This says so much about what even the politically correct really think about gay folk:
I call sexism!
२८ मार्च, २०१३
"One of Time's two new cover photos declaring 'gay marriage already won' looks like a wedding kiss. The other looks more like a makeout session."
One is 2 women. One is 2 men. Guess which pair is kissing wedding style (with their collars showing) and which pair is kissing sexy (with no indication that they're not naked)?
This says so much about what even the politically correct really think about gay folk:
I call sexism!
This says so much about what even the politically correct really think about gay folk:
I call sexism!
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१३३ टिप्पण्या:
Funny, the Bible calls it damnable for eternity.
Any guesses as to which will sell better at the newsstand?
Serious question. Why does MSM and gay rights advocates always show lesbians as hotties? While in real life they tend to look more like....something.
Why not show two short older heavyset women tonguing each other?
Lesbians (of the lipstick variety) = sexy hot!
Gay men = "cute" if there "sweet" about it, revolting if they're oiled-up in ass-less chaps.
I bet those two gals can't even play softball.
EDH, yup. Why didn't Time show a couple of "bears" going at it?
Yea... but, its the right kind.
No, I disagree with your symbolism deconstruction, Althouse.
1. Lezzies aren't really gay. They're usually pretty grim, overweight, clad in flannel shirts and they aren't very interested in sex.
So, they've been recast in a more favorable light, as sexy, attractive sirens.
2. Gay men are more often off the wall promiscuous in their behavior, and not that romantic.
So, they've been recast, again, in a more favorable light, domesticated.
It's propaganda, for sure, but not in the sense you're stating.
I call "poor taste" "low class" to show people of any sexual orientation making out and sucking face on a magazine that will be at grocery store check out lines for all children to see. It is bad enough we have to deal with alien babies and Brangelina in our faces when we are trying to buy food.
The dude on the left looks like he really doesn't want to be kissing a dude.
The woman on the right looks like she's trying to eat the woman on the left's face.
I call it Biology!
It tells me that even liberals don't like to see two men kissing so I guess I kinda agree with Althouse.
I call it Biology!
Those covers make Time magazine look desperate.
But not serious.
Your kisses drive me delirious.
I find the notion of any sort of sexuality "winning" to be quite revealing of what this is about at its core.
I don't doubt that the future for schoolboys will be forced cocksucking and taking it up the ass "for their own good."
There is something essentially fascist in this gay activist agenda. The methods tell you everything you need to know.
Calling people "bigots," and scapegoating hetero men for the AIDS epidemic is what has brought us to this point.
There is a ruthless tendency among the degenerates (and I'm one so I should know) to hate anything that will not surrender to their appetites.
According to the study, lesbians are overweight, And if a study says so, it must BE.
If that is the new normal, we the people need to lose a lot of weight, get lots of plastic surgery, and buy a lot of hip clothing.
What the left learned about the Obamacare fiasco (ongoing): It pays to work the Supreme Court Justices while they deliberate..
Remember the Navy ship last year. Someone invented something called a "first kiss". A sailor picked to be first off the ship and to kiss his or hers "partner".
They wanted a homosexual for this. Kind of to give a big FU to those who oppose the agenda.
Did they pick two guys to makeout in front of the ship and cameras? God no. That would be gross and not advance the agenda.
Did they pick a traditional lesbian? An overweight masculine mechinical type? Naw. Cute but that doesn't advance the agenda either.
They found two hot gals to go at. The gay rights folks are marketing geniouses.
Yes, what's up with that?!
Chuck66 said:
Serious question. Why does MSM and gay rights advocates always show lesbians as hotties? While in real life they tend to look more like....something.
I used to go to a lesbian bar in San Diego called "The Flame". While many of the girls there were the more stereotypical butch-ish type, there were a number of really hot women there too. Not as common though.
The broader point is, why even use pictures of gays kissing at all? Would a picture of the two holding hands at the alter have been much better suited for the story?
I ask these questions in jest, because we all know the answer... They want to be, how did they say it in the Simpsons episode where Homer plays "Poochie The Dog"??? Oh, yeah.... Proactive! And Edgy!!!!
The Jihadis are applauding the descent and pondering their next move.
This says so much about what even the politically correct really think about gay folk:
That they are the horniest people in the planet?
This cover reinforces that perception.
If the lesbian cover photo were in color it would qualify as a DVD cover for girl-on-girl porn ... which is probably why it's in balck and white. Good idea, Time.
I don't know that there is any science supporting that impression.
So, the real purpose of the gay marriage campaign was to try to reshape gay male behavior... to try to stop them from killing themselves with their own sexual behavior, as they did during the AIDS epidemic.
What do you think, Althouse?
Will this massive PR, scapegoating and legal campaign persuade gay men to domesticate themselves, behave reasonably and get married?
Brent, every sin damns one to hell for eternity.
I call it projection.
Shouting Thomas said...
So, the real purpose of the gay marriage campaign was to try to reshape gay male behavior... to try to stop them from killing themselves with their own sexual behavior, as they did during the AIDS epidemic.
They have no interest in changing their behavior. They want us to accept them as they are, which is what this is all about.
After all, AIDS killed off about a tenth their population, and that didn't stop them.
A piece of paper will do nothing to alter the behavior.
Promiscuity really is built into male homosexuality. I'm not moralizing here. I'm just speaking about the reality of the male outlook.
Hetero men would be wildly promiscuous, too, if they didn't encounter the brake that is female sexuality. Females withhold, slow things down and refuse, so hetero men have to be happy with what they get.
Homo men don't have anybody to apply the brakes. That's the problem. They're just like hetero men, but they don't face the determination of females to slow things down, keep it sane and commit.
It is the basic difference between men and women that is the problem, gay or straight.
So, I ask again, will this campaign to try to convince gay men to act as if they did face the same restrictions on their sexual behavior as hetero men work? Can PR make that happen?
Do they even sell a print version of Time anymore? And does anyone read it?
I haven't read a Time in years.
"I call sexism!"
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
So, the editor of Time Magazine likes "Lesbian" (yeah, most real lesbians look completely different) Porn?
Before this, who knew?
I give Time another 24 months before it drops its print version, sooner if oil prices spike driving up the cost of paper, printing, and distribution.
Unlike all the women's magazines have have a naked celebrity cover her nipples with her hands or somethings, this is actually wholesome!
TIME should of put the actual real life couples who will benefit from gay marriage.
I guess shock sells, but does it really inform?
"Gay Marriage Already Won"!
(Er, no it hasn't.)
America has already decided!
(Just not the way you wanted it, hence the candyassing around in court)
This magazine is right up there, in terms of propaganda, with the one featuring Tiger Woods and his big wholesome sporty comeback victory romance with Lindsey Vonn.
Nothing will cut out all that kissing faster than marriage.
As a member of the White Anglo Saxon Protestant male ruling class, I say that this cover illustrates our reality: Men kissing men sexually is strange because men are ugly looking, but women kissing women sexually is natural since women are beautiful looking.
I hoped that cleared it up for you, Professor.
Men kissing men sexually is strange because men are ugly looking, but women kissing women sexually is natural since women are beautiful looking.
No. People have long understood that gay male sex brings with it potentially fatal disease vectors, while female homosexual behavior does not.
Hetero swing groups have always attempted to exclude any hint of male homo behavior because they know that it is potentially fatal. There is no corresponding exclusion of female homo behavior.
Realistic.
Everyone wants to watch hot gay lesbians have sex.
Almost no one want to watch any gay guys have sex. Not even Andy R.
Doesn't everyone know this?
Paisley, Sage, Rosemary and Time.
"Good idea, Time."
I'd guess that most straight men find gay sex icky.
Of course, lots of people find steamed broccoli to be icky- but that doesn't imply it should be outlawed.
BUT, you probably wouldn't show a plate full of steamed broccoli in your restaurant ad. Assuming you took out the ad to increase business at your restaurant.
Of course, lots of people find steamed broccoli to be icky- but that doesn't imply it should be outlawed.
Gay sex is outlawed?
I've always thought women were more concerned about great sex/kissing than men. So I'm not surprised to see two women, who know how to make something sensual being more sensual than the two men.
Is it just me? The picture of the guys looks like a more erotic, sexual kiss than does the picture of the girls.
What the left learned about the Obamacare fiasco (ongoing): It pays to work the Supreme Court Justices while they deliberate..
MayBee: Well-said.
And it pays to work the culture too. Much of the power of the gay marriage movement has come from fanning the flames of the Bandwagon Effect -- which we have seen from Althouse and her son -- that gay marriage is the inevitable future.
"will this campaign to try to convince gay men to act as if they did face the same restrictions on their sexual behavior as hetero men work? Can PR make that happen?"
It's not a campaign to convince gay men to be less promiscuous, it's a campaign to present gays to straight audiences as though there were no significant differences (other than sexual orientation, of course) between gays and straights. For if "marriage" means something very different to gays and straights then gay marriage will be something far different from what straights mean by "marriage.
There are good Darwinian reasons why men should care whether their wives are having sex with other men.
But (other than the possibility of STDs), why would gay men care? (Or even if they do, would they give it as high a priority?)
"Gay sex is outlawed?"
Umm, gay sex acts used to be defined as "crimse against nature." And if caught it could get you a choice of forced treatment or prison.
Umm, gay sex acts used to be defined as "crimse against nature." And if caught it could get you a choice of forced treatment or prison.
In reality, these laws were mostly meant to curb the gay male appetite for sex in public places.
In other words, people didn't want to be forced to watch.
It's said that when a man is to be hung (heh,heh) in the morning, it concentrates the mind wonderfully. What with purpureal fever and other OB mishaps, having sex used to be a high risk activity for women. That has passed, and over time women have become more adventurous with their sexuality. I know this because I have seen several episodes of Girls.. Just the opposite with gay males. Promiscuous butt fucking is probably riskier than childbirth in the 19th century. Thus gay men are evolving towards a 19th century attitude towards sex. Eventually gay bars will be places where men to go exchange valentines and flowery sentiments.
Not even Andy R.
Nobody wants to see Andy R. have sex.
Can't the dudes shave at least?
Sam L. said...
According to the study, lesbians are overweight, And if a study says so, it must BE.
And therefore lesbianism must be banned in New York.
Who in their right mind would want to kiss a guy? Sure some of you do it, but not because you want to. You have to.
hatboy: Anybody don't celebrate these here pictures is a bigot, see?!
Althouse: Damn straight!!
I would never in a million years buy Time with a cover like that!
I mean, how are you going to fast forward past the kissing to the strap-on scenes with a print magazine?
Barf!
The picture of the guys looks like a more erotic
Damn!
There is a picture with two guys kissing!! I never would have seen it if you hadn't said anything.
Yeah....It's just you.
Hmm. One of my fave bloggers thinks you're a bigot.
http://www.dailypundit.com/?p=70220
Peter writes: For if "marriage" means something very different to gays and straights then gay marriage will be something far different from what straights mean by "marriage.
But that wouldn't be marriage equality.
'gay marriage already won', and the science is settled.
Shouting Thomas said...
No, I disagree with your symbolism deconstruction, Althouse.
1. Lezzies aren't really gay. They're usually pretty grim, overweight, clad in flannel shirts and they aren't very interested in sex.
So, they've been recast in a more favorable light, as sexy, attractive sirens.
No, it's that the ones Time wants to show are known as "lipstick Lesbians", not the ones that look like Pete Rose or Big Sis.
"While in real life they tend to look more like....something."
Feds spend 1.5 million to study why lesbians are fat
Which cover sells better in Dearborn, Michigan?
"Hmm. One of my fave bloggers thinks you're a bigot."
One of your favorite bloggers isn't too bright.
24 months? Less than a year for Time I'd bet. What do you do after you make the "long march through the institutions"? Power can be used wisely to create more power but it cannot be saved up. The way the Left is pissing it away I'm guessing the zeitgeist may change sooner than anyone thinks.
Racist, I see only white people.
Chuck - ewww gross.
Brent, every sin damns one to hell for eternity.
True. No hope for anyone unless they do what God says and repent (move away from what God calls sin ( no one else's idea of sin matters) accepts God's payment.
The Bible is clear - anyone that chooses to continue in what God calls sin will be eternally seperated from God in a never ending torture and pain, seperated in a black hole millions of miles away from any other being alone never joining those who are saved. Those who choose to believe God, receive what God has said and done AND turn from what God calls sin will be saved into a paradise of activity and challenge and pleasure forever, with no regrets or sadness towards those who chose to not be saved.
Romans 3: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
John 3:16 and 17: “This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn’t go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. Anyone who trusts in him is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him has long since been under the death sentence without knowing it. And why? Because of that person’s failure to believe in the one-of-a-kind Son of God when introduced to him.
Shouting Thomas said...
1. Lezzies aren't really gay.
Handy chart:
Why Lesbians Aren't Gay
From "Pervert" to "Victim:" The Media's Continued One Dimensional Stereotyping of Homosexuals
Shouting Thomas said...
The Jihadis are applauding the descent and pondering their next move.
Are you kidding? Do you know how much porn was found in Bin Laden's hide-out? They're the target demographic!!! :-)
Brent, just because you can quote the Bible doesn't mean you understand it. As you so precisely have shown. Ultimately you get to choose which God and which doctrine (or lack thereof) you want to follow. Go for it, stop judging me by assuming I'm judging you.
Peter said ...
Of course, lots of people find steamed broccoli to be icky- but that doesn't imply it should be outlawed.
Of course it does...broccoli, that cheap ass festering fungi that grows under abandoned cars dripping antifreeze on asphalt.
Gay sex ... meh, not for me, but if for you, fine...I do not need to know the details.
As you were, carry on ... :)
I don't doubt that the future for schoolboys will be forced cocksucking and taking it up the ass "for their own good."
You are a very strange person.
SteveR said ...
Go for it, stop judging me by assuming I'm judging you.
There's gotta be an *ABBA* song in there somewhere.
It is the basic difference between men and women that is the problem, gay or straight.
And this enormous psychological and physical gulf, my children, is why we have created this special emolument we call marriage as a reward for putting up with each other's shit.
Funny, the Bible calls it damnable for eternity.
Apparently the Apostle's Creed should have stopped after the bit about Jesus descending to hell.
After all, smooching a man was among his last acts prior to his arrest and execution. :)
Armstrong and Getty characterize the Justices as sounding like talk radio callers.
Peter wrote:
Umm, gay sex acts used to be defined as "crimse against nature." And if caught it could get you a choice of forced treatment or prison
um, sodomy was outlawed. (Though the odds of you going to jail for it was exceedingly slim since you'd have to be caught doing it, usually in a private place).
Heterosexuals can't engage in sodomy?
I'm actually surprised the internet overlords at work have allowed that picture to show up.
@Nomennovum
If the lesbian cover photo were in color it would qualify as a DVD cover for girl-on-girl porn ... which is probably why it's in balck and white. Good idea, Time.
So, Time is going for the artsy porn cover?
Every day it seems gays find another slight against them. Victimhood must be comforting.
Every day the right becomes more unhinged, promising eternal hellfire and all kinds of other nasties.
The two women still appeal to me as sexual creatures. The two guys look...like guys. Damn, and I was hoping there was something to this "evolving social perception" idea.
I call it lame.
When will Time deal with the economy? And Obama acting like a celebrity rather than president while people are suffering??? That's what really matters.
I personally believe that once gay marriage is official, you won't see so many of them. You'll see a rush of impulsive weddings, followed by divorce within 2 years...just like "regular" marriage.
Me, I've never been impressed with gay folk. I've never found them different from anyone else in the first place. So for me I don't *care* about gay marriage at all.
I imagine that the Christian right just let out a big sigh of relief. If Time thinks "gay marriage already won" then you can bet the mortgage payment that it has lost.
Shouting Thomas: Calling people "bigots," and scapegoating hetero men for the AIDS epidemic is what has brought us to this point.
You are right. As someone pointed out here yesterday, the gay community has shifted the entire responsibility for AIDS from themselves to Ronald Reagan. In my experience most people don't have any problem with gays as friends and neighbors, it's fudge packing that turns them off.
"once gay marriage is official, you won't see so many of them."
Nah. After the marriages, you'll see the "running for PTA President" and "guy just joined the Officer's Wives (make that spouse's) Club and the applications for joint service assignments and the married scout leaders and all sorts of "ain't that cute" things.
Followed by umpteen versions of "Give me the money." Gotta be part of a victim class to score these days.
Sabinal: I personally believe that once gay marriage is official, you won't see so many of them. You'll see a rush of impulsive weddings, followed by divorce within 2 years...just like "regular" marriage.
Well, I think you're entirely right about that but I also think within five years you will see a bunch of new textbooks issued to the schools explaining how anal intercourse is really no different than any other kind.
". In my experience most people don't have any problem with gays as friends and neighbors, it's fudge packing that turns them off."
But back 20 years ago, anal sex was attempted to be normalized for even heterosexuals in sex ed. Girls with their boyfriends may have tried it once, but seriously that was once. Rather disturbing for them, and never did it again.
Again I have no problem discussing sexual intercourse with my older children, but sooner or later I have to introduce these other actions. I don't know I think I'm going to terrify them, when I inform them the rest of the world thinks this is normal.
Social conservatives spend more time talking about anal sex than any gay man I've ever known. :)
Yesterday, the majority of individuals posting their profile pic with the with the pink double bars over red (equal sign), were married straight women with children. Some had the plus sign, in support of one man/one woman.
Interestingly none of the single parents I know, and I know a quite few.... had it one way or the other.
We're not afraid to talk about anal sex openly, I guess.
Go for it, stop judging me by assuming I'm judging you.
Dude . . you're really not that smart are you?
Hey if you feel different, why in the world would what I had to share mean anything to you? Why the hate?
Because you know it's true. Inside, you know you are judged not by me, but by your choices, starting with the choice to refuse to see things the way God clearly shows in His Word. But again, you're choice.
Here's the deal: You and I didn't make the rules. God made the rules. What I think about the rules or what you think about the rules doesn't matter. It's what we do when we find out what the rules are - that's all that ultimately matters.
Rule # 1 God is good and He determines what good is.
Rule #2 Man is basically bad, born that way, through no fault of his/her own (it has to do with the first parents sinning), and it's only a matter of time before each man (woman)violates the goodness of God - it's inevitable. Those who die before an age of accountability to God (children the mentally incapable of understanding) are not judged for their violations of Goid's standards of goodness.
Rule #3 God is Holy and righteous and Good and Love and cannot look upon sin and evil without judging it and punishing it. To be fair to mankind, God had to have a way to communicate wiht mankind to tell him.her what the standards are. The Bible - again you didn;t get to make the rules nor did anyone else - tells us what those standards are AND that no one is just apart form God's plan - no one, even the most "good" person you can think of will ever stand justified before Him.
Rule #4 When man (woma0 sees that he/she cannot meet the standards of a righteous God and cannot have a relationship with God and cannot have any hope of anything other than paying a never ending after death painful punishment for violating God's standards, man asks, what can be done? God says - you didn't make the rules, so basically, your opinions don't matter at all before God - that there must be payment for sin and the only payment is death. BUT God provided a way to die without paying the ultimate price - through accepting God's standard, by accepting His Son death as a substitute for your sin. John 3:16 and 17 says it all. It is those verses that judge you, not me - don't hate the messenger, bro.
Rule #5 God only wants those to believe who want to. Everyone - EVERYONE who has ever existed - will stand before Him one day and will give one of 2 accounts - there are no others - what did you do when with My Son?
By the way, that's why God never wants Theocracy counties - because He doesn't want anyone to be forced to do things His way.
So - Sorry dude, what I think doesn't matter. But if it didn't matter at least somewhat to you - the only ones who get riled up know this is the truth - then you wouldn't be all up in worrying about it. you reaqlly couldn't care less about fools like me.
But you do. And you know why.
See, if I had to have one of those pictures on my wall, which one would it be? Beautiful women kissing each other, or two guys?
Not much of a choice, and probably not for 90% of Americans.
Even porn frequently has female on female sex, but never male on male sex. Is that society? Or the way we've evolved?
If it's the way we evolved, is it bigoted? Or just the way it is?
Don't care.
Breaking news, It's all been settled.. ;-)
Social conservatives spend more time talking about anal sex than any gay man I've ever known. :)
That's been the constant tactic.
Liberal: Let's talk about homosexuality.
Conservative: OK, here's my opinion.
Liberal: Hey, you're really a closet queer. How come you're always yakking about queers?
And ABC fires the 1st shot in the case for polyamory and setting the battlefield space for 2014 & 2016.
Both covers are absolutely disgusting. Like being forced to watch bestiality.
Enjoy the decline, fag -lovers!
Shouting Thomas
You know this statement is very true:
Social conservatives spend more time talking about anal sex than any gay man I've ever known.
Or at least they think it alot. It's as if they think gay people are doing it all the time.
Matt,
Buggery caused a global epidemic that killed millions of people.
Care to explain what in the hell you're talking about?
You sort of have to talk about buggery to talk about gay behavior, don't you?
Shouting Thomas
When you see a man and a woman together do you think of them having sex all the time too?
Being gay is not ONLY about fucking. Just like being heterosexual isn't always about fucking.
Life if not a porno film. Sex gets rather boring after a while, actually. [At least for long time couples].
Renee
Something tells me that by the time you are ready to talk to your kids about sex, homosexuality etc they will already know. I don't think that is a bad thing. Especially since it exists in the world. Trying to shield them from it might actually make it worse.
Being gay is not ONLY about fucking. Just like being heterosexual isn't always about fucking.
So, now, you give me the "all you ever think about is sex" bit.
That's usually reserved for hetero women. Of course, hetero women (particularly unmarried white hetero women) have formed a strange alliance with gay men.
Shouting Thomas
I'm simply saying that being gay is not just about having sex. Many conservatives freak out like it's 1950 when they see two guys kissing or holding hands.
Maybe they should be more concerned if it turns them on - then they would have to question their views on the subject. Otherwise they should just ignore it and go about their business.
Even porn frequently has female on female sex, but never male on male sex. Is that society? Or the way we've evolved?
There's plenty of male-on-male porn. There's even male-on-male porn targeted at women.
There isn't nearly as much of it, but women don't consume nearly as much porn as men do.
Rather disturbing for them, and never did it again.
Huh. And I heard that anal had become the norm, expected. Which made me glad to be old.
Renee said...
But back 20 years ago, anal sex was attempted to be normalized for even heterosexuals in sex ed. Girls with their boyfriends may have tried it once, but seriously that was once. Rather disturbing for them, and never did it again.
It's happening again. In one of the episodes of the CBS series, 2 Broke Girls, anal sex was recommended as the appropriate form of heterosexual first-date sex.
Matt, already told the oldest. simply some people are not attracted to the opposite and that doesn't make them less human.
Totally agree being gay isn't just about sexual conduct. Being gay is simply what they happen to be.
Matt , I shield my kids from "Two Broke Girls", I think in the future they will thank me. It isn't what I deny them, but what I give them.
Many conservatives freak out like it's 1950 when they see two guys kissing or holding hands.
Liberals have their own special fetish about the 1950s: the levels of taxation.
Are gays gay in the sense that the word had before it meant gay? i.e., "The Gay (18)90's If not, they should give the word back.
It seems glaringly obvious that Matt has never potty-trained a child nor taught one about hygiene. I guess enema foreplay is something you guys learn in the "subculture"?
Wow Brent DUDE!! You have quite the ego and you don't know shit. Do you think I care about your religious information when it was evident from the start on here what your deal was. How smart are you to evaluate me based on a couple comments? And the DUDE thing. That's a good comeback. "You're not that smart DUDE" That hurts
You are right. As someone pointed out here yesterday, the gay community has shifted the entire responsibility for AIDS from themselves to Ronald Reagan. In my experience most people don't have any problem with gays as friends and neighbors, it's fudge packing that turns them off.
have you ever seen a gay pride parade? Especially one in NY? it's hard to take gays seriously when a huge chunk of them are dressed like dominatrixes or females. Or at the very least, its hard to think of gayness as anything other than sexual proclivity.
We saw one dude walking his boyfriend down the street on the way to the parade on a leash, and the boyfriend was wearing leather pants with one of his ass cheeks displayed, not to mention the requisite dog collar and nipple rings.
Sorry, but its hard to view gay identity as serious when its represented by guys walking around NYC on leashes in chaps that show their ass.
You are right. As someone pointed out here yesterday, the gay community has shifted the entire responsibility for AIDS from themselves to Ronald Reagan. In my experience most people don't have any problem with gays as friends and neighbors, it's fudge packing that turns them off.
have you ever seen a gay pride parade? Especially one in NY? it's hard to take gays seriously when a huge chunk of them are dressed like dominatrixes or females. Or at the very least, its hard to think of gayness as anything other than sexual proclivity.
We saw one dude walking his boyfriend down the street on the way to the parade on a leash, and the boyfriend was wearing leather pants with one of his ass cheeks displayed, not to mention the requisite dog collar and nipple rings.
Sorry, but its hard to view gay identity as serious when its represented by guys walking around NYC on leashes in chaps that show their ass.
being gay is not just about having sex
It is the sine qua non of "being gay." It is what defines one as homosexual or not - having sex with a person of the same sex.
And don't say that "being gay" is about love. Two men can love each other and not in a homosexual way. Most men love their fathers and their brothers and even their male friends, but they don't want to have sex with dear old dad or the others. It is the sex act which defines one as gay.
But actually, "being gay" is inaccurate as well. Gayness is not a state of being. It is not ontological, it is not a part of someone's nature. Rather, a person's nature is to be a human person, male or female. Period. And as a male or female, as revealed to us in our very bodies, we are specifically oriented toward penile-vaginal joinder, not penile-digestive tract joinder, as is clear from the fact that the organs used for sex are explicitly reproductive.
If it were to ever happen that a person was homosexual by nature, then such a nature would become extinct within that same generation since it is impossible for two persons of the same sex to reproduce. Basic Darwinist evolutionary theory dictates that.
Matt said:
I'm simply saying that being gay is not just about having sex
actually that's the only thing it's about. Gayness is a sexual orientation where gays have sexual attraction to people of their own sex.
Not to say that all gays have sex, but clearly the orientation is the paramount consideration. If you are identifying yourself based on who you love, then who you love is the primary characteristic in which gays will be judged.
This by the way is true for heterosexuals as well.
Limpballs has already conceded defeat.
Being gay is not ONLY about fucking.
Well, that sounds like a long discussion about what the definition of "is" is.
No matter. Whatever being gay is about besides sex, it is not about creating children and raising them.
once gay marriage is official, you won't see so many of them.
I'll be surprised if 20% of gays are eventually married.
I'll be even more surprised if 10% of those married couples raise their own children, by which I mean children not leftover from previous marriages.
I'll be glad when this whole gay marriage issue is over. Only then will we be able to go on to the more pressing issue of the Marines' refusal to accept transgendered recruits.
Now that gay marriage is inevitable, what will be the next duck to fall? I'm guessing it will be schools who won't let cross-dresser boys who consider themselves girls use the girls' bathroom in junior high school.
Buggery caused a global epidemic that killed millions of people.
Is this the part where you pretend to care about dead AIDS patients? :)
It's happening again. In one of the episodes of the CBS series, 2 Broke Girls, anal sex was recommended as the appropriate form of heterosexual first-date sex.
Panic is, of course, the appropriate response upon learning that edgy sexual content appeared on a sitcom.
I call sexism!
I call stupidism!
I betchya $100.00 I could do better than this in thirty seconds on Craigslist.
Wanna bet? Wanna bet?
I know when it comes to babies, it is about sex. That is why they call the reproductive organs. So for children, .marriage is about bringing their mom and dad together.
Can't post that on Facebook.... or else I will be reported.
The only thing keeping straight men from being just as promiscuous as gay men is straight women.
Matt said...
Social conservatives spend more time talking about anal sex than any gay man I've ever known....Or at least they think it alot. It's as if they think gay people are doing it all the time.
Uh, Matt....speak for yourself. If you think about something a lot doesn't mean a majority of anyone else does as well. You are projecting your imagination, nothing more.
I could get behind SSM a lot more if they'd show more hot lesbians kissing. Hollywood seems to think the gay community is only about fab flamboyant feminine guys doing theater and interior design.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा