Women Are So Anti-Gay It’s Not Even Funny
True story. I was walking to the store yesterday and smoking a giant Cuban cigar — as I like to do on Tuesday’s. On the way, I passed a woman who was shouting at her dog. The dog had wandered away and was ferreting through someone’s trash.
Being the helpful man that I am, I tried to explain to the woman that the dog was probably not understanding her position on the matter and that this is one of the reasons the city magistrate considers it in everyone’s best interests for dogs to be kept on leashes — to deter that kind of chaos. Everyone got together and agreed it would make the city better.
The woman made an overly-crass comment that I’m not going to repeat here because of its hateful subject matter and stormed away. I found myself asking one question as she did.
Why do all women hate gay people so much?
Women sling insults of the homosexual variety at men with greater fervor and intensity than a rabid wolf. They practically spit all over themselves when they get a chance to snarl some anti-gay epithet at a man. It’s disgusting.
Also, when I say “gay people”, I obviously mean gay men. Gay women, or “lesbians” are not gay. They’re faking it. You can tell because they’re as loud as possible about their sexual proclivities at all times.
Just like the mischievous school boy who insists he doesn’t cheat at Monopoly is a liar and a cheater (good man-reasoning in Monopoly — a sure way to win!), “lesbians” are not actually gay. They just want attention, some way to define themselves that isn’t “failure”, or to get back at their parents for clothing and sheltering them for twenty-four years (usually more). I don’t know when these “lesbian’s” decided that proper parenting was a crime, but they did and we men have to deal with it.
Women claim that gay people are the greatest things since sliced bread. But listen to their reasons: because they shop and because they listen.
Listen? Women know as much about listening as an ass knows about playing a flute.
What women actually want to do with gay people (when they’re not shaming them behind their backs with radically anachronistic slanders) is use them as a dart board for an endless tirade of nonsense blubbering about men in general, and without ever having to return any kind of favor for this service — any kind.
That is monkey shit.
Related Articles:
Pages: « 11 10 [9] 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 » Show All
@Dakota On abortion. I agree with much of your analysis, save that I see the left/pro-choice as also trying to impose its views by government force, even imposing them on shutting down free speech.
I too would return it as an issue to the states. Roe v Wade was poorly founded constitutionally.
Leaving aside religious and philosophical objections (which we agree are essentially unprovable), I would consider the practical issue of abortion being homicide as ‘proven’ when a fetus is viable — even with extensive life support — outside the mother’s womb. There are those who’d disagree; I’d be interested to know their views on infanticide, killing the stupid, and terminating those in reversible comas.
On drugs? Certainly agreed as far as marijuana goes. As you say, the Mary Jane store owners aren’t going to be getting into gunfights with one another. GHB/Rohypnol - no, these can be used in pretty nasty ways to hurt other people. Crystal meth/Heroin/Cocaine? Not sure.
I’d not define my brand of conservatism this way, though I’d agree it describes most Republicans.
-wolfe.
Bush and Blair sitting in a tree.
So what is it that frightens you? Be specific.
That’s what.
Again, I don’t understand. What is frightening about people being able to do what they like assuming they don’t harm anyone in the process? What’s threatening about that, honestly. Tell me what frightens you about that?
Absolutely nothing. So long as there’s an ocean and continent inbetween us.
It would be fascinating to see how a bold, exciting, innovative yet youthful Anarchist America founded on a heterogeneous mosaic of people would fare through time compared to nations founded on ethnically cohesive homogenous peoples that have withstood for millennia.
‘cept for them nukes and the trigger happy good guys.
Hm … you’ve self-identified yourself as a liberal, Sandra. As the word is used in modern America, that would mean that you believe in the Left-Wing brand of Statism which has as its underlying philosophy the idea that everyone is a little bit stupid, and therefore need government to make decisions they’re too stupid to make for themselves.
I would contrast this with modern American conservatism or Right-Wing brand of Statism, which has as its underlying philosophy the idea that everyone is a little bit evil and needs government to make decisions they’re too evil to make for themselves.
Typically libertarians believe that while there are always stupid and evil people, when left to their own devices most people are capable with dealing with the minority stupid or evil.
The point is that it’s unprovable one way or another. Your position entirely rests on philosophical beliefs that vary from person to person, regardless of your position.
I can’t prove that abortion is homicide any more than I can prove that Allah wants all the Infidels dead. The fact that someone may believe that Allah wants them dead doesn’t prove that he does.
To be clear, I’m not a libertarian any more. I once was, until I realized that they would be no more capable of reforming government than any other political party. The problem is government itself not implementation of a particular government.
These days, I’m a Zero Aggression Principle philosopher, which isn’t the same as a libertarian. There is some crossover, but I would categorize most libertarians as strict Constitutionalists.
Unfortunately, the fact that the Constitution has proven to be an abject failure in its stated purpose never seems to occur to them.
I don’t understand. What’s frightening about people being free to persue their lives provided that it doesn’t harm someone else?
scary and out of our minds, yes.
The whole point was that the burden of proof lies with those who claim it’s not homicide. Which they’ve still to properly shoulder.
Also, false positives on the matter of a human life are quite a great deal better than false negatives. Unless you’re a liberal, of corse.
Are all American libertarians of your, overall, not so mild views?
If so then footnote: libertarians are scary.
I can prove I’m a human being if you’re willing to fly to South Dakota, USA. I’d come to you, but I don’t have the money after my divorce.
If you do come, make it sometime in May. The tourist traps in the Black Hills near Mount Rushmore open by then, but the tourists haven’t flooded in and ruined it, yet. A great time to show you around. :)
As to being an NRA member, that’s a different story. I don’t know what the NRA’s position is on giving out former member information. You could always call them and ask if I’m currently a member.
Regardless, I don’t see what that has to do about proving that abortion is homicide. They’re two different things.
No, I’d prefer to get abortion out of the hands of government, period. I don’t think any of the weasels in government at any level are in a position to know what’s best for you better than you do yourself.
However, getting it out of the hands of the Feds would effectively eliminate abortion as a polarizing issue throughout the country, and that would be a great start.
Ok. I’ve no problem with that.
Drug trafficking doesn’t inherently harm anyone but the user — and they do that to themselves. Certainly there’s a lot of violence in the drug trade today, but if you look at Prohibition in the US, this is clearly caused by only allowing criminials to deal drugs. Liquor store owners don’t go around shooting each other, and neither would marijuana store owners.
Money laundering is only an issue if you’re trying to, say, stop them from using certain drugs because you’re philosophically opposed to them.
Well, since the ZAP only prohibits actions that initiate force against others, I don’t see how letting people do what they like if it’s not hurting anyone else is a problem.
What do you think people need to be stopped from doing if it doesn’t hurt anyone?
Ok. It’s worked every time it’s tried.
No, sapience is the primary characteristic that separates homo sapiens from animals.
No, what we understand is that human beings have three chief characteristics: sapience, territoriality, and a desire for self-determination.
Where we differ from the Statists is in wishing to construct social and political environments that work in concert with those characteristics rather than against them. Only in this way can the individual’s happiness, success, and ability to coexist peacefully with others be maximized.
No, I am not an idiot. I understand perfectly that potential imprisonment, etc. is but a mere deterrent.
That doesn’t mean we should strip away society so as to make it more to the anarchists fancy. Or does it?
Can you satisfactorily prove to me you’re a human being, not some bot that’s just passed the Turing test? Or not an NRA membre?
Yes the burden of proof lies with me, since my hypothesis are counter intuitive, against common sense even. Merely poetic examples
But that’s besides the argument. You would first have to, yourself, precisely and concisely define to me what a human being is for all intents and purposes pending my comparison and ruling.
Also, why stop at State level? Merely because you hate the feds?
Why not let anything and everything slide, from drug trafficking to money laundering/forging? So long as it isn’t conflicting with the 0AP. Damn, leave everything out/at the latitude of the common, decent, law abiding citizen to be judge, jury and executioner and generally proceed as their wit sees fit.
The very relinquishing of certain freedoms is what separates us from the animals. Or indeed, lesser cultures. Libertarians, and anarchists, have trouble grasping that.
Oh, as to murder, it is in the hands of the average Joe or Jane. It always has been and always will be. All government can do is set a punishment if you commit it. That doesn’t mean you have to give a shit.
This is a common misconception among Statists. Statists believe that laws prevent crime as opposed to setting a consequence for committing that crime. There’s a massive difference, and the failure to understand that is what really defines a Statist.
But sonyad, can you prove it’s a form of homicide, lesser or greater notwithstanding?
No, you can’t. It’s a philosophical issue, plain and simple. I see no reason to force others to bend to your philosophy. Part of freedom is letting others believe what they like.
No argument there.
On the abortion thingy… Especially if you see it as tantamount to or a lesser/more grievous form of homicide, how in the hell could you leave the matter at the latitude of the States or, better still, the People in the puerile hope and faith in their wisdom to govern themselves properly?
Perhaps outright murder as well should be entirely at the latitude of the average Joe/Jane?
Ok … we all know that I’m a crazy, anti-government nutjob. I don’t for a nanosecond believe that the right people to decide what’s best for you are in the halls of government, whether that be in your local town hall, your local state legislature, and most especially thousands of miles away in a national capital.
Only you know what’s best for you.
That said, zogmama, your experience may be slightly tainted by the people you deal with on a daily basis. My experience, and that of my father (a psychologist who’s had his own practice most of my life) is that the primary use of abortion is a birth control mechanism.
The average woman who has abortions gets them repeatedly, due to the fact that no one was using contraception when they had sex. It’s a birth control mechanism, plain and simple. I certainly agree that men can have some level of culpability, but ultimately it’s the woman’s body and therefore ultimately her responsibility if she gets pregnant or not.
It’s hypocritical, in my opinion, to say that on the one hand a woman is responsible for her body when it comes to having an abortion, but she’s not responsible for having gotten pregnant in the first place.
Damned right, it’s a woman’s body. If she doesn’t want to get pregnant, she better be on birth control.
It’s sort of like the situation in the male homosexual population: most gay men are incredibly promiscuous. Check out any “Casual Encounters” section of Craigslist for proof. If you go around having unprotected sex with random partners, you will eventually find one with STDs.
Who bears the personal responsibility for contracting an STD in that situation? The man having unprotected sex with multiple partners, or the one he had sex with that had the STD?
Pregnancy is the same. It’s the woman’s body, so if she doesn’t want to get pregnant, she needs to not behave recklessly by having sex without contraception.
It may not be fair, but then life isn’t fair.
Ultimately, the entire issue boils down to a religious one, asking a question that simply cannot be objectively answered: is a human foetus a human being and therefore deserving of the rights of a human being?
As I say, it’s an unanswerable philosophical question at this time. The answer will depend entirely on what one’s personal beliefs are.
What bothers me is that those who believe that is a human being are so eager to use government force to make those who disagree bend to their will. Here the United States is in the middle of a war with individuals who would force us to bend to their philosophical beliefs, a war which is uniformly supported by the same people who want to force others to bend to their philosophical beliefs.
And sadly, the home-grown pro-lifers can’t see the dark hypocrisy of the situation. They don’t want Muslims telling them what to believe, but they’re perfectly content to tell pro-choice advocates what to believe.
All that aside, I know how to make the whole problem disappear instantly:
Adhere to the Constitution. There’s nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that says anything about abortion being a power of the Federal government, so any and all abortion law — pro or con — should be immediately removed from the books. RvW should be immediately struck down and power over the issue returned to the States or the People.
Furthermore, any and all Federal funding for abortion should be removed from the ledgers. It’s not within the Federal government’s purview to touch this issue in any way, shape, manner, or form.
If individual State constitutions delegate the power to regulate abortion to its governments, the States can decide what they want to do. No doubt this will mean that in some areas of the country, abortion would be legal and in others illegal. Again, I don’t think it’s appropriate to deal with this issue in government at all, but that would be a damned sight better than intentionally polarizing the entire nation over something not within the Federal Government’s purview in the first place.
Here’s your speck of truth.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html
Billy: I didn’t blame men - I gave both parties responsibility. Men have a choice as well. The repercussions of abortion OR carrying a child to term fall unequally - primarily on the woman. If that is not accountability, then you need to redefine your terms.
~Z~
I think Zogmama has an interesting point with regards to attitudes towards abortion. There is a great deal of hypocrisy with the idea that women are 100% to ‘blame’ 100% of the time for this does seem to communicate that somehow having babies or being pregnant is a bad thing that has happened that requires pointing the finger of blame at somebody in the first place. Yet when a woman decides to terminate the ‘bad’ pregnancy somehow she is attacked for that also.
I am not disagreeing with Sonyad’s view on abortion per se, just acknowledging that Zogmama has made an interesting observation that is important to look at, if only for a passing second.