|re: Regarding Jim's sexuality.|
||Pudding 04:15 pm MST 12/29/06|
|In reply to:||re: Regarding Jim's sexuality. - Daphne24 02:25 pm MST 12/29/06|
|No. I feel sorry for the people who are 'outed' because all they wanted to do is get on with their life how they want to. |
Yet you have a minority of shitheads who don't give gay people a good name, (and I know plenty of good gay people, none from Waterford mind) who feel they have some moral obligation to make someone fess-up to their sexuality, when in the big scheme of things, it doesn't matter.
> Actually, I thought you were referring to the people being
> outed. And the main person hell-bent on outing them right
> now is a gossip blogger - I've no idea what his
> orientation is, nor do I care (I'm not even curious
> because he's such an asshole).
> > Neo-Homo is a word I describe to the recent movement of
> > homosexuals who are hell-bent on 'outing' people to
> > bolster their cause, whatever that cause may be, probably
> > to paint the world rainbow.
> > Pud
> > > Could you define "neo-homo" though? Do you think they're
> > > somehow less gay? I'm just curious.
> > >
> > > > > Hasn't there been enough forced 'outings' of celebrities recently?
> > > >
> > > > They're the neo-homo's I was talking about, they're a pain
> > > > in the f*cking arse - no pun intended.
> > > >
> > > > Pud
|Previous:||re: Regarding Jim's sexuality. - Daphne24 02:25 pm MST 12/29/06|
|Next:||re: Regarding Jim's sexuality. - tragichippy 02:18 pm MST 12/29/06|