HoMoPhObE. .. Ma'm, it would also appear that one of your three kids is a dog.
x
Click to expand

Comments(189):

[ 189 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #10 - gilliam (03/27/2014) [-]
Ma'm, it would also appear that one of your three kids is a dog.
#109 to #10 - deckbox (03/28/2014) [-]
that dog knows whats up, so did sparky from south park

#71 to #10 - rundas ONLINE (03/28/2014) [-]
But xhe IDENTIFIES as a gay human!
#25 to #10 - souleaterdrawings (03/27/2014) [-]
A GAY dog.
#191 to #88 - anon (04/02/2014) [-]
God dammit, Marty.
User avatar #80 - mattdoggy (03/28/2014) [-]
Freaking made up
I hate when retarded fags make crap like this up to make themselves look better
i mean really, look at that picture
you can clearly see the third son is a dog
this makes me sick
#112 to #80 - atma (03/28/2014) [-]
I came thiiiiiis close to raging   
 god damn, nearly gave me rage blue-balls
I came thiiiiiis close to raging
god damn, nearly gave me rage blue-balls
User avatar #83 to #80 - darknesincontrol (03/28/2014) [-]
maybe the dog is gay too
#95 - anon (03/28/2014) [-]
#45 - jabone (03/28/2014) [-]
#127 - mrgoodlove (03/28/2014) [-]
**mrgoodlove rolled image** what helped me get over my homophobia
#116 - tombombadil (03/28/2014) [-]
<The mom's house on Thanksgiving
#153 - oubliette (03/28/2014) [-]
**oubliette rolled image** ...   
   
&lt;----the result of homosexuality
**oubliette rolled image** ...

<----the result of homosexuality
User avatar #27 - wellimnotsure (03/27/2014) [-]
3 gay kids...totally...completely believable
#111 - birdlaw **User deleted account** (03/28/2014) [-]
This comment section
#121 - demonlordmudkip (03/28/2014) [-]
**demonlordmudkip rolled image**
#34 - pulluspardus (03/27/2014) [-]
..... the dog is gay? she gave birth to the dog?
I see only two , where the third?
#44 - breastestvillainy **User deleted account** (03/28/2014) [-]
**breastestvillainy rolled image** Gay things
#49 to #44 - otroviciado (03/28/2014) [-]
**otroviciado rolled image** not homo pic
#61 - anon (03/28/2014) [-]
Well, I don't give a **** .
#31 - SirSheepy (03/27/2014) [-]
I don't understand how people got it into their heads that God suddenly loves everything that was ever gay. I don't have anything against gays myself because it isn't my place to judge, but I don't think that God suddenly changed his mind about gay people in the last 6,000 years because of some progressive posts on Tumblr and Funnyjunk.

Then again, gays are treated just as bad in the Bible as people who eat shell fish, and I could really care less what it says in the Bible because I'm atheist anyway.
User avatar #89 to #31 - YllekNayr (03/28/2014) [-]
It's not about caring what the Christian god thinks. It's about realizing that despite what he thinks, we should treat people like ******* people, rather than mistakes.
User avatar #91 to #89 - SirSheepy (03/28/2014) [-]
I agree with that 100%.
I'm saying that acting like God is suddenly okay with it just because we've accepted it as a society is pretty dumb.
User avatar #92 to #91 - YllekNayr (03/28/2014) [-]
With Christians, it's never the idea that god changed his mind. His will is eternal or some **** . It's just the idea "Oh **** , we got it wrong. He always meant this but we ****** up. And by ****** up, we mean that the rest of society is progressing without us and we want to seem less like bigoted relics ."
User avatar #39 to #31 - ivoryhammer (03/28/2014) [-]
I don't understand how people got it into their heads that God suddenly hates everything that was ever gay. Aren't we all God's creations? Why would God create something just so he could hate it?
User avatar #40 to #39 - SirSheepy (03/28/2014) [-]
I didn't mean to say that God hates gay people. I was just meaning to say that I don't think that God is 100% on board with the idea of being gay just because you're cool with it.

And again, I'm atheist so my opinion probably doesn't mean **** anyway.
User avatar #42 to #40 - ivoryhammer (03/28/2014) [-]
I'm just asking that as an open question. I'm not religious, not atheist either, just don't really bother getting into religion. But I always hear people say that "God loves us all", and then they turn around and say that "God hates gays", or "God created everyone". So I just don't understand from any point as to why God would make gays if it hates them. That would be like me putting onions on a burger. I love burgers, but I hate onions, so why would I do it?
User avatar #43 to #42 - SirSheepy (03/28/2014) [-]
God hates sin, but doesn't hate sinners.
#156 to #43 - shrolen (03/28/2014) [-]
But God makes sinners knowing they will sin. God makes people knowing they will go to Hell.
User avatar #64 to #43 - urinarytractinfect (03/28/2014) [-]
ur not athiest, ur just not educated on religion or beliefs.
#103 to #64 - dffgjhgkdghdkz (03/28/2014) [-]
by educated, you mean, "you're just not brainwashed enough"
User avatar #90 to #64 - YllekNayr (03/28/2014) [-]
And you're not really religious, you're just a lime with a face.

and a ******* idiot
User avatar #73 to #64 - SirSheepy (03/28/2014) [-]
No you're right, there is no room for interpretation in the Bible. The way that you understand/believe it is the only way to see it. Now I see that I'm not atheist, I am a devout Christian. Thank you for enlightening me.
User avatar #168 to #39 - KINGOFTHESTARS (03/28/2014) [-]
GOD hates the sin and not the sinner.

Thats where estboro failed to note and where all the damned gay activists who try to shame the Bible failed to note
User avatar #172 to #168 - ivoryhammer (03/28/2014) [-]
But God makes them gay, being gay isn't choice, they aren't choosing to be gay, they're being forced to "sin". So God makes them "sin" by making them gay. I really don't get it. Besides, don't Christians and Catholics and all denominations follow the New Testament? I thought the "gay are bad" writings were in the Old Testament, along with not being able to wear mixed fabrics or eat shellfish.
User avatar #184 to #172 - KINGOFTHESTARS (03/28/2014) [-]
Better yet, **** it.
Im going to grow the hell up and not troll **** because i dont like it.

I need to be more mature and not bite everything.
it just urks me to see my faith be molested
User avatar #183 to #172 - KINGOFTHESTARS (03/28/2014) [-]
But to end my rant i am sorry that i got emotional....as i stated before, everyone is pissed at everyone. I guarantee you think everything im saying is complete **** . As i share the view with yours....this further supports my "everyone stfu and let GOD decide point"

I firmly belive people are not born gay due to science and faith. This causes me to hold the opiniin that gay propagands is a piece of **** and gay supportrs cannot use Biblical texts in any way to make homosexuality seem OK to Christians who know what the **** they believe in.

And yes. Typos. Im on my phone and have huge fingers.
P.s. be mature than me @3am and do not take offense.
User avatar #181 to #172 - KINGOFTHESTARS (03/28/2014) [-]
And finally, the ****** support arguments.:

First and foremost, GAY is not a race. Gay rights move cant even hold a baby dick candle to black civil rights.

And one i come across:
People like romans and greeks etc used to be gay and stuff .
but peopel wont let pedophiles do their thing?
those same ******* ancients ****** little kids on the regular WHO WERE CAPABLE OF CONSENT.



User avatar #180 to #172 - KINGOFTHESTARS (03/28/2014) [-]
To continue the perspective:

The american Christian bulk is in the southern US. There are way more people ******* up tye gay cause than helpngit. Flaming faggots, drags, trannies, straight people who cater to gays, and the sheer amount of people NOT ciming out but magically turnin gay do NOT help at all. Just like westboro and those like them make Christians look bad. Like ******* make blacks look bad. Etc etc. dont let me get started on gay pride parades

User avatar #178 to #172 - KINGOFTHESTARS (03/28/2014) [-]
But i guess i can put "The Christian backlash" into perspective:
-we are all sinners
- i fornicate and am no different than the butt fudger
-christians backlash because the gays wont stfu aboutntheir sin.
-every other sin group isnt bitching.
-its annoying as hell.
- this **** will keep goingnback and forth until the gays stfu.
I only say the gays shoukd stfu because faith us alot stronger than personal cconviction and the christians are gonna reply to everything. Itl be like the 80s when everyone didnt bitch.
User avatar #177 to #172 - KINGOFTHESTARS (03/28/2014) [-]
GOD loves us all, it stinks in his nostrils when we wear mixed fabrics , eat shellfish, and do the no pants dance with someone who has the same chromosomes
User avatar #176 to #172 - KINGOFTHESTARS (03/28/2014) [-]
GOD doesnt make people gay. There is no proof that people are born that way except for personal accounts.
All that extra stuff like finger length and hormones can be brought about psychologically.
There may be evidence. But there is no proof. You cant make that statement.

And with the last part about the new testament which has nothing to do with the situation at hand yes, we arent supposed to eat it. Yes , we arent supposed to wear it. We do because we are perhaps the biggest hypocrites as a people.

And the reason why it is not to insult at all, man dumb as **** to try to convince Christians to change their views because one part of our Book says this and that can be explained:
Why would i trust Jesus if i dint trust the Book that introduced me to him?
User avatar #161 to #39 - beren (03/28/2014) [-]
Okay, not that I am equating the two, but do you realize that, e.g., serial killers are also born with certain tendencies? The same can be said of alcoholics, anger issues, etc. Point is that "God made me this way" is not a valid excuse for anyone's behavior or tendencies.

If we're going to approach it from the Judeo-Christian perspective (herein assumed because of "God" language and its relative popularity in this debate), you have to factor in the theological truths that we live in a fallen world and that all humans have sinful tendencies even from birth. Even if one tries to maintain that the Bible doesn't teach original sin in a culpable sense, it is very difficult to argue that it denies it as our natural inclination.

Yes, we are all created by God again, I'm obviously approaching this from a Judeo-Christian perspective, but you can't forget that second and equally relevant fact that our race has since given itself over to sin.

Finally, I just want to clarify that I'm not trying to argue against homosexuality specifically in this comment but rather against the logic of this specific argument.
#154 to #39 - shrolen (03/28/2014) [-]
Don't feel like getting into a religious debate but...
If God is all knowing and all powerful, which the Bible says he is, then he would know exactly who is going to be sent to Hell for an eternal suffering. God would know exactly which of his "creations" would be damned to suffer before even creating them.
Why would God create someone if he knew he was going to damn them to Hell for doing what he himself already knew they were going to do?

How can you say that God does not hate one of his creations when is damning them to Hell for doing exactly what he had created them to do in the first place. If God is all knowing and all powerful, then he is creating people with the intention to punish them. God knows and chooses to create a murderer or a rapist and knows that they will be sent to Hell before he even creates them. This would be similar to someone having a child for the sole purpose of raising them to do awful things and then punishing them for the rest of their lives for doing what you raised them to do in the first place.

So to answer your question " why would God create something just so he could hate it?" is difficult. Most religions say that their God is all powerful and all knowing so the points made above are still usable. Many people might argue that God gives people free will to do what they want and if they sin than it is their fault. But God would already know that someone is going to sin before they ever do so based on how he created them. If people had true free will than you could surprise God with your actions. But because God is both your creator and knows everything that will happen, you can't possibly do so.
Tl;Dr
So, why would God create something just so he could hate it?
1. He might just be a complete dick.
2. He isn't all powerful and all knowing.
3. Or... The God of the Bible was created by people to manipulate people. This would explain why an all powerful God holds the beliefs and opinions that people did 2000 years ago.
User avatar #185 to #154 - beren (03/28/2014) [-]
Alright, I'll give this one a shot. However I also readily admit that theodicy is one of the most difficult problems posed for Christianity (or any Abrahamic religion) so I don't expect to magically make it disappear.

Although parts of your argument are potentially disagreeable e.g., that free will is incompatible with divine will (and thus that culpability/damnation is a one-way street)--something which I strongly reject and that is up for debate even among atheist philosophers (that is, determinism vs. indeterminism), I would say that Christianity's main benefit is its ability to see sin and evil in light of the cross. And what I mean by that is this: despite some possibly defensible arguments, we will probably never fully understand why God created something knowing that it would reject Him maybe it's better to let that creature make its own decision, who knows? but as Christians we have a very legitimate appeal in putting the matter back on God's wisdom precisely because of what happened on the cross. Basically, the defense becomes: "If God himself was willing to suffer and die at the hands of these people, we can be sure that He has a good reason for doing so."

I realize the philosophical inadequacy of that argument in that it doesn't look to logic to prove something, but I still think it is the most powerful defense and best argument a Christian has in response to the problem of evil. I know personally that I do believe in deterministic free will (since, I think, indeterministic free will completely undermines the concept of identity, that is, the very unity of the person), and thus I have little problem affirming that people are equally responsible for their own fate. But of course to go back, as you are, to "Why do it in the first place?" I think the best appeal is to simply sit back and realize that you are doubting an infinitely wise being who did this knowing that it would mean His own suffering/death.
#164 to #154 - shrolen (03/28/2014) [-]
Beren , care to explain why you disagree with what I said?
User avatar #143 to #39 - reginleif (03/28/2014) [-]
Well he DID make Satan....

if you're into these kinda debates. :/
#30 - redbannerman (03/27/2014) [-]
Shmeh. I have yet to understand why disliking something is considered a phobia. Homophobic, the fear of homosexuals... who in the right bloody mind would be afraid of them. Especially the stereotypical ones.



In all fairness I find homosexuality weird and unappealing.... but that's why I'm straight.
User avatar #94 to #30 - YllekNayr (03/28/2014) [-]
It's not truly a phobia. The phrase is just used because it seems like certain groups are scared that homosexuality exists, because it's difference.
#179 - thewisedane (03/28/2014) [-]
I think it is cute how so many people on this site tries to be edgy and cool in the comments. It is cute in the exact same way a small boy trying to lift a 50 kg weight is - like, it is kinda sad to some extend, but also ridiculous because the poor sap believes in what he is doing.   
   
I have realized a long time ago that some of the people here are just trying to vent steam or to look cool by doing stuff most others don't agree with.   
   
You can flail around however you want, but if people doesn't take you seriously, nothing you do will matter the slightest.
I think it is cute how so many people on this site tries to be edgy and cool in the comments. It is cute in the exact same way a small boy trying to lift a 50 kg weight is - like, it is kinda sad to some extend, but also ridiculous because the poor sap believes in what he is doing.

I have realized a long time ago that some of the people here are just trying to vent steam or to look cool by doing stuff most others don't agree with.

You can flail around however you want, but if people doesn't take you seriously, nothing you do will matter the slightest.
#137 - professorbob (03/28/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #99 - loonquawl (03/28/2014) [-]
Some of the comments on here reminded me of this.
It's funny, trust me.
Samesies
#60 - anon (03/28/2014) [-]
You know, it's funny.

Most parents I know would say letting their children publically indulge in gross, pointless fetishes is a bad (or at the very least, a PRIVATE) thing, let alone anything to be proud of.

Then the nineties ended, and it's like everyone decided that homosex should be the exception for no reason.

I miss the nineties.
User avatar #63 to #60 - bodasion (03/28/2014) [-]
Either you're saying that engaging in gay sex in public is bad (which would be an odd and random comment) or you're saying that PDA between gay people is bad, which is even more odd, since homosexuality isn't a "fetish" and you don't see anything wrong with straight people and their PDA (which is way more common and just as annoying).
#68 to #63 - anon (03/28/2014) [-]
Please explain to me how homosexuality is not a fetish. Better yet, tell me why it should be a proud, defining staple characteristic of people, to the point where they can proclaim they were "born that way" without proof or basis, and then call everyone who ever questions that assertion a homophobe.

I have heard of evidence that people can be born with an imbalance of hormones which forcibly triggers arousal only for men, and can even cause testosterone/estrogen balances that can make one gender feel like the other. I won't dispute that people born with those unfortunate circumstances should be acknowledged for their struggles about their roles with regards to gender/sexual preferences.

But right now, there is NO system/test in place to prove that anyone who CLAIMS they are homosexual is, in fact, biologically homosexual. We only have a movement which endorses people being part of a minority group on no basis besides "I said so."

I believe that enters very, very dangerous ground.
User avatar #70 to #68 - misticalz (03/28/2014) [-]
i like you
#72 to #70 - anon (03/28/2014) [-]
You are literally the only person on the Internet who thinks so, apparently.


...Hmm. Guess I should make an account here, then.
User avatar #76 to #68 - bodasion (03/28/2014) [-]
Nice strawman. All that "proud, definitive" ******** was all in your head.

Homosexuality isn't any more a fetish than heterosexuality. It's just that simple. If you have a foot fetish, then you have a fetish. Nobody has a dude fetish. It doesn't even sound like it makes sense.

Speaking of entering dangerous ground, being promiscuous with words is probably about as dangerous a ground as one could tread upon.

Any more ******** you've made up in your head that you'd like to introduce me to?
#186 to #76 - peterdivine (03/28/2014) [-]
"Nobody has a dude fetish."

Sir, if the internet has taught us anything, it's that there's a fetish for everything- an indulgent lust for gay sex is not even the strangest one out there- but it's BECAUSE it doesn't make any sense that I find it so distasteful, grotesque, and strange.

Incidentally, you have not answered my question, btw: WHY is homosexuality not a fetish?

...And what the hell is being "promiscuous with words"?
User avatar #187 to #186 - bodasion (03/28/2014) [-]
I agree that if the internet has taught us anything, there's a fetish for everything, yes.

I have no issues with you finding homosexuality "distasteful, grotesque, and strange." It weirds me out a little, too.

I did answer your question. "Nobody has a dude fetish. It doesn't even sound like it makes sense." It doesn't sound like it makes sense for the same reason a "chick fetish" doesn't make sense. The term for the latter is heterosexuality.

The entire point of calling something a fetish is to highlight an aspect of their sexual enjoyment which is, in part, outside the norm, yes, but also to highlight the fact that the person has an overwhelming preoccupation with an object or a PART of the human body. That's why to have a preoccupation with the whole of a human body doesn't really make sense. That's just sexuality; it isn't fetishism. Homosexuality can be the most objectionable and weird thing in the world and still not be a fetish for precisely that reason. Now, if a homosexual male only dates other males with a certain shoe size, then you can reasonably claim that said homosexual has a preoccupation with feet, i.e., a foot fetish. Maybe the homosexual male has a fetish for a certain kind of hair, or needs asphyxiation to reach climax, and those can be fetishes, too.

But the preference of male over female partners isn't a fetish. That's just regular ol' sexuality.

...Which brings me to the term I used, "promiscuous with words." That term isn't exactly in the mainstream (yet), but when I use it, I basically mean that you're sleeping around with words; you're using them as objects of some kind of gratification as opposed to using them as they were meant to be used--i.e., the word fetish. You may agree or disagree with my use of the word there with no issue from me; as I said before, I'm aware it's not a common use of the term.
#188 to #187 - peterdivine (03/28/2014) [-]
In which case, I must apologize for my misuse of a word: homosexuality is not, strictly speaking, a "fetish". But my confusion only came around to such a point because like a fetish, it's pointless, hedonistically indulgent, unhealthy, unethical, and disgusting, and for those reasons, I refuse to show support for it, or anyone who openly uses "homosexuality" as part of their identity.

That said, I do not use religion as a basis for why I disagree with homosexuality, nor ever will.
User avatar #190 to #188 - bodasion (03/28/2014) [-]
Most sex is pointless. There's nothing biologically necessary about getting a blowjob from a 10/10 blonde, but I'm not about to hear you go on about how "grotesque" that is, am I?

I wasn't speaking about what you have to show support for. You keep trying to redirect this conversation into a battle between the ups and downs of homosexuality. I've already made up my mind about that subject (I didn't wake up and "decide" to like girls this morning and I doubt gay people wake up "deciding" to like boys) and it looks to me like you're so emotionally invested in calling homosexuality "grotesque, hedonistic, unhealthy, unethical, disgusting," et al. that it would be a waste of my time trying to reason with you on that front. I mean, look how many adjectives you employed in the process. Clearly, you're emotionally invested. Dr. Freud might have something to say about that, but that's neither here nor there.

That said, words have specific definitions and we should all, me included and particularly, be careful about throwing around words incorrectly. Human civilization doesn't exist without our ability to communicate, so you can imagine how important I think it is to be able to communicate properly.

I'm glad we could speak together with some measure of civility and come to some kind of an agreement. My best wishes to you, Mr. Divine.
#81 to #68 - anon (03/28/2014) [-]
except Homosexually in a broad term, can also include platonic/romantic homosexual relationship with no sexualn intercourse, which eliminate just a fetish auguments. Though the word sexual fetishism is usually use for a sexual fixation that is not normally view as sexually in nature (the sexual organs)
#101 - anon (03/28/2014) [-]
if all three of ur kids turn out gay you gotta be doing something wrong....
#149 to #101 - anon (03/28/2014) [-]
Exactly
User avatar #125 to #101 - thebellboy (03/28/2014) [-]
Ok so how the **** is she doing something wrong?
In my opinion your mom did something wrong by giving birth to a **** hole like you.
And why the **** is it so bad to be gay now, oh yeah it isnt!
You need to grow the **** up.
Welcome to the real world Jackass.
User avatar #175 to #125 - khrystalmeth (03/28/2014) [-]
I agree.
#165 to #125 - anon (03/28/2014) [-]
Lol at the red thumbs when you're speaking truth. I didn't realise homophobia was at the bottom of the fj community.
#129 to #125 - SemiAnon ONLINE (03/28/2014) [-]
Did you purposefully type that out so that you only had one swear per line?
User avatar #130 to #129 - thebellboy (03/28/2014) [-]
No i didnt actually it just kinda happened......
[ 189 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)