HOME | DD

Published: 2012-03-07 00:08:22 +0000 UTC; Views: 8576; Favourites: 375; Downloads: 25
Redirect to original
Description
Stamp Template by Miarath (Found here:miarath.deviantart.com/art/Sta… )Don't like stamps? Don't look for them.
Read the description before you start whining.
WARNING: Possible "Offensive" Description Ahead!
-There is also lots of cursing, small children should leave the room~
If my insults don't apply to you, then they obviously don't apply to you, and are not directed at you. Don't be offended by something not meant for you.
Pre-thought: I support all forms of love, be it heterosexual, homosexual, pansexual, etc. Just let love be as free as letting a heart beat.
I don't give a flying fuck if you're an offended heterosexual, pull up your cum-slathered pants and grow a pair. Your love isn't the only love that exists, motherfucker. You don't need to open your eyes to other love, just open your mind, you paranoid shut-ins. No one is asking you to watch them have sex.
Yeah, this is something I've been meaning to make for awhile. I feel strongly about this, and really, if you want to stick your dick full of religion down other people's throats, then go love your religious fiction books elsewhere, cuz humans are allowed to love books but apparently not each other if they are of the same sex.
I don't have a problem with religion. I have a problem with people feeling as though they completely understand their religion, and thus force religion on others as a form of law or rules. Heads up, but I don't think God (or whoever you believe in) made you his/her spokesman, buddy. Sit the fuck down.
Not only do some people try to use religion as rules and laws, but they don't even follow all of that religion's rules in the first place. You're loyal? I think not.
Stamp Template (C) Miarath
Edits (C) Me
Let the bashing begin, I know someone out there is going to feel whole-heartedly against this and feel the need to speak their ignorant, closed little minds about this.
But before you do, "Hi, I don't give a fuck about your protest."
EDIT:
To clarify;
A lot of people are assuming that "love" means "sex". Not only is it sad that you equate the two, however there is a word called "lust" and is not the equivalent to love.
Necrophilia is not a form of love, unless it was relationship before one of them passed away. But really, as it has nothing to do with personality or relationships, it's just sex with a corpse that doesn't feel. It's more lust than anything, and it's one-sided and unhealthy. Therefore Necrophilia is not supported as it is not a form of love; it is a form of lust.
Incest is a form of love, and I do support it. If they love each other, that's their own business, and I stay out of it, as others should too, whether they want a child or not. They could decide on their own if they want a baby, and by choosing such option, they accept the fact that their child may be unhealthy and may be born with medical issues. But again, it's their business, if people don't like it, look away. Saying this, they could also adopt a child and free themselves from worrying about their own child being unhealthy or deformed. Therefore I support incest (however do not wish to see or know about it beyond that two people are in love).
Ephebophilia and Pedophilia, however, is a touchy subject since it involves younger people. I'd only support it if it was mutual love, but since it's between someone young with someone older (and more experienced with love, or lust, depending on how the older person actually feels about the younger one), the younger person may not understand the difference between love and lust. Yet this is a problem most older people have as well, which is why they date and break up so often, in most cases. Some teenagers put themselves out there, and then withdraw once they realize what it really means or what the affects really are, and they're called innocent. There are older people who are "creepers", but there are some who aren't and actually take it seriously, and really do love the younger person. I do support it, but only in the rare cases that are honest forms of love that can last, but it must be mutual. Rape and lust are not forms of love, and many of these instances are seen as rape, or something one-sided. It could have been that the younger person didn't know what they were in for, and that's why it's so frowned upon. It looks like the elderly are taking advantage of the youths. True forms of love in this are rare, but I'm sure there are a few instances out there.
Zoophile is another one where it depends, but I'm not against it. It's hard to find something mutual with an animal, and people believe that they have sometimes when they haven't. I have a dog, but I'd never have sex with him, because that's not what kind of love I feel towards him. For others, it may be different, and I wouldn't like to see it, but it can be love. If the animal isn't forced into it, then that's fine. There's also such a thing as training your pet, as you know, they can be taught not to just mindlessly mount visitors or friends of the owner. It's proven that animals can be taught not to do things, so why solo out teaching not to do this? Another reason is that animals can feel pain or discomfort, and they defend themselves when they feel the need to, and if they didn't want to be in the relationship with a human, they could lash out or try to get away, and if the person didn't let them defend themselves, then it isn't love- it's another case of lust. It all depends on how it happens and what happens. In summary, it's incredibly rare for the love to be real in these situations, but in the few cases where it is real, I support it (and do not wish to see it or know of it).
If people don't socially accept any form of love, then they shouldn't look for it and it shouldn't be allowed in public. Some people have been bothered by even seeing a straight couple in public, kissing, touching, or more. There will always be a social boundary, and I think that all love should have boundaries in public, but just be allowed to legally have that love. Again, I know not all cases are love and involve lust or rape, and those aren't the instances I support. Much of what I support isn't something I'd like to see, but it's something that exists and I'm not against it.
Related content
Comments: 210
RingtailFox In reply to ??? [2012-07-12 16:03:24 +0000 UTC]
Thanks. c:
You're very welcome! <3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DragulasDragons In reply to RingtailFox [2012-07-12 18:30:39 +0000 UTC]
Welcomez~
it's a verry Amazing stamp~ ;w;
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Death-By-Love-13 [2012-05-28 18:49:36 +0000 UTC]
Thank you.
Why should the government even have a say in our love?
Yeah, Insect and Young and Old relations are weird. I support incest IN THAT BARELY RELATED SENSE. Like.. *Sighs* By law related.. But I do believe in like mental thoughts, like you know how friends act like siblings.
For example me and my BFF, we are like sisters. If we each had kids and they wanted to get together, it sorta would be wrong. But I mean, I'd sorta be fine with it, meaning I wouldn't say to my daughter, "NO YOU CAN'T DATE HIM!" I would just not approve so much.. But I would let her do what she wants... If she wants to date another girl, I'd be fine with it. If she wanted to be with my friend's son, I'd let her. If she wanted to date someone that's a few years older, sorta fine.
Like if she's 15 and the guys 22. I'm gonna freak out. If she's 19 and the guys 30, it's her life, she's a legal adult. Whatever.
But if she's 15 and the guy is 17, I wouldn't exactly freak out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
dodgev8 In reply to ??? [2012-04-13 04:17:26 +0000 UTC]
There is no excuse for being a homosexual, homosexuality is against nature and religion. No human was destined to be a homosexual, it's the society's fault. Humans did not invent love, indeed. But humans do INVENT HOMOSEXUALITY. Just look at those guys in prison who were heterosexual, they got depressed because there are no vaginas in their shower room, then they invented sodomy!
Okay, I'm not a religious guy or something, I don't really understand my religion but I do know that homosexuality is the biggest sin in some religion AND IT'S JUST WRONG AND DISGUSTING. Yuck, 2 penises, how do they work?! Well, actually I love watching cute lesbians rubbing each others cunt, but it's still wrong.
Homosexuality shouldn't be justified, you people got brainwashed by the media. It's a shame to be a fag.
If you're a fag, please, consult your problem to the psychiatrist quick.
👍: 0 ⏩: 4
Mangakawannabe7 In reply to dodgev8 [2013-01-06 04:16:13 +0000 UTC]
So apparently because I'm gay I have to have sex? Here's a funny story that I'm SURE you'll get a kick out of; NOT. ALL. RELATIONSHIPS. REVOLVE. AROUND. SEX. And how does it go against nature? Me being attracted to a dude is different from me being attracted to a girl, how? Because I can't "reproduce" with him? Guess what, I was with a girl I STILL wouldn't reporduce with her. I HATE CHILDREN so there is little chance of that happening. There is just no excuse for being homophobic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Death-By-Love-13 In reply to dodgev8 [2012-05-28 18:40:40 +0000 UTC]
"Well, actually I love watching cute lesbians rubbing each others cunt, but it's still wrong."....... The hell Dude? THE FUCKING HELL?! Do you have a brain? My God... If you like it, then you're just an idiot. You're saying you don't like gays... But you like Lesbians getting it on? THE FUCK DUDE?!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Ask-War In reply to dodgev8 [2012-04-16 04:31:46 +0000 UTC]
"There is no excuse for being a homosexual, homosexuality is against nature and religion." Religion is a faulty argument, and there are hundreds of animal species, us included, that indulge in homosexuality. We are the only ones that discriminate. Now what is against nature?
After reading your whole comment, I have come to two conclusions. You are either incredibly, incredibly uneducated and ignorant, or a troll.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
LightAnimaux In reply to Ask-War [2012-06-01 12:35:06 +0000 UTC]
Autism goes against this "nature" you speak of. And all other disorders, be it physical or mental, that one is born with (or even develops)
What ever caused there to be no such thing as 'glitches' in your brain, like turning out to be homosexual? Sure, humans are made to survive-- that means we're meant to reproduce a shitload of kids to take our place and make sure the species never dies. But sometimes problems happen that, while they'll screw that ideal up, they're still there and you can't change them.
It's not like somebody who was born with their legs paralyzed chose to be that way-- it just happened. But you know what you're supposed to do about that? Deal with it. You shouldn't go spewing nonsense about a certain type a person just because they were born a certain way. This includes homosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, etc.
(This is not meant to be offensive to anyone not-heterosexual X'D My apologies if it comes off that way)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ask-War In reply to LightAnimaux [2012-06-01 12:44:24 +0000 UTC]
"Autism goes against this "nature" you speak of. And all other disorders, be it physical or mental, that one is born with (or even develops)" Is this about Autism or other disorders? No, it's about homosexuality. Or are you saying that homosexuality is a disorder like Autism?
" that means we're meant to reproduce a shitload of kids to take our place and make sure the species never dies. " Makes humans sound like cockroaches. Just a bit of humor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LightAnimaux In reply to Ask-War [2012-06-01 23:08:39 +0000 UTC]
"Makes humans sound like cockroaches." You know it's why we're on earth lol
"Or are you saying that homosexuality is a disorder like Autism?" I'm saying I think homosexuality is something that happens in part of the brain, like a sort glitch (since it prevents people from reproducing like heteros), just as autism is simply a problem in part of the brain. Just this one isn't going to cause any real problems, since it's not like a homosexual, etc, is going to need an aid or something. :'D (My thoughts are a bit scattered, but again, this is not meant to be offensive-- just how I view things I'm not even hetero. w00t.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ask-War In reply to LightAnimaux [2012-06-01 23:40:47 +0000 UTC]
"You know it's why we're on earth lol' Indeed it is.
"I'm saying I think homosexuality is something that happens in part of the brain, like a sort glitch (since it prevents people from reproducing like heteros)," It's not a glitch or defect in the brain, it's an emotional or sexual attraction to the same sex. It's no different biologically than any heterosexual.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LightAnimaux In reply to Ask-War [2012-06-02 01:23:47 +0000 UTC]
Your emotions are controlled by your brain.
Aherpderp.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ask-War In reply to LightAnimaux [2012-06-02 01:30:44 +0000 UTC]
Yes, emotions are controlled by the brain. I never denied that. I denied your opinion that homosexuality was a glitch/problem with the brain.
So, as you say, Aherpderp.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LightAnimaux In reply to Ask-War [2012-06-02 01:39:32 +0000 UTC]
So.. if homosexuality isn't something in the brain (as all love is), what's it controlled by then in your opinion? The amount of potatoes you eat? o.o...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ask-War In reply to LightAnimaux [2012-06-02 01:44:54 +0000 UTC]
I think you should read what I say more carefully.
The sexual/romantic love of another person is dictated by your emotions, love and lust. However, homosexuality isn't a glitch in the brain. It's working perfectly, the object of their affection is just shifted to something else.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LightAnimaux In reply to Ask-War [2012-06-02 01:50:08 +0000 UTC]
I'm tired, I can read things however I like :'DD /shot
But as a human's only purpose, by way of nature, is to reproduce, and being homosexual interferes with that, how's that not, you know, a glitch? I still don't get it lol..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ask-War In reply to LightAnimaux [2012-06-02 01:57:01 +0000 UTC]
One purpose of any living thing is to reproduce, that is true but it isn't the only purpose. Many species, humans, monkeys apes, dolphins etc. etc. have sex for pleasure, either through contraception (humans) or waiting until a time that they won't get pregnant (other animals and humans).
Homosexuality doesn't interfere with nature, nor is it a glitch. Over 450 animals (humans included) indulge in homosexuality. Besides, if you look at brain scans of a homosexual and compare it to a heterosexual, you won't find any abnormalities.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LightAnimaux In reply to Ask-War [2012-06-02 02:05:54 +0000 UTC]
Well, I'll have another look at this tomorrow when I'm not so tired, maybe then it'll make sense X'D I still don't get how the fact that lots of animals being homo means it's not a difference between the brains of hetero and otherwise.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ask-War In reply to LightAnimaux [2012-06-02 02:09:02 +0000 UTC]
Alright.
Basically, as I said, if you look at scans of hetero and homosexuals, you won't find any abnormalities when it comes to emotions and action controls.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
dodgev8 In reply to Ask-War [2012-04-16 04:59:02 +0000 UTC]
Us are not actually incl;uded, homosexuality is just for some species of fishes, bugs, plants, and some others that's what i know. Primates are not included.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ask-War In reply to dodgev8 [2012-04-16 05:04:14 +0000 UTC]
Then you obviously have no actual education on the matter. Primates, and yes that DOES include humans, as well as other mammals indulge in homosexuality. Before you come and spout your bigotry, try educating yourself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
RingtailFox In reply to dodgev8 [2012-04-13 22:02:36 +0000 UTC]
Humans don't invent Homosexuality. Many animals in nature have been homosexual, and not because they were confused. You're a sheltered little shut-in that can't open your eyes to see that it's a form of love, whether or not the homosexual couple participates in sexual activities or not.
Homosexuality was not invented in jail, you seem to believe everything you see. If a man can love a women, then a man can love a man- and vice versa. No one is forced into homosexual love, because if they were, it would be called rape, and that happens even in straight relationships. Not only is there rape in straight relationships, but there is also forced marriage, which I doubt you would agree with. There's a lot of flaw in both heterosexuality as well as homosexuality, but it's legalized for a reason- because people quit keeping closed-minds and realize that love exists outside of their own relationships.
Besides, if you enjoy watching lesbians like an idiotic hypocrite, as well as calling male homosexuality "disgusting", then you're supporting female homosexuality (yes, just by watching it, you're supporting it, because those against it would protest or abstain from it), which is also being sexist. Men like you are horrid creatures that can't appreciate love outside the view of their penis. You're not the only one who wants to be in a comfortable relationship, you don't deserve the girlfriend that you find. You don't like to be told that, but that's what you're telling gays. Practice what you preach, and don't be in a relationship with the sex you want to be with and I'll actually listen to your argument.
"If you love someone, consult your problem to the psychiatrist quick" is basically your last statement.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RingtailFox In reply to dodgev8 [2012-04-15 15:52:16 +0000 UTC]
I really don't care that you didn't read it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ask-War In reply to RingtailFox [2012-04-16 04:32:49 +0000 UTC]
He's a fool. Too ignorant and uneducated, people like him were the first to go in military drafts. Those where the good old days.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ask-mizuki-ishuyaka In reply to ??? [2012-04-07 03:41:24 +0000 UTC]
I agree with what you say. However I beleive that humans should not have children in the sence of male and male, female and female, young and old, or animal and human. Nature intended (my opinion :NOT FROM ANY BOOK/RELIGION OR ANYTHING ELSE JUST MY OPINION: ) for a male and female individual to have a child together. Although siblings/relatives should not have a child together no matter how much they love eachother. I'm not saying that they cannot have sex I'm only stating that inbreeding is not a good thing for anyone, especially the child. I have not problem with any kind of love. People should however follow the intention of nature itself and not a human inflicted rule. I can say this and still be straight...my father thinks completely differently its a shame he cannot see what love truelly is..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RingtailFox In reply to ask-mizuki-ishuyaka [2012-04-13 22:13:31 +0000 UTC]
Well, you have to have a male and a female to have a child. You can't have to men give birth, that's not how it works. Homosexuals can adopt children, and raise them just fine. What you're doing is judging people that are gay and saying that they aren't fit to raise a child. At least that child would have two parents instead of a single parent, which is actually a lot harder to deal with and emotionally stressful on most of the kids that live through that. It's proven that girls that are raised by two moms (not all of them, but for the most part) are much more confident in themselves (not cocky, but confident).
Inbreeding may cause problems in the child, but it's no one's business but the couple if they want to have a child. By choosing to have that child, they accept all the problems that the kid may be born with, and they accept the challenge of raising the kid that way. Nature never said it had any intentions, it has no voice to speak. There is no intended way of nature, because humans are ruining a lot of the world with pollution and technology, and look- you're using it, and you're not against it. Do you think nature wanted this, to be torn down by humans and replaced with huge buildings that tarnish the air that it tries to breathe? While it isn't safe for the child, incest couples accept whatever their child is born with. If they don't, then they really shouldn't have a kid, while knowing there will most likely be problems with it.
It is a shame that your father can't understand that you're straight when believing in homosexuality to be okay. It doesn't really affect him much, so it shouldn't bother you what he thinks. As long as he isn't mean to you because of it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ask-mizuki-ishuyaka In reply to RingtailFox [2012-04-13 22:38:09 +0000 UTC]
Oh I guess I forgot to say that I know that homosexual couples can raise a child just fine I just ment that they should not create the baby. And as for nature, I guess you are right about the choice, I would want to have a choice as well and yes, it would be a challenge and yes again it should be the couples choice. My dad does give me crud about my beliefs :\ but I don't relly care
my sister and I beleive the same things so we get the same things.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
AnotherGoth In reply to ??? [2012-03-25 16:27:57 +0000 UTC]
True That Sister!
----------------------------------
Oh haters gonna hate!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RingtailFox In reply to AnotherGoth [2012-03-26 14:03:56 +0000 UTC]
Yep, there will always be someone out there against what you're doing!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
demyxxigbar In reply to ??? [2012-03-20 23:05:02 +0000 UTC]
the thing that gets me is all these ignorant people with signs and protesting about people they will never meet or see in there life and they care about there love life i mean really wtf people pull your head out of your ass and stop being an ignorant fuck
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RingtailFox In reply to demyxxigbar [2012-03-21 00:28:35 +0000 UTC]
Well, a lot of people protest about problems that might not effect them. Get over it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Troodontidae In reply to ??? [2012-03-16 19:02:32 +0000 UTC]
"Humans did not invent love, so they should not put rules on it".
Why I have nothing against the basic message of tolerating homosexuality, you might want to reconsider that statement since while homosexuality is harmless, there are many other forms of love that are not consider socially acceptable for good reason.
(Note, to avoid problems I will refrain from stating my personal opinion on the forms until later)
Ephebophilia-
Preference for young adults and adolescents (15-19). While technically most teenagers are by default Ephebophilliacs, the word is usually used to describe older men or women who prefer younger men or woman. The exact level of tolerance varies, but usually (especially if it’s an older man with a younger woman) it’s not tolerated. Is this justified or are they old enough to make their own decisions and be free to love each other un-harassed?
Pedophilia-
Universally loathed so I assume you’re against it. Children are not emotionally or intellectually capable of handling a romantic/sexual relationship, especially a sexual one. So it’s probably a good thing that there are rules against it.
Zoophile-
Also universally loathed, so I assume you’re against it. While an animal might not always be against the affections of a human, they are not intellectually capable of handling an romantic/sexual relationship. Not to mention if they find sexual activities with a human to be acceptable, they might attempt to court other humans which would certainly not be okay.
Necrophilia-
Again universally frowned upon, so I assume you’re against it. Unless the person said before death “it’s okay to f*** my corpse, it is not only disrespectful to the fallen person and their loved ones, but most likely strict lust rather than love.
Incest- Was once universally loathed, but recently, especially here on DA, is starting receive mixed opinions. On one hand people consider it be disgusting and unnatural (sound familiar) and poses the risk of unhealthy children. On the other hand some say that they don’t have to have children (in worst case scenario they could get an abortion), that the risks are not only exaggerated but a person is just as likely to have children born with issues if they’ve been drinking, using certain drugs or are over the age of 40 and yet we don’t force them not to be in love, regardless if they want children or not. Those who support it also say it’s hypocritical that there are people who support homosexuality that are against incest, regardless of how safe it is. So is it okay for people to be in an incest relationship, or is that a no no and we should enforce rules against it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RingtailFox In reply to Troodontidae [2012-03-17 19:17:59 +0000 UTC]
Assumptions, I see. I don't feel there is a need to revise my statement.
Necrophilia is not a form of love, unless it was relationship before one of them passed away. But really, as it has nothing to do with personality or relationships, it's just sex with a corpse that doesn't feel. It's more lust than anything, and it's one-sided.
Incest is a form of love, and I do support it. If they love each other, that's their own business, and I stay out of it, as others should too, whether they want a child or not. They could decide on their own if they want a baby, and by choosing such option, they accept the fact that their child may be unhealthy. But again, it's their business, if people don't like it, look away. Saying this, they could also adopt a child and free themselves from worrying about their own child being unhealthy or deformed.
Ephebophilia and Pedophilia, however, is a touchy subject since it involves younger people. I'd only support it if it was mutual love, but since it's between someone young with someone older (and more experienced with love, or lust, depending on how the older person actually feels about the younger one), the younger person may not understand the difference between love and lust. Yet this is a problem most older people have as well, which is why they date and break up so often, in most cases. Some teenagers put themselves out there, and then withdraw once they realize what it really means or what the affects really are, and they're called innocent. There are older people who are "creepers", but there are some who aren't and actually take it seriously, and really do love the younger person. I do support it, but only in the rare cases that are honest forms of love that can last, but it must be mutual. Rape and lust are not forms of love, and many of these instances are seen as rape, or something one-sided. It could have been that the younger person didn't know what they were in for, and that's why it's so frowned upon. It looks like the elderly are taking advantage of the youths. True forms of love in this are rare, but I'm sure there are a few instances out there.
Zoophile is another one where it depends, but I'm not against it. It's hard to find something mutual with an animal, and people believe that they have sometimes when they haven't. I have a dog, but I'd never have sex with him, because that's not what kind of love I feel towards him. For others, it may be different, and I wouldn't like to see it, but it can be love. If the animal isn't forced into it, then that's fine. There's also such a thing as training your pet, as you know, they can be taught not to just mindlessly mount visitors or friends of the owner. It's proven that animals can be taught not to do things, so why solo out teaching not to do this? Another reason is that animals can feel pain or discomfort, and they defend themselves when they feel the need to, and if they didn't want to be in the relationship with a human, they could lash out or try to get away, and if the person didn't let them defend themselves, then it isn't love- it's another case of lust. It all depends on how it happens and what happens.
If people don't socially accept any form of love, then they shouldn't look for it and it shouldn't be allowed in public. Some people have been bothered by even seeing a straight couple in public, kissing, touching, or more. There will always be a social boundary, and I think that all love should have boundaries in public, but just be allowed to legally have that love. Again, I know not all cases are love and involve lust or rape, and those aren't the instances I support. Much of what I support isn't something I'd like to see, but it's something that exists and I'm not against it.
Thanks for your comment, I appreciate the view and thought. You had very good questions, I can see the reasoning for them, too. Thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Troodontidae In reply to RingtailFox [2012-03-19 20:54:57 +0000 UTC]
I’ll be honest here, I underestimated you. Again wasn’t trying to troll, just trying to make a point. But it’s apparent to me you already realized this so there wasn't really any need . Anyway, since you’ve already replied here’s my opinion.
Necrophilia- Basically what you said.
Incest- If they are a consenting couple then I have no problem. However I don’t believe under any circumstance, should they have biological children with each other.
Ephebophilia- I know many times in these situations one is taking advantage of the other or that the younger one might be naïve, but if they are truly a loving couple and understand what their getting into, I think it’s okay.
Pedophilia- Because children are not intellectually and emotionally ready to handle a serious relationship, I don’t tolerate pedophilia. But, I don’t (unlike most people) automatically call pedophiles “evil monsters” but people who need help (and when I say need help, I don’t mean it the snarky, sarcastic way people usually use it. But in the sense they should get psychiatric help since pedophilia is unhealthy). It’s really only when they force themselves onto someone is what makes them bad.
Zoophile- While I respect your opinion, my opinion is similar to Pedophiles.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RingtailFox In reply to Troodontidae [2012-03-20 01:16:19 +0000 UTC]
It's quite alright, it's good to ask questions. I didn't think of you as a troll. xD
Yeah, I can see what you mean with Pedophilia- psychiatric help would probably aid them and positively affect their lives. It's true that children are definitely not prepared for a love life, especially not emotionally.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
faerimagic In reply to ??? [2012-03-13 02:00:14 +0000 UTC]
Agreed. There should be no laws regarding love.
Though I still think there should be laws regarding stalkers and the like, because that's not love. That's just freaking people out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RingtailFox In reply to faerimagic [2012-03-13 03:17:09 +0000 UTC]
Haha, yeah, stalkers are definitely not a part of the whole equal love thing, since it's only one-sided, if that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
LordlyCaliber In reply to ??? [2012-03-10 11:19:50 +0000 UTC]
Oh look, another loud whiny rant about gay rights by virtue of bitching about religious zealots. How original.
In all seriousness, you do realize that you come off like a little child about this. You call an entire a religion "fiction" for no other reason then you disagree on its views on homosexuality, and that's only after you use a bunch of swear words in a rant because you're too ill equip to convey your emotions with anything else than empty obscenities. How exactly can someone have "cum-slathered pants" when they haven't "grown a pair"? How can one have a dick "full of religion"?
If you want to be a brat on dA making the same stamp that literally exists in a 1000 different permutations and making empty rants, fine. If you want to actually do something besides bitch, then how about you make an effort that matters? You may not realize it but the government is your biggest ally in making change happen, so voice that opinion to the people that matter. Write to your representatives, keep up to date on bills and upcoming votes so you can show your support or lack thereof for up and coming laws.
The same goes out for all the rest of you useless whining stamp making cry-babies. I swear a least once a week I see someone put up a "equal gay rights" kind of stamp, never knowing that the time it takes to make one of those is the time it takes to express your opinion in a place where it's actually useful. No one worth expressing this opinion to is browsing deviantArt.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RingtailFox In reply to LordlyCaliber [2012-03-10 15:19:09 +0000 UTC]
dA made a "stamp" category for a reason, and what I make doesn't have to be accepted by everyone. And actually, I don't really give a crap that you're against it, because you can leave the page and go somewhere else. Rant to your friends about it, I don't care. xD
And so you know, a "dick full of religion" is a metaphor, buddy. Having an unnecessary pride in religion and using it against people. Not everyone does that, so obviously not everyone has a dick full of religion. Like I say in the description, I don't have a problem with religion. I have a problem with people feeling as though they completely understand their religion, and thus force religion on others as a form of law or rules.
The government may be the biggest ally, but you have to fight them to get something to change. Like you said, there's plenty of protestors/people for it, and it's gradually working, but it's not working in some places yet. I've sent letters to my representatives, did it really make a difference? Nope. There's not enough support yet, obviously.
There may be a ton of different versions of gay rights stamps, but no one's says exactly what mine does. There are many different versions of a lot of things here on dA, you going to cry about that too?
If you've got such a problem with us "stamp-making-crybabies", just ignore our stamps and get on with your life instead of wasting our time with your perfectionist views on arguments.
I appreciate your comment nonetheless. Thanks for viewing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Miarath In reply to ??? [2012-03-10 09:37:23 +0000 UTC]
I totally agree with this.
Love is love as long nobody's hurt or forced to do things they don't want to do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RingtailFox In reply to Miarath [2012-03-10 15:21:21 +0000 UTC]
Thanks.
You're right, when force doesn't enter into it, love should be accepted!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>