| re: Regarding Jim's sexuality. |
|
Posted by:
 |
Daphne24 09:25 pm UTC 12/29/06 |
| In reply to: |
re: Regarding Jim's sexuality. - Pudding 08:38 pm UTC 12/29/06 |
|
Actually, I thought you were referring to the people being outed. And the main person hell-bent on outing them right now is a gossip blogger - I've no idea what his orientation is, nor do I care (I'm not even curious because he's such an asshole).
> Neo-Homo is a word I describe to the recent movement of
> homosexuals who are hell-bent on 'outing' people to
> bolster their cause, whatever that cause may be, probably
> to paint the world rainbow.
>
> Pud
>
>
> > Could you define "neo-homo" though? Do you think they're
> > somehow less gay? I'm just curious.
> >
> > > > Hasn't there been enough forced 'outings' of celebrities recently?
> > >
> > > They're the neo-homo's I was talking about, they're a pain
> > > in the f*cking arse - no pun intended.
> > >
> > > Pud
|
|
|
|
reply |
|
|
| Previous: |
re: Regarding Jim's sexuality. - Lasse86b 10:39 am UTC 12/30/06 |
| Next: |
re: Regarding Jim's sexuality. - Pudding 11:15 pm UTC 12/29/06 |
|
| Thread: |
|