Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
johnnyguitar

Fundamentalist Christian in Amphetamine Fuelled Gay Sex Scandal

Recommended Posts

Sorry if this has been done before....but it made me smile. Recently Richard Dawkins (respected mild mannered scientist and Darwinist) did a documentary programme, shown in Britain, where he attempted to interview a few fundamentalists (from both sides of the divide) about their views on evolution. To be fair to the fundamentalist idiots (of any religion) they all gave him a hard time, but the one who gave him the hardest time (and the most threatening) was....Ted Haggard.

Mr.Haggard has now been exposed as (yet another) hypocritical, drug using pervert.....oh Joy!

Ted Arthur Haggard (born June 27, 1956) is an American evangelical preacher. Known as Pastor Ted to his congregation, he is the founder and former pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and was a founder of the Association of Life-Giving Churches.

On November 3, 2006, he resigned his leadership of the National Association of Evangelicals[1] and stepped aside as pastor of his church because of allegations by former male prostitute[2] and masseur Mike Jones that Haggard engaged in sex with him for three years and used methamphetamine. Haggard at first claimed he did not know his accuser.[3] On November 5, in a statement, Haggard said, "The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality."[4]

Wikipedia...so, it must be true.

:):):)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not 'Gay-sex' then?

No. The unfortunate lack of hyphen between "amphetamine" and "fuelled" renders the sentence's meaning as "a Christian fundamentalist, who was (somehow) contained within an amphetamine (??!!), was responsible for fuelling an orgy of gay sex." The latter is quite correctly left unhyphenated, as "gay" is simply used as an adjective to describe the noun "sex", a common abbreviation for the act of sexual intercourse. (Or "the beast with two backs", to coin a Spenserian colloquialism).

The addition of the hyphen clarifies that the Christian fundamentalist in question was fuelled by amphetamines (rather than contained within one!!!) during this frenetic orgy of homosexual activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The unfortunate lack of hyphen between "amphetamine" and "fuelled" renders the sentence's meaning as "a Christian fundamentalist, who was (somehow) contained within an amphetamine (??!!), was responsible for fuelling an orgy of gay sex."

Whilst bowing (discreetly, with my back to the wall) to your superior knowledge on the precise punctuation of slurs...could an alternative not have been 'Fundamentalist Christian's Amphetamine Fuelled Gay Sex Scandal'? Thus placing the possessive pronoun within the orbit of the individual and thus obviating the need to seperate noun and the adjective with a hyphen....or is 'fuelled' a verb under these circumstances?...just a thought.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...could an alternative not have been 'Fundamentalist Christian's Amphetamine Fuelled Gay Sex Scandal'? Thus placing the possessive pronoun within the orbit of the individual and thus obviating the need to seperate noun and the adjective with a hyphen....or is 'fuelled' a verb under these circumstances?...just a thought.

:)

Only if your intention was to identify the Christian fundamentalist in question as the owner of the amphetamine which fuelled this drug-crazed sex-romp. In that case, with this new emphasis, the meaning could change yet again: the headline might serve to emphasise (erroneously) that the randy cleric supplied the drug which fuelled the escapade of carnal abandon, without necessarily implying that he himself were involved in these bawdy shenanigans.

Newspaper headlines frequently eschew the normal rules of grammar. Hence I wouldn't normally interrogate one to this degree. However, the placement (or omission) of the hyphen is demonstrably crucial to the reader's interpretation in this instance.

On further analysis, I am now questioning the properties of the words "gay", "sex" and "scandal", and wondering if there might, after all, be a case for the insertion of a hyphen. "Gay" is certainly used as an adjective in this instance, but does it describe the noun "sex" or the noun "scandal"? Can a "sex scandal" be intrinsically "gay"? I tend to take the view that the "gay" pertains specifically to the nature of the sex, rather than being descriptive of the scandal. Therefore, it could be that "gay sex" represents an adjectival phrase, suggesting that a hyphen might indeed be appropriate. Had you used the phrase "bum-sex", the requirement for a hyphen would have been immediately more explicit, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Edited by Guest
addition of a comma: can't afford to screw up punctuation in a post like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had you used the phrase "bum-sex", the requirement for a hyphen would have been immediately more explicit, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Hence my initial confusion. Had I been more confident in my parsing of such phraseology I would have immediately been upon you (not unlike a 'rat-up-a-drainpipe') in deriding your choice of hyphenation. However, being somewhat insecure in my grasp of the finer arts of punctuation, I was content to conceed the possiblity of being wrong. I now see that the choice is, somewhat arbitrary, in that it rests upon the emphasis upon which I 'intended', as opposed to the emphasis which you divined.

Bum-sex is a perfectly contrived alternative, for which I thank you. I will be forever in your debt.

Edited by Guest
Not sure of the correct punctuation of 'bum-sex'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...being somewhat insecure in my grasp of the finer arts of punctuation, I was content to conceed the possiblity of being wrong. I now see...
You mean "concede"?

Bum-sex is a perfectly contrived alternative, for which I thank you. I will be forever in your debt.
Much obliged. 'Tis indeed a pleasure doing business with you. :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I be the first to say that you are the only person I would (albeit reluctantly) accept bum-sex from, as opposed to the alternatives hitherto posited. And that's only because you're blind.

;)

Honoured, I'm sure.

Might I just mention my slight disappointment that my initial reference to the fictitious band of the thread's title- high on methamphetamine and engaged in acts of frenzied sexual congress, let's not forget- as "up and coming" seems not to have registered any comment, appreciative or otherwise? Am I to assume that this pleasing jeu de mots was too subtle for its own good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... as "up and coming" seems not to have registered any comment, appreciative or otherwise? Am I to assume that this pleasing jeu de mots was too subtle for its own good?

That, or perhaps had merely expended its full thrust after initial ejaculation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...