Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
People who are anti-gay should be called that. It isn't an irrational fear of gay people, my experience is it is a hatred of gay people. Let's call them on it.
I don't care if someone is afraid of gays or not, just whether they try to oppress gays. I'm afraid of spiders, but I don't go around trying to keep them from getting married -- I'm an arachnophobia, not an anti-spider bigot, and I tolerate spiders.
After all, Bigot works fine to describe Danny's feelings toward people of faith; Catholiphobe just doesn't sing.
Granted, I roomed with him during a brief stay at a psychiatric facility, so...
All that said, this is dumb.
Wait, what?
I thought you were talking about 'homophones.' Never mind.
The word as presently used is accurate.
Cat's out of the bag, though. Once a word is in the common parlance, you can't just issue an edict from on high being like, "YOU CANNOT USE THAT WORD IN THAT MANNER ANY LONGER. STOP IT. STOP IT RIGHT NOW, I HEARD THAT." At that point you're just the "Well, ACKtually..." douchebag at a party, magnified by authority, and everyone is going to ignore you. It would have been nice if we had a better word to start with, but this is the one that caught on.
anyhow, I didn't punch him, because I didn't want him to think I was homophobic. Should I have punched him, then?
http://www.comparestoreprices.co.uk/imag…
Finally, you admit that you are a bigot. Good for you. See, doesn't that feel better?
regarding pro-gay bigotry:
as a gay "man" or masculivoid, please keep in mind that i lust for my own gender, i am getting sick and tired of society putting homosexuality into a good light by not stopping to ask themselves anything that can be regarded as "homophobic".
why isn't there a counterpart to the word "homophobia," and why isn't it considered a problem (or a "condition") for anyone to judge gay people in a favorable light based solely on who they sleep with? how many times have we heard "not that there's anything wrong with that," with regards to homosexuality? how much is it hammered into our thoughts that "it's okay to be gay," and why is "matthew shepard" a household name when names like "jesse dirkhising" are not? it's because matthew shepard's situation wcould elicit sadness and pity and would spawn gay-affirmations from the public, and little jesse's situation would not (jesse was bound, drugged, tortured and raped by gay people...come to think of it, matthew's murder was more about meth than men. it seems that gay people love their drugs and anything that gets them away from their semi-charmed kinds of lives).
homophobia. why is it a problem for people to automatically think bad things about "men" who lust for masculinity, why isn't it a problem for people to automatically think good things about these masculivoids?
homophobia. it's like gay people got so tired of automatically being put in a bad light, so they all got together and organized a grand ol' "pee-wee herman" defense of "i know you are, but what am i" to put their detractors in bad lights and to label whoever is anti-gay as the ones who have problems (or "phobias"), just to keep from facing their own problems. dare i bring up an old madonna-lyric sung by a self-righteous finger-pointer, "YOU'RE the one with the problem," but gays are ones to point out other peoples' problems in an effort to keep from acknowledging their own. "you hate me because you're scared of yourself" and "you hate me because you really envy me," how blind are gay people to say such things to their opposers without knowing anything about their opposers? don't they like to say "you can't judge me if you don't even know me" and stuff like that? they are blinded by their own spite which they commonly regard as "gay pride," but maybe we seem like we hate gay people because we don't want to be around self-righteous people. i know that, as a proud (i was vengeful and spiteful) 18 year-old who was walking down the school's hallway while smoking a cigarette, i realized that "gay pride" (or the ignorance and belittlement of any opinions, rules or customs counter to one's own) is a problem that is born of a low self-image. i did what i did because i felt that i was as much of a "little bitty pissant" as was the "country place" that dolly parton sung about. my "pride parade" and all "pride parades" are better defined as "spite parades" - pride is not loud and it is not haughty and it is not ignorant of other human beings' feelings.
the roots of "gay pride" are so closely linked to the roots of "a woman can do anything a man can do," i just feel the need to associate them. as gays hated their "bad light," vaginas from coast to coast got so tired of automatically being put in a weak and lesser light, so the vaginas all got together and organized the whole "Strongwoman" campaign. nowadays, we don't hear the word "woman" without hearing "strong" before it...unless, of course, it's preceded by "violence against," i guess. you know, because it's kind of a slap in the face to suggest that the Strongwoman isn't strong enough to prevent violence from happening to her.
badum-bum.
it is flat-out ridiculous that we use overcompensating placebo-words to placate the egos of members of the gender having the lesser physical statures. from athletic teams to eating competitions to the entry-level requirements of the military - there is a reason that these are all male/female and gender-based. the reason is that women are not strong, the reason is that women can only legitimately compete alongside of men (not with men). still,though, how they want people to know them as strong. this is the reason you rarely hear "woman" not having a prefix of "strong". it's like they all got together and organized that "i know you are, but what am i" defense...and called it "feminism: the strongwoman experiment".
just as ridiculous as the Strongwoman-placebo, is the overcompensating placebo to placate the gay "men" and their gender-identities. in reality, gay "men" are little boys who haven't internalized any masculine gender-identity and who therefore feel blessed to be in the presence of naked men. as gay "men," we rely on men as a crutch or as a seeing-eye dog to bring us to a state of masculine fulfillment, simply because we don't have enough masculine self-respect to rely on ourselves to fill our void for masculinity. now, despite the gay male's lackluster sense of masculine self-respect (just ask him who the man of his dreams is), he wants people to know him as a man who is all grown-up emotionally, so it is commonplace to hear gay "men" being referred to AS men - just as much as a vagina refers to her little son as a man - but an asexual "guys" is how we refer to the men who've developed both a physical superiority over vaginas and an emotional superiority over gays. the men who are justified both in body and mind AS men are not men in today's society - they are referred to with as asexual a word as "guys".
why is it constantly impressed upon the public that there's nothing wrong with finding security and fulfillment and something excitably taboo in other members of one's own gender, why can't anyone even fathom the self-compromising errs of homosexuality? speaking of which - why is it fine to regard as "men," every clueless masculivoid who lacks masculine gender-identity enough to want to inspect the masculine gender? why are men who are straight with themselves AS men (and with masculinity in general) more commonly referred to as "straight guys"?
manphobes. from vaginas to gay "men," they both disrespect real men because they all want masculine identity for themselves (vaginas want to be regarded as "strong" and they want society to give them a facade of the PHYSICAL masculine-identity, while gay "men" want to be regarded as "real men" and they want society to give them a facade of having an acceptable level of PSYCHOLOGICAL masculine-identity). this is why i refer to feminists and gay "men" as "masculine wannabees".
mr. dylan terreri, i
dr. sheldon cooper, ii
miss abingdon blazavich
www.abbyblazavich.com
--------------------------
"When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it." - Madonna
www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays
--------------------------
regarding pro-gay bigotry:
as a gay "man" or masculivoid, please keep in mind that i lust for my own gender, i am getting sick and tired of society putting homosexuality into a good light by not stopping to ask themselves anything that can be regarded as "homophobic".
why isn't there a counterpart to the word "homophobia," and why isn't it considered a problem (or a "condition") for anyone to judge gay people in a favorable light based solely on who they sleep with? how many times have we heard "not that there's anything wrong with that," with regards to homosexuality? how much is it hammered into our thoughts that "it's okay to be gay," and why is "matthew shepard" a household name when names like "jesse dirkhising" are not? it's because matthew shepard's situation wcould elicit sadness and pity and would spawn gay-affirmations from the public, and little jesse's situation would not (jesse was bound, drugged, tortured and raped by gay people...come to think of it, matthew's murder was more about meth than men. it seems that gay people love their drugs and anything that gets them away from their semi-charmed kinds of lives).
homophobia. why is it a problem for people to automatically think bad things about "men" who lust for masculinity, why isn't it a problem for people to automatically think good things about these masculivoids?
homophobia. it's like gay people got so tired of automatically being put in a bad light, so they all got together and organized a grand ol' "pee-wee herman" defense of "i know you are, but what am i" to put their detractors in bad lights and to label whoever is anti-gay as the ones who have problems (or "phobias"), just to keep from facing their own problems. dare i bring up an old madonna-lyric sung by a self-righteous finger-pointer, "YOU'RE the one with the problem," but gays are ones to point out other peoples' problems in an effort to keep from acknowledging their own. "you hate me because you're scared of yourself" and "you hate me because you really envy me," how blind are gay people to say such things to their opposers without knowing anything about their opposers? don't they like to say "you can't judge me if you don't even know me" and stuff like that? they are blinded by their own spite which they commonly regard as "gay pride," but maybe we seem like we hate gay people because we don't want to be around self-righteous people. i know that, as a proud (i was vengeful and spiteful) 18 year-old who was walking down the school's hallway while smoking a cigarette, i realized that "gay pride" (or the ignorance and belittlement of any opinions, rules or customs counter to one's own) is a problem that is born of a low self-image. i did what i did because i felt that i was as much of a "little bitty pissant" as was the "country place" that dolly parton sung about. my "pride parade" and all "pride parades" are better defined as "spite parades" - pride is not loud and it is not haughty and it is not ignorant of other human beings' feelings.
the roots of "gay pride" are so closely linked to the roots of "a woman can do anything a man can do," i just feel the need to associate them. as gays hated their "bad light," vaginas from coast to coast got so tired of automatically being put in a weak and lesser light, so the vaginas all got together and organized the whole "Strongwoman" campaign. nowadays, we don't hear the word "woman" without hearing "strong" before it...unless, of course, it's preceded by "violence against," i guess. you know, because it's kind of a slap in the face to suggest that the Strongwoman isn't strong enough to prevent violence from happening to her.
badum-bum.
it is flat-out ridiculous that we use overcompensating placebo-words to placate the egos of members of the gender having the lesser physical statures. from athletic teams to eating competitions to the entry-level requirements of the military - there is a reason that these are all male/female and gender-based. the reason is that women are not strong, the reason is that women can only legitimately compete alongside of men (not with men). still,though, how they want people to know them as strong. this is the reason you rarely hear "woman" not having a prefix of "strong". it's like they all got together and organized that "i know you are, but what am i" defense...and called it "feminism: the strongwoman experiment".
just as ridiculous as the Strongwoman-placebo, is the overcompensating placebo to placate the gay "men" and their gender-identities. in reality, gay "men" are little boys who haven't internalized any masculine gender-identity and who therefore feel blessed to be in the presence of naked men. as gay "men," we rely on men as a crutch or as a seeing-eye dog to bring us to a state of masculine fulfillment, simply because we don't have enough masculine self-respect to rely on ourselves to fill our void for masculinity. now, despite the gay male's lackluster sense of masculine self-respect (just ask him who the man of his dreams is), he wants people to know him as a man who is all grown-up emotionally, so it is commonplace to hear gay "men" being referred to AS men - just as much as a vagina refers to her little son as a man - but an asexual "guys" is how we refer to the men who've developed both a physical superiority over vaginas and an emotional superiority over gays. the men who are justified both in body and mind AS men are not men in today's society - they are referred to with as asexual a word as "guys".
why is it constantly impressed upon the public that there's nothing wrong with finding security and fulfillment and something excitably taboo in other members of one's own gender, why can't anyone even fathom the self-compromising errs of homosexuality? speaking of which - why is it fine to regard as "men," every clueless masculivoid who lacks masculine gender-identity enough to want to inspect the masculine gender? why are men who are straight with themselves AS men (and with masculinity in general) more commonly referred to as "straight guys"?
manphobes. from vaginas to gay "men," they both disrespect real men because they all want masculine identity for themselves (vaginas want to be regarded as "strong" and they want society to give them a facade of the PHYSICAL masculine-identity, while gay "men" want to be regarded as "real men" and they want society to give them a facade of having an acceptable level of PSYCHOLOGICAL masculine-identity). this is why i refer to feminists and gay "men" as "masculine wannabees".
mr. dylan terreri, i
dr. sheldon cooper, ii
miss abingdon blazavich
www.abbyblazavich.com
--------------------------
"When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it." - Madonna
www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays
--------------------------