How many school bus seats were skinned to make that overcoat?
— TheH2 (@TheH2) July 30, 2014
“Reaching Out MBA” is “an annual conference of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender graduate business students.” This year, they are going to great lengths to make sure the attendance is limited only to avowed homosexuals and transgendereds.
It’s not that they h8 straight people, you must understand. In fact, some of their best friends may be straight people, or at least questioning. No, you see, the reason they must exclude straight people from their Jobs Fair is because one of those awful straight people might say something that hurts a gay person’s feeeeeeeeeeeelings.
[The organizers] said that the straight students attending the job fair were “offensive” as LGBT-identifying students overheard things such as “Dude, I’m not gay” or “There needs to be less focus on gay stuff at this event.”
Because, you see gay people are so fragile and delicate emotionally that even the slightest statement could crush them like a June bug on the front grille of a GMC Suburban.
Also, some attendees may come from the South, and you know how terrible The South is.
[ The organizers] told Bloomberg Businessweek that the conference wasn’t trying to exclude LGBT-allies and also recognized that several conference attendees come from large, southern MBA programs where the LGBT students may not feel as readily accepted and may not be as readily apt to divulge their sexual preference.
So, they get to exclude any non-gheys, or anyone who might hurt a ghey person’s feelings… but God forbid a campus Christian group should require its members to uphold chastity and oppose Teh Ghey Marriage.
Some obviously self-hating gheys in Seattle participated in a “die-in” to show their hatred for the only country in the Middle East where Gay Rights are protected, and their support for a murderous anti-gay Islamist terror regime.
Makes total sense, right?
And if producers refuse, they are obviously h8-filled homephobic h8rs who h8.
The creator of BBC TV series Sherlock has been inundated with fan mail urging him to make the detective and Dr Watson gay lovers.
Mark Gatiss admitted he had been overwhelmed with explicit drawings and plotline ideas ahead of the new series starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, due late next year.
It follows a running joke in the show which hints the pair might be closer than friends, especially by landlady Mrs Hudson, played by Una Stubbs, 77, who often makes references to their sexuality.
Mr Gatiss, 47, told Australian gay magazine DNA: ‘Oh my God. I get sent things that would make your hair turn white. It’s not just Sherlock and Watson holding hands on a park bench, I can tell you that.
‘Some of them are incredibly graphic but my goodness I’ve not tried half the things they’re doing.’
By a 53% to 44% margin, voters wish they could have a do-over and elect Mitt Romney instead of King Putt.
So, it’s finally dawned on the slow-learners that free contraceptives and snarky comments about the eighties wanting their foreign policy back do not warrant voting for a socialist street-agitator over a competent, accomplished businessman. Right?
No, not so much, because according to the same poll, those same voters would overwhelmingly support Hillary Rodham Clinton over Romney — even though her policies are virtually indistinguishable from Obama’s.
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
GLAAD doesn’t think Hollywood movies are gay enough. They are asking that they may be made much much gayer. (Demands and boycotts to follow.)
GLAAD is asking studios to give their movies a “Vito Russo Test. It’s modeled after the “Bechdel Test,” a concept popularized by “Fun Home” memoirist Alison Bechdel that asks if a work of fiction has two women in it who at some point talk to one another about a topic other than a man. (Some movies said to pass: “Die Hard,” “Little Miss Sunshine,” “Gone With the Wind.”)
To pass GLAAD’s version of the test, a movie must have an LGBT character who is not “solely or predominantly defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity” and who “must be tied into the plot in such a way that their removal would have a significant effect.” It’s named for Vito Russo, the author of “The Celluloid Closet,” considered a classic text in LGBT entertainment analysis.
Writing in the American Thinker, former hardcore Communist Danusha Goska provides “Ten Reasons I Am No Longer a Leftist.” It should come as no surprise that the No. 1 reason is the left’s deranged hatred.
Given that the left prides itself on being the liberator of women, homosexuals, and on being “sex positive,” one of the weirder and most obvious aspects of left-wing hate is how often, and how virulently, it is expressed in terms that are misogynist, homophobic, and in the distinctive anti-sex voice of a sexually frustrated high-school misfit. Haters are aware enough of how uncool it would be to use a slur like “fag,” so they sprinkle their discourse with terms indicating anal rape like “butt hurt.” Leftists taunt right-wingers as “tea baggers.” The implication is that the target of their slur is either a woman or a gay man being orally penetrated by a man, and is, therefore, inferior, and despicable.
OK, so there are two questions raised by this rather authoritarian stance he has taken.
1. What is an “anti-LGBT attitude?” Opposition to gay marriage is obviously an example, people have literally lost their jobs for holding an “anti-LGBT attitude” on that subject. Apparently, the opinion that Michael Sam is a mediocre football player unworthy of the hype he has generated is also an “anti-LGBT attitude.” Also, it’s apparently an “anti-LGBT attitude” to differentiate between male and female newborn babies.
So, apparently, an “anti-LGBT attitude” is any attitude that does not celebrate every gay person and every gay agenda item or that offends in the slightest way the most hypersensitive LGBT.
2. What does it mean to “ruthlessly stamp out” such attitudes? Note, his language is not “encourage and redirect” but “ruthlessly stamp out.” That suggests both ruthlessness (without pity or compassion; cruel; merciless) and stamping out.
So, he’s kind of saying that people who have the wrong opinions on anything related to LGBT should be suppressed with force and violence.
Is that a reasonable reading of his statement?
An article in the Progressive Left “The Atlantic” magazine/website (the same place that let Andrew Sullivan spew his deranged conspiracy theories about the parentage of little Trig Palin) uses sympathetic portrayals of groups of people in Denobulan-style arrangements of multiple ongoing sex partners as worthy of normalization. No, not just normalization, these brave pioneers should be praised and celebrated.
Polyamorous people still face plenty of stigmas, but some studies suggest they handle certain relationship challenges better than monogamous people do.
“Polys” are more likely to be liberal and educated, she said, and in the rare cases that they do practice religion, it’s usually paganism or Unitarian Universalism.
Liberal! Educated! Pagan! Hip! They handle relationships better! Why, it’s almost as though the left is trying to convince everyone that polyamorous people are just plain better (in progressive terms) than stick-in-the-mud traditionally monogamous people.
It’s so unfortunate that no one — NO ONE — could have predicted that this would be a consequence of normalizing gay marriage.
Because the economy is so good and the Government is so solvent, they can afford to spend money on stuff like this.
The National Institutes of Health has awarded a $237,750 grant to George Washington University to study whether the use of telemedicine can help overcome barriers to care for transgender women of color.
I know what you’re thinking. “Oh, sure… the transgendered women of color are taken care of, but what about the undocumented transgendered women of color. Has this regime no compassion?”