A world with no Homophobia

Published May 14, 2013 by angrytinkerbell

In a world with no homophobia, things would go this way:

-Children won’t feel weird about same sex attraction, everyone has it at a certain point

-Guilt towards God would not exist, we’d promise him to have safe sex

-Bullying in schools would not be there, and would not cause Suicide

-Coming out would not be necessary, and therefore less usage of Closets

-Clothes of straight men would be more fabulous, even the word Fabulous wouldn’t be that stereotyping

-There would be no debate about if we chose to be homosexual or not, the word “homosexual” would probably not exist

-There would be no fights for marriage equality, we wouldn’t be even happy for having a gay official

-Straight men would go “aaaahhhhhhh” when they see 2 men kissing in the street, same applies on straight women seeing 2 women kissing.

-The world would be less of an aggressive place to live in, of course more arts and better taste

-We wouldn’t witness the opening of Gay Churches and Mosques, catastrophic

-Gaga wouldn’t have been that famous

-No hate crimes would happen, only love crimes

-Lebanon would be definitely a better country to live in, Ghost would have been still open

-We wouldn’t have witnessed the Online Pillow Fight between Joe Maalouf and Jiyad El Murr, urghhh

-Nidal Al Ahmadiyyeh would have shut Al Jaras magazine already

-Antoine Shakhtoura wouldn’t have been such an asshole

-Marwan Charbel wouldn’t have been that dumb

-I wouldn’t have wrote this post, and therefore you wouldn’t have taken the time to read it

anti homophobia 2

Advertisements

3 comments on “A world with no Homophobia

  • dear sir or vagina:

    regarding pro-gay bigotry:

    as a gay “man” or masculivoid, please keep in mind that i lust for my own gender, i am getting sick and tired of society putting homosexuality into a good light by not stopping to ask themselves anything that can be regarded as “homophobic”.

    why isn’t there a counterpart to the word “homophobia,” and why isn’t it considered a problem (or a “condition”) for anyone to judge gay people in a favorable light based solely on who they sleep with? how many times have we heard “not that there’s anything wrong with that,” with regards to homosexuality? how much is it hammered into our thoughts that “it’s okay to be gay,” and why is “matthew shepard” a household name when names like “jesse dirkhising” are not? it’s because matthew shepard’s situation wcould elicit sadness and pity and would spawn gay-affirmations from the public, and little jesse’s situation would not (jesse was bound, drugged, tortured and raped by gay people…come to think of it, matthew’s murder was more about meth than men. it seems that gay people love their drugs and anything that gets them away from their semi-charmed kinds of lives).

    homophobia. why is it a problem for people to automatically think bad things about “men” who lust for masculinity, why isn’t it a problem for people to automatically think good things about these masculivoids?

    homophobia. it’s like gay people got so tired of automatically being put in a bad light, so they all got together and organized a grand ol’ “pee-wee herman” defense of “i know you are, but what am i” to put their detractors in bad lights and to label whoever is anti-gay as the ones who have problems (or “phobias”), just to keep from facing their own problems. dare i bring up an old madonna-lyric sung by a self-righteous finger-pointer, “YOU’RE the one with the problem,” but gays are ones to point out other peoples’ problems in an effort to keep from acknowledging their own. “you hate me because you’re scared of yourself” and “you hate me because you really envy me,” how blind are gay people to say such things to their opposers without knowing anything about their opposers? don’t they like to say “you can’t judge me if you don’t even know me” and stuff like that? they are blinded by their own spite which they commonly regard as “gay pride,” but maybe we seem like we hate gay people because we don’t want to be around self-righteous people. i know that, as a proud (i was vengeful and spiteful) 18 year-old who was walking down the school’s hallway while smoking a cigarette, i realized that “gay pride” (or the ignorance and belittlement of any opinions, rules or customs counter to one’s own) is a problem that is born of a low self-image. i did what i did because i felt that i was as much of a “little bitty pissant” as was the “country place” that dolly parton sung about. my “pride parade” and all “pride parades” are better defined as “spite parades” – pride is not loud and it is not haughty and it is not ignorant of other human beings’ feelings.

    the roots of “gay pride” are so closely linked to the roots of “a woman can do anything a man can do,” i just feel the need to associate them. as gays hated their “bad light,” vaginas from coast to coast got so tired of automatically being put in a weak and lesser light, so the vaginas all got together and organized the whole “Strongwoman” campaign. nowadays, we don’t hear the word “woman” without hearing “strong” before it…unless, of course, it’s preceded by “violence against,” i guess. you know, because it’s kind of a slap in the face to suggest that the Strongwoman isn’t strong enough to prevent violence from happening to her.

    badum-bum.

    it is flat-out ridiculous that we use overcompensating placebo-words to placate the egos of members of the gender having the lesser physical statures. from athletic teams to eating competitions to the entry-level requirements of the military – there is a reason that these are all male/female and gender-based. the reason is that women are not strong, the reason is that women can only legitimately compete alongside of men (not with men). still,though, how they want people to know them as strong. this is the reason you rarely hear “woman” not having a prefix of “strong”. it’s like they all got together and organized that “i know you are, but what am i” defense…and called it “feminism: the strongwoman experiment”.

    just as ridiculous as the Strongwoman-placebo, is the overcompensating placebo to placate the gay “men” and their gender-identities. in reality, gay “men” are little boys who haven’t internalized any masculine gender-identity and who therefore feel blessed to be in the presence of naked men. as gay “men,” we rely on men as a crutch or as a seeing-eye dog to bring us to a state of masculine fulfillment, simply because we don’t have enough masculine self-respect to rely on ourselves to fill our void for masculinity. now, despite the gay male’s lackluster sense of masculine self-respect (just ask him who the man of his dreams is), he wants people to know him as a man who is all grown-up emotionally, so it is commonplace to hear gay “men” being referred to AS men – just as much as a vagina refers to her little son as a man – but an asexual “guys” is how we refer to the men who’ve developed both a physical superiority over vaginas and an emotional superiority over gays. the men who are justified both in body and mind AS men are not men in today’s society – they are referred to with as asexual a word as “guys”.

    why is it constantly impressed upon the public that there’s nothing wrong with finding security and fulfillment and something excitably taboo in other members of one’s own gender, why can’t anyone even fathom the self-compromising errs of homosexuality? speaking of which – why is it fine to regard as “men,” every clueless masculivoid who lacks masculine gender-identity enough to want to inspect the masculine gender? why are men who are straight with themselves AS men (and with masculinity in general) more commonly referred to as “straight guys”?

    manphobes. from vaginas to gay “men,” they both disrespect real men because they all want masculine identity for themselves (vaginas want to be regarded as “strong” and they want society to give them a facade of the PHYSICAL masculine-identity, while gay “men” want to be regarded as “real men” and they want society to give them a facade of having an acceptable level of PSYCHOLOGICAL masculine-identity). this is why i refer to feminists and gay “men” as “masculine wannabees”.

    mr. dylan terreri, i
    dr. sheldon cooper, ii
    miss abingdon blazavich
    http://www.abbyblazavich.com
    ————————–
    “When I’m hungry, I eat. When I’m thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it.” – Madonna
    http://www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays
    ————————–

  • Dear sir,

    Sorry for my late reply, i was on vacation. Man for the 1st time i feel so happy with a criticism. I agree with many of ur points and disagree with the rest. However ur insight is something i’m gonna contemplate more often. I’m glad you took the time to read my blog, and surely glad you took the time to write this.

    For many reasons i believe many of your valuable points can be applied on societies in the west, while in my country we still need to attach ourselves to this being strong thing, as the surrounding climate is much different here than there…

    I heard very well what you wrote up there, n i think it’ll widen my horizon from now on

    Thank you again

  • Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s

    %d bloggers like this: