A question for homosexuals

I suppose this is why some people who don't plan on having children sleep with more people. When having children is the last thing on your to do list you're probably not too concerned about staying within that top percent range of "decent" mates.

If one isn't concerned with finding a good partner with which they can have children, that opens up the rest of the field.

 

When was the last time you heard of someone being assualted because they're heterosexual? When's the last time you heard of a man-woman couple being denied the right to get married? Have you ever heard a straight man get called a "faggot" for walking down the street holding hands with his woman?


People, especially the media, like to pretend that in 2010 we're so advanced and so understanding and accepting. That's bullshit. There are places you can still go in the States where if you're black or gay you wouldn't want to walk up the street.

So homosexuals should just let straight folks tell them what their rights are and allow them to insult, assualt, and control them like some inconvenient house pet?

You have that odd type of compassion that is dependant upon circumstance and not morals. You'd be okay with a homosexual as long as he was a good little one and stayed quiet about it. But if one were to dress the way they want and be proud of it, all of a sudden he's a sissy faggot. What would you do if the one who came up to you was a guy you had known and liked previous to that encounter? Is he still a faggot? You'd never talk to him again?

That's the problem with society right now, they have this, just be quiet about it and we'll look the other way attitude about homosexuality. Which is odd, because I often see man-woman couples showing affection in public, touching each other. Yet when a gay person does it, it's wrong and they shouldn't do that in public.

 

Matthew Shepard, Angie Zapata, or hell this in NYC a few days ago:
http://www.chelseanow.com/articles/2010/10/19/gay_city_news/news/doc4cbe2218aa2ec761257542.txt

This is why anyone who isn't in the heterosexual norm need to stand up for their rights, especially when the authorities are often part of the problem:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10459273

 

Errrhh, Yeah but everyone else reads stuff like this:

And they are going to think the perps have some issues with their sexuality, especially if they are also raping the victims. If part of that anger comes from angry at oneself for having same sex thoughts, you cant claim they are heterosexual

So basically most are going to look at that as gay guys being victimized by guys some of whom are going to end up gay. But we turn around and try to make it sound like its straight vs gay

And its also a guy thing, there isnt the same equivalence with girls running around terrorizing lesbians.

So better acceptance of for gay people? Amongst that set are those that ten years ago beat the crap out of a guy and raped him cos they were angry at having those feelings. Some of them are us

 

All of that is the exception though, not the norm. Most people who terrorize gay people in fact wind up being straight.

 

yeah because being gay is well.. gay.

 

Its an age thing.

That 2-kids-married-10-years-suddenly-I'm-gay set, that doesnt hit till 30s

They arent like the others, and part of that anger still remains towards the most effeminate. And its the same type of anger as angry teen only diluted

Anyway, you'll see it.



Early on the girls are a lot more conscious of that category of guy thats too scary for all girls, then even we are. And the irony is their gaydar works better than ours in this regard, and its them that reinforce that gay-cos-he-cant-get-a-girlfriend thinking