Why is there a stereotype that LGB folk are all leftist...

Why is there a stereotype that LGB folk are all leftist? I guess I understand for Lesbians they are probably concerned about abortion rights but Republicans now, most of them anyways, are not openly gay. How can we, dually, change both Republicans to not concern themselves with homosexuality, and homosexuals to not concern themselves with liberals?

Thanks for excluding T.

Realistically you'll have to wait a few years for the old republicans to die. The majority of young republicans seem ok with it. The ideal solution would be to encourage freedom and liberty for both parties, and encourage homos to quit supporting lifestyles that require the chemical castration of minors (trans).

>Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley billionaire who made news this summer for endorsing Donald Trump at the Republican convention, is a man who has sex with other men. But is he gay?

>That question might seem narrow, but it is actually raises a broad and crucial distinction we must make in our notions of sexuality, identity, and community.

>Since the Paleolithic Age, people have had sex with people of the same gender. But the notion that this made someone “homosexual” or “gay” was a relatively recent phenomenon in human history.

>Beginning in the late 19th century, doctors, sexologists, and others began to argue that same-sex sex created the category of sexual orientation. Prior to that, sexual activities between people of the same gender were often considered sinful or criminal, but they rarely constituted what some in the medical community began to define at end of the 1800s as a “third sex” or “intersex” or even “homosexual.” The creation of the category of sexual orientation not only classified homosexual sex but it also led to the invention of heterosexuality.

Yes I'm fine with this. I hope Trump is around at least one gay guy who is younger who can explain to him that for some of us, concerns about national security and military adventurism have led us into an unholy alliance with the right and while we understand not all will support us wholeheartedly, down the road we hope for their respect and mutual co-operation, bar the trans thing, which is a very deliberate wedge issue, to me at least.

>In the United States and many parts of Europe, the development of these categories led to the broader cultural understanding that these sexual acts created identities.

>The understanding that sex had the power to define identity led to the demarcation of homosexual and heterosexual people — as well as the subsequent stigma that those who were marked as homosexual were aberrant, criminally deviant, and socially unacceptable.

>Yet the people who began to be identified as homosexual started to disagree with these assertions and found promise in this alternative identity. They established enclaves within the mainstream culture, places like pre-war Greenwich Village in New York City or Berlin in the 1920s, where they lived and socialized.

>While these neighborhoods thrived, many people who were attracted to people of the same sex continued to fear the repercussions of being marked as homosexual. And so they denied that identity.

>The significance of the Stonewall uprising on June 28, 1969 — when LGBT people rose up in defiance against a police raid on their bar in New York City — signaled a major turning point in global history. Many LGBT people started refusing to accept the definition of homosexuality as an identity that meant inferior, aberrant, criminal, and, most of all, unequal. When the people in the riot stood up against the police, they embraced a definition of homosexuality that recognized that people who had sex with people of the same gender had a distinct culture, identity, and history that connected them to 1920s Berlin and beyond.

>From the 1970s to the present, many people who came out of the closet as gay understood their identity as part of a subculture and a specific community. They may not have known the exact history of how this sexual classification emerged or even understood its cultural vernacular, but they had a very clear recognition that being gay meant more than just having sex with someone of the same gender. They embraced the understanding that their sexual proclivities have defined their identity.

>In the 1970s, when this development emerged, gay people began the exhaustive, tireless task of creating a culture to substantiate their identity. Contrary to conventional wisdom that LGBT people rejected religious institutions, many founded their own churches and synagogues and sought refuge in worship. LGBT people launched their own newspapers, organized political rallies, and created neighborhoods in which to socialize and live.

>In Toronto, gay people began The Body Politic, which was a newspaper that reached readers across North America and throughout the word, solidifying a global gay identity. The Body Politic reported on local, national, and international news that affected gay people, and it also featured a huge cultural component: There were reviews of recently published books by gay authors, articles about gay films and documentaries, and a special section titled “In Our Image” devoted to historical explorations of gay artists, musicians, and thinkers.

>The Body Politic and many other gay publications founded during the 1970s illustrated how being gay was not just about sex but a cultural identity. LGBT people had created various forms — newspapers, plays, bookstores, churches, intellectual societies — that articulated the meaning of a distinct gay culture.

>But the idea of being gay as a distinct cultural identity is now under new pressures.

>That brings us to Peter Thiel. At the convention in Cleveland in July, Thiel was the first person in the history of the party to declare his homosexuality on stage to an audience of people who have historically opposed same-sex marriage, among other LGBT rights.

>Some Republicans and media portrayed Thiel’s statement as progress: The party had embraced an out gay man, and the convention had reflected the diverse ideological identities of LGBT Americans. But his statement also challenged that 1970s notion of a gay identity.

>By the logic of gay liberation, Thiel is an example of a man who has sex with other men, but not a gay man. Because he does not embrace the struggle of people to embrace their distinctive identity.

>In a very telling moment, Thiel referred to the devastating legislation that North Carolina and Mississippi passed prohibiting transgender people from using the bathrooms of their choice as a “distraction.” Thiel also endorsed a political platform and party that includes the vice-presidential nominee who has voted aganst hate-crime laws, opposed HIV funding, and supported a law allowing businesses to deny services to people who identify as gay.

>In this way, Thiel reaffirmed his own sexual choices — while separating himself from gay identity. His notion that transgender people’s predicament is somehow a distraction effectively rejects the conception of LGBT as a cultural identity that requires political struggle to defend. For a technologist who sees himself as defining the future, it is a very premodern sentiment.

>Thiel’s comment is also a too common statement. Since the end of the ’70s, many gay people have not invested in the creation of a cultural identity to the extent that their forbears did. Part of the success of gay liberation meant that they no longer needed to do this kind of cultural work.

>But there are real human consequences to this retreat. And those consequences go beyond someone like Peter Thiel endorsing a platform that is actually dangerous to LGBT people. In the recent aftermath of the Orlando massacre, the media began to claim Omar Mateen, the terrorist who killed 49 people and wounded 53 others at the Pulse nightclub in that city, was also gay. This identification failed to recognize the cultural meaning of the term. "Gay" does not simply mean sex with another man or even interest in another man physically, as in Mateen’s case, but rather "gay," as defined by the liberation movement, meant an open declaration of acceptance within a community of people who understood that their sexual orientation made them a part of distinct culture.

>Further, identifying Mateen as gay plays into an early-20th-century definition of homosexuality as criminally deviant. The unspoken subtext in this assertion is that gay people are aberrant and their sexual orientation drives them to commit such horrific crimes.

>The power of the gay liberation movement of the 1970s was to shatter previous negative connotations associated with homosexuality and to imbue a new meaning of the term "gay," revealing how sexual identity translated to a specific community of people who were part of a distinct culture.

I agree that it's a wedge issue. But I think it is backfiring. The men mostly responsible for the advancements made in gay rights are getting scared away or forced out.

>The history of the 1970s was not just about political campaigns for equality but it was also a subtle more profound movement to refashion the term gay. This does not mean that LGBT culture is homogenous or that all LGBT people have the same ideological viewpoints or values, but it does mean that they all understand, on some level, the notion of gay culture.

>The gay liberation movement has left us a powerful legacy, and protecting that legacy requires understanding the meaning of the term "gay" and not using it simply as a synonym for same-sex desire and intimacy.

I mean backfiring in the sense that its made me hate trans people as well as the white women who promote them. As soon as gays got the right to marry, white gay males like me got ignored.

I'm registered Republican now. I don't want to lose rights but I'm hoping the Republican party can move in a Libertarian direction (if you want gun rights, support rights to use Marijuana, have abortion, gay marry) and focus on national security, education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

All that fucking MSMsplaining to avoid the fact they published the article just to out a gay guy like the bitter queens they are?

peter thiel's straight now ok

listen to us we're the media

Also, when I first saw the term MSM I assumed it meant men who have sex with men because that was the context I had seen that acronym in prior.

>gay marriage
>libertarian
Stick around, friend. You're in for a wild ride. I used to want to get married, but I realize now that this would only worsen our single, unemployed women problem.

>when you're a homosexual furry atheist crypto-fascist

the right is a lonely place for degenerates like I.

Lol I'm not going to marry a woman for the hell of it. I think anti-discrimination provisions are far more important than marriage but I think we get too hung up on social issues, need to focus on living and letting live for American Citizens and securing the rights of Citizens and kicking out illegals first.

>Lesbians they are probably concerned about abortion rights
kek

Absolutely! We need to encourage strong, masculine homo males. Testosterone is linked to voting habits. Currently many in this community are too prone to making decisions based on feelings.

> having sex with men doesn't make you gay. Being a far left one issue voter makes you gay.

Sounds about right.

Because republicans are trying to stay away from degenerates.

Because faggots are inherently opposed to natural law, by their existence.

>Why is there a stereotype that LGB folk are all leftist?

because they're mostly leftist and whenever muslims massacre LGBT people there's a massive pro Islam demonstration in favor of open borders so y'all can import more muslims to kill more of you? makes perfect sense

All Whites must form an alliance.

I think more gays (at least gay men and bisexual men) are redpilled then you think. We just have to keep quiet now for fear of backlash. When Orlando attacks happened, my first thought was fuck the Muslims.

>Since the Paleolithic Age, people have had sex with people of the same gender. But the notion that this made someone “homosexual” or “gay” was a relatively recent phenomenon in human history

This is true. Prior to modern times, men having sex with men was considered simply a degenerate behavior.

Now the desire to turn this degenerate behavior into a state of being is called "homosexuality" and since it's a state of being and not a behavior, suddenly we can't say it's bad behavior.

Whatever it is, its degenerate.

Nope.

If saving the white race means taking faggots as our allies, then we deserve to be wiped out.

This includes Trump, by the way. I was very disheartened by his embrace of fags, even if it did win him the election.

because the contrast between left and right is progressivism and traditionalism

and the further right you go, the more inherently against homosexuality it is

Alright I'll keep that in mind.

Thanks for excluding T.

Trannies can all go fucking die.

Traditionally gays have always existed.

We gays absolutely need to destroy trans.

What do we do?

Burn the tranny flag at Pride marches?

and traditionally they've been shamed out of public existence so that they could only suppress sexual urge or practice in secret

Bit hard to do with the internet?

Depends on the culture and time period, but gay marriage is wrong and unprecedented

But even in the cultures where they had to be gay in secret these were often open secrets and could be better described as "unofficial" instead of "secret"

Because the conservatives ones quietly go about their ordinary lives. The loud obnoxious ones are all liberal, so it's really a liberal thing vs. an LGB thing.

Like publicly rimming each other on parade floats in a Pride parade. They think that's an effective way to change minds and win converts.

not really

the worst kind of shit even today already sinks to the recesses of the internet

with a good cultural shift and some shame, the same thing could happen to homosexuality as a whole

>these were often open secrets and could be better described as "unofficial" instead of "secret"

that would depend on the culture and time period as well, but I don't really disagree with what you're saying

That's not a consequence of conservatism though, it's a consequence of religion.

>but they rarely constituted what some in the medical community began to define at end of the 1800s as a “third
this is literally horseshit
there's an idea that your status is determined by if you fuck or get fucked, and there's an idea that gay and straight is determined if you rub up against people of the different or same sex. and these competing ideas have been around since the jews

I just don't get why straight people would be so concerned about a small minority of the population. Straight people will still breed. Gay people still won't.

>I guess I understand for Lesbians they are probably concerned about abortion rights
Why? It's not like they take dick on a regular basis.

conservatism and religion are intertwined

both are about preservation instead of change

Because they are women.

>implying gays and trans are remotely similar
literally worse than jews your kind are

being gay isn't a passable trait

>I just don't get why straight people would be so concerned about a small minority of the population

Because it's about degeneration of moral values. For such a small minority, they sure have succeeded in bullying the rest of the population.

What makes you think I'm straight, anyway?

You. You are the problem. You are who the jew manipulates. You are no better than trannies

How the fuck am I bullying user (Except trannies, fuck em)?

I'm gay. My girlfriend is a black transexual. We voted Trump-Burr-Mccrory. Mccrory was the only tough decision, but it came down to the fact that I do not want my state run by a bunch of cheating fraudsters. They're already discovering all kinds of fraud in the recount.

The key is to make friends with heteros and just ignore gays. Most of them are self-rightous, marxists, assholes with no sense of empathy.

you're probably not

but anyone wanting a fag cake or gay marriage is

plus fag pride is blatant degeneration of societal norms

>we voted Trump-Burr-Mccrory
ayyy me too
also
>fucking any niggers
even if you are gay that's fucking gross

The child abuse angle always wins. No sane person agrees with that. Make them wait until they're too old to transition well and let nature take care of the rest.

almost all pride is degenerate

Do you oppose gay marriage performed secularly? I just think there are bigger issues than gay marriage we need to focus on right now.

That doesn't make sense at all, of course conservatives and religious people want change. Christians want to make the USA more in line with their beliefs, muslims want to exterminate everyone who won't pay the jizya, conservatives often have downright shocking attitudes on how things should be altered, etc.

Bump

I don't disagree.

Yes.

Either gays get special rights that afford them same sex marriage (that straights don't get a right to), or you have completely nullified any meaning marriage could ever hold as an institution by allowing anyone to marry, for any reason, really.

It makes perfect sense.

Revolution is an act of change. In the philosophical sense, a desire to return to the way things were is not the same as revolution. It's more like the opposite. It's not change, but the undoing of change.

it's more accurately return, not change

>Lesbians
>concerned about abortion rights