I wonder if he's trying to excuse the prejudice based on him not liking the institution in the first place. That's the only line of thought I can think of that matches the thread, unless he's just triggered by his personal identity politics, and needed to lash out like some women's studies major.
I think they refer to the low key gays as Rock Hudson gay.
I don't think it's disgusting or wrong in an overal moral way, just it repulses me personally. So do fat chicks, but I dont want to outlaw them, or have them have any less rights than rest of us.
From what I understand, recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans now support it. Of course, as seen in our recent election, polls are not entirely reliable. But most of the votes on gay marriage took place when it was still a minority opinion in polls. I'm familiar with the scheme to target Christian caterers. They'll call like a thousand of them until they find the one that doesn't want to do it, and then that poor bastard gets targeted. Meanwhile, they NEVER do this to Muslim owned businesses. I think former Sherdogger Steven Crowder went to Muslim owned businesses posing as a homosexual and he was treated exactly as you would expect. But again, only Christians are targeted to fit the leftist narrative.
I certainly do want to outlaw fat chicks, but that is a convo for another thread.
Attractive women will be attractive no matter what they are doing. However, men and women who look like men will never be attractive to heterosexual men.hi all and happy holidays to everyone!
i noticed in this thread, http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/i...by-angry-man-just-for-being-on-plane.3428819/, a very virulent kind of hatred towards folks who pursue same sex relationships by a good portion of this forum.
i was wondering, though, is it same sex relationships that sicken you, like this one? like, is this "bad" and do you find yourself looking at this image in a kind of moral outrage?
or is it that you just don't like when men partake in this sort of activity?
- IGIT
I feel the "but" is justified here or at least understandable. I don't see it as being like "I believe in free speech, but..." I mean people aren't advocating for criminal or civil limitations on homosexuality like we've seen with speech in recent years. It's just a natural aversion to tuning in to say a TV show that is supposed to be about something unrelated to homosexuality, and then the next thing you know, two homosexual characters are engaging in rimming. Yes, that actually happens on network TV these days. Yet, they can't show tits. Go figure. I'm not outraged over it, but it does seem over the top and a bit try hard to me. Like they make the gay sex scenes more explicit than the straight sex scenes on purpose to send a message.
It was done to undermine the religious component of marriage and make marriage a legal government thing. More government power.
A lot of the big big homophobes/gay haters that I knew, I found out they experimented with dudes. Kind of funny. Actually, it's damn funny.
How to Get Away With Murder. Came in expecting violence. Got graphic gay sex instead. It used to be easier to avoid. You knew there were gay shows like Queer as Folk* that you could avoid and you wouldn't see anything. Maybe a light lesbian kiss. Now it's all over the place.
How to Get Away With Murder. Came in expecting violence. Got graphic gay sex instead. It used to be easier to avoid. You knew there were gay shows like Queer as Folk* that you could avoid and you wouldn't see anything. Maybe a light lesbian kiss. Now it's all over the place.
*Funny story about that. I was trying to watch a boxing match on Showtime once when that show was still on the air. My brother grabs the clicker and switches it to QAF in the middle of the fight. It's a graphic gay sex scene. Grab the clicker back and switch it to the boxing match. Then he grabs it again and back to graphic gay sex. Some family life I had, huh?
