Produced for us all by hakota.sinclair
Go show him some love. I really procrastinated in posting this.
Go show him some love. I really procrastinated in posting this.
Category Prose / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Gender Any
Size 960 x 474px
i turned 100% gay cause of a very special person that ask me out X//3 going on all most a year sense that day i said yes to him
I got turned away from donating blood this week. Made me feel like shit..
srsly? its not like its YOUR fault that you cant donate blood. The governemnt is the shit, feel beautiful!!! gay is beautiful!!!!!
I don't have HIV, dude as I have been tested since I last had sex. Furthermore I have a partner,and neither of us sleeps around. So why the fuck should I not give blood? Gay people give blood and there's nothing you could say or do to stop it.
Hmm? I didn't say you shouldn't give blood. I claimed that it's immoral and illegal to lie to get past a safety measure.
A measure that would kill many people, as they already test every pint of blood so there's not risk of anything happening. Wounded.
I don't really need any evidence to suggest that nobody has died before just because a gay person didn't donate blood.
yeah it suck that gay people cant donate blood in america, unless they are still a virgin.
it's not just america. I think over here we have to wait a year, and then get tested, something about avoiding HIV contamination. even though the latest evidence suggests that it's now rather more common amongst straight guys...
At least your country has that contingency. America has a "fuck once, donate nevermore" policy.
The latest evidence suggests that it's more common amongst straight guys?
Are you going to support that clearly-biased claim with evidence or sources?
Truly scientific facts suggest that females as well as gay men are the most likely to contract HIV for the simple fact that they are being ejaculated into, meaning that excessive amounts of contaminated fluid is entering their body.
It is very rare for a straight male to contract it because in order for that to happen, he would need to take in vaginal fluids through his opening, which is quite small and not intended to receive fluids.
Are you going to support that clearly-biased claim with evidence or sources?
Truly scientific facts suggest that females as well as gay men are the most likely to contract HIV for the simple fact that they are being ejaculated into, meaning that excessive amounts of contaminated fluid is entering their body.
It is very rare for a straight male to contract it because in order for that to happen, he would need to take in vaginal fluids through his opening, which is quite small and not intended to receive fluids.
I'm not really proud to be gay, as it's foolish to be proud of something one has no control over.
LOL JOKES
LOL JOKES
then stop parading around half naked in pink and being loud and edgy and bitch for equal rights, black people didnt do that either(and before you go there, over here nobody cares if you are black, its europe, we dislike muslim youth/welfare leeches)
there had to say that
there had to say that
Ermm... Your allowed to say it regardless...
Even though I was WTF'ing at the stereotyping.... and frankly don't agree.
Even though I was WTF'ing at the stereotyping.... and frankly don't agree.
dont agree with what? the fact some of my fellow homosexuals have to be very obnoxious about it and actually try with effort to irritate others in most gay pride parades, or my last bit?
This bit: "then stop parading around half naked in pink and being loud and edgy and bitch for equal rights" Sounded more like you were making a generalization directed at everyone, as opposed to critiquing a smaller group of people.
well they might not be the majority(or they are, im curious about the numbers) but they are the louder minority that everyone sees and remembers, just like extremists...heck sometimes i wana call some of the more obnoxious ones gay extremists :P
LOL!!! Ya, I understand what you mean ^.^ I think it's the minority still, though I too would be curious.
Thanks for clarifying by the way! :)
Thanks for clarifying by the way! :)
No offense, but what ever happen to allowing people to do whatever they want if its not hurting you/others? If straight people can be themselves, why not let others? Honestly, you sound like a stereotypical "straight" gay, which is more of a nuisance in my eyes (due to the fact that they are walking traps for straight girls)
so what i am getting is, you say that gays have to act, dress and look different from straight people?....dude WTF?
the whole point of trying to get people treat us equal is to to throw off the image that we are are girly/feminine men and only guys that look like traps
there is doing what you want sure, but theres also doing what you want that effects your fellow kin negatively
Not every gay guy looks like a heterosexual male, that's reality, and you really can't force others to change their way of responding/reacting if its not harming anyone at all. I kind of find it hypocritical when a "stiraght" gay tries to do everything he can to change everyone else in order to make himself look like the norm, when in the end, your still having a relationship with a guy/having sex with a guy, regardless if you look like the 10,000 other stiraght men on the planet. I used to have your mindset way back then, then i changed when i realized it wasn't a big deal
In general, all i'm saying is that let others be who they really are, because no one is going out of their way to change your personality
In general, all i'm saying is that let others be who they really are, because no one is going out of their way to change your personality
I didn't know that there's one specific way a heterosexual male looks.
Gay, not a problem down in the south. Irish however, is another story.
What country are you from that it's not a problem in your "South"?
US actually. Most of the region is behind the rest of the world when it comes to tolerance. Religion rules most lives.
Bitches wanna talk shit, bitches gonna get hit.
Don't like me for me? Great. Want to cause a problem about it? I'll sooner put you six feet under and be on my merry way. Tolerance for shit = zero.
Don't like me for me? Great. Want to cause a problem about it? I'll sooner put you six feet under and be on my merry way. Tolerance for shit = zero.
We're slowly gaining rights, and even more slowly actual acceptance in society, but meanwhile, all we can do is stick together, help each other and so on.
Why should we have a problem with being gay? Excellent statement!)
Punctuation... Punctuationnnnn!
The statement is very good though. And you WILL tolerate my lifestyle!
The statement is very good though. And you WILL tolerate my lifestyle!
In the words of Morgan Freeman:
"I hate the word homophobia. It's not a phobia. You're not scared. You're an asshole."
"I hate the word homophobia. It's not a phobia. You're not scared. You're an asshole."
If someone were to have clinically diagnosed homophobia, they would find this insulting.
By the way, people who are not clinically diagnosed with it are usually not really homophobic.
By the way, people who are not clinically diagnosed with it are usually not really homophobic.
Does that suddenly make it okay to be afraid of people who can't help who they are? Most homophobes are afraid of homosexual people because they're different, because they see it as unnatural, unholy, or wrong. The word asshole is a bit strong, but gays are people just like everyone else, and anyone who is afraid of them just because of the way they are isn't generally in the right either. It offends me because people are afraid of me and hate me for who I am, and it's one reason why I have social anxiety and am closeted. I play video games, I watch movies, I listen to music. I am a person, just like everyone else, but I am attracted to the same sex. Why should that make me a monster, something to be afraid of? Does my being homosexual kill people? Is it a contagious terminal disease? No. So people clinically diagnosed with homophobia can be as offended as they want to be, the feeling is entirely mutual. If they can't accept me for who I am, that makes them no better than anyone else. I'm not afraid of straight people. I'm not afraid of bis, transexuals, or asexuals. Why should I be? Ugly or sexy, straight or gay, they're PEOPLE. What gives them the right to see me as an abomination, to have fear of me? I'm not a fan of dogs, I prefer cats. But I still own dogs, and I'm not afraid to pet one. So honestly, if homophobes want to be offended, than let them. I'm just as offended as they are.
And one does not have to be clinically diagnosed with homophobia to be afraid of homosexual people. Things like religion and peer pressure can just as easily make people afraid of us as an actual medical condition can.
And one does not have to be clinically diagnosed with homophobia to be afraid of homosexual people. Things like religion and peer pressure can just as easily make people afraid of us as an actual medical condition can.
tl;dr
But for your first point there, I could ask you the same thing about someone clinically diagnosed with homophobia.
They have a REASON they're afraid. They are GENUINELY afraid. It's who they are, and they can't help it. They can't be comfortable with it whether they like it or not. Think of something you're afraid of and compare it, be it huge spiders, snakes, heights, whatever. They can be around it if they try hard, but they will never stop being afraid. Are you going to judge them harshly for this? Are you going to hate them for it?
Think about it.
But for your first point there, I could ask you the same thing about someone clinically diagnosed with homophobia.
They have a REASON they're afraid. They are GENUINELY afraid. It's who they are, and they can't help it. They can't be comfortable with it whether they like it or not. Think of something you're afraid of and compare it, be it huge spiders, snakes, heights, whatever. They can be around it if they try hard, but they will never stop being afraid. Are you going to judge them harshly for this? Are you going to hate them for it?
Think about it.
I have thought about it, and it still doesn't matter. There's a reason that I'm gay, I was genuinely born this way. I have swung this way since I can remember, and I even kissed a boy in grade school. I always had a more feminine personality. Yet I live in a society where I am AFRAID to be myself, because there are people out there who look at me like I'm a monster because they fear me, and for what? Just for being sttracted to the same sex? I TRIED coming out to my own parents, and they became terrified. They literally went through the stages of death, starting with denial!My mother even tried to sit me down and tell me 'You're not gay, you just think you are.' So I passed it off as a prank and went a got a girlfriend, who I felt nothing for.
I'm genuinely sorry if they have a genuine fear of homosexual people, but that doesn't justify it. They're still afraid of ME, an everyday person, just because I'm not like them. I live in the bible belt, an area full of homophobic catholic rednecks. In seventh grade, someone actually spread a rumor that I was gay without actually knowing it, and I was ATTACKED, I was BULLIED, and I was TORMENTED that entire year. So you'll forgive me if I have no sympathy for anyone who is afraid of me, genuinely or otherwise. In my eyes, it's just about as excusible as racism is.
I'm genuinely sorry if they have a genuine fear of homosexual people, but that doesn't justify it. They're still afraid of ME, an everyday person, just because I'm not like them. I live in the bible belt, an area full of homophobic catholic rednecks. In seventh grade, someone actually spread a rumor that I was gay without actually knowing it, and I was ATTACKED, I was BULLIED, and I was TORMENTED that entire year. So you'll forgive me if I have no sympathy for anyone who is afraid of me, genuinely or otherwise. In my eyes, it's just about as excusible as racism is.
You put it in better words than I would ever be able to. Thank you
*Hugs*
*Hugs*
I don't believe I have ever been directly discriminated against in my entire life. But I have seen a lot of cruel things. If a member of the LGBT community is getting harassed and bullied, you can bet I will be the first one to run up to the perpetrator and see that it ends.
It's because people make their sexuality a big part of them (when it's just an insignificant detail, really) and flaunt it around like no tomorrow that most bigotry and disdain against us gays is even present.
And yes, homophobia is a real thing. It doesn't have to make sense or be nice to be an irrational fear.
And yes, homophobia is a real thing. It doesn't have to make sense or be nice to be an irrational fear.
hehehe yup ^_^ i put it on my FB a while ago and thought it might go well with this group :3
i agree with this, and the people who try to shut others up over non-harmful things, really need to loosen up a bit, because no one is going to burn you at the stake for being yourself (unless you live in a crappy area)
Amen!
Haha, awesome; kudos for making this~ =3
Gay pride, biaaaaaaatch~!! <3
Haha, awesome; kudos for making this~ =3
Gay pride, biaaaaaaatch~!! <3
The pride doesn't come from being gay; it comes from enduring homophobia and actually doing something to get equal rights.
Obviously you never graduated from Gay Academy.
Obviously you never graduated from Gay Academy.
Effectively, yes. It's about fighting homophobia, transphobia, biphobia etc. It's about making ourselves seen and known, showing that we're not afraid and we won't tolerate homophobic cultures and politicians. It's about showing others that we're people too, that we're not harmful, we're not 'going through a phase,' we won't change, and we want equal rights and treatment.
Our war is only against preconcept. Many of us gays have killed themselves because of homophobia this must stop. We have feelings too, we're not monsters we just love and for that we're being punished.
Nobody on record has killed themselves simply because some people are homophobic.
There are many reasons why a person chooses to end their life. Chances are they had problems at home, had deep depression, and caused some of those problems on their own. Then, after they've made their bed, they're afraid to lay in it, so they choose to kill themself, which is obviously the wrong decision to make. I also know these things because I've had friends go through this.
Don't try to use their death to martyr your cause. It's wrong. You don't know their story.
There are many reasons why a person chooses to end their life. Chances are they had problems at home, had deep depression, and caused some of those problems on their own. Then, after they've made their bed, they're afraid to lay in it, so they choose to kill themself, which is obviously the wrong decision to make. I also know these things because I've had friends go through this.
Don't try to use their death to martyr your cause. It's wrong. You don't know their story.
I know because I'm one of those who've already tried to kill themselves.
I've tried 3 times using excessive amounts of medication, and I don't even have a sexuality.
Believe me, I get it, and the amount of overwhelming agony that it takes to make you want to end it all doesn't come just from the fact that you have a sexual preference that disagrees with certain people. It probably came because there are assholes out their who just want to tear ANYONE to shreds, they just need some stupid, insignificant reason to begin, and then they don't stop.
Also, family issues. Fun.
Believe me, I get it, and the amount of overwhelming agony that it takes to make you want to end it all doesn't come just from the fact that you have a sexual preference that disagrees with certain people. It probably came because there are assholes out their who just want to tear ANYONE to shreds, they just need some stupid, insignificant reason to begin, and then they don't stop.
Also, family issues. Fun.
Marriage, which includes stuff like tax benefits and hospital visitation rights.
This doesn't really clear up his question very well. Everyone has the right to get married.
...But you told him that the rights you were being denied were marriage, which is a right you're not being denied... I don't understand.
Are you referring to the fact that we have the right to marry the opposite sex, and therefore we're not being denied the right of marriage? If so, then that is a very silly way to go about things. Only a silly Goose would pull that one. A silly willy nilly Goose, at that.
If I remember correctly, Marriage is defined as the unification of man and woman under god in the name of holy matrimony.
If this is not what you are after, then I fail to understand why you seek the right to do it. However, if this is not what you are after, and instead you are looking for a different kind of unification - with different premises and purposes - then would it not be easier to create a different and support a different kind of unification instead of attempting to stretch the meaning of a word whose meaning is one that many people are clinging to with an iron grip?
If the rights that you believe should coincide with your unification truly belong to you, then in this new form of "marriage", - if you would like to compare it to that - your government should support you. It would be illogical not to. However, I do not believe that your government or it's "officials" should have any discernment in this issue in the first place. But because they do, it only makes sense to use that to your advantage.
Think about it.
If this is not what you are after, then I fail to understand why you seek the right to do it. However, if this is not what you are after, and instead you are looking for a different kind of unification - with different premises and purposes - then would it not be easier to create a different and support a different kind of unification instead of attempting to stretch the meaning of a word whose meaning is one that many people are clinging to with an iron grip?
If the rights that you believe should coincide with your unification truly belong to you, then in this new form of "marriage", - if you would like to compare it to that - your government should support you. It would be illogical not to. However, I do not believe that your government or it's "officials" should have any discernment in this issue in the first place. But because they do, it only makes sense to use that to your advantage.
Think about it.
"The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged." [Haviland, William A.; Prins, Harald E. L.; McBride, Bunny; Walrath, Dana (2011). Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.]
To insist that your cultural definition is the definition is awfully arrogant. To say that it is 'under god in the name of holy matrimony' flies in the face of every interfaith marriage, secular marriage and the marriages of religious non-Christians. So basically your definition says that most marriages aren't marriages because they are not under your particular god.
"The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time" [Hobhouse, Leonard Trelawny (1906) Morals in evolution: a study in comparative ethics, New York, H. Holt and Co, p. 180.]
Even if there were a universal definition, there is no reason why it should not be subject to change. "Faggot" used to mean a bundle of sticks. This changed to mean an old or unpleasant woman and later became a derogatory term for homosexuals. Nobody today says "pass that faggot over this way," because the definition has changed.
If you wish to adhere to your own religiously-motivated definition of marriage, then that's fine. Stick to your personal traditions - I'm not going to stop that. I ask that you grant me the same courtesy by not imposing your religious beliefs on me. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation. Therefore, religion shall not be used in these countries to define what marriage legally is.
To insist that your cultural definition is the definition is awfully arrogant. To say that it is 'under god in the name of holy matrimony' flies in the face of every interfaith marriage, secular marriage and the marriages of religious non-Christians. So basically your definition says that most marriages aren't marriages because they are not under your particular god.
"The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time" [Hobhouse, Leonard Trelawny (1906) Morals in evolution: a study in comparative ethics, New York, H. Holt and Co, p. 180.]
Even if there were a universal definition, there is no reason why it should not be subject to change. "Faggot" used to mean a bundle of sticks. This changed to mean an old or unpleasant woman and later became a derogatory term for homosexuals. Nobody today says "pass that faggot over this way," because the definition has changed.
If you wish to adhere to your own religiously-motivated definition of marriage, then that's fine. Stick to your personal traditions - I'm not going to stop that. I ask that you grant me the same courtesy by not imposing your religious beliefs on me. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation. Therefore, religion shall not be used in these countries to define what marriage legally is.
The definition of marriage according to a book and thereby simply a speculation of what the meaning is doesn't really warrant a solid, unbreakable truth about something, does it now?
I'm sorry, obviously there's some confusion here. This is not MY cultural definition. This is not of my culture, it is of yours that I said what I believed marriage to mean to most people in your country. Or why it was created and used initially in said place. My response to your following statements is the same. Besides, I wasn't stating a fact. I was stating that it was my belief that this is what it means to practically everyone who gets married in your country. Under some god for some religious act of importance unless it isn't. I've even seen atheists been married in your country by a priest. Marriages tend to be done by priests there, do they not? In churches? I rest my case. You can tell me of outliers, but you can not claim that they are the majority or even significant in this discussion. For your last statement, yes. That is exactly what I am proposing, if you haven't noticed. However, it is not under "my" god, as I do not have one, and it is not under any particular god, but it is under a god, hence the priest and church being staples of marriage in your country. Typically the Christian kind, if I'm not mistaken.
Yes, it may have changed, but what for? Why would it change when a different significant ceremony could take it's place if it is more desirable to the couple? Isn't that a bit silly? Why not leave it as it was created ("depending on the culture or demographic of the time" in your country's case, religiously) and perform something else instead of attempting to force it's meaning to change to include your own ideals? "Even if there were a universal definition, there is no reason why it should not be subject to change." Hmmm... Is that so? You prefer to make things extremely difficult and call down a rain of hatred from religious bigots by poking the hornet's nest? Suit yourself.
I'm not imposing any religious beliefs of mine on you - as I've already stated - and I agree with you that religion and state should not intermingle, as they can cause issues such as this. However, since it is already an issue, you might as well do what you can to solve this with the least amount of drama and frustration on either ends as possible, am I correct? Is that your goal? Or would you rather be prideful and keep smacking the crap out of that hornet's nest and telling those hornets how bad they are until they listen? Because they wont. They're hornets. But maybe you truly do want drama. That's not for me to judge, I'm simply hosting a suggestion and apparently I'm suddenly imposing "my religious beliefs" (haha, I'm still laughing at this) on you. My apologies if that's that's the case.
I'm sorry, obviously there's some confusion here. This is not MY cultural definition. This is not of my culture, it is of yours that I said what I believed marriage to mean to most people in your country. Or why it was created and used initially in said place. My response to your following statements is the same. Besides, I wasn't stating a fact. I was stating that it was my belief that this is what it means to practically everyone who gets married in your country. Under some god for some religious act of importance unless it isn't. I've even seen atheists been married in your country by a priest. Marriages tend to be done by priests there, do they not? In churches? I rest my case. You can tell me of outliers, but you can not claim that they are the majority or even significant in this discussion. For your last statement, yes. That is exactly what I am proposing, if you haven't noticed. However, it is not under "my" god, as I do not have one, and it is not under any particular god, but it is under a god, hence the priest and church being staples of marriage in your country. Typically the Christian kind, if I'm not mistaken.
Yes, it may have changed, but what for? Why would it change when a different significant ceremony could take it's place if it is more desirable to the couple? Isn't that a bit silly? Why not leave it as it was created ("depending on the culture or demographic of the time" in your country's case, religiously) and perform something else instead of attempting to force it's meaning to change to include your own ideals? "Even if there were a universal definition, there is no reason why it should not be subject to change." Hmmm... Is that so? You prefer to make things extremely difficult and call down a rain of hatred from religious bigots by poking the hornet's nest? Suit yourself.
I'm not imposing any religious beliefs of mine on you - as I've already stated - and I agree with you that religion and state should not intermingle, as they can cause issues such as this. However, since it is already an issue, you might as well do what you can to solve this with the least amount of drama and frustration on either ends as possible, am I correct? Is that your goal? Or would you rather be prideful and keep smacking the crap out of that hornet's nest and telling those hornets how bad they are until they listen? Because they wont. They're hornets. But maybe you truly do want drama. That's not for me to judge, I'm simply hosting a suggestion and apparently I'm suddenly imposing "my religious beliefs" (haha, I'm still laughing at this) on you. My apologies if that's that's the case.
"If I remember correctly, Marriage is defined as the unification of man and woman under god in the name of holy matrimony."
Yes, you were imposing your beliefs on me by stating them as though they were fact. You didn't say "My personal belief is that marriage is the unification of man and woman under god in the name of holy matrimony." Instead, you decided to say "Marriage is defined as..."
Surely you must acknowledge this for what it is. It's the premise for your entire argument from before, so of course I would come after you on the religious front.
Yes, you were imposing your beliefs on me by stating them as though they were fact. You didn't say "My personal belief is that marriage is the unification of man and woman under god in the name of holy matrimony." Instead, you decided to say "Marriage is defined as..."
Surely you must acknowledge this for what it is. It's the premise for your entire argument from before, so of course I would come after you on the religious front.
I told you that "if I remember correctly" it was typically defined that way in your country. Meaning that is was not from an origin of me, or from an origin of any religion that you assume I follow. Which is what I elaborated on later on, but I suppose none of that matters to you because you would prefer to believe that I'm religious when I explicitly expressed to you that I wasn't? Again, I'm a bit confused.
"his is not of my culture, it is of yours that I said what I believed marriage to mean to most people in your country."
"married in your country"
"atheists been married in your country by a priest."
"staples of marriage in your country"
"in your country's case, religiously"
"defined that way in your country"
"it is what I remember as the common grounds for what marriage is in your country"
Say which country I live in.
"married in your country"
"atheists been married in your country by a priest."
"staples of marriage in your country"
"in your country's case, religiously"
"defined that way in your country"
"it is what I remember as the common grounds for what marriage is in your country"
Say which country I live in.
The country whose government is stupid enough to be trying to control who you can and cannot marry.
Also, this is unnecessarily off-topic. You do realize that this is not me trying to pick a fight, but shed light on why you all should consider a different approach, right? I sure hope so. Because this isn't about you.
"shed light on why you all should consider a different approach"
This is also not to say that it is factual information about marriage, it is only to say that it is what I remember as the common grounds for what marriage is in your country and what it has been for a long time. It is certainly not the case where I live, and therefore is not a universal fact. I also did not claim that it was. It might help this argument if you didn't assume things.
Wrong. Marriage is a legal contract between two people, which was around long before it was taken up by organised religion. Also even the Bible states that there is more than one definition of the word "marriage". See http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar.....-view?gcheck=1 for details.
We aren't being denied anything really, seems most of us gays just want an excuse to go on the war path and have the right to sue churches that don't want to do gay marriages. we have the same rights, but no matter how you say it, it won't get through to must of us
It seems like alot of us do wage wars on religion though. And I never quite got this "Pride" thing. lots of us gays identify ourselves with sexuality way too much. I never felt the need to do that and make sure everyone knew what I liked. It's the same thing as being straight. You are having relations with another person, there yah go, don't let it run your life
LGBT pride is more about being out and in the open without fear, rather than being all "being gay means I'm awesome." :B
Lol xD It's good to feel pride in what you are. I'm just saying I noticed alot of us have been pushy and using it as the main thing that defines them as a person. Which isn't really the right direction.
if it's all about equal rights, then why the obnoxious parades, unnecessary 'pride' and self-segregation? That hardly sounds equal
uh... not all gay/ not straight people do that. all the gay people i know have never even BEEN to a parade. and i dont know what you mean by self-segregation?
oh, and the "pride" is just being PROUD that you accept who you are and no longer let others define you. you dont have to be gay to have pride in who you are.
oh, and the "pride" is just being PROUD that you accept who you are and no longer let others define you. you dont have to be gay to have pride in who you are.
Comments