
Posted by: Ytr | Dec 11, 2013 1:39:25 PM
*FIVE WORDS :D
Posted by: Ytr | Dec 11, 2013 1:40:29 PM
Yep. They're bigorts, alrighty.
Posted by: Elsewhere1010 | Dec 11, 2013 1:44:31 PM
And HOMO *is* biology as well. It's in nature, we're nature, I'm not a phase, I'm expressing my biology.
Posted by: will | Dec 11, 2013 1:45:20 PM
Biologically, same-sex pairings and homosexual activity have been demonstrated and documented in over 450 species, so says the book Biological Exuberance; Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
I'd say that's pretty natural. AND biological.
But not bigorty.
Posted by: Raybob | Dec 11, 2013 1:52:33 PM
you would think that they actually might know a little about " biology " before using it in an attack .... many kinds of mammals have homosexuality in their biological species LOL what bloody numb skulls !!
I'm not quite sure what it is but if a guy has a bigorty it sounds kinda' sexy to me--front or back.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Dec 11, 2013 2:25:12 PM
Which goes to prove that it's really stupidity, more than anything.
Posted by: Jack M | Dec 11, 2013 2:26:03 PM
The Ruth Institute logo reminds me of Greendale's flag on the show Community...anyone else?
Posted by: Michael W. | Dec 11, 2013 2:26:06 PM
Typical inbred, illiterate, non-proofreading, trailer-trash-from-hell, eating roadkill-on-a-stick, useless-blob-of-fat-fetid-flesh! I feel much better.
Posted by: Geoff | Dec 11, 2013 2:54:47 PM
Aside from the spelling mistakes, are they suggesting that their predisposition to hate gays is a biological fact that needs some sort of acceptance, because that's the structure of their phrasing?
Posted by: anon | Dec 11, 2013 3:08:14 PM
Kind of backfires from all angles, doesn't it?
Thank you Geoff for saying what I could even begin to postulate…
Posted by: tinkerbelle | Dec 11, 2013 4:03:28 PM
This is pathetic on so many levels I'm beside myself! It makes my brain tingle wondering just who might be receptive to this utter garbage
Posted by: Disembodied | Dec 11, 2013 4:06:17 PM
I'll take the guy on the right. He seems perfectly "normal" to me.
Posted by: andrew | Dec 11, 2013 5:19:15 PM
English teacher here!
The substitution of its for it's would normally be considered a usage error rather than a spelling error, because the word on the page is a correct spelling of a real word, but the word is being used incorrectly.
There is no possible explantion for bigorty, other than ignorance. And that holds no matter how that word is spelled.
Posted by: Clayton | Dec 11, 2013 6:48:14 PM
Thanks for the clarification ! You're right :)
Posted by: Ytr | Dec 11, 2013 9:52:44 PM
So do they then agree in the theory of evolution and that the world is far older than 2000 years because that's covered in the sphere of biology as well.