Homosexuality

okay so i feel like we don’t talk about the fetishisation of gay men enough. i feel like it’s so easy to forget how serious and widespread and normalized the fetishisation of gay men is. take anything. take supernatural, and the intense shipping of everyone male with each other - even brothers. take hp and the intense shipping of for example drarry. take the raven cycle fandom and the almost complete silence about Blue and Gansey, a heterosexual but equally dynamic pair, while everyone literally screams about Adam and Ronan’s relationship. take the youtubers Dan and Phil who obviously no longer have the same friendship on display anymore because every one ships them. find any type of merchandise or fandom or whatever and you’ll also find that there’s this intense group of people - mostly grown women! - shipping characters together. writing and drawing porn of them, even though they are adults and the characters are underage children. we talk some about how these women call themselves ‘sinful’ for shipping gay men but we don’t talk about the actual shipping and that is in my opinion the disgusting part. how can any adult woman look at a franchise with child characters and decide that they want to write about these characters’ “sexual awakening”? that they want to draw porn and write explicit texts and go on and on about how cute/sexy/hot they are? all to fuel some kind of twisted fantasy? they do this and then they pat themselves on the back for being such good allies to the lgbt community because they are sooooooo accepting of gay people because how could they not be, when they ship drarry and destiel and phan? it’s honestly disgusting and it makes me ashamed to be a part of certain communities. leave gay men alone. leave gay people alone.

anonymous asked:

Homosexual love is love.

I’m not completely sure what you want me to say to this or what you’re responding to. If this is a response to what I explained in the recent ask I answered about Jesus’ command to love others, then I’m going to have to reiterate again that Jesus was not referring to homosexual love or any other type of worldly/fleshly love that is sinful.

  • Disney: We can't have like... A canon gay main character. That would disrupt our viewer base too much!
  • Nickelodeon: Just... Sneak it in man, make it subtle. These kids are smart they'll figure it out. Release comics and stuff dude. Get on it.
  • Cartoon Network: JUST FUCKING GAY IT UP BRUH, MAKE EVERYTHING GAY! Steven Universe? GAY! Amazing World of Gumball? GAY! Adventure Time? HOLY FLAMING JESUS BALLS YOU BETTER BELIEVE THAT'S GAY! YOU GET A GAY, AND YOU GET A GAY. GAY ALL ROUND!

Ok guys, we need to talk about J.C.Leyedecker, and how its a fucking travesty that no one has made a film about him yet.

So Leyendecker was an illustrator during the 1910′s-1940′s. His work was absolutely gorgeous and highly ubiquitous at the time, and his llustrations for the Arrow shirt company created one of the most iconic images of male beauty of the early 20th century. But this icon came with a delicously romantic twist.

So this image of The Arrow Man was both incredibly macho and well built, but also ethereally pretty and dapper. But the model who the drawing was based on cropped up in A LOT of Leyendeckers work. In many he was engaged in casual social scenes with other men, in others he was shaving in the bathroom or getting dressed, broad shouldered, skin glistening, dark blond hair perfectly in place, jaw sharp as a fucking shovel, but with a slightly rounded chin. In one ad for war bonds he even appeared as the statue of liberty. This same man appeared in hundrereds of drawings, each with the same sharp care and attention to detail which makes looking at him almost feel voyeristic. 

So this mans image is EVERYWHERE during the early 20th century, and he is a fashion/lifestyle icon for men on par with the female gibson girl. He was the celebrated symbol of male strength, virility, and power. 

And man who modeled for Leyendecker’s iconic univerally adored macho man? That would be his lover, Charles Beach.  

so all this gorgeously homoerotic artwork defined the image of hyper macho masculinity during the interwar period. Leyendecker painted Beach onto the face of the world, that was his love letter. He basically immortalised the love of his life by making the whole world adore him as much as he did.

Leyendecker’s work would go on to influence the likes of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Norman Rockwell. After his death in 1951, when people figured out that the unmarried man he’d been drawing and living with for decades, right up until the time of his death, was actually his lover, Leyendecker’s name has sadly been pushed out of the history books in favour of more wholesome characters.

And that fucking sucks

I would like to request a full length movie, with all the jazz era glamour and steamy romance that this genius deserved. During a time when homosexual men where thought of as weak deviants, this man not only had the nerve to use his lover as the model for all his great works, but he made him into the STANDARD of what it was to be a man. 

J.C. Leyendecker and Charles Beach deserve your rememberance. 


anonymous asked:

I honestly don't think you understand the Bible as well as you think you do. Some comments you have made/ questions you have answered, makes it seem you, like so many others, have a flawed understanding of several verses.

I’m not sure what verses you think I have a flawed understanding about, but everything I’ve said comes directly from scripture. It’s not hidden or something I have to go through hoops to understand/interpret in the Bible, and it’s certainly not something I’m making up out of thin air.

The Biblical stance on homosexuality is very direct in scripture each time it’s mentioned. Many try to come up with explanations that there’s hidden context and scripture isn’t actually referring to homosexuality. It honestly takes more effort to try coming up with these false and inaccurate explanations that attempt to claim that the verses directly defining homosexuality as a sin aren’t actually talking about homosexuality than it does to accept the truth of what the Word directly says on this topic.

anonymous asked:

"For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' " Gal 5:14 NIV. This verse says that the only law we have to follow is love everyone. If we love, we will not kill, steal, lust, envy, be greedy, etc. being homosexual does not go against loving all. So are you saying this verse is wrong? Are haircuts, shaving, eating red meat, etc still sins as well, according to you?

Jesus was not referring to homosexual love when He gave us the command to love others as we love ourselves, and neither was Paul when he made reference to what Jesus said about love in this verse from Galatians. Jesus wasn’t talking about any type of sinful behaviors the world may try to define as love when He gave that command - and that goes for forms of heterosexual love that are sinful, too. When Jesus talks about love, He is referring to love as defined in the Word:

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” - 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

If love involves sin and rebellion against Him, then that is not the love Jesus was talking about and it doesn’t fit the definition of Biblical love. When Jesus said for us to love others, He most certainly was not promoting sin or saying homosexual relationships were suddenly no longer deemed sinful. So no, I do not believe the verse is wrong. The truth is that this verse is not saying what you think it is.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that Jesus fulfilling the Law means all we have to do is love others and we aren’t expected to follow other aspects of the Law. The way you’re understanding it is that Jesus deleted or abolished the Law - this is false. And Jesus confirms this Himself:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” - Matthew 5:17

The Law was given by Him to demonstrate that no matter how hard we try, we can never truly fulfill the requirements of the Law. We will always fail and fall short of His standards in some way. That’s why it was necessary for Christ to come as a perfect atoning sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. By giving His life for us, He fulfilled the Law we could never perfectly follow ourselves and made a way for salvation. However, as He said, He did not abolish or destroy the Law.

When it comes to the Law, there is an important differentiation to be made. Ritualistic laws such as the ones you mentioned about haircuts, shaving, food restrictions, etc were specifically given to the Israelites. When you look at the New Testament, there is no mention of these ritualistic laws and therefore, Christians are not under obligation to follow them. However, there are also moral laws. And Christians are most certainly still expected to follow moral laws. Since you specifically are focusing on homosexuality, I will use that as an example - homosexuality is defined as sin in both Old Testament scripture and New Testament scripture after Christ’s death and resurrection. Homosexuality falls under the category of moral law.

Getting back to the verse from Galatians you mentioned, Paul was saying that you fulfill the entire law by loving others as you love yourself because if you truly love others in the way Jesus defined love (which is selfless and sacrificial - in other words, true love) you won’t want to embrace sin because it will ultimately harm yourself and others. Because if you truly love someone, you don’t want to harm them. If you love others as Jesus does, you will naturally know it’s right to obey the Law and will be convicted when you fall short/fail to obey it.

Whenever people want to argue in favor of justifying a behavior that is clearly defined as sin in scripture, it’s often said, “Jesus said to love and you’re not being loving by saying this is a sin”. Yes, Jesus said to love but when He said to love, He didn’t mean “it’s okay to sin, do whatever you want so long as it makes you happy”. This worldly depiction of Jesus is entirely false, taking His command to love out of context and ignoring everything else Jesus said about sin. Jesus directly told us that in order to follow Him, we must pick up our cross and deny ourselves of sinful desires of the flesh. But people often do not like to acknowledge this.

I made a rule for myself: I would not include anything that human beings had not already done in some other place or time, or for which the technology did not already exist. I did not wish to be accused of dark, twisted inventions, or of misrepresenting the human potential for deplorable behaviour. The group-activated hangings, the tearing apart of human beings, the clothing specific to castes and classes, the forced childbearing and the appropriation of the results, the children stolen by regimes and placed for upbringing with high-ranking officials, the forbidding of literacy, the denial of property rights: all had precedents, and many were to be found not in other cultures and religions, but within western society.
—  Margaret Atwood on The Handmaid’s Tale in a 2012 interview