The LGBTQMFWSGYBSCT is revoking Peter Thiel's status as a gay man for supporting Trump

That is assuming gay marriage is the only thing in the entire world worth caring about. Maybe he has other concerns and interests.
Probably cares about taxes I'm sure
 
I see what your saying but why would you want to donate to the party who has some politicians actively working against the rights of people who identify sexually the same way as you do. Doesn't make sense to me unless you don't give a shit about people like yourself ( Thiel).
Our identities are multifaceted and sometimes certain facets take priority over other ones.

The greatest religion of the world today isn't Christianity or Islam, its capitalism and Thiel is an ardent follower I bet.
 
I tried to save the thread by trying to salvage something interesting from the article but I ended up vomiting a wall of text 9/10 posters won't read.

I read it, and I know you are a crypto muslim but I'd still nuke afghanistan
Good looking people here but these boy fuckers are too much for me.
 
I see what your saying but why would you want to donate to the party who has some politicians actively working against the rights of people who identify sexually the same way as you do. Doesn't make sense to me unless you don't give a shit about people like yourself ( Thiel).

I'm heterosexual and I sure as shit have different political and social views from many other heterosexual people.
 
I'd prefer if your preferences for same sex or different sex intercourse would be more or less as relevant to your identity as whether or not you're a leg man or an ass man or something like that.

This.

When it comes to identity, I'd follow "I think, therefore I am" with "How I think is who I am".

I really don't understand the notion of defining yourself against the parameters of society around you, because as far as I can remember I've always measured myself by using the ideas and thoughts I've had or encountered as a reference point, and measured my progress by the extent to which I think my current set of ideas and thoughts are superior to those I used to have.

I don't think the article is wrong in that there's a difference between having sex with the same sex and subscribing to a series of ideological/cultural notions around what it means to have sex with the same sex, but I do think it's intellectually degenerate to choose to subscribe to the latter because doing so effectively rejects a human's remarkably beautiful ability to consider and reason in ways that are abstracted from the particulars of life, which is precisely what I think is important about who I am.

I'm also a boob man. Death to the nonbelievers.
 
I think the article makes a lot of sense and the ideas its proposes are important to understand. It seems to me quite accurate to say the identities centered around sexual orientation are something that were constructed relatively recently in human history despite the prevalence of homosexual behavior throughout human history. And so the cultural context determines the expression of these behaviors as evidenced by the Hijra, or third gender, in South Asia that has existed long before the creation of the modern LGBT identity.

These are good ideas to keep in mind when looking at certain paradoxical cases like Afghanistan. Here homosexual behaviors are in fact embedded in their tradition in the form of the dancing boys but nonetheless there is no "gay" identity. The men often have their own wives and children. The dancing boys themselves don't get married to any of the men, they simply grow up(often leveraging favors from the men they established relationships with) and get married themselves. And yet we often see immense hostility from such cultures towards the LGBT community. Why is this the case? It seems to me the problem is not necessarily the behavior itself but rather the LGBT identity that is seen as perverse.

On a rational level I sympathize with the gay liberation movement. They are taking an identity that was thrust upon them as something to be ashamed of and constructed their own community around it to renegotiate their place within society.

On an emotional level though I find myself somewhat aligned with social conservatives here. I understand that this social category is here to stay but nonetheless part of me is rather tired of it. I don't quite care for LGBT issues myself and truth be told I find the very existence of the LGBT identity mildly obscene because its centered around not only sex but a counter culture of sex that seeks to define itself against the norms of sexuality.

I guess here I'm a pre-modern throwback who would prefer that homosexual behaviors have a socially acceptable outlet that doesn't really impact one's identity much. I'm certainly not saying we should import Afghan pederasty but I'm saying I'd prefer if your preferences for same sex or different sex intercourse would be more or less as relevant to your identity as whether or not you're a leg man or an ass man or something like that.
I often find your posts worth reading all the way through.
Nice work
 
So if a straight dude banged him, the said straight dude would not be gay because Thiel is not gay. Seems like Thiel dance card will be full since he is a free gay pass.


So stupid, I don't hate someone because of who they voted. This ride or die mentality for politics is splitting this nation.
 
I think the article makes a lot of sense and the ideas its proposes are important to understand. It seems to me quite accurate to say the identities centered around sexual orientation are something that were constructed relatively recently in human history despite the prevalence of homosexual behavior throughout human history. And so the cultural context determines the expression of these behaviors as evidenced by the Hijra, or third gender, in South Asia that has existed long before the creation of the modern LGBT identity.

These are good ideas to keep in mind when looking at certain paradoxical cases like Afghanistan. Here homosexual behaviors are in fact embedded in their tradition in the form of the dancing boys but nonetheless there is no "gay" identity. The men often have their own wives and children. The dancing boys themselves don't get married to any of the men, they simply grow up(often leveraging favors from the men they established relationships with) and get married themselves. And yet we often see immense hostility from such cultures towards the LGBT community. Why is this the case? It seems to me the problem is not necessarily the behavior itself but rather the LGBT identity that is seen as perverse.

On a rational level I sympathize with the gay liberation movement. They are taking an identity that was thrust upon them as something to be ashamed of and constructed their own community around it to renegotiate their place within society.

On an emotional level though I find myself somewhat aligned with social conservatives here. I understand that this social category is here to stay but nonetheless part of me is rather tired of it. I don't quite care for LGBT issues myself and truth be told I find the very existence of the LGBT identity mildly obscene because its centered around not only sex but a counter culture of sex that seeks to define itself against the norms of sexuality.

I guess here I'm a pre-modern throwback who would prefer that homosexual behaviors have a socially acceptable outlet that doesn't really impact one's identity much. I'm certainly not saying we should import Afghan pederasty but I'm saying I'd prefer if your preferences for same sex or different sex intercourse would be more or less as relevant to your identity as whether or not you're a leg man or an ass man or something like that.
You seem to be a reasonable poster, so I actually will indulge that pretty lengthy read, but the 2nd half, the one I agree with, seems to step on the toes of the 1st. An artificial community certainly has the right to ostracize whomever they want, but they can't still expect to be taken seriously as the identity they've chose to use to section themselves off as a non-judgemental group of "acceptance". Change the label if you claim to be the "gay group", yet throw out gays who don't vote the way you like. Fighting for equality for the group you claim to represent, while ostracizing people who fit the description of said group makes the whole thing stupid. They can at least change the name to not distort who they actually represent.

In the end, it's just another case of the left eating itself. Not exactly uncommon these days.
 
That is assuming gay marriage is the only thing in the entire world worth caring about. Maybe he has other concerns and interests.
This, plus the gay marriage issue has already been solved by the Supreme Court. We're going to see more gay men and lesbians become Republican/conservative because of economic issues, immigration (mass migration of cultures that hate them is a concern for many of them), gun rights (many of them bought guns after the Orlando Pulse shooting), etc. The rest of the alphabet that comes after that, like transgenders for instance, will probably stay with the left longer because they still need them on pressing issues for them. But when they too become fully mainstream, you can expect more to come to the right for similar reasons...
 
I think the article makes a lot of sense and the ideas its proposes are important to understand. It seems to me quite accurate to say the identities centered around sexual orientation are something that were constructed relatively recently in human history despite the prevalence of homosexual behavior throughout human history. And so the cultural context determines the expression of these behaviors as evidenced by the Hijra, or third gender, in South Asia that has existed long before the creation of the modern LGBT identity.

These are good ideas to keep in mind when looking at certain paradoxical cases like Afghanistan. Here homosexual behaviors are in fact embedded in their tradition in the form of the dancing boys but nonetheless there is no "gay" identity. The men often have their own wives and children. The dancing boys themselves don't get married to any of the men, they simply grow up(often leveraging favors from the men they established relationships with) and get married themselves. And yet we often see immense hostility from such cultures towards the LGBT community. Why is this the case? It seems to me the problem is not necessarily the behavior itself but rather the LGBT identity that is seen as perverse.

On a rational level I sympathize with the gay liberation movement. They are taking an identity that was thrust upon them as something to be ashamed of and constructed their own community around it to renegotiate their place within society.

On an emotional level though I find myself somewhat aligned with social conservatives here. I understand that this social category is here to stay but nonetheless part of me is rather tired of it. I don't quite care for LGBT issues myself and truth be told I find the very existence of the LGBT identity mildly obscene because its centered around not only sex but a counter culture of sex that seeks to define itself against the norms of sexuality.

I guess here I'm a pre-modern throwback who would prefer that homosexual behaviors have a socially acceptable outlet that doesn't really impact one's identity much. I'm certainly not saying we should import Afghan pederasty but I'm saying I'd prefer if your preferences for same sex or different sex intercourse would be more or less as relevant to your identity as whether or not you're a leg man or an ass man or something like that.

You're speaking too deeply to a subject most aren't capable of understanding. All this will be lost on most.
 
why the hell would any gay man vote for Hillary at this point? She has shown acute sympathy and an absolute desire to bring vetted and unvetted migrant muslim refugees here that find homosexuality "deplorable" and punishable by death as seen in Orlando. You cant champion both parties here. You are either FOR gays and freedom of lifestyle and upholding westernized cultures or you are FOR muslim refugees that come from these war torn countries. These arent westernized muslims, these are people who have witnessed beheadings in the streets from the time they could walk on their own and center their lives around an archaic interpretation of their religion. You cant be for both. These same people who are championing the leftists causes would be the first people that would be targets of islamic terrorism. It makes no sense.
 
One moron writes an opinion piece and then its taken as the manifesto for everybody involved in that topic. Sherdog logic right there.
This happens everywhere. Huffinton Posts actually makes money off it. A couple morons on twitter joke about repealthe19th and the headline becomes Trump..........
 
why the hell would any gay man vote for Hillary at this point? She has shown acute sympathy and an absolute desire to bring vetted and unvetted migrant muslim refugees here that find homosexuality "deplorable" and punishable by death as seen in Orlando. You cant champion both parties here. You are either FOR gays and freedom of lifestyle and upholding westernized cultures or you are FOR muslim refugees that come from these war torn countries. These arent westernized muslims, these are people who have witnessed beheadings in the streets from the time they could walk on their own and center their lives around an archaic interpretation of their religion. You cant be for both. These same people who are championing the leftists causes would be the first people that would be targets of islamic terrorism. It makes no sense.

It's absolutely mental. You'd think they'd be the biggest opponents opponents of radical islam. Yea sure they're throwing gays off roofs, but that one bakery wouldn't bake a cake...

hXXGWO.jpg
 
The LGBT are a bunch of control freaks.

He's still a gay person, like how the fuck is that up to you, you fucks?
 
Leftist Scumbag: "You may be a male who is a fan of Barbra Streisand and desires to have sex with other males, however, you are not really gay because you think differently than what the Left has commanded you ought to think as a gay man."

<{1-4}>
don't the right wingers do the same thing? attacking the masculinity of any heterosexual white male who doesn't agree with you? you've been doing that for decades.

the solution to left wing retards are not right wing retards.
 
You just did exactly what you complained about. DERP

I comment on a forum trend plenty of regulars are guilty of and that is supposed to be the same as one opinion encompassing the entirety of one side of the political spectrum? HERP DERP someone doesn't understand scale and relativity.
 
I comment on a forum trend plenty of regulars are guilty of and that is supposed to be the same as one opinion encompassing the entirety of one side of the political spectrum? HERP DERP someone doesn't understand scale and relativity.
Complains about an opinion piece which is followed by a broad criticism of an entire group of people only to return the favor by complaining about someone's opinion followed by a broad criticism of an entire group of people.

DERPITY HERP-A-DERP
 
Want to hear something funny? LGBT Pride

What exactly are they proud of? It's not an accomplishment.
 
don't the right wingers do the same thing? attacking the masculinity of any heterosexual white male who doesn't agree with you? you've been doing that for decades.

the solution to left wing retards are not right wing retards.

Right wingers don't attack the masculinity of Leftists. They simply point out the obvious fact that males on the left are generally far more feminine and weak compared to males on the Right.


Jamie-Kilstein.jpg
 
Back
Top