re: Regarding Jim's sexuality. | |
Posted by: |
Pudding 11:15 pm UTC 12/29/06 |
In reply to: | re: Regarding Jim's sexuality. - Daphne24 09:25 pm UTC 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. Pud > 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 | |
reply | | |
Previous: | re: Regarding Jim's sexuality. - Daphne24 09:25 pm UTC 12/29/06 |
Next: | re: Regarding Jim's sexuality. - tragichippy 09:18 pm UTC 12/29/06 |
Thread: |