I hate the King's Gambit. How do I play against it?

It leads into very sharp lines though, so if you want to be aggressive play that.

yea im usually 'aggressive' 

Well, I think it's more to misplace the knight and attack than hold onto the pawn.

Nice trap but what if 8.Nf5 or some other move that avoids the fork/pin on the queen? 

ok, so sorry "aggressive" players, but unless you're willing to learn theory in the KGA, then you're gonna have a long game where white can grind at the kingside all he wants. Sometimes, you don't have a choice!

Take care of development.

Here. This is an example of what i mean.

I've been playing it a lot lately and one of the biggest reasons why is because people don't face it often and tend to get tripped up easily.  It is fun to play and has led to some exciting victories for me.  However, I've also gotten destroyed playing it when I run into someone who knows what they're doing.  It can lead to some wonderful attacks but it also opens up your own king quite a bit.  Regardless, still very fun.

you use neon board and pieces too!? finally someone else who does!

<3

hi i am princess

Check out pp 22-23 of

https://sah-conpet.com/phpbb/images/Understanding%20the%20Chess%20Openings%20(Collins).pdf for strong play for black against King's Gambit

I tried your 3. Nf6 line and it worked out well. Later on, I made a stupid blunder, and then he dominated the entire game, but then he blundered and I mated him. 

Guess that a typical 1600 game! 

People tend to fear the Cunningham Defense.  It's a decent defense but nothing to be feared.

Here are some of it's most poignant lines: The Dreadful Cunningham.  

Actually I love playing against the Cunningham since it affords me the opportunity to play the irreverent Three Pawns Gambit: Capt. Bertin's Gambit

Check out Bobby Fischer's famous article on the subject.

http://brooklyn64.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/a-bust-to-the-kings-gambit.pdf

Of course, this wasn't the last word in theory, and Fischer continued to play the King's Gambit successfully thereafter, but there are probably worse places to start...

That article I mention (in msg #37) mentions Fischer's article, who asserted that he refuted the mainline (3. Nf3 with  3...d5)  (and also that as you noted Fischer used another variation as white, (3. Bc4) and was 100% with it).  The author himself (Collins) says "3...h6 !? would probably be my choice with Black." and gives continuations to all three suggestions.  (OTOH, Fischer doesn't think 3...h6 is good enough).

Fischer's cockiness is kinda funny.  The last line in his article, is:  "14...Nxd4 And Black wins... Of course White can always play differently, in which case he merely loses differently."

nearly everything that is good against the king's gambit is theoretical. you can't skip that part. you have to know specific lines. there are two main branches. bc4 lines and nf3 lines. pick one against each and learn it thoroughly inside out. shaw suggests the schallopp defense as a low theory option. 2..exf4 3 nf3 nf6. that's what i use now. 3 bc4 qh4 here there's no shortcut as far as i know. but it's good for black so there's no need to cut corners. everything else is fringe. still requires you to learn the lines thoroughly but not as critical as the nf3 and bc4 lines on move 3.

3..d5 is also good against 3..nf3 and maybe a bit more intuitive. still theoretical though but also very principled if you think about it.

Fischer was an arrogant so-and-so even before he went completey loopy. At some point in the early 60s he was asked for his list of the top ten players of all time for a magazine. Although he had nothing but praise for Morphy (his #1), the remainder of the list got, at best, backhanded compliments. It was clear that he thought he himself was better than all of them, with the possible exception of Morphy.