Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Thank God for Andrew Bolt

We all know that Greens are Nazis (reductio ad Hitlerum notwithstanding). So it comes as no surprise that Andrew 'Woodward' Bolt has uncovered the terrible truth; that the Greens are directly responsible for the bushfires.

Greens literally added fuel to the fires by planting “carbon offset’’ forests - which have now burned, adding the carbon dioxide emissions they were meant to remove:

Greenfleet will assess the impact of these fires on our forests over the coming weeks, with a view to replant if necessary or monitor recovery in areas where the impact was less severe.

But I don't think Andrew goes far enough. After all, as long as there's forests in Victoria, they could burn. And kill people. Thus, the only solution is log the state. If we wipe out the forests, the chances of a bushfire will be 0%. You don't want to people to die, do you?

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Disguising a 14th century dictator as a 21st century moral leader is like "a giraffe in dark glasses trying to get into a polar-bears only golf club."

There's nothing like a Blackadder quote to start off a post, is there?

But anyway, there's been a bit of a kerfuffle of excommunications, un-excommunications and communion-denyings regarding the Vatican lately. For the ease of fellow groupthinkers bloggers, I thought I'd sort it all into one easy post.

Supporting Obama-denied communion, but not excommunicated.

Giving equal rights to women regarding sermons, and blessing gay couples-sacked.

Having an abortion or performing one-excommunication.

Denying the Holocaust-excommunicated, but later unexcommunicated. So OK.

Raping children-perfectly fine.

Thus, I think we can sum up the Pope's views as such: believing in human equality and autonomy is more sinful then denying the Holocaust and raping children.

As Admiral F. R. Phoenix stated:
To question the dogma, even when the questioner still believes enough in the dogma to continue to preach, is a rebellious act. The Catholic Church was founded on the actions and beliefs of a rebel! Evidently rebelliousness is only acceptable when convenient to the Church.

A healthy society permits rebelliousness and questioning. It it how laws and ideas are formed, it is how discoveries are made. Without rebels such as Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, Galileo and Gandhi the world would be a much different place. A world I certainly wouldn't want to live in.
And Sarah, the voice of today's apethetic youth, commented:
I love how the Catholic church is so free with its 'forgiveness' when it comes to paedophile priests and holocaust deniers, but simply won't stand for someone who doesn't agree 100% with their petty dogma.
And above all else, Hank, of Ethics Gradient, brilliantly ranted*:
Does anyone take these Papist fuckers seriously anymore? If so, why? Exactly what function does the Papacy serve at the UN? Precisely what is accomplished by giving this pretend country/museum of iniquity and horror a vote equal to that of other nations who actually contain real people and not glorified statue-polishers? These Janitors for Jesus seem to do sweet fuck all except provide enough soundbites to show the world just exactly how out of step they are with evolved modern societies. There's a reason Europe & the world shunned the Papacy and its Inquisitions & Dark Age in favour of democracy & knowledge and the Papists show this to us all at every opportunity with statements like those of Migliore. What, if anything, does the Vatican contribute to the UN except embarrassing anachronistic remarks? Who exactly does the Vatican represent? A billion Catholics? No! They're all citizens of the other 190+whatever proper countries with seats at the UN.

Seriously, what it is going to take for the UN to realise that the Vatican should be seen and not freaking heard? It's like the embarrassing great-uncle at Christmas time whose rude, racist, homophobic & generally offensive remarks everyone tolerates because he's been around forever, has tons of cash & everyone knows he's losing his mind. Everyone knows he won't be around forever, including him, so everyone's just holding their tongue until he pops his clogs. Noone really knows (or cares) how he fits into the family tree except for the oldest rellies, but they don't like him either.

So, yes, SIGH, Mandy's got another frickin Catholic hate-boner. Again, I must point out it's not actual Catholics that inspire this rage. From any post on this blog marked "catholic" it should be pretty clear it's the administration, the empire and its spokes-idiots that raise my bile. I know full-well that there are plenty of other religious organisations that deserve at least equal loathing & dark wizardry, but there really are none that compare to the Vatican - the 1500 year old Christian empire, constant enemy of knowledge, science and societal evolution, constant defender of gender/sexual inequality & child-rapists. No other religious organisation has been around for as long & has its own pretend country & corresponding seat at the fucking UN. For every Catholic city mission, nobly handing out blankets and feeding the homeless, there's a statement from some senior manager, laying out the official policy that anyone who's not a Catholic male is basically fucked. No other nation/empire has as lengthy or as reprehensible a history when it comes to human rights. Crusades, Inquisitions, Nazi appeasement, enabling child-rapists, lying about condoms & AIDS (condeming untold numbers to death), railing against masturbation, contraception AND abortion (effectively a three-pronged attack against sexual freedom of choice of any kind) and now, effectively condoning the executions of gays in tin-pot shitty little theocracies across the world.

Seriously, what the fuck is going to wake the UN up to this antiquated museum masquerading as a nation? Do they just keep them around to piss the Arabs off?

Bah, whatever, Merry fucking Christmas. Fuck the Pope and all his little wizards.
Seriously, I can't wait 'til the day the Vatican dies off.

*OK, so particular Vatican idiocy is different in Hank's tirade (namely, the Pope supporting the death penalty). Still, his comments are relevant in every way.

UPDATE @ almost 2200, 25/2/2009: I almost forgot to add one more for the list:

Lying when it suits your political agenda: asides from the fact that it goes against everything Jesus said, why not?

UPDATE 2 @ 1900, 7/3/2009: From Brazil:
A child victim of rape who could die from giving birth is less important then a pair of zygotes.


Wednesday, February 18, 2009

The one thing better then fundies' quotes is the responses.

Don't believe me? Then check this.
"Do you think Atheists are "closet believers" of God?
Sometimes I think they are too scared to admit there is a God.

They never do any research, they never read. All they say there is no God. They use ignorance instead of intelligence.

I would wish they would take the Holy Bible and read the whole book. Then comprehend it, And then make arguments.

The Holy Bible is so full of hidden information. HIDDEN information. Just reading it, not going to do it. You have to understand every verse. EVERY SINGLE VERSE. Trust me, it will take nearly all your life to understand the Holy Bible.

Maybe they will become believers on their death bed. I hope it isn't too late for them.
If you enjoyed that, you'll love the comments. There's:
You have to understand every verse. EVERY SINGLE VERSE. Trust me, it will take nearly all your life to understand the Holy Bible.
And with 'understand', I bet you mean "explain away or justify every single one of the horrific atrocities carried out by God and the Israelites"?
This is good:

"They never do any research, they never read. ... They use ignorance instead of intelligence."

I've just been hit with the shrapnel of thousands of irony meters exploding simultaneously.

As well as:
If this is how Aron S markets his God, may he never go into advertizing [sic].
"Maybe they will become believers on their death bed."
Nope, I'm laughing all the way into nonexistance. Or Hell. As long as it wasn't with all the self-righteous evangelists I'm happy.
I would wish they would take the Holy Bible and read the whole book. Then comprehend it, And then make arguments.
They do. Then they say "it's a bunch of books written by some anonymous bronze age Arab goat herders. It's got talking snakes, women made out of ribs, staffs turning into serpents, people rising from the dead after three days, a non-existent "firmament" ... you actually believe this nonsense? Do you read Lord of the Rings and think Middle Earth is real, too?"
And my personal favourite...
"They never do any research, they never read."

Capt'n they took out the primary irony meter!

"They use ignorance instead of intelligence."

And there goes the back up!

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Counter-gay movment: FAIL

You gotta hand it to the fundies; they make for easy blogging.

G.A.Y. has a post on an ultracon organisation called 'America Forever'*. Check the pictures:

Several points I'd like to make:
  • I'd like to hear just how many mainstream gay rights leaders have said teh gay is a race.
  • Giving gays equal rights under the law makes them an "untouchable class...Gays will have MORE rights then anyone else." Likewise, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave all those uppity Negroes more rights then godly Ayran Americans.
  • Devoting time and resources to denying people rights has absolutely nothing to with hating them. Nothing at all.
  • And did anyone else, when reading the second column headline, first read that as 'LSD Church'? Maybe I'm just another drug-addled lefty.
And:And also:
  • Gays displaying love in public apparently a bad thing (it's totally different when god-fearing heteros do it)
  • Being gay is the same as being a prostitute or a drug-addict (which is also highly offensive to prostitutes and drug-addicts, btw)
  • And, above all else...

From there I found their website.
They are using intimadation to gain ground and are lying to the public, ALL THEY WANT IS MARRIAGE RIGHTS to valdite their relationship of the same-sex!!! THEY ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT to Marry, a gay man can marry a gay woman! If they want Marriage Rights then get married, but we cannot afford the same rights of Marriage to other relationships for it will devaluate Marriage and change society's perception of what Marriage is!!!
(my emphasis)
Loving v. Virginia, anyone?

AM then recites a gay 'Declaration of War,' even donating a page to it.
(note: the excerpt below is from the front page, not the above link).

Below is en excerpt from their Declaration of War, and what is the Homosexual's Movement Ulitmate Goal, see how close they are to acheiving it...

"We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your house of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us...

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead legislation shall bee passed which engenders love between men.

All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy..."

AM, however, conveniently ignores the most important part of declaration: the statement that explicitly negates the declaration:

"This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."

That sentence is the prologue to the declaration of war. Why is it that those who most devoutly (and loudly, for that matter) proclaim to follow Jesus so blatantly disregard his teachings?

And I really couldn't be stuffed reading the rest (unlike the above, it isn't full of easy-to-read size 30 fonts). I could, however, be stuffed checking out the rest.

1. There's the 'Save the innocence' campaign. I will agree with
them on one thing: when gays are out of the closet, innocence dies.
2. The gays simply can't think of the children.
- Sex between consenting adults should be private and between
only them-yet I kinda doubt AM should support the outcome of Lawrence v. Texas.
- 'Sexual conduct' covers both pornography and sexuality, and
they are one and the same. The fact that sexuality is often taught and explained has nothing to do with gay victims of bullying.
- (Ok, I do agree with them when they say that public nudity
shouldn't be displayed in public, but that's about it)
3. Gays suffer from anti-species syndrome. All those gays with
children aren't real gays.

All in all, quite fun/disturbing to read.

Cross posted here and here, here and somewhat here.

*Ironic, coming from the guys who think that the world will end within their lifetimes.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

I have made the Testimonials; I am now legally better then all non-Testimonial bloggers.

Damn, I'm good. My blogging adventures began May 26, 2008 (counting my original, redundant blog). A mere almost-9 months after that post, I have made GrodsCorp's Testimonials Page (also known as the Pool room).
My quote was:

“bastion of immaturity and sex fetishes”

And if you check the original context, it was-and is-very accurate. I hereby challenge any and all other bloggers to beat my nine-month record for making Grods' Testimonials page.

Go ahead, punks. Make my day.

Mandatory kitteh post.

It seems fashionable these days to have a post on your kittehs. Captain Lefty's doing it. Feministing has it. Even military HQ, bastion of immaturity and sex fetishes, does it. So, I'll do one.

Meet the pets (Ceiling Cat fundies be warned; it includes puppehs as well).

This is Skipper, at 11 years old (in October 07). Summed up by local acquaintance Jamie as "a bad combination of stupidity and determination" referring to her tendancy to pick up rocks and bricks from the bottom of farm dams and carry them to shore. As of 6:22ish 2/2/2009, she was rockin' it up with other dogs in that giant off-leash park in the sky.

This is Buzzwinker, almost 10, notorious for having eaten 4KG of dog food (then requiring a vet to have him throw it up again), eating a wrapped christmas ginger house (wrapping and all), and for eating lethal snail-bait and needing his stomach pumped. Not the cheapest pet, by a long shot. Incidentally, he also came the closest to death: 41.8C, with the cutoff mark for a dog being 42.

This is Bessie Bunter, 4. She also needed her stomach pumped (at the same time as well. Now there was a night to remember). She is by far the brightest, and therefore one of the naughtiest-I've lost count of how many times she's snuck upstairs to eat the kittehs' food.

This is Merlin. Don't let the inquisitive and intelligent appearance deceive you. He is not the brightest spark in the proverbial fire. Despite his chronic laziness (spending 23 55/60 hours sleeping in my sisters room, only leaving in the evening to go downstairs to find her), he routinely gets into fights.

Here's Meral. Commonly known as 'Feral Meral' and 'Mad Meral' because she willingly leaves the house to venture into the yards. She is the most intelligent of the cats (who are, incidentally, all siblings) which isn't saying much to be honest.

This is Miffany. This is an extraordinarily dignified photo of her-there are plenty of worse ones I could have chosen. She is notoriously scatty, and will tear off in a random direction whenever she perceives some sort of danger. However, she also sleeps with the dogs, often lying on top of the dogs for comfort.

I swear, I'll have something interesting soon.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

What ever happened good ol' days of blaming Jews for everything?

[Note: blogger is being a shitter with the font, which is why it randomly changes. Not my fault]

People with a working conscience would refrain from blaming any movement or community for the current bushfires, unless they had a mountain's worth of hard evidence to back up the claim. Which makes it pretty clear that not everybody has a working conscience.

From Miranda 'I can has Bolta controversy?' Devine:
It wasn't climate change which killed as many as 300 people in Victoria last weekend. It wasn't arsonists. It was the unstoppable intensity of a bushfire, turbo-charged by huge quantities of ground fuel which had been allowed to accumulate over years of drought. It was the power of green ideology over government to oppose attempts to reduce fuel hazards before a megafire erupts, and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation to protect themselves.
Man, this is so easy-we can blame everything on the greenies! No water? Blame the greens who

support alternatives oppose dams! Power shortage? Blame the greens who oppose building more coal plants! Terrorist attack? The Greens opposed that anti-terrorism bill, which, coincidentally, is highly authoritarian and is easily abused! They're pro-jihad!

I should take a job at one of the Heralds.

Ignoring the fact that anything short of totally logging the entire state would be ineffective against the fires, I love the fact that Devine hates greenies so much that she absolves the arsonists (who I'm pretty sure have contributed more to the fires then Greens have) of all blame.

It's rather ir
onic that the SMH, which publishes Devine's rants, also published this:

The Catch the Fire Ministries has tried to blame the bushfires disaster on laws decriminalising abortion in Victoria.

The Pentecostal church's leader, Pastor Danny Nalliah, claimed he had a dream about raging fires on October 21 last year and that he woke with "a flash from the Spirit of God: that His conditional protection has been removed from the nation of Australia, in particular Victoria, for approving the slaughter of innocent children in the womb"

So in response to Victoria slaughtering innocent children, God decided to...slaughter even more innocent children.

And in other news, Piers 'Poor-man's Andrew Bolt' Akerman* hasn't blamed the fires on teh feminazis, but in his usual "Subtlety's my middle name" style, takes on the environazis.
Greens leader Bob Brown has taken no responsibility for the huge lock-up of forest reserves. It is bewildering to listen to Brown and other extremist environmentalists call for more wilderness areas, areas left in as pristine a state as possible, when they also purport to support the claims of Aboriginal Australians that they managed the “wilderness” for perhaps 40,000 years through regular burning.
Yes, Brown is totally responsible Victorian policies-except for the fact that he's a Federal (not a Victorian) MP and therefore not responsible for any Victorian policies.

The “green wedge” is now a blackened, crisped monument to those green policies.

As compared to Forestry Tasmania, which has never destroyed forests through burning.

And what would an Akerman article be without shoehorning into his rant (no matter how irrelevent) his pet hate-the Islamonazis?
Treating arson as terrorism should not be a huge leap, given that a group of Islamic extremists last year singled Australia out as a target for “forest jihad” as a weapon of terror.
What I've noticed is that it's the Right who make these claims. Bob Brown stated that the firestorm was (at least partly) caused by global warming, but he didn't exactly say afterwards "It's HoWARd's fault for the fires! He didn't listen to us years ago!," and then blame climate change skeptics as killing 180+ people. In contrast, we've have Devine, Bolt (see most cross posts below) and Nalliah all using a national tragedy to And these guys aren't fringe lunatics; Devine, Bolt and Akerman all publish their work in mainstream newspapers, whilst Nalliah is President of CTF.

So my humblest question is: is it just me, or is the political Right a touch less civil then the political Left on these issues? And why? Compassion and conservatism aren't in any way mutually exclusive, so why do such prominant columnists (and one rogue 'Christian') who proclaim to represent Australian conservatism (I'll find some link sometime) are so utterly brutal and without compassion themselves? Just wonderin'.

And before I forget-donate.

Cross-posted here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

*Might I be stepping over the line in calling
anybody a 'Poor man's Andrew Bolt'? It's a pretty low blow.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Taking back family values (or the term, anyway).

(warning-heavy use of the word 'family' to follow)

I was checking gay news site G.A.Y., and it only occurred to me just now-how and why did liberals allow conservatives hijack the word 'family' to mean 'anti-gay'? Look at GAY's archive section:
That's three organisations claiming to represent families, one of which claims to do research about families. And there are more:

I'm not surprised to see a sword and shield, considering their Medieval beliefs.

Because Jesus was totally against those red commie ideas like 'social justice.'

And of course, there our favourite Aussie nationalist fundies, the CDP.

And:Freddy seems to be so insecure about what his party stands for, he needs to overcompensate with fonts the size of billboards.

And don't get me started on the ironically titled* 'Family First Party.' But seriously, how did we let this happen? I don't see anything even remotely 'pro-family' about preventing gays from gaining rights or preventing families from planning for how many children they want (condoms are apparently Satan's headgear). Yet, these are issues that the conservatives and fundies attack in the name of "protecting family values." And when anybody (or at least me) thinks of the term 'family values' their first thought is of some random US fundie organisation.

The only way to reverse this (or at least slow the pace) is to coin our our 'liberal family values.'** I'll start a list. Liberal family values are (in no particular order):
  • Living by the golden rule. This isn't necessarily a 'liberals' only' value, but ultraconservatives never abide by it. Hence, I'm highlighting the importance of treating others as you would be treated. Everything below relates to the golden rule, but I thought I'd emphasise their importance.
  • Respect for your brother's autonomy. That is, other people have a right to live their lives without your interference. If this extends to self-harm (ie gambling) then you should intervene, however it's always difficult to judge when you should or should not interfere.
  • Accepting responsibility for your actions. Pretty self-explanatory. Again, not exclusively to liberals, but conservative political leaders certainly don't abide by it.
  • Actively standing up for your principles. Modern-day liberalism would have never existed were it not for the civil rights activists and suffragettes of before. Funnily enough, despite it effectively founding modern liberalism, defending your ideals is one of the strongest conservative principles.
  • Unition over division. Perhaps emphasised most by Obama, this may at first seem obvious. However, it is extremely easy to focus on diversive ideals. Take, for example, the feminist sex wars. Individual feminist groups focused on the relatively minor issue of pornography, instead of uniting against the wider scale problems of sexism, like rape and discrimination. Ironically, this was also during the rise of the religious right (in particular during the Reagan era), so this in-fighting only helped the anti-abortionists.
Well, it's a start anyway. The sooner we take the 'family' and 'family values' away from the right's retoric, the better. Any and all suggestions are welcome.

*The relevant point is down the bottom. Although not directly related to their anti-gay shtick, it is difficult for a family to survive when the woman has died from an illegal abortion.

**Yes, I use the term 'liberal' and not 'progressive' deliberately. To paraphrase Charlton Heston, conservatives will take the word 'liberal' from my cold dead hands.

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Democrat offensive slogan for '12: "Republicans prefer violence against women and starvation to tax cuts."

Why? Because it's true.

I swear to Jebus, if I hear one more fucking Republican whinge about "pork" in the stimulus package, I'm going to go on a five state killing spree. After we lost six hundred fucking thousand jobs last month (and these Republican ghouls insist we shouldn't worry about helping too quickly,) another scalpel is taken to the stimulus plan. And where are the cuts happening, friends and neighbors?

Total Reductions: $80 billion


Head Start, Education for the Disadvantaged, School improvement, Child Nutrition, Firefighters, Transportation Security Administration, Coast Guard, Prisons, COPS Hiring, Violence Agains
t Women, NASA, NSF, Western Area Power Administration, CDC, Food Stamps


Reductions: Public Transit $3.4 billion, School Construction $60 billion
Because the last thing people need when they're out of work is education, nutrition for their children, transportation assistance, and fucking food stamps.

Republicans would rather let people starve than give up their tax cuts.

The next time someone complains about the cost of this package, tell them that. Republicans would rather let people starve than give up their tax cuts.

They're plenty happy to give more money to defense, though.

Defense operations and procurement, STAG Grants, Brownfields, Additional transportation funding
But hey, at least you can still beat the shit out of women, huh?

Republicans would rather let people starve than give up their tax cuts.

Republicans would rather subject women to abuse than give up their tax cuts.

Republicans would rather deprive the disadvantaged of education than give up their tax cuts.

Why the hell are they allowing Republicans to do any of this?

I fucking despair. I really do.

We should look on the bright side: at this rate, the 'pubs are giving Dems the election in '12. It's hard to criticise Obama for not introducing the stimulus bill fast enough (thereby worsening the economy) when the retort is "Yeah, because you guys weren't voting for it."

Thursday, February 5, 2009

This debate ends NOW.

For long, conservatives have labelled homosexuality as being 'unnatural'. The arguments are:
- there is no evidence of any 'gay' genes.
- there are many cases of gays 'turning' from gayness.
- therefore, it is, like most sexual behaviours, a preference and only a choice.

On the surface, those arguments may seem compelling (especially the first one). However, conservatives have ignored (and liberals have never mentioned) one truth: that homosexuality has been extensively documented in hundreds of animals.

From wikipedia:

Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual or transgender behavior in non-human animals. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting. Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[2][3] Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied.[4]

The naturalness of homosexuality in non-human animals is considered controversial by conservative religious groups who oppose LGBT social movements because these findings seem to point to the naturalness of homosexuality in humans.[1] Whether this has logical or ethical implications is also a source of debate, with some arguing that it is illogical to use animal behavior to justify what is or is not moral (see appeal to nature).

(my emphasis)

Of course, in this case, progressives aren't arguing that homosexuality is necessarily moral-merely that it is natural.

The only counter-argument against this is that in the animal kingdom, homosexual behaviour can be learned from the parents (if they are also gay). Certainly, there is evidence for this; Roy and Silo, two gay penguins, raised a chick that was bisexual herself. Also, bonobos (a species of chimpanzee) are a bisexual species, as all bonobos have been documented engaging in sex with males and females. These accounts lend to the theory that homosexuality in animals in more learned from observing the parents (which is how almost all animals learn) rather then it being innate.

However, this fails to take into account the long-term affects of a nurture-only behaviour in an environment governed by evolution. If animal homosexuality was merely a sexual behaviour that animals mimicked from their parents, then over time these animals would reproduce less then their heterosexual counterparts. For example, bonobos practicing heterosexual sex more often would reproduce more and their children would be more likely to mimic the heterosexuality of their parents. Thus, the behaviour (still being passed down from parent to child) would pass down less times until it would become an extinct.

Can this argument be extended to nature? No. It is true that by evolutionary standards, 'useless' biological components that make up homosexuality wouldn't be able to compete on a mating level with hetrosexualism. Therefore, the 'gay gene' would eventually in members of a species would decrease over time, until it would disappear altogether. However...

...this ignores the reality of mutation-the basis of genetic diversity. In the most blunt layman's terms, a mutation is when a gene of our genetic code changes, causing changes in the cell. If the mutation occurs early enough in the womb, the mutation can affect the entire organism. Mutations can range from being relitively minor, such as syndactyly ('webbed' digits) to being quite major, such as growing extra limbs. Naturally, not all mutations are as probable as one another. A common (and infamous) mutation is cancer. In cancer the gene that regulated when a cell will reproduce no longer functions, and the cell's reproduction becomes uncontrollable. At the other end of frequency, the aforementioned 'extra limb' mutation is extremely rare and is considered newsworthy.

If such genetic diversity can exist to create whole new limbs, then it is no a stretch for this same genetic diversity-based on mutations of the genetic code-to cause a range of sexual orientations.

Hypothetically, it is possible for some animals (especially the more intelligent ones, most famously bonobos) to indulge in homosexual activities for pleasure or experimentation, without any influence from parenting. However, this cannot account for the extraordinary number of gay animals-at the absolute least 500, and almost certainly over 1,000. In particular, insects have been identified as being gay (or at least, engaging in gay behaviour). Due to the extremely primitive design of insects' brains, is is extraordinarily unlikely that these animals would be seeking out more pleasurable behaviour.

If then, homosexuality is natural, then there is some discussion as to why some people can become 'ex-gays.' Unfortunately, a lack of neuropsychological studies on the impact of sexuality on brains means that it is difficult to assess the extent to which some ex-gays have genuinely changed their sexuality, and how much of it is internal denial. However, the argument for internal deniel is strong, according to this.
Exodus describes change as "attaining abstinence from homosexual behaviors, lessening of homosexual temptations, strengthening their sense of masculine or feminine identity, correcting distorted styles of relating with members of the same and opposite gender."[21] Some ex-gays advocate entering (or remaining) in a heterosexual marriage as part of the process. Some in opposite-sex marriages acknowledge that their sexual attractions remain primarily homosexual, but seek to make their marriages work anyway.[22] The president of Exodus said he agrees that people can't necessarily change their sexual orientation, but he said they can "live in accord with their beliefs and faith" by renouncing homosexuality and not engaging in same-sex relationships.
(my emphasis)

This is, by the president's own admittance, a very low bar being set for the term 'ex-gay.' It also means that 'ex-gay' is a misnomer. Change and ex-gay imply that you were formally gay, now straight-not still gay and simply repressing your sexuality. The APA has also stated that despite the "considerable fluidity in...women's attractions," "human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight." This means that any percentage of the ex-gay movement-from 1% to 97%-could still be gay, and effectively living a lie.

Conclusively (in my opinion, anyway), this post has demonstrated that homosexuality occurs naturally within the animal kingdom, and across a tremendous range of animals-from bonobos, who possess a spectacular genetic similarity to humans, to birds, to insects. Exodus' open admittance that some gays cannot change their sexuality leads to the 'nature' conclusion.

Also, see here, here and here.