Does anyone wonder if Fred and Barney ever had a "thing" for each other? After all, as the theme song said, "when you meet the Flintstones... you'll have a gay old time."

Client to Fred and Barney: Are you two married?
Barney: No, just good friends.

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:Yeah, but if we had to throw one into the shitter, this would be ... top five, right?

Pfft. Gaaaay.

Yeah, but if we had to throw one into the shitter, this would be ... top five, right?

Because we don't delete threads on JC.

It is about to be deleted unless someone can think of a reason it should be saved?

What is this thread about?

Here is an interesting thought. Absent electricity and all the devices that depend on it, or fossil fuels, for the average person to sustain their equivalent standard of living, I think the estimate was each of us would need about 300 slaves.

RealNC wrote: And yes, Franklin was a man-whore but pretty cool.

Did he own slaves?[/quote]

Flack wrote:He did, although most biographers are quick to point out that "later in life," he freed his slaves -- which is akin to giving up smoking after the cancer arrives.

haha yea a lot of fancy white dudes did back then, as well as treated Indians as sub-human. History is a scary place, man.

I'd like to add a couple of things.

1. When I said I'd "grant" the idea that Ben Frankin could be bisexual, I meant it in the sense that "While I do not necessarily know or agree that the idea is true, I concede that it is possible that it could be true, but absent other evidence I have no way of proving or falsifying the idea."

2. I've heard some new information that the concept of homosexuality might actually be a genetic trait which would provide better genetic dispersion, when it occurs in men who are interested in women. Being much more interested in putting your dick into any opening gives you a much better chance to impregnate even more women, and a higher chance at more successfully dispersing your genes.

This second point does make sense, even when the trait has a failure and ends up in men who are exclusively homosexual (since this does not encourage reproduction and that's all nature is interested in, that we propagate our genes through reproduction).

This does inevitably lead to something I've considered for a long time and would probably be extremely controversial. I suspect that perhaps, given no societal disapproval, the number of men (and women) who are bisexual might be considerably higher than it is, as a lot of people have gotten a "taboo" in their heads that they are supposed to be of only one sexual orientation (hetero- or homo-) as opposed to being both.

So I'll also add that the few people who have really strong bisexual tendencies are the ones who overcome programming to be single orientation, as the ones who are strongly homosexual overcome the typical push by parents and society to be hetero.

I think about the many girls and women (and for the really stupid, boys and men) who are ruined by being told that they need to stay "pure" until marriage because it's what God wants for them. This is utter nonsense. It is one thing if you decide that for non-religious reasons you've decided for celibacy before marriage, and another thing because you've been brainwashed into it.

He did, although most biographers are quick to point out that "later in life," he freed his slaves -- which is akin to giving up smoking after the cancer arrives.

Jizaboz wrote:

Tdarcos wrote: He even admitted he was lucky he didn't get a social disease (which at that time they were nasty and fatal, like AIDS circa 1990.)

He did manage to contract syphilis though!

And yes, Franklin was a man-whore but pretty cool.

Did he own slaves?

Tdarcos wrote: He even admitted he was lucky he didn't get a social disease (which at that time they were nasty and fatal, like AIDS circa 1990.)

He did manage to contract syphilis though!

And yes, Franklin was a man-whore but pretty cool.

Tdarcos wrote:

loafergirl wrote:My interpretation: "Ben Franklin was gay." Okay. Explains why he spent years at a time away from his wife. *shrug*

Ben Franklin was a HUGE womanizer, this is well known. He bedded a lot of women including prostitutes, and tried for a number of others. He even admitted he was lucky he didn't get a social disease (which at that time they were nasty and fatal, like AIDS circa 1990.)

If you want to argue that perhaps Franklin was bisexual, I'll grant the possibility. But he had far too many female paramours to be gay.

Good to know... so Franklin was a sex addict. gotcha.

I like it when Tdarcos grants us things.

loafergirl wrote:My interpretation: "Ben Franklin was gay." Okay. Explains why he spent years at a time away from his wife. *shrug*

Ben Franklin was a HUGE womanizer, this is well known. He bedded a lot of women including prostitutes, and tried for a number of others. He even admitted he was lucky he didn't get a social disease (which at that time they were nasty and fatal, like AIDS circa 1990.)

If you want to argue that perhaps Franklin was bisexual, I'll grant the possibility. But he had far too many female paramours to be gay.

On a similar note... I was putting away the Celtic mythology and Folktales and Magic-y books now that the Holiday of He who should not be named has passed (that I like to call Tuatha de Dannan Day) and noted a book I didn't remember having. The autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. I think "cool.. " Pg. 1, Line 2 "He was at that time on a visit to the family of Dr. Jonathan Shipley, Bishop of St. Asaph, with whom he was on terms of a peculiar and cordial intimacy. My interpretation: "Ben Franklin was gay." Okay. Explains why he spent years at a time away from his wife. *shrug*

some women are hot.

Fascinating. So according to this, Arj was right.

There have been a few threads on here about natural causes of population control and whether disasters have a part in helping to do that. But I'd like to add another one.

Homosexuality.

One of the things that probably led to my own change in my opinions about homosexuality was the discovery that it occurs in ordinary animals, and more than that, that it occurs much more often in cases of overpopulation.

There was a TV program about the subject where they were raising rats in a reasonably-sized area, and they bred with each other, but when space started to become overcrowded the rats started have same-sex matings, as possibly an attempt to reduce populations and relieve overcrowding.

So having seen this, I came to the conclusion that homosexuality was simply a biological condition that occurs in some people, like red hair or being lactose intolerant. I also don't believe the numbers sometimes claimed about the number of people who are of the same-sex orientation, I think the number if more like 2% or 3% of the population, not the 10% that the community would claim, although if we add the additional qualifications to expand it to GLBTQIA then maybe that is the case, but I still think 10% is a bit on the high side.

Personally if the number was that high I think it would be somewhat of a genetic defect. The purpose of genetic changes as occurring in evolution is to hopefully allow the particular organism to have a better chance to reproduce. A biological lack of desire to reproduce is a contra-survival characteristic, which reduces the individual's chances of passing their genes on to another generation.

So this particular condition (except for bisexuality) would tend to be a condition which reduces the chance of that particular entity reproducing. Thus becoming homosexual is an excellent method of reducing populations when there is excessive population pressure (such as when overcrowding occurs) but is a contra-survival trait when it is not necessary to reduce population density or growth.