I'm gonna get SO MUCH HATE for this one!

I'm gonna get SO MUCH HATE for this one! | I DON'T SUPPORT THE "LGBT PRIDE" MOVEMENT DOESN'T MAKE ME A HOMOPHOBE OR HATER, I SIMPLY DON'T SUPPORT A  MOVEMENT THAT ENCOURAGES SIN | image tagged in memes,unpopular opinion puffin,funny,lgbt,christian,gay pride | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
9,740 views, 149 upvotes, Made by Solarian 3 months ago memesunpopular opinion puffinfunnylgbtchristiangay pride
Unpopular Opinion Puffin memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
41 ups, 5 replies
That Would Be Great Meme | IF YOU COULD KEEP YOUR SEXUAL FETISHES TO YOURSELF THAT WOULD BE GREAT | image tagged in memes,that would be great | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Personally, I don't care what you and your consenting adult partner(s) do, I just happen to think it's in bad taste to "parade" it around in public and make it everyone else's business.
reply
26 ups, 1 reply
GET THIS MAN AN UPVOTE! | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
I know! My point exactly!
reply
5 ups
Done
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
But Thats None Of My Business Meme | THE THING THAT BOTHERS ME IS DO YOU KNOW HOW WEIRD AND DISTURBING IT WOULD BE FOR HETEROSEXUALS TO PARADE THEIR SEX LIVES IN LITERAL PARADES | image tagged in memes,but thats none of my business,kermit the frog | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Gimme a break. I find gay male sex disgusting. BUT last time I was in Walmart I realized that seeing the average straight couple having sex is nearly equally as gross..........
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I don't particularly enjoy anyone's PDA. I don't think 'live porn' should be a thing, like 'Shakespeare in the Park'.

Everyone has their sexual kinks. What yours are is more about you than I care to know. I don't care if you are homosexual, lesbian, dress up like a human-sized forest animal, pretend you're a big fat baby in a diaper, beat/be beaten by your partner, or walk barefoot in spaghetti and meatballs. Whatever gets you off, it's a free country. Just keep that crap to yourself, please.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Captain Picard Facepalm Meme | WHOA TOO MUCH INFORMATION | image tagged in memes,captain picard facepalm | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
2 ups
GGG | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
6 ups
agreed
reply
6 ups
we need more people like you in this world
reply
19 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups
Agreed. Maybe I should make a meme bashing parades in general...
reply
16 ups
reply
17 ups, 2 replies
reply
4 ups
I hope you submit that--if it's your own.
reply
4 ups
Just how random this was. Lmao
reply
9 ups, 2 replies
reply
7 ups
This is now my #1 favorite meme!
reply
6 ups
LOL. Upvote!
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
Downvoted first - then got the joke (for those who didn't, it's 'cos pride is one of the seven deadly sins. Has nothing to do with gays).
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
I'm pretty sure the "sin" they're referring to is homosexuality, not pride.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Na that was the joke. It's in the title. I didn't get it either.

I still upvoted it :P
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
What is in the title that clued you in? I don't see it.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
The poster knew he was going to trigger people.

He even says he doesn't have a problem with homosexuality(lgbt) just with sin(pride).

A joke this clever normally wouldn't stand a chance on this site. Lucky for him most of its users are conservative!
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You give the OP too much credit for subtley.

A quick look at Solarian's previous memes - including the hot one 2 weeks ago - gives fair indication that no such wit was in play here.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Maybe. Even if it was unintentional it's still there and still funnier. I like the new way of looking at it.
reply
0 ups
It certainlly seems way more drab looking at it that way, then back to the regular way again.
reply
0 ups
Wrong. I have an equal problem with both. God views all sin the same.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
i.imgflip.com/29hssp.jpg (click to show)
reply
1 up
She gets it!
reply
1 up
Oh really... Now I can have a reason to like this meme. Thank you! As an atheist i usually steer clear to any meme that has any religion context in it. Those aren't my type of memes.
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
heres your upvote, brother/sister
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
Thank you, and I'm a dude.
reply
6 ups
reply
6 ups
HALLELUJAH! Upvote for you
reply
6 ups, 3 replies
If I'm not allowed to be proud to be white and British then no gay pride simple it's also not normal to be gay
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
One is a lifestyle choice and the other is something you get by working
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
So being gay is a choice? That means being straight is a choice, then. I don't know anyone who chooses to be straight and I don't know anyone who chooses to be gay. And I don't choose to be bi.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Um, actually i DID chose to be straight, but I'm actually bisexual, which left me wiggle room.
But was it really a choice?
For those claiming it's a choice, think about it. Why the hell would anyone choose to be gay. It could mean ostracization and/or rejection by family. It (up until very recently) meant that you could not get married or have/adopt kids so that your relationships would never be seen as legitimate and that you could never grow your family. Why would anyone choose that.
I know why I personally chose to be straight (since being bisexual, I had the option), and I can't imagine that many would choose differently if they actually had the option.
reply
1 up
Being bisexual but choosing to only pursue opposite sex relationships isn't choosing to be straight. It's simply pursuing hetero relationships exclusively. Just like if someone is bisexual and they choose to pursue same sex relationships exclusively, they aren't choosing to be gay, because they aren't gay; they're bi.

And I agree with the rest of your comment.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Technically, normal means the most common. So since less than 50% of people are gay, so you're right that it's not normal. But a lot of things are "not normal". "Not normal" does not mean wrong or unatural.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
(I'm not religious) I see it as self destructive to the population we need people to breed I have an issue with the demographics being changed and the native population not have kids plus migrants cause me some great worry I know that it is a very small minority but that is still an issue but not at the top of my list of beliefs
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
Yes overpopulation due to people living longer an aging population is what is happening more people aren't having kids and are living longer if the trend continues then there will be only old people and they can't have kids
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Its ironic that the people most proud to be white or British are the same people the country is most ashamed of. I'd drop you off in Mecca and leave you there mate if I had the chance. Try and find yourself a bacon sarnie then you waste of space bigoted c**t.
reply
1 up
You have no counter argument calling me a c**t isn't going to stop be thinking saying something that is truthful and counteracts what I believe will so have a nice day in your echo chamber
reply
4 ups
I don't hate you. I just don't support you... oooh, butterfly!
reply
8 ups, 8 replies
"Homosexuality is a sin"
So is ANY sexual activity that is not for the purpose of procreation.
That blow job I gave my husband last night: sin. (For context I am married and female)
Having sex before marriage: sin.
Promiscuity: sin.
Yet you don't hear the outpouring against these activities that you do against homosexuality. It confuses me because the nective effects on society for heterosexual sin (out of wedlock sex and promiscuity (are far greater).
Premarital sex results in children "without fathers", often unwanted and accidental. Homosexuals don't accidentally make chidren.
Promiscuity spreads disease (while a monmonogamous homosexual couple doesn't)
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
"So is ANY sexual activity that is not for the purpose of procreation." Only if you are a Roman Catholic. That bl***ob you gave your husband last night is awesome, I'm sure he greatly appreciated it. Sex between married people is great, and not just for procreation, it also helps strengthen the bonds of marriage.

As to your other examples, yes these also are sins. However, nobody has a problem when a Christian calls sex outside of marriage a sin. They might think we're backwards or old-fashioned, but there isn't a visceral reaction to it. Yet, if somebody says homosexuality is a sin, all of a sudden people want to light the person who dared say that on fire. Hence why there is such an "outpouring against homosexuality." I don't necessarily like this situation, but I do recognize that it's not just "Christian hate gay people."
reply
2 ups
Very well said!!
reply
5 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
But is there a hetero pride parade?
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
Should there be? Have straight people had to fight for equal treatment and recognition?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You say that like it is my job requirement to support gay pride.
reply
0 ups
I never said that
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I don't think one's sexual fetishes should qualify them as a protected class, no matter how many people happen to share it, or how many different types of fetishists band together under an ever-lengthening alphabet soup acronym.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
You're confusing fetish for orientation. There's a huge difference.

Are you then saying heterosexuality is a fetish?
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Only providing you accept that "orientation" is a thing. This is another case of redefining words and language concepts for the sake of feelings.

A fetish is anything that deviates from the biological norm. Heterosexuality is the biological norm. But again to clarify; Deviation from the norm is NOT automatically bad or wrong. But let's call things what they are, and rationally proceed from a foundation of factual accuracy.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
No upvote?

Orientation is a thing. Most people have an orientation toward people of the opposite sex. Some people have an orientation toward people of the same sex. And some people, myself included, have an orientation toward both sexes (and no, I'm not confused). Sexual orientation is a real thing. It is not redefining words or language.

A fetish is not defined as "anything that deviates from the biological norm." It is a sexual desire linked to a specific object or body part. Non-heterosexual orientations are not fetishes.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Upvoted. Hey, so I missed one. There's a lot going on in this comment thread. I think I'm going back-and-forth with like, four people. Cut me a break. :D

Perhaps fetish is the wrong word. That definition seems off to me though, but I'll stand corrected. I don't usually like to use the word "deviant" because society has attached such negativity to it, that people wrinkle their noses at it without ever trying to understand my point. For some reason, "fetish" is a concept people find easier to swallow. "Deviant" is however, the most accurate term in the context of the discussion.so I'll go with that. Also, I'll promise to stop Nerf-ing my language if you promise to stop applying cultural or generational slang definitions to my words.

See? Your definition of "orientation" there. By applying that word to sexuality and equalizing deviance with normality, you attempt to make all associated deviations normal, when they aren't. There is normal, and there's everything else. Society has attached shame to deviance, but rather than own the deviance and remove the attached shame, you try to redefine the deviance as "normal". Way to pick the steeper road. But, and please pardon the usage, we're deviating from the point of the conversation.

Thanks for oversharing. The upside is, it affords me the opportunity to get back on topic. See, that's more about you than I needed or wanted to know. But more importantly, it's more about you than you should wish to share with the entirety of the internet. It isn't any of my business. It's always amazed me that it's considered rude to ask a person their age or weight, but ask someone what kinds of things they like to do in the sack and with whom, and that's okay?

Guess what? I have my own deviations and kinks as well. But they aren't any of your business, and unless you're my psychiatrist or a participant, you're never going to know what they are.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I figured it wasn't anything personal :)

I think I see your point about the word "deviant". It's the most accurate word in this context, and the negative connotation of it isn't warranted.

"...if you promise to stop applying cultural or generational slang definitions to my words."

That's not what I'm trying to do at all, I assure you.

I will admit that deviations are outside the norm (by definition), but, as I'm sure you will agree, that does not necessarily make them bad (which is what I'm guessing your point was this whole time, at least part of it).

I would scarcely say that me identifying as bisexual is oversharing. I said nothing about sexual acts, sexual partners or sexual exploits. I simply identified something basic and fundamental about myself.

Would you consider it to be oversharing if someone told you they were a Christian? Would you say "that's more about you than I needed or wanted to know"? I don't believe so. Just a minute ago you said "...rather than own the deviance and remove the attached shame...". Yet when I "own the deviance" of my bisexuality, you react negatively. Should I remove the shame, or keep it?

"But more importantly, it's more about you than you should wish to share with the entirety of the internet."

Why is that? If anyone online has a problem with it, that's their problem, not mine. Just like Christianity. If someone says "I'm a Christian," and anyone has a problem with that, it's their problem, not the Christian's.

"It's always amazed me that it's considered rude to ask a person their age or weight, but ask someone what kinds of things they like to do in the sack and with whom, and that's okay?"

Except that being asked that information and offering that information voluntarily are two different things. Someone who offers that information is obviously ok with talking about it. Just because you may ask someone that same thing doesn't necessarily mean they are ok with talking about it.

"Guess what? I have my own deviations and kinks as well. But they aren't any of your business"

I agree

"...and unless you're my psychiatrist or a participant, you're never going to know what they are."

And that's perfectly fine :)
reply
2 ups
"...not what I'm trying to do at all, I assure you..."

Be that as it may, you're still doing it. Results matter, intent is irrelevant. To be fair, most people do it without thinking, and I'm guilty of it too. If I say something is 'cool', and I am not trying to describe the relative temperature of the object, well then... there you are. Counter-cultural slang can become so deeply embedded into the language, that's it's difficult to sift out. I tend to re-read and re-write these things four or five times before I hit "Post Comment", and I still miss sometimes.

"...identifying as bisexual is oversharing..."

The fact that you don't see it, is the heart of my point. It's the degree of exhibitionism that I have a problem with.

"...a minute ago you said..." "...should I remove the shame, or keep it..."

Keeping private things private is irrespective of whatever stigma may be attached to it. Don't get your causes and effects backward. Stigmatizing something will cause people to keep it private, but keeping something private does not attach a stigma to it, nor imply that there is a stigma attached to it.

You can remove the stigma from the deviance without removing the personal privacy aspect from it. We are becoming a world of exhibitionists and voyeurs, and it's not just about the sex anymore. It's "reality" television, it's Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, all of it. The line between "public" and "private" is being washed away. People don't even remember where the line is supposed to be anymore.

"...you consider it to be oversharing if someone told you they were a Christian..."

I hardly think one's sexual proclivities are comparable to a religion. The mandate of religion is usually to go shout it from the mountaintops and proselytize or evangelize as many people to joining you as you can, that's how you earn your "heaven points".

You're a smart guy, and I know I don't have to tell you this, it's more for the passive reader. This is a terrible analogy. It doesn't even rise to the level of apples and oranges. It's more like apples and... rocks.

"...being asked that information and offering that information voluntarily are two different things..."

Exactly! Exactly! If I ask you, then obviously I don't mind being told personal things about (what ought to be) your private life. If I don't ask, well hey... maybe I don't want to know you that... intimately.
reply
0 ups
I'll reply to both of your comments in this one.

It's a gray area, because some of the definitions of perversion are neutral, while others do have a definite negative meaning.

"...a fairly significant amount of force needs to be applied to that metaphorical pendulum just to get it back to equilibrium."

That's a very interesting way of phrasing it :) At any rate, welcome to the river of language. It is constantly changing. It is fluid. Language is not rigid and inflexible. Sometimes words change so much that returning to their original meaning becomes essentially impossible.

"...It's the ever-increasing number of people who have become either an exhibitionist, a voyeur, or both."

Fair point :)

"Counter-cultural slang can become so deeply embedded into the language, that's it's difficult to sift out."

Or, as I mentioned above, they can become so deeply embedded into the language that they replace the former meaning of the word altogether, because language is fluid.

Identifying my sexual orientation is not exhibitionism any more than someone telling me they're a Christian is proselytizing.

"Stigmatizing something will cause people...imply that there is a stigma attached to it."

That's true

"You can remove the stigma from the deviance without removing the personal privacy aspect from it."

I would agree, but I would add that many people want to impose stigma on things (like homosexuality) where there shouldn't be any.

"People don't even remember where the line is supposed to be anymore."

When people start randomly having sex in the streets and thoroughfares in broad daylight, then I'll take that statement as other than hyperbole.

Both sexual activity and religious belief are private, personal matters. Many people don't like either one to be intruded into by strangers. They are similar enough in this respect that I stand by my analogy...if a few feet away.

"It's more like apples and... rocks."

Were my interlocutor more knowledgeable regarding My Little Pony, I could make a humorous reference in reply to this :)

"If I don't ask, well hey... maybe I don't want to know you that... intimately."

Fair enough, although how can you really know for sure how comfortable a person is discussing these things unless the subject is broached (assuming you as well are comfortable discussing the same)
reply
0 ups
"OMG, the civil rights movement--are you saying all minorities are gay?"

I don't even know where you got that from. I said nothing even remotely close to that.

Are you feeling well? Long day? Heat stroke? Fall down the stairs again? You should invest in one of those doggy gates. This is becoming a nasty habit.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
if you're gonna compare at least make it apples to apples.
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
Fine.
Monogamous straight couples do not spread disease.
Monogamous gay people don't spread disease.
Straight s**ts spread disease, AND make unwanted children.
Gay s**ts spread disease, but don't make unwanted children.
There, I fixed it for you.
reply
1 up
consider your back scratched in this friendly exchange of words. ;-)
reply
2 ups
I'm guessing you mean any "sexual" activity not for the purpose of procreation? i have never heard that before. I would love to read the bible scripture that says that. can you post it please?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
humans weren't designed for back door stuff. it makes tiny tares/cuts. those tares bleed in tiny amounts.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
1. "Back door stuff" is practiced by hetrosexuals too.
2. I know plenty of gay guys who are strictly oral only (No back door stuff)
3. Promiscuity is a far greater factor for spread of disease that what type of sex. So a straight s**t is going to spread disease while a monogamous gay couple will not.
4. Lube and patience, lube and patience.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
1. yes it is!! who do you think practice it more? homosexuals or heterosexuals?
2. congratulations. you know more of them than me (obviously)
3. yes it is!!! and again, comparing promiscuous straight ppl to monogamous gay ppl is apples to oranges.
4. thank you for the advice, I hope I'll never need it. but helpful advice is always appreciated.
5. just curious, who do you think has more promiscuous sexual encounters per person. (not per mas population) heterosexual men? heterosexual women? homosexual men? or lesbian women?
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
You're asking me to make assumptions rather than refer to facts. I don't know if those statistics even exist, but...
...Anal sex is a non issue (straight or gay) if it's not paired with promiscuity.
...Whether are not a higher percentage of gay males are promiscuous compared to other populations is irrelevant. The issue is the promiscuity, not the homosexuality.
reply
2 ups
ok. i'm a little confused on you're answers without numbers, but i'll try.

i don't feel i was asking you to make assumptions, i just asked for you're opinion.
2. i wasn't asking for facts just you're opinion.
3. i didn't ask whether males were more promiscuous compared to other populations or not. i was just asking your opinion.
4. Thank you for making the issue about promiscuity in a post about homosexuality, thank you also for you're replies. i've enjoyed talking to you.
reply
1 up
here is a quote: gay men are dramatically more promiscuous than straight men, anywhere from 7–45 X more promiscuous.

here is the site; https://www.quora.com/How-many-sexual-partners-does-the-average-gay-man-have-during-his-lifetime
reply
2 ups
5. Don't forget to push out :D

I'm glad this is an issue on which you and I seem to greatly agree
reply
3 ups
Well said
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
I get that the OP played the 'sin card' (which is non-sequitur in my opinion), but for my part it's a question of propriety. Our society has abandoned all sense of what is appropriate for public exposure and what is not.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
i.imgflip.com/29kbou.jpg (click to show)
I think i get what you are saying. (I'm assuming that you are not implying that homosexuality as a whole is inappropriate, but that you are you referring to some of the more extreme parts of the pride parade) For instance, I would take my kids to a gay pride parade if it was just couples holding hands, waving rainbow flags, rainbow floats, and tastefully dressed drag queens. I think it would be fun. But I don't want My kids seeing bondage gear, assless chaps, and d**dos. I lock my closet for a reason.
reply
1 up, 3 replies
1. Homosexuality is a sexual perversion.
2. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sexual perversion.
3. Sex should be kept private.

...is what I'm saying.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Well, I'm married. My marriage and the fact I have children is on public display. My heterosexuality is on full display. So I'm not quite sure what it is that you're saying. Are you suggesting that even holding hands in public is off limits for gays because it's a perversion? Are the same public displays of our relationship that are perfectly acceptable, and even encouraged, for me and my husband off limits for gay couples?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You're not quite sure what I'm saying? I'm not sure how I could be more clear. You seem to be trying to lay some kind of implied double-standard for PDA at my feet, when I never suggested anything of the kind.

If you are having a hard time determining what should be appropriate PDA in a civilized society, I'm not the one to assist you. I expect it's far more likely that you are being purposely facetious in an attempt to bait me into manufacturing arbitrary standards of behavior for you, and that's not going to happen.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
You could be more clear by answering yes or no as to whether you apply different standards to gay PDA as hetero PDA. You are flatly refusing to do so, instead claiming you have been clear when you have not.
So
Yes, I have different standards.
Or
No, I don't have different standards.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"...apply different standards to gay PDA as hetero PDA. You are flatly refusing..."

Nope. You just need to read what I've written, and understand that I use words very deliberately, and I don't allow Leftists and SJWs to redefine them, and you'll have your answer. I have addressed this specific question, clearly and unambiguously, in this very comment thread. The fact that you're too lazy to look for it, is a "you" problem, not a "me" problem.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Of course you use words very deliberately. You are deliberately avoiding the question. You are deliberately using ambiguous language and phrasing. If you actually think you have answered the question, you need to re-take english.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Sorry, incorrect. I'm not avoiding anything. I've already answered your question, concisely and unambiguously. You want me to answer it again, when I have already done so. Perhaps because you didn't care for the original answer, since it didn't load your political shotgun for you to shoot me with?

You are trying to bait me, and I simply refuse to dance to your tune.
0 ups
You talk like a politician. A lot of words that don't say shit. You can repeat the LIE that you you have answered my question as often as you want, that does not make it true.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I should have left the conversation at that point too.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Well, I do see his logic, I think
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"I think"
That's the problem, he's leaving just enough room for plausible deniability for however it is interpreted, then claiming he was clear. It's the exact sort of phrasing I'd expect from a politician, who plans to come back and argue what the meaning of is is.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
I get what you mean. You're saying he's making an "if-by-whiskey" argument.

He said homosexuality is a perversion. The word perversion generally carries a negative connotation, which is bad. But he said there's "absolutely nothing wrong" with sexual perversion, which is good.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I love it when you come up with these euphemistically named logical fallacies. I know most of the common ones, but you pull some of these out of obscurity and I actually have to go look them up. "If-by-whiskey". I love it.

Anyways, no. Not really. Because I'm not applying the negative connotation to the word "perversion", you are. I am saying that it is erroneous, period. There is no "IF/THEN" line in the program, where the variable is your (my, or someone else's) opinion. I am putting it forward as a truism.

If it weren't for the artificial negative connotation, you wouldn't have near the problem with my original statement. But I didn't put the negative connotation there, and I'm not the one perpetuating it.

All I said was, everyone has their individual kinks. Different strokes for different folks. My problem is with the oversharing of aspects of your (or whomever's) sexuality that are none of my (or anyone else's) business, and should be kept to yourself.

In an ideal world, I should be able to see a person walking down the street and not be able to accurately conclude anything about their sexual proclivities by passive observation alone.
1 up
"I know most of the common ones, but you pull some of these out of obscurity and I actually have to go look them up. "If-by-whiskey". I love it."

I do what I can :) also, it's one I very, very rarely have an opportunity to actually point out.

The negative connotation of the word "perversion" isn't artificial, at least not any more artificial than any other meaning of any other word. It's how it is most commonly used in our society and language.

"But I didn't put the negative connotation there, and I'm not the one perpetuating it."

Technically, by using the word, you're perpetuating its usage, and therefore perpetuating the meaning it most commonly has in modern society.

"All I said was, everyone has their individual kinks. Different strokes for different folks."

You said perversion, though, not kink. Similar meanings, different connotations. Kink doesn't have the negative or off-putting implication that perversion does. Compare fox and b**ch. Both are female mammals used as terms to refer to women, but they have very different connotations.

"My problem is with the oversharing of aspects of your (or whomever's) sexuality that are none of my (or anyone else's) business, and should be kept to yourself."

And that's a perfectly fair argument. I personally don't mind if people talk about their sexual interests, but I understand that other people don't feel the same way about it as I do, and that's fine.

"In an ideal world, I should be able to see a person walking down the street and not be able to accurately conclude anything about their sexual proclivities by passive observation alone."

As boredmeme pointed out, if you see a male/female couple with children, you already do. The more children they have, the more you can gather about the frequency of their intercourse.
reply
2 ups
"...the meaning it most commonly has in modern society..."

This is what I meant by "generational slang". Words like 'groovy' or 'radical', or 'sick' or whatever, that have actual meanings but are contextually used as slang by different generations for a wholly different purpose. It does not change their actual and true meaning.

If someone was truly accurate with their language, they might point out that technically, all marriages are gay, or they should be at any rate.

I have observed that the mis-appropriation of the meaning of words by counter-culture has been going on for so long, and it's got so out of control, that a fairly significant amount of force needs to be applied to that metaphorical pendulum just to get it back to equilibrium.

"...don't mind if people talk about their sexual interests..."

Well, I guess I would be nice if we had a choice in the matter, but we don't.

See, I don't think the problem is the same as what most of the other people on my side of the aisle think it is. The "problem" with our society isn't the LBGQRSXVHP+&$-whatever... It's the ever-increasing number of people who have become either an exhibitionist, a voyeur, or both.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"Sex should be kept private"

Until cake shop owners bring it up.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
You mean cake shop customers, do you not?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Nope. Cake shop owners. They look at a gay couple and then start going all Westboro. Is the gay couple having sex in the shop?
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
If you owned a cake shop, and a couple of skinheads walked in and asked you to bake a cake with swastikas and shit all over it, what would be your reaction?

Now, before you get all indignant, I'm ONLY using that example in the context of a customer requesting you to create something that goes against everything you personally hold true and dear. I am NOT equating being gay with being a nazi. That would be asinine.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
"If you owned a cake shop, and a couple of skinheads walked in and asked you to bake a cake with swastikas and shit all over it, what would be your reaction?"

It wouldn't be my business to intrude on their neo-nazism. However, I will let them know that I can't make nazi-themed cakes. Are gay customers asking for rainbows on their cakes?

I should add that Nazism is an actual choice, whereas homosexuality isn't. Basically, cake shop owners are punishing a few for something that they can't control.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
;)
2 ups
Nobody expects the Leftist Inquisition!
reply
1 up
"... let them know that I can't make nazi-themed cakes. Are gay customers asking for rainbows on their cakes..."

And that's exactly what he did. He politely informed them that he would not make them one of the customized cakes that his shop was renowned for. They could have gone elsewhere, but no. They had to literally, make a federal case out of it.

"...Nazism is an actual choice, whereas homosexuality isn't..."

Let's not carry the metaphor too far. The analogy is very thin and weak as it is. And homosexuality may or may not be a choice, that's a subject for a different debate. As is the difference, if there is a difference, between the state of being and the physical act.

But getting married is absolutely a choice. Twisting 'marriage' into something it isn't, but that you've decided in your infinite wisdom that it ought to be, so you're going to force conformity to your ideology, is also a choice. Flogging everyone that doesn't agree or comply, is also a choice.
reply
1 up
Haha :)
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
i.imgflip.com/29hosr.gif (click to show)
Because straight people are always appropriate.
reply
1 up
Is someone was doing that out in public, they should be arrested.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
i.imgflip.com/29kbou.jpg (click to show)
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Yeah, I got nothin'...
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
Perhaps tasteful was the wrong word. I essentially meant not obscene.
reply
3 ups
I am gay and I approve of this message. I just wish I could see the triggered faces of my peers :D
reply
3 ups
Excellent
reply
3 ups
I personally don't agree with this, but you ARE allowed to believe what you want to believe.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Why doesn't anyone else understand this?
reply
2 ups
Because they're just as ignorant as they claim we are.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Libertarianism. I support their right to support - and your right not to.
reply
0 ups
Yes "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" this is what everyone should believe but unfortunately the far left fascists like to censor people
reply
9 ups
reply
2 ups
be as gay and happy as you like, just stop trying to involve me in it.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Look up the definition of "homophobe".
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Homophobe: "A person with an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people."

Is there something I'm missing here?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Stating a fact does not necessarily mean that one has an irrational aversion.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
When was the last time you heard about Christians beheading people? *crickets*
reply
1 up
No Christians did the horrible crime of wrong think but you point out gays being beheaded and you are a racist nazi white supremacist fascist alt right bigot got to love debating people like that
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
That "pride" part is messed up!
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
At the very least, they certainly don't need to be ashamed of it
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Well, they'd have to be pretty damn ashamed of themselves to go trans in the first place.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
That doesn't even make sense. No one "goes trans".
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
I have trouble with words.

Trust me, I really don't want to beef but it seems like you're looking for excuses to counter what I'm saying--why else would you pick on my choice of words? If you disagree with me, that's fine. But picking on my choice of words is taking it unnecessarily personal.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
It's not a choice? How?
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Transgender people are born that way. They may choose to undergo surgery or hormone therapy, but being transgender itself is not something they consciously choose to be.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
It's a mental disorder and shouldn't be proud "I'm proud that I cut myself and am clinically depressed" doesn't sound right does it (I'm drawing a parallel mutation of your genitalia for being trans and self harm for depression)
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Except that analogy doesn't make any sense. Being transgender and getting sex reassignment surgery is not even close to the same thing as cutting or other self harm.
2 ups
They are both mutating yourself because of a mental health issue
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Why don't they ever choose psychotherapy to fix the mental issue? It's easier than mutilation.
Saying they are born that way doesn't make it true, btw. It's a mental issue, which means someone messed them up in the head AFTER THEY WERE BORN.
reply
1 up, 3 replies
Can you cite sources for your research? Also, because they don't consider it a mental issue and don't necessarily want what you think they want. Why don't you just allow other people to make decisions for themselves, and go and enjoy your own va**na however you please. Maybe if someone tickled it a bit you might wake up and stop thinking for other people.
1 up
You are attempting to cut your genitals how is that not a mental issue oh wait it's because that's what they think not what medical professionals think if I wanted to cut myself would I be considered mental healthy I don't think so
0 ups
i.imgflip.com/29prlh.jpg (click to show)
Va**na envy much?
0 ups
Nice XD
reply
0 ups
You don't understand mental illness, apparently. If someone has a mental illness like depression, they were born with it. Someone doesn't put it in their head after they're born.

Also, saying your god and demons exist doesn't make that true, either.
reply
2 ups
lol!!! grumpy cat hates everything
reply
2 ups
where is the difference between thinking love is a sin and being a homophobe?
reply
3 ups
*we should become communist everyone*
reply
1 up
just don't support not hate :/
reply
1 up
reply
2 ups
I'm fine with people being LGBT+, but I just don't want them to be like vegans and tell EVERYONE about it. As long as their not showing off or trying to get attention, I don't care. Be whatever you want. But the bible has been republished hundreds of times throughout the years, so who knows what's left out? And I'm sure god wouldn't send good people to hell just because of their sexual identity. But I do partially agree, I don't understand the encouraging people to be LGBT or just telling people about it all the time. But if you keep it to yourself, no big deal.
reply
4 ups
reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups
[image deleted]Don't you just love hypocrites!
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Hmm... You should rephrase yourself, because your comment could be taken the wrong way. Are you talking about Homosapiens, or Homosexuals.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
No, he's talking about gay people. If you saw what he said on a meme last week, he thinks gays should be murdered...like, literally killed.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I know what he mean. I like being a smart a$$. But what you said about gays being murdered... That's kinda messed up
reply
1 up
It's REALLY messed up
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
lol!! grumpy cat hates everything and everyone
reply
1 up
Haha
reply
0 ups
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Lol!
reply
2 ups
:D
reply
0 ups
Just saying, it's not the only sin
reply
2 ups
Lmao as if sin exists even
reply
0 ups
why did you mark this as funny?
reply
0 ups
[image deleted]

Ahh, you're a hypocrite. This meme explains it all.
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up
reply
6 ups, 4 replies
Thankfully, I don't believe in the Bible, so I don't care what is a sin, and what isn't.
reply
15 ups
Kidding :)
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
Look at us, down here at the bottom XD
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
That's nasty...
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Only if you have a nasty mind. I was clearly referring to being at the bottom of the page.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Oh right, I should've not given you credit for being smart enough to write a double entendre.
Unless you are at the bottom of a page-boy?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I am perfectly capable of writing double entendres. That wasn't one of them.

By the way, when's the last time you got on your knees and asked the Holy Spirit to come all over you? Has Jesus come inside you yet? Has he filled you with his essence?
reply
0 ups, 3 replies
Wow. Just. Wow.
And you don't believe satan is real even though you talk just like him. I think you are projecting your fantasies about what you want satan to do to you on to me.
Enjoy hellfire, perv.
reply
1 up
Wow. Just. Wow.
Great arguemnt.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"Noah was "perfect in his generations" meaning he didn't have fallen angel DNA in his lineage."

The Bible doesn't say that part specifically (about Noah not having nephilim DNA), but that's an interesting idea I've never heard before.

The flood didn't do what it was supposed to, then (wipe out the corrupted people), because the Bible says there were also nephilim after the flood.

How were animals corrupted genetically? And how did Noah know which ones to take with him?

"The babies that died were genetically compromised. If they had grown to adulthood, they would've committed the same sins that send everyone else to Hell."

So killing babies is ok if you are convinced they would grow up to be bad people?

"Taking them as babies before they know what sin is, guarantees they go to Heaven. God spared them from suffering hell on earth, as well as hell in the hereafter."

So abortion should be okay, then, because all those aborted babies go straight to Heaven. Using that logic, abortion is pretty much assuring someone will get into Heaven.
reply
0 ups
You are purposely twisting what was said.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
If I talk like Satan that must mean you talk like Jesus. So he not only cums in your mouth, he comes out of your mouth as well?

Don't worry about hellfire. It's make believe, just like demons, angels, Heaven and your baby-drowning filthy beast of a god.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
~Genesis chapter 6 (NIV). Read along with me.

6:13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth."

6:17 "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."

Yup, that's your god talking. He flooded the earth, according to your mythology, not Satan. Your god drowned little babies, not Satan.~

Ermahgersh. Yer taken ther bible outter conterxt. >>>>::::""""(((((

;)
reply
1 up
;D
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Like I said before, you must have a legion of demons controlling you because you are sooooo triggered by the mere thought of God and Jesus.
You and I and all of humanity are lucky that Jesus is merciful because he spilled his blood for even you. He would even forgive you for the nasty shit you've said if you just asked him. If it were up to me (a mere human), you would NEVER be forgiven.
The baby-drowning filthy beast of a god that you are referring to is satan, not Yahweh. But keep talking. You're just proving my point about how much evil you are wallowing in.
If you keep going with this, you will just prove that you are of your father satan, because you are doing his desires.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Demons? Haha! :) you're funny

"If it were up to me (a mere human), you would NEVER be forgiven."

There's that Christian love I hear so much about :D

"The baby-drowning filthy beast of a god that you are referring to is satan, not Yahweh."

Genesis chapter 6 (NIV). Read along with me.

6:13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth."

6:17 "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."

Yup, that's your god talking. He flooded the earth, according to your mythology, not Satan. Your god drowned little babies, not Satan.
0 ups
You forget that He flooded the earth because "all flesh had been corrupted" (bad genetics due to fallen angels mating with human women) and men had only evil in their hearts as a result. It was hell on earth. Noah was "perfect in his generations" meaning he didn't have fallen angel DNA in his lineage. It also grieved God in his heart to have to flood the earth but it had to be done since the fallen angels and their offspring had basically destroyed everything. Noah was a pure human, so he was saved along with his family and specimens of animals that had not been corrupted genetically.
The babies that died were genetically compromised. If they had grown to adulthood, they would've committed the same sins that send everyone else to Hell. Taking them as babies before they know what sin is, guarantees they go to Heaven. God spared them from suffering hell on earth, as well as hell in the hereafter.
Why did all flesh become corrupted? Trace it all back to the start of sin, which satan introduced into the Garden by deceiving Eve. Satan is ultimately responsible for corrupting the earth, which God then had to destroy to start again from scratch. So, satan is ultimately responsible for those babies dying.
reply
1 up
I noticed. :D
reply
2 ups
You don't believe in the Bible? Or just disagrees with what it says?
reply
3 ups
:D
Flip Settings
Unpopular Opinion Puffin memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
I DON'T SUPPORT THE "LGBT PRIDE" MOVEMENT; DOESN'T MAKE ME A HOMOPHOBE OR HATER, I SIMPLY DON'T SUPPORT A MOVEMENT THAT ENCOURAGES SIN
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back