LGBT News Remember when homosexuals were halfway likeable people?

I commented on that hours ago and it's not there. But 10 minutes ago someone said "About time someone said this so many hateful homos on the web it makes visiting some sites impossible." So they'll allow homophobic comments, but nothing that disagrees with what he said. Seems a little hypocritical from a guy who complains that "Anyone who says anything negative about them is deemed homophobic. Anyone who holds an opposing view to them is deemed to be ignorant and in need of 'educating'."

 

whoever wrote that should be shot

 

Haha what a ridiculous blog, did you see the poll on the bottom right corner of the blog? :lol:

That blog is either run by a deeply closeted homo covering up for his own self-hatred....or it should be renamed "Diary of a Straight Guy Who Can't Get Laid".

 

You know, I almost thought it had some merit. Until:

Because you obviously didn't write this entire blog that goes on for paragraphs about being "normal"... Yeah.

 

Sorry everyone that was my bad. Straight people are like pokemon to me.

Seriously though, it's like he just challenged himself to write as many unfounded accusations as he could back-to-back, and then when he got bored with that he tried to be guilty of as many of them as he could in a text-based article on the internet. I mean if that was his goal I think he got a high score anyway.

The best part is when he pretends he's apathetic and live-and-let-live about the whole thing :lol:

 

So here's what I gathered:

1. I should be thankful for those that hate me, for those that beat me and discriminate me just for being attracted to the same sex. This applies for every single person that is attracted to the same sex.

2. I should also be thankful for those that hate me, beat me and dsicriminate me and others that don't or can't follow the male/female stereotypes and aren't "man enough" or "woman enough".

The person who wrote the article completely missed the point. It's not a matter of gay people being killed or beaten. It's a matter of LGBT people getting killed, beaten or discriminated against (much like women) just because they're not "normal" and because they're gay, bi, transgender, etc. and can't fit the pretty little boxes that society has made for everybody.


If Matthew Shepard's murderers killed him because he owed them a large sum of money or because he did something to their families or whatever, then his murder would have simply been a murder, nothing more than that. But the fact that his sexual orientation did play a large role in the case, and it wasn't because he was in a consenting relationship with one of them, that's when it turns into a hate crime.

It all comes down to the reason for the actions, not the actions themselves. Yes, a murder is still terrible. But a murder because of something somebody can't control is a murder out of pure hatred for an entire group of people, and even with the stats that holds those people, it's still a ton of people. The world holds over 4 billion people. A rough calculation holds that there are 400 million LGBT people in the world. That kind of murder is a murder out of hatred for every single one of those people. That's a lot of people to hate, and it's completely unreasonable.


This is why I'm against generalizing statements. I don't think I'm ever going to meet 4 million people in my entire life, let alone 400 million. So to say that "Homosexuals do x" tells me that ALL 400 MILLION OF THOSE PEOPLE do that. Every single one of them. I find that extremely hard to believe. Unless x= eat, sleep, drink, waste, or breathe, I'd find that your argument holds almost no water whatsoever. 10 cases does not equal 400 million. It doesn't even come close to it.

So before you write articles that say things like this, ask yourself "Do all the people I'm talking about do this? All 400 million? Do I KNOW this?" And unless the answer is "yes" and you have evidence, your argument doesn't hold. Even 1 person out of those 400 million people will completely crush that statement because that 1 person isn't what you say that person is.

 

The only point the blog's author is making is that he's stupid. He really is putting that out there with a sledgehammer.

 

Generally speaking, anyone who believes that there is some kind of "homosexual agenda" is not worth listening to.

 

There were some very small traces of points in that post hidden between all the irrational hatred. However, he contradicted himself so much that the rare rational sentence was probably unintentional.

 

While our friend Mr.Hunter here makes a lot of homophobic or illogical statements, he also has some points. Some of us in the LGBT community do hate straights, and that is indeed disadvantageous to them. Yes, some of us have it better than others, and we should appreciate that. ...But who is to say that it doesn't get better? White, straight guys are not the majority of the entire fucking world. The actual majority population is the Chinese; China is home to 1,360,530,000 people.

He's not as bad as a lot of other people I've encountered on the net (actually supporting transgender people, and not hating every LGBT person), and he has some points, but there are some major fallacies in the blog post, and some rather homophobic or just plain retarded statements in it. He complains about the "homosexual agenda" and the feminization of men, which are both more akin to conspiracy theories than truths. Also, beauty is arbitrary and changes with time- fat people used to be very desirable in mainstream society, because it was a sign of a well-fed person, and the well-fed were rich.
Overall, I'm pretty mixed about this.

 

I sure hope the op is being sarcastic about this having a point. He calls feminists female supremacists and uses the buzz phrase "homosexual agenda." All I read in that blog entry was more groundless talking points about how women should stay in the kitchen and how homosexuals should be happy with how they're being treated. Umm... No.

I did like how he displays exactly what heteronormativity and heterosexism actually is while denying it. Hilarious.

 

He makes (or attempts to make) a point that (some) straight people find anal sex disgusting and repulsive. Well, I find vaginal sex disgusting and repulsive, so there.

We're both equally entitled to those beliefs. What either one of us is NOT entitled to do, however, is to force those beliefs on anyone else, which seems to me to be exactly what he's trying to do here.

I got so pissed off about halfway through that I just stopped reading, but when I switched tabs back from EC to that article to grab the previous quote, this gem caught my eye:

My oh my, where do I start with this? I identify as a cis male, so perhaps I have no right to talk about these issues (or at least the author of this piece would believe I don't...). Being transgender is a medical condition? What are you going to tell me next, that homosexuality is a mental disorder???

I'll admit that GID is currently in the DSM. However, GID (to me) is a rather narrow construct of actually feeling dysphoric about your body and how you mentally deal with that - I really think of it more as depression about your assigned sex than the fact that you do not identify with your assigned sex. Moreover, just because something is currently in the DSM does not mean it will always be (homosexuality no longer is). Actually being trans* is as much of an innate state of being as being gay/lesbian/bi is, in my mind. Perhaps I'm just different.

 

Even better when he complains about "man-hating women". AKA women who have too much self-respect to sleep with him.

 

@ RainbowMan

Not quite. The new version of the DSM (DSM V) has replaced GID with gender dysphoria.
"Part of removing stigma is about choosing the right words. Replacing 'disorder' with 'dysphoria' in the diagnostic label is not only more appropriate and consistent with familiar clinical sexology terminology, it also removes the connotation that the patient is 'disordered.'"
-Quote from the DSM V website, on the name change.

 

:bang: What even is this?

 

I was going to read the whole article. And I saw a few, very few, remotely valid points.

But then there was the darn rabbling about "homosexual agenda" and what have you and I just stopped. Why do I need to be thankful to the "Straight, white male"? Sorry, writer, but not all straight-white males are as blessed, sacred, vastly intelligent, and so very kind as you may believe. Nor is every homosexual "immersed in hate and self pity."

And neither are "straight, white males". They are human just like the rest of us, sir. They are not a separate race with superior intelligence or physical skills. They're just, amazingly enough, HUMAN. With the capacity to make mistakes and attempt to sound superior and "intelligent" when they are not. How are homosexuals inferior to heterosexuals? No one is better nor worse than any other orientation or "race".

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

Haha lol these kinds of straight men are always the most pathetic. They basically rant all about hating women and gays because they are jealous of all the sex that women and gays are having while he can't get a single woman on earth to get in bed with his sorry ass. :lol:

 

Well, he did get two things right in the article. One, that feminists have traditionally been the allies of queer folks. Two, that feminists hate traditional concepts of masculinity and femininity. That's because you know, they are worth hating.

Anyway, I'm sure he's also got some other great nuggets like fucking pussy is okay, but giving cunnilingus is gross. (I know, people really say that.)

Ziester Adrian

 

I don't even know where to begin with ripping this to shreds. Such sad ignorance.

 

I have heard and read crap like this . Last week some one i worked with told me that they think lesbians are horrible people even if they are good people because they are attracted to women . I thought in my head guess he's off my list because he would hate me