Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
Buy your amazon goods through FJ's link.
Just click this link and search for any product you want. FJ gets a commission on everything you buy.
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #7 - aussiepridevil (03/14/2013) [-]
okay, im pro gay rights, but that's kind of dis-respectful to the church and to catholics and muslims(?, im assuming the middle eastern man is a imam), imagine somebody photoshopped your nations leader kissing the opposite sex, that's not really okay.
User avatar #84 to #7 - anonycunt (03/14/2013) [-]
Let them do what they ant, they are all atheist fags that thumb you down.
User avatar #67 to #7 - rainbowrush (03/14/2013) [-]
I agree. It's really disrespectful to picture love between different cultures
User avatar #48 to #7 - messerauditore (03/14/2013) [-]
"kissing the opposite sex" so now heterosexuality is deemed wrong too?
#44 to #7 - comehonorfacetwice (03/14/2013) [-]
You ******* noob, he's kissing the same sex.
User avatar #40 to #7 - uhidk (03/14/2013) [-]
**** the church and the catholics and the muslims.
User avatar #23 to #7 - AcidFlux (03/14/2013) [-]
It's called freedom of expression. Do you check with everyone in your community before you express your opinion, to be sure it doesn't offend anyone? Of course not.

What these pictures REALLY do is expose those people with latent bigotry against homosexuals. If you think it's 'wrong' for these pictures to exist, that means you think it's wrong for men to kiss. Or do you also complain about every edited photo of every politician/religious figure/etc. on the Internet?
#25 to #23 - Axemaniax **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #28 to #25 - AcidFlux (03/14/2013) [-]
And give me an example of bigotry coming from a 'pro-gay' person in regards to this issue?
#29 to #28 - Axemaniax **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #30 to #29 - AcidFlux (03/14/2013) [-]
Anecdotal evidence? That's not what I was looking for, unfortunately. It doesn't really prove anything. I was looking for a verifiable public occurrence.

And in my experience, the scenario you describe is extremely rare. In fact, I've never seen that occur, except when the religious person kept pestering and proselytizing to the 'target', who then finally lost their cool after having tried to ignore the religious person for some time. In my experience, the willingness to 'live & let live' is more predominate among non-religious people than among religious people. I mean, when part of your holy text commands you to go out and convert others? Odds are, you're more likely to seek someone out to change their ways.
#33 to #30 - Axemaniax **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #35 to #33 - AcidFlux (03/14/2013) [-]
I'm not lumping them all together. I'm choosing not to name a specific religion. Huge difference. I know people from different religions that don't have overt issues with homosexuality. But the majority of people that do have a problem with homosexuality cite religious texts as the basis of their argument.

There are 'straight camps' funded & endorsed by religious organizations that try to 'cure' homosexuality. I've never heard of a camp designed to 'turn people gay' or to 'cure people of religion'. So, I'll stick to my opinion that there is an organized effort by some religious people to 'fix homosexuality'. I've never seen an organized effort by anyone to 'fix religion'. At worst, all I've seen is people trying to maintain a separation of church & state. That's not an attack on religion. That's a defense of the Constitution.

When was the last time you saw/heard someone speak out against homosexuality and not use a religious text or tenet as part of their argument?
#49 to #35 - Axemaniax **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #51 to #49 - AcidFlux (03/14/2013) [-]
So, again, a single personal anecdote. Does he believe that sexual activity is for procreation only? Because that's the entire basis for his argument, as you've explained it.
#54 to #51 - Axemaniax **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #57 to #54 - AcidFlux (03/14/2013) [-]
You said his argument is 'It's not meant to be'. Based upon what facts? You reference 'women as child carriers'. Seems to me that is the crux of his argument: procreation. This begs the question that I posed in comment #51.

If procreation is not the basis for his argument, then what is? And barring you being able to answer that question, I'll pose one to you: what is the basis for your argument against homosexuality? WHY are YOU against it?
#99 to #57 - Axemaniax **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #152 to #99 - AcidFlux (03/14/2013) [-]
And now you've been reduced to ad hominem attacks... interesting.
Even if your story about your friend is true, it's the exception that proves the rule.
Certain religious organizations actively attempt to infringe upon the rights of homosexuals, and itemsistrate 'straight camps'. I challenged you to provide a similar, contrary situation, but you failed to do so.

Not all religious people are bigoted. However, those that are bigoted are very vocal, and attempt to 'cure' homosexuals.
I support the right of freedom of religion. But that doesn't give anyone the right to infringe upon the personal, private lives of others.

Finally, back to the ORIGINAL point, these kinds of pictures are a form of expression, and therefore protected under the First Amendment. And anyone that takes particular exception to this form of expression, and not other, potentially offensive forms, is demonstrating an inherent bias on their part. If it's 'wrong' to depict these fictional situations, then WHY?

No one or any organization has an inherent right to not be offended, or even mocked. Any attempt to infringe upon another person's right to express an opinion that others find offensive is tantamount to censorship.

Just because this makes you uncomfortable isn't sufficient cause to disallow such expression.

Finally, I find it interesting that, while I've been respectful to you this entire time, you've chosen to engage in personal insults. In my opinion, this simply highlights the weakness of your entire position. Have a good day.
User avatar #27 to #25 - AcidFlux (03/14/2013) [-]
If someone gets overly upset over a joke, when other, similar jokes don't illicit the same response, then there must be something about it that upsets them. For example, I dislike the racist jokes/pictures about Obama that I see. Why? Because I dislike racism. So, if someone gets overly upset about a 'gay' joke about Obama/Romney, but doesn't get upset over the other types of jokes, then there's one logical conclusion:

It's not the satire of the person that bothers them. It's the subject matter of the satire. Picture of Romney with a clown wig on? No problem.
Picture of Romney kissing a guy? HOLY ******* **** !!!!!!

Ultimately, it comes down to freedom of expression. Even though I don't like the racist jokes/pictures, I let them slide with a minor grumble, because that's protected under the First Amendment.

So, is it 'okay'? Yes, it is. But you don't have to like it. You just have to accept that it exists.
#18 to #7 - zzonked (03/14/2013) [-]
You mean like this?
User avatar #17 to #7 - payseht (03/14/2013) [-]
I'd think he finally found a bigger dick than him
#11 to #7 - rotersand (03/14/2013) [-]
Name something that isn't offensive to the catholic church.
#81 to #11 - anonymous (03/14/2013) [-]
What a bad counter argument. This was flat-out meant to to make fun of them and maybe even provoke catholics. I'm not a catholic myself, but this is flat-out INTENDED to be offensive.
User avatar #21 to #11 - garvielxloken (03/14/2013) [-]
User avatar #20 to #11 - anbieter (03/14/2013) [-]
burning witches?
User avatar #12 to #11 - elyiia (03/14/2013) [-]
Altar boys?
User avatar #16 to #12 - lokiwins (03/14/2013) [-]
With rights. Oooooh now their panties are in a bunch.
#13 to #12 - rotersand (03/14/2013) [-]
Too true, too true
User avatar #8 to #7 - sparkyoneonetwo (03/14/2013) [-]
if someone photoshoped my nations leader kissing the opposite sex I would probably laugh a litte then not care. People are way to ******* sensitive about **** . Big ******* deal it's a ******* photoshoped pic yet everyone has to flip **** about it. Makes no scene to me
#68 to #8 - fedexman has deleted their comment [-]
#10 to #8 - anonymous (03/14/2013) [-]
That's because you're a faggot furry. You've become desensitized to insults because your whole life is one big insult to humanity.
User avatar #159 to #10 - sparkyoneonetwo (03/14/2013) [-]
but insults have not bothered me long before I was a faggot or a furry. and I don't see how a photoshoped picture would be insulting or offensive to anyone
User avatar #156 to #10 - sparkyoneonetwo (03/14/2013) [-]
well... that might be the most creative furry hate I've ever seen from an anon
 Friends (0)