Archive for the ‘gays’ Category

Faggots and Retards (mincing words)   Leave a comment

MINCING WORDS
FAGGOTS and RETARDS

SO GIVEN ALL OF THAT, HOW IS IT THAT……………

how is it that you can call someone a FAGGOT and get into trouble for using a hateful word that is supposedly incendiary to the homosexual community, when it is extremely unlikely that you are even using that word in the context of anything that is even vaguely viewed as being “traditionally” gay?

ie. “The xyz footy club can’t play footy for QUIDS, they are a bunch a of GIRLY SKIRT FAGGOTS!!”

for those who don’t get the reference: “footy” in this context is *not* traditionally a very “gay” sort of thing, it is a very manly type of thing where lots of manly men man types nudge and throw and kick a bit of a pig skin ball around a big open field, quite often watched by large crowds cheering them on as they score points throwing said pig-skin ball around, while tackling, injuring and sometimes beating the crap out of each other. Basically it is the modern day, “politically correct” equivalent of the gladiator type battles that the Romans used to have, “politically correct” in that no-one is *supposed* to die. my how we’ve grown up, we don’t kill each other for entertainment and sport these days, but we still pay good money to watch people beat the crap out of each other?? indeed, how we have grown..

So using the word FAGGOT is supposedly insensitive, but we can post images of gays and men in drag as an insult to other people online, which is deliberately using an explicit and obvious reference to “gayness” as a basis for the insult itself, in other words the insult is “YOU ARE A HOMOSEXUAL, HAHAHHAHAH!”

point being: you can call someone a FAGGOT and get into trouble, yet you can post an image representing homosexuality, and not get into trouble, or at least be tolerated.

while those notions by themselves, kind of don’t make any sense in that they are hypocritical of each other, if we combine those notions with the following, that’s when it really starts to totally make NO sense…

ie. how is it that you can call someone a RETARD and get NOT into trouble for using a hateful word that is supposedly derogatory to the mentally challenged when you are not really using that word in the context of those poor unfortunates who actually are mentally incapacitated, but then you DO get into trouble when you attempt to insult another person online by posting an *image* that quite clearly shows a mentally challenged person that obviously has down syndrome or are otherwise similarly mentally challenged, as if to say “you are mentally challenged, you are incapable of independent rational thought, you can’t look after yourself, you are a dumbarse, YOU ARE A RETARD!”???

in summary:

how is that you can call someone a FAGGOT to insult them and get into trouble for not being “P.C.”, but we call each other RETARDS all day and no-one blinks an eye?

and

how is that you can post a picture of a mentally challenged person to insult someone else and cause an uproar of disapproval, but then we often deliberately insult people with quite explicit images of homosexual and effeminate behaviour, and cause an uproar of laughter?

This does not make sense… and it’s very hypocritical, but that’s what we do, we have people who get offended by the word FAGGOT, but they don’t have a problem when somebody uses the word RETARD, and those same people often will not be offended by seeing an image of a person that is clearly homosexual in a very obvious way, but they’ll get all upset when they are exposed to an image of a mentally challenged individual …

I believe the people who act like this, to be the some of biggest bigots we have, as that’s being two faced, it’s alright to be a cunt all the time, that’s staying in character, but to find offence in one thing, but then not the other, then what’s the source of your fucking hypocritical problem?

I have a theory…

You don’t like to *SEE* mentally challenged people because it offends you, as *YOU* don’t ever want to be like that but you know that it’s out of your control and if it where true, then there would be nothing you go do about it, so you are perfectly happy to call people retards as an affirmation that that would never happen to you, because if it was going to happen, it would have *already* happened as you are likely to be born mentally challenged, ie. it’s not something you would likely choose if somehow you were given the option.

At the same time, you don’t mind seeing extreme representations of gay behaviour because you know that *YOU* will never actually go to that extreme and be like that yourself, but you get offended by the use of the word FAGGOT because you are afraid that deep down, you aren’t sure that you wouldn’t go off and start being a GAY yourself.

In other words you see the specific image of a mentally challenged person and reject that as offensive as that won’t happen to you, but you find the image of a sexual orientation different to yours to be humorous, because you know that you would never consciously choose to actually go and do such a thing.

Thus meaning that the word RETARD is acceptable because there is nothing you would do that would make you consciously make you mentally challenged, but you find the word FAGGOT unacceptable because at some level, you know that it’s possible for you to be a homosexual, there’s nothing stopping you from choosing to run with your feelings.

Advertisements

Posted 13 November, 2010 by manabrau in gays, mincing-words

the gay marriage debate.. (religiorant)   Leave a comment

RELIGIO-RANT

mostly written 28th April 2009, mostly …

I have *never* seen as big an issue as the debate over gays getting married, where the people bitching about it more than likely, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GAY PEOPLE WHATSOEVER.

Most of these fuckers trying to stop gay marriage, when asked, have said that they have never even met a gay person, that’s a bit like how all those christians claim that “god hates fags” and yet, they have not even read the bible, much the same way that the world has been gripped by Islamophobia, and yet, how many Muslims do you know personally? I know of one, and u know what? she seems like a fairly decent sort of person and I used to know some gay people, but not any more. Last I heard was that the only openly gay person I had ever known, had killed himself.

I *so* don’t give a fuck if gays get married, and yet, there’s a whole bunch of chrischuns that *do* give a crap that these homoseckshuals, that they’ll *NEVER* meet mind you, *are* getting married.. (uhmm.. can you say “mind your own fucking business” already? well? sticky beaks? nosey nuisance? hand in the cookie jar spreading your morality across the world, morality that you DO NOT even follow, absolutes my arse.. inerrant word of god MY ARSE)

there isn’t enough love in this world and yet there are cunts in this world that are trying to make legislation against certain forms of it!! Oh, and since fucking when was marriage a chrischun thing anyway? Does the definition of marriage in the dictionary say “Marriage: an exclusively christian union between a man and woman”..

IT IS NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS SO FUCK OFF

i’ve been reading some chrischun blogs lately and well, what’s the fucking problem with all of this gay marriage shite?

since when was someone else’s relationships, someone you’ve probably never met and never will meet, since when was that ANY OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS?

i have no vested interest in any side of this debate, i’m not gay, i’m not married, i’m not chrischun, at least, not for long time… (maybe i should write a blog as to the “why” about that?)

so i don’t care if gay ppl get married AT ALL

what i care about is bigots pretending their religion says that they can be bigots…

IT DOES NOT.. I KNOW OF NO RELIGION THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS TREAT PEOPLE LIKE SHIT (but please correct me, if u can)

firstly: where does it say that marriage is a “christian” thing? turn to any dictionary and is the definition of ‘marriage’ a “christian union of a christian man and a christian woman”? well?

NO IT IS NOT – MARRIAGE IS *NOT* AN EXCLUSIVELY CHRISTIAN THING – SO GET THE FUCK OVER YOURSELVES IF THAT IS INDEED WHAT YOU THINK

secondly: the christians don’t like it when “the gays” want to have a christian wedding performed by a priest/pastor/preacher/whatever because it says in the bible that gays are an abomination. bigotry is built right into chrischunanity, so it’s hard to blame bigots for being bigoted when they their religion dictates that they be bigoted, but here’s what i don’t understand about *why* gays would want a christian or religious wedding at all in the first place…

if somebody regarded me as an abomination because their religion arbitrarily says that I am an abomination, without even giving a reason, then I would say “fuck you” to that person, and if that just happened to be my religion as well, I would be doing some serious re-evaluation of my “religion” if that’s the sort of attitude my own religion creates towards me… but then again, that sort of attitude prevents me from being brainwashed in the first place.

it’s simple, chrischuns don’t *want* gays in their ‘club’.

a·bom·i·na·tion
n.
1. Abhorrence; disgust.
2. A cause of abhorrence or disgust.

Say it out loud with me… an *abomination* .. and just for good measure…

ab·hor·rence
n.
1. One that is disgusting, loathsome, or repellent.
2. A feeling of repugnance or loathing.

chrischuns think gays are *disgusting* – imagine talking to someone who thought that you were *disgusting*?

but….

chrischuns think gays are disgusting because they *are* gay, and that’s it. there is *NO* actual reason.

does the bible list an actual reason for *why* gays are an abomination? no it doesn’t… but feel free to correct me, as always, if u can…

so, let me get this straight for all the kids reading this at home, not only do chrischuns actively regard gay people as an abomination, but guess what? …. The bible does NOT EVEN LIST AN ACTUAL REASON for treating the gay community like a piece of shit.

So much for “treat others as you would have them treat you”, hey? Seems that bit of the bible doesn’t apply to gays. (or Muslims, or atheists or …)

I *know* for a fact that there are people out there who do not have a problem with saying they would hang gay people from trees and use them as a piñata. while these people may say these things because they deem them to be funny, i seriously doubt the victims of violence towards the gay community find it funny.

Good thing this chrischunanity is a religion of peace, hey?

Imagine if it were a religion of indifference? or worse, a religion of hate? (of course nobody would admit their religion is a religion of hate)

Even if I was a *devout* chrischun I would not be able to seriously keep identifying myself as chrischun if I were gay. No way, uh ah.. *shakes*head* .. not at all…

Soooooooo given the way that a small group of chrischuns treat gays, why would gays *want* a religious marriage? why? why why why? isn’t that a bit like a black dude growing up in a family that is involved with the KKK? well, isn’t it?

Apparently there are some churches that will do gay marriages, but why? an abomination, disgusting. why why why?

The gay community should take this opportunity to *MESS* with all chrischuns

what they should do is declare that they will *only* ever have civil marriages, and they won’t *ever* have a chrischun wedding, making special mention that they are *not* welcome to be a part of the religion of “peace”, the religion of “understanding”, the religion of “love” itself, the religion that teaches “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

And, of course they should make *extra* special mention that they would like to be a part of this tolerant religion and it’s good will to all mankind, but somehow, being regarded as an abomination, as disgusting, as abhorrent and repulsive, is not really the sort of tolerance that they want to be part of, and that, in fact, chrischuns can keep their bigoted millennia old ideas to themselves..

so of course when the church openly agree to this…. it will set a precedent that religion *deliberately* segregates society and singles out individuals for being “different”.

as long as one christian regards even *ONE* gay person as an abomination, christianity will be regarded as an abomination as well….

end of story…


Posted 24 November, 2009 by manabrau in gays, M.S., Religion Sux Arse

US christians: if gays are an abomination then so is your national symbol…   Leave a comment

US christians: if gays are an abomination then so is your national symbol…

if gays are an abomination, as some christians so loudly, and so proudly and so frequently claim, then using the same book from the bible where they get that gay idea in the first place, isn’t the USA itself an abomination for having an Eagle as it’s national symbol?

So if gays are some sort of abomination:

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Then the eagle is also an abomination.

Which thing is more in the faces of US christians than the other? Their “National Symbol”, or gays “being gay”?

In my entire life, I once saw two guys kissing, that was slightly disturbing, but it was the *only* time someone being gay was in my face with their gayness. So it would be fair to say that gays being in my face with their gayness isn’t a problem where I live, however I’ve often seen images from proud Americans displaying their national pride by displaying a Bald Eagle often draped in the USA flag on myspaz.

And yet, the christian complaint about gays, that I’ve often heard, head over to myspaz and ask them if u need convincing, is that christians don’t want to see “it”, with “it” being gay people being gay, because according to the bible, it’s an abomination to some dude called god…

oh what’s that i hear? but *eating* eagles is the actual abomination not the *eagles* themselves?

so given that liberal biblical interpretation, would that not mean that gays aren’t the abomination either, but rather it’s the act of gay sex that’s the abomination, right, and not gays themselves, right?? well?

According to the Book of Leviticus: If gays are an abomination for having gay abomination sex, as clearly demonstrated as being the belief of many christians on many occasions over on myspaz, then the USA must also be an abomination for openly and willingly choosing an abomination, the eagle, as it’s national icon. I mean what good bible following christian would think otherwise?

so any US christian bitching about something that is supposedly in their faces all the time, surely doesn’t know that their internationally recognised national symbol is also an abomination, as I seriously doubt that gays being gay are in your face more than the Bald Eagle is in your face. So why make a big deal of gays defiling the sanctity of your precious bible when the exact same thing should be regarded of the USA’s national symbol?

and no doubt that no matter how many reasons ppl are shown that gays are human beings, ppl will still think gays are an abomination, well then I say to them “so frakking what anyway?”

we heard you the first MILLION times, by the way, so put a sock in it already, if it’s a sin, OK, that’s nice mr and mrs christian, but, it’s *your* sin, if you don’t like it, then don’t do it, don’t look at it, don’t speculate that some effeminate looking man is a homo, don’t speculate that some butch looking woman is a dyke, just get the frack over it and mind your Sweet Jesus lovin’ business..

if it’s really a sin and you really are correct in your beliefs, and gays and non-believers really are going to hell, then that’s between us heathens and this Jesus/god u keep going on about who supposedly loves us all, so it’s NONE of your business *anyway* regardless of how you’ve used your religion to justify your bigotry …

oh what’s that i hear? You just don’t want the gays to go to hell? We non-believers heard you, the gays heard you too, we’re all going to burn in hell for eternity, so why do you make everyone else’s lives hell in *this* life as well by constantly damning non-believers to hell and excluding non-believers from the human race?

See that’s the offensive thing, we non-believers, gay or not, see christians damning gays and non-believers arbitrarily to hell as being offensive, not because your religion says so, it’s that *YOU* are not being a part of the human race for damning us to hell, *YOU* do not want to get along with everyone else, *YOU* are being rude and that has nothing at all to do with your religion from our point of view anyway.. but if that’s what your religion says, then keep it to yourself, rude much?

Just because you invoke the name Jesus, it doesn’t give you the right to be a fucking arsehole, regardless of whether you are right or not

Posted 6 July, 2009 by manabrau in bible, gays, Religion Sux Arse, T.A.

religious excuses for hating gays…. (offensive-religio-rant-humour)   Leave a comment

religion, dividing the world, again still….

what’s the most likely religious reason excuse as to why religious people hate gays?

I mean it says in the bible in that Leviticus bit:

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

and then again, but with more vigilanteeism

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Frankly I don’t see why the male chauvinists haven’t latched onto these ones, I mean people are always interpreting the bible however the frack they want and getting away with it, so how about this interpretation of Lev 18:22?

Leviticus 18:22 Do not tell lies to your fellow men (like how you tell lies to women) as it is uncool!

or how about this play on words of Leviticus 20:13?

Leviticus 20:13 If a man fucks another man, once he has already fucked a woman, then both that woman and that man shall be put to death!

So, if you ‘lay’ with a man the same way you ‘lay’ with a woman, doesn’t that imply that you have had to have had already been ‘laid’ by the woman in the first place. So that implies to me that it’s OK to be gay, as long as you aren’t switching sides later on!! LOL! urrr… and if you do flip sides after taking a woman, then the woman is responsible for turning the man gay… (yes, chauvinists should like that one too) ..

of all of these excuses for gayophobia in the bible that i can find, they don’t mention that girl on girl action is bad, so one can only assume it’s not OK for guys, but being gay is OK for girls… 😀

oh, and then there is this beauty from Doo-too-ron-oh-me (sounds like a droid designation! “Doo-Too!! Doo-Too Oh-Too, where are you?!”)

Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Charming. makes me want to be a cross dresser, or get a sex change, and then wear men’s clothing! Or maybe the author of Do-Too Oh-Too didn’t want women to be wearing any male appendages? “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man” … maybe that author got a *really* bad birthday present from his woman once, ie. she wore the appendage as a trophy…

*ouch*

Those three verses (old testament by the way) are probably the only three biblical excuses for gating hays, however, those same verses are probably the basis for lots of christian bigotry.

and if you didn’t know, the most famously quoted version of the bible, the King James Version, doesn’t even have the word “homosexual” in it at all, it uses the word “effeminate”, so anybody using the word “homosexual” when quoting the bible, is using one of those versions where somebody has gone and got a convenient translation of the bible. I’ve seen christians quoting the King James Bible, but then in the next paragraph they are making quotes from the bible that use the word “homosexual”.. that’s deceitful is it not?

and the word “gay” appears only once in the KJV….

James 2:3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

i like that one… so apart from the O.T. rubbish from bible, what is the religious reason excuse why people hate gays?

I think it’s because gay people *are* gay… not a little bit of the time, not some of the time, not most of the time, no.. they are gay *ALL* the time, because that’s who/what/how they are.

just like i am me, not some of the time, not most of the time, but all of the time.

and no, it’s not strictly a religious reason…

just like a christian is a christian *all* the time, not a little bit of the time, not some of the time, not most of the time, a christian is a christian at all times… right? well, at least they are supposed to be christian all the time because if they are not christian all of the time, then they are not christian at all.

but…… there are obviously some people who just can’t fucking understand the concept that “people are people” and that other people think differently to them. which would explain why USA christians rail against atheists far more than they do against other religious people – to them their line of thinking is that at least other people believe in a god of some sort, I guess it is easy for the christian to say to themselves that other people’s gods are just their mistaken view of the christian god, than it is for christians to accept that people don’t believe at all.

so as stupid as it sounds, let’s just write it out loud

you are, who you are…

sounds like an easy concept to digest, right? … should be a no-brainer right? hmmm… but apparently *not*, given the carry on we’ve all seen online… (if you haven’t, welcome to the internet, remember not to believe everything you see and read and you’ll do fine)

see, i think some people just can’t understand or cope with their world not being how they want it to be, and that’s a problem, not only for them, but for the people they are bigoted towards.

Nobody can change *who* someone is, you can only change yourself, so being a bigot to someone, isn’t the best way to go about trying to change someone’s way of life.

You could even beat someone for being gay, and they might pretend to not be gay, just to escape being beaten, and eventually they could become ‘straight’ just to conform, just to blend in, but… who’s fucking business is that in the first place anyway? Certainly not someone who has *never* even met you, you can’t change people’s hearts, at least not in the space of two seconds.

You could beat someone for being christian, but would they not just say that they are not believers any more so as to avoid being beaten? would they really stop believing in Jesus, just because you seem to have beaten it out of them?

and some people, clearly can’t even be themselves, so to compensate, they want everyone else to also not be themselves, so they tell these other people these things “stop being yourself, it’s an abomination”, but, really it’s a matter of .. “If i can’t get to be who I want to be, then no-one else is going to get to be who they want to be either!!” … well, that’s the impression I get!

“My life is a pointless boring misery so *yours* is going to be the same as well, because I’m too lazy to make a mark in this world, because that requires hard work.”

Aside from it not being someone’s business what other people do in their bedrooms, if you don’t like looking at people who are gay, then don’t look at them. Pretty simple, right? After all, you do realise that teh gays are easily identifiable by the flashing neon lights built into the sleeves of their fluorescent jump suits, so just look away when you see the neon.

it will be pink neon, usually.

*rolls*eyes*

and you know, maybe those people who are worried that their school age children are getting a ‘bad’ influence from gay teachers have a point. after all it would be rather distracting to the child’s concentration to say the least as it takes effort to treat people with respect especially when they do not deserve it, not to mention they might grow up to be more tolerant of people who are different to them. can’t have that happening, now can we? so parents who are concerned that their kids are being “poorly” influenced should be sure to ask their kid’s if any of their school teachers are having Mardi Gras every class time with scantily clad gay folk parading up and down between the desks? or if any of their teachers wear pink neon lights on their jump suits?

*face*palms*

and you know, maybe those rabid packs of homosexuals running around the streets, gang raping paranoid mountain preachers in the arse, just *might* be a problem for society… I mean, those pink neon jump suits might blind some drivers at night time if these rabid-gay-pack-gangs become very large… put all those gays in the one spot and teh gay neon light would be blinding to those astronauts up on the International Space Station.

*shakes*head*

oh, and wouldn’t it be a *real* shame if everyone was gay and the human race died out because no-one could have a naturally conceived child any more? I mean, we ALL know that children can only be made when the heterosexual man puts his who-who-dilly in the heterosexual woman’s cha-cha!! right?

So if everyone has turned to teh gay side, then there are no more humans being made because it’s just not possible for gay people to have children, is it? Two guys can’t make a baby, two girls can’t make a baby. I mean it’s not like gay men would have sex with a woman for the sole purpose of conceiving?!? ewwwwww… not even if you were last member of the opposite sex in the world, honey! not even to save the human race!! ewwwwwwww!!! and it’s not like children can be artificially conceived and then implanted into the womb! that’s science fiction! and even if it is possible, those children would be evil, conceived and born without souls! (but at least they would be born with pinky neony flashy lighty jumpy suits)

(yes, these sarcasms are actually based on real fundy arguments… this blog is completely based on REAL and ACTUAL things alleged “christians” have said to me on the internet … except the flashing pink neon.. i think it was actually more like a pink ribbon instead … )

(oh.. i wonder what my point was?)

*several*weeks*pass*

(oh.. i remember now)

those people who do hate gays, hate gays out of fear… again, it’s all about fear.

a fear that their world might collapse because someone might be doing something somewhere that’s somehow going to mess up their lives at some time in the future in some way, and it’s out of their control, way out of their control in fact and it’s going to happen at *any* second… just like Jesus is coming, in like .. five minutes from now… it’s all about fear and everybody knows what fear leads to… the Dark Side… 😦


so these people act out, but their ‘venting’ hurts people, some people have died *just* for being gay at the hands of some christian warrior for Jesus or some sort of foot soldier for god, because we all know how busy god is at being impotent omnipotent…

maybe these males who hate gays, just simply fear that upon having butt secks, they might just find it to be pleasurable? I mean we all know how good taking a good shit feels, having butt secks can’t be too much different from that, right?…

*evil*laugh*

another (possibly offensive for those without spines) ramble, mostly written on 20th March 2009, mostly…