Is a man who has intercourse with a ladyboy homosexual or bisexual or can he still claim he's "straight"?

[Kalinago]

Ultimate truth is the union of opposites,we are all both male and female just in this world in different ways and degrees,since this is a world of apparent duality to the one that has intellectual ignorance or bauddha ajnana.

If a person with a male body has a predominant feminine energy and mind I see them as a woman,and to shaivites there are many genders.

I do not see them as abominations,rather holy and pure like all things in their true nature.

I guess we just have a different epistemological ontology of how we see reality.

Well, this is further evidence for something I posted earlier, most likely to @Pixel--Dude or maybe to @Lucas88, a video that argued that this trans madness we see now has its roots in Hinduism and its roots in the west are from the influence of Hinduism.

I like ladyboys and am not ashamed of it.

In the book of Romans, various sexual perversions-- men with men for example-- came into mankind because of idoltry, as the their Creator turned them over to vile passions because they did not honor the true God and instead honored images made to look like men, birds, four-footed animals, and creeping things.

If I met a cute transwoman that had a good heart and we liked each other I would happily marry her.

I do not consider myself gay,because I only like the female form sexually,but I do think a dick on a chick or chick with a dick is very hot.

That's homosexual.

There is something wrong, mentally, with someone who has a trans operation. Some people out there are trying to get us to think that that is not the case. But the suicide rates are high for men who pretend to be women, and for those who have the full blown surgery, it is extremely high.

there is no 'creator'in it's true sense of seperation between deed and doer or cause and effect,satkaryavada is a ultimate truth,not asatkaryavada as the christians think is.I think that God or Ishvara tattva is a aspect of reality,but not the ultimate aspect.

theistic dualism is a incoherent concept.but the foolish mind believes in it.

if something could come from' other',or ex-nihilo we would see smoke come from water,or wetness come from fire.or things just popping up anywhere.

but reality on a abstract and actual level is only self-coherent.and thus one and the same thing,and thus completely complimentary between false 'polarities'attributed to things,which are exactely self-same.

there would be no quotidian experience as we have it,there would be chaos(a non-concept too,reality is absolutely harmonious)

being and existance are the exact same thing,yet for contigency to exist,then these two must not be identical in a given thing,which is absurd.

if being and existance could,be seperated as a possibility,it's contradicting opposite would be a impossibility,as reality is self-coherent,and thus there would be no 'God'ajnd ultimately nothing,and God would be a created contigent being(creation doesn't exist,only manifestation and dissolution into a unmanifested state).

if creation anew from 'other'or creation existed in the sense understood by the foolish everyday person,then there would be no continuity between your own being of yourself.one moment you would be john and the other moment you would be jack,and you would not recollect anything.

since creation from other is impossible,because if it were possible then it's opposing aspect would be impossible,there is only self-manifestation of the same thing,the one thing.

then your 'God'would be infinite new gods every moment,and thus he would not be being and existance,or have it,he would not coherently self-exist,and he would not exist,since creation from other is a nonconcept,only manifestation of self.

if i were a coherent possibility,it would be the reality of all things,since it's opposite contradicting aspect would be impossible or incoherent,and thus there would be no God that isn't created from other or ultimately nothing,but this is a redundant condcept too.


which proves we are not created ex-nihilo by a dualistic God.



viewtopic.php?p=388819#p388819

for the enlightened individual,'impurity'doesn't exist,and all things are auspicious or shiva.

my philosophy is self-coherent,which is why it is true.

your religion isn't which is why it is false.

and your Reptilian God is false,and your bible is false,and you are deluded by this thoughtform into fearing AND BELIEVING AND BEING A SLAVE TO HIM.

I don't fear anything,nor am I a slave,I have absolute self-autonomy and free will and this is the only coherent reality that can be.

[MrMan]

Ultimate truth is the union of opposites,we are all both male and female just in this world in different ways and degrees,since this is a world of apparent duality to the one that has intellectual ignorance or bauddha ajnana.

If a person with a male body has a predominant feminine energy and mind I see them as a woman,and to shaivites there are many genders.

I do not see them as abominations,rather holy and pure like all things in their true nature.

I guess we just have a different epistemological ontology of how we see reality.

Well, this is further evidence for something I posted earlier, most likely to @Pixel--Dude or maybe to @Lucas88, a video that argued that this trans madness we see now has its roots in Hinduism and its roots in the west are from the influence of Hinduism.

I like ladyboys and am not ashamed of it.

In the book of Romans, various sexual perversions-- men with men for example-- came into mankind because of idoltry, as the their Creator turned them over to vile passions because they did not honor the true God and instead honored images made to look like men, birds, four-footed animals, and creeping things.

If I met a cute transwoman that had a good heart and we liked each other I would happily marry her.

I do not consider myself gay,because I only like the female form sexually,but I do think a dick on a chick or chick with a dick is very hot.

That's homosexual.

There is something wrong, mentally, with someone who has a trans operation. Some people out there are trying to get us to think that that is not the case. But the suicide rates are high for men who pretend to be women, and for those who have the full blown surgery, it is extremely high.

there is no 'creator'in it's true sense of seperation between deed and doer or cause and effect,satkaryavada is a ultimate truth,not asatkaryavada as the christians think is.I think that God or Ishvara tattva is a aspect of reality,but not the ultimate aspect.

I don't know these presumably Hindu terms, so you are speaking gobbledygook to me. I didn't get that far in my study of Sanskrit, which wasn't for religious purposes.

theistic dualism is a incoherent concept.but the foolish mind believes in it.

I find some of your post to be incoherent.

if something could come from' other',or ex-nihilo we would see smoke come from water,or wetness come from fire.or things just popping up anywhere.

Non sequitur. The idea that God-- an intelligent Being-- can create out of nothing is not the same thing as smoke forming out of water or things popping up everywhere.

but reality on a abstract and actual level is only self-coherent.and thus one and the same thing,and thus completely complimentary between false 'polarities'attributed to things,which are exactely self-same.
there would be no quotidian experience as we have it,there would be chaos(a non-concept too,reality is absolutely harmonious)

This looks like pseudo-intellectual incoherent gobbledygook to me. This looks almost like some of the early computer generated sentences. There is probably some elaborate philosophy behind it, but you can't expect readers to have a clue of what you are talking about. Lack of capitals and proper spacing also hinders communication.

being and existance are the exact same thing,yet for contigency to exist,then these two must not be identical in a given thing,which is absurd.

if being and existance could,be seperated as a possibility,it's contradicting opposite would be a impossibility,as reality is self-coherent,and thus there would be no 'God'ajnd ultimately nothing,and God would be a created contigent being(creation doesn't exist,only manifestation and dissolution into a unmanifested state).

Looks like more pseudo-intellectual ramblings. Unless you explain the thought process behind your words, other people aren't going to get it. I don't spend time reading Hindu philosophy or whatever other angle you are coming from. I suspect it would still be incoherent ramblings to some of the rest of us even if you did explain it. I'm pretty sure I don't accept the premises of some of the arguments you are trying to make. Why would being an existence be separated... if such a concept could mean anything?

It kind of reminds me of this scene, https://youtu.be/b5I94bT23cQ?t=109
except the masked man makes a bit more sense.

if creation anew from 'other'or creation existed in the sense understood by the foolish everyday person,then there would be no continuity between your own being of yourself.

In order for there to be 'continuity between' there has to be two things. Your sentence seems to me to be stream of consciousness word salad.

one moment you would be john and the other moment you would be jack,and you would not recollect anything.

Non sequitur. Random idea salad.

since creation from other is impossible,because if it were possible then it's opposing aspect would be impossible,

It's opposing apsect... who says there has to be an opposing aspect? Why would I buy into such an idea or start with that assumption? Or what does 'opposing aspect' supposed to mean.

Most of your post seems to me to be rambling pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook, if that. Either that, or you didn't unpack it and you are starting from premises that I do not accept.

[qutoe]there is only self-manifestation of the same thing,the one thing.

then your 'God'would be infinite new gods every moment,and thus he would not be being and existance,or have it,he would not coherently self-exist,and he would not exist,since creation from other is a nonconcept,only manifestation of self.[/quote]

Idea salad. Word salad

if i were a coherent possibility,it would be the reality of all things,since it's opposite contradicting aspect would be impossible or incoherent,and thus there would be no God that isn't created from other or ultimately nothing,but this is a redundant condcept too.


which proves we are not created ex-nihilo by a dualistic God.

Random mumbo jumbo doesn't prove anything.

my philosophy is self-coherent,which is why it is true.

Sorry, for some reason, I'm laughing at this statement. Your post is one of the most incoherent things I've read on this whole forum in the years I've been on here, and that's saying a lot.

[Kalinago]

Ultimate truth is the union of opposites,we are all both male and female just in this world in different ways and degrees,since this is a world of apparent duality to the one that has intellectual ignorance or bauddha ajnana.

If a person with a male body has a predominant feminine energy and mind I see them as a woman,and to shaivites there are many genders.

I do not see them as abominations,rather holy and pure like all things in their true nature.

I guess we just have a different epistemological ontology of how we see reality.

Well, this is further evidence for something I posted earlier, most likely to @Pixel--Dude or maybe to @Lucas88, a video that argued that this trans madness we see now has its roots in Hinduism and its roots in the west are from the influence of Hinduism.

I like ladyboys and am not ashamed of it.

In the book of Romans, various sexual perversions-- men with men for example-- came into mankind because of idoltry, as the their Creator turned them over to vile passions because they did not honor the true God and instead honored images made to look like men, birds, four-footed animals, and creeping things.

If I met a cute transwoman that had a good heart and we liked each other I would happily marry her.

I do not consider myself gay,because I only like the female form sexually,but I do think a dick on a chick or chick with a dick is very hot.

That's homosexual.

There is something wrong, mentally, with someone who has a trans operation. Some people out there are trying to get us to think that that is not the case. But the suicide rates are high for men who pretend to be women, and for those who have the full blown surgery, it is extremely high.

there is no 'creator'in it's true sense of seperation between deed and doer or cause and effect,satkaryavada is a ultimate truth,not asatkaryavada as the christians think is.I think that God or Ishvara tattva is a aspect of reality,but not the ultimate aspect.

I don't know these presumably Hindu terms, so you are speaking gobbledygook to me. I didn't get that far in my study of Sanskrit, which wasn't for religious purposes.

theistic dualism is a incoherent concept.but the foolish mind believes in it.

I find some of your post to be incoherent.

if something could come from' other',or ex-nihilo we would see smoke come from water,or wetness come from fire.or things just popping up anywhere.

Non sequitur. The idea that God-- an intelligent Being-- can create out of nothing is not the same thing as smoke forming out of water or things popping up everywhere.

but reality on a abstract and actual level is only self-coherent.and thus one and the same thing,and thus completely complimentary between false 'polarities'attributed to things,which are exactely self-same.
there would be no quotidian experience as we have it,there would be chaos(a non-concept too,reality is absolutely harmonious)

This looks like pseudo-intellectual incoherent gobbledygook to me. This looks almost like some of the early computer generated sentences. There is probably some elaborate philosophy behind it, but you can't expect readers to have a clue of what you are talking about. Lack of capitals and proper spacing also hinders communication.

being and existance are the exact same thing,yet for contigency to exist,then these two must not be identical in a given thing,which is absurd.

if being and existance could,be seperated as a possibility,it's contradicting opposite would be a impossibility,as reality is self-coherent,and thus there would be no 'God'ajnd ultimately nothing,and God would be a created contigent being(creation doesn't exist,only manifestation and dissolution into a unmanifested state).

Looks like more pseudo-intellectual ramblings. Unless you explain the thought process behind your words, other people aren't going to get it. I don't spend time reading Hindu philosophy or whatever other angle you are coming from. I suspect it would still be incoherent ramblings to some of the rest of us even if you did explain it. I'm pretty sure I don't accept the premises of some of the arguments you are trying to make. Why would being an existence be separated... if such a concept could mean anything?

It kind of reminds me of this scene, https://youtu.be/b5I94bT23cQ?t=109
except the masked man makes a bit more sense.

if creation anew from 'other'or creation existed in the sense understood by the foolish everyday person,then there would be no continuity between your own being of yourself.

In order for there to be 'continuity between' there has to be two things. Your sentence seems to me to be stream of consciousness word salad.

one moment you would be john and the other moment you would be jack,and you would not recollect anything.

Non sequitur. Random idea salad.

since creation from other is impossible,because if it were possible then it's opposing aspect would be impossible,

It's opposing apsect... who says there has to be an opposing aspect? Why would I buy into such an idea or start with that assumption? Or what does 'opposing aspect' supposed to mean.

Most of your post seems to me to be rambling pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook, if that. Either that, or you didn't unpack it and you are starting from premises that I do not accept.

[qutoe]there is only self-manifestation of the same thing,the one thing.

then your 'God'would be infinite new gods every moment,and thus he would not be being and existance,or have it,he would not coherently self-exist,and he would not exist,since creation from other is a nonconcept,only manifestation of self.

Idea salad. Word salad

if i were a coherent possibility,it would be the reality of all things,since it's opposite contradicting aspect would be impossible or incoherent,and thus there would be no God that isn't created from other or ultimately nothing,but this is a redundant condcept too.


which proves we are not created ex-nihilo by a dualistic God.

Random mumbo jumbo doesn't prove anything.

my philosophy is self-coherent,which is why it is true.

Sorry, for some reason, I'm laughing at this statement. Your post is one of the most incoherent things I've read on this whole forum in the years I've been on here, and that's saying a lot.
[/quote]

You are just pretty unclear headed,my logic is easy to follow to the logical and intellectual mind.

contigency by classicaly theistic christian(Thomist) theological definition is seperation between a being's existance and being,when in reality no such seperation can exist coherently.they are the same exact thing.if it could be coherent,it would be reality,and everything would be a infinite loop of contigencies,which is impossible and would destroy theism altogether.


so either we are not contigent,or your 'God'is contigent and thus in both cases you lose.contigency in a absolute sense is not a real concept that can exist.

[MrMan]

Ultimate truth is the union of opposites,we are all both male and female just in this world in different ways and degrees,since this is a world of apparent duality to the one that has intellectual ignorance or bauddha ajnana.

If a person with a male body has a predominant feminine energy and mind I see them as a woman,and to shaivites there are many genders.

I do not see them as abominations,rather holy and pure like all things in their true nature.

I guess we just have a different epistemological ontology of how we see reality.

Well, this is further evidence for something I posted earlier, most likely to @Pixel--Dude or maybe to @Lucas88, a video that argued that this trans madness we see now has its roots in Hinduism and its roots in the west are from the influence of Hinduism.

I like ladyboys and am not ashamed of it.

In the book of Romans, various sexual perversions-- men with men for example-- came into mankind because of idoltry, as the their Creator turned them over to vile passions because they did not honor the true God and instead honored images made to look like men, birds, four-footed animals, and creeping things.

If I met a cute transwoman that had a good heart and we liked each other I would happily marry her.

I do not consider myself gay,because I only like the female form sexually,but I do think a dick on a chick or chick with a dick is very hot.

That's homosexual.

There is something wrong, mentally, with someone who has a trans operation. Some people out there are trying to get us to think that that is not the case. But the suicide rates are high for men who pretend to be women, and for those who have the full blown surgery, it is extremely high.

there is no 'creator'in it's true sense of seperation between deed and doer or cause and effect,satkaryavada is a ultimate truth,not asatkaryavada as the christians think is.I think that God or Ishvara tattva is a aspect of reality,but not the ultimate aspect.

I don't know these presumably Hindu terms, so you are speaking gobbledygook to me. I didn't get that far in my study of Sanskrit, which wasn't for religious purposes.

theistic dualism is a incoherent concept.but the foolish mind believes in it.

I find some of your post to be incoherent.

if something could come from' other',or ex-nihilo we would see smoke come from water,or wetness come from fire.or things just popping up anywhere.

Non sequitur. The idea that God-- an intelligent Being-- can create out of nothing is not the same thing as smoke forming out of water or things popping up everywhere.

but reality on a abstract and actual level is only self-coherent.and thus one and the same thing,and thus completely complimentary between false 'polarities'attributed to things,which are exactely self-same.
there would be no quotidian experience as we have it,there would be chaos(a non-concept too,reality is absolutely harmonious)

This looks like pseudo-intellectual incoherent gobbledygook to me. This looks almost like some of the early computer generated sentences. There is probably some elaborate philosophy behind it, but you can't expect readers to have a clue of what you are talking about. Lack of capitals and proper spacing also hinders communication.

being and existance are the exact same thing,yet for contigency to exist,then these two must not be identical in a given thing,which is absurd.

if being and existance could,be seperated as a possibility,it's contradicting opposite would be a impossibility,as reality is self-coherent,and thus there would be no 'God'ajnd ultimately nothing,and God would be a created contigent being(creation doesn't exist,only manifestation and dissolution into a unmanifested state).

Looks like more pseudo-intellectual ramblings. Unless you explain the thought process behind your words, other people aren't going to get it. I don't spend time reading Hindu philosophy or whatever other angle you are coming from. I suspect it would still be incoherent ramblings to some of the rest of us even if you did explain it. I'm pretty sure I don't accept the premises of some of the arguments you are trying to make. Why would being an existence be separated... if such a concept could mean anything?

It kind of reminds me of this scene, https://youtu.be/b5I94bT23cQ?t=109
except the masked man makes a bit more sense.

if creation anew from 'other'or creation existed in the sense understood by the foolish everyday person,then there would be no continuity between your own being of yourself.

In order for there to be 'continuity between' there has to be two things. Your sentence seems to me to be stream of consciousness word salad.

one moment you would be john and the other moment you would be jack,and you would not recollect anything.

Non sequitur. Random idea salad.

since creation from other is impossible,because if it were possible then it's opposing aspect would be impossible,

It's opposing apsect... who says there has to be an opposing aspect? Why would I buy into such an idea or start with that assumption? Or what does 'opposing aspect' supposed to mean.

Most of your post seems to me to be rambling pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook, if that. Either that, or you didn't unpack it and you are starting from premises that I do not accept.

[qutoe]there is only self-manifestation of the same thing,the one thing.

then your 'God'would be infinite new gods every moment,and thus he would not be being and existance,or have it,he would not coherently self-exist,and he would not exist,since creation from other is a nonconcept,only manifestation of self.

Idea salad. Word salad

if i were a coherent possibility,it would be the reality of all things,since it's opposite contradicting aspect would be impossible or incoherent,and thus there would be no God that isn't created from other or ultimately nothing,but this is a redundant condcept too.


which proves we are not created ex-nihilo by a dualistic God.

Random mumbo jumbo doesn't prove anything.

my philosophy is self-coherent,which is why it is true.

Sorry, for some reason, I'm laughing at this statement. Your post is one of the most incoherent things I've read on this whole forum in the years I've been on here, and that's saying a lot.

You are just pretty unclear headed,my logic is easy to follow to the logical and intellectual mind.

contigency by classicaly theistic christian(Thomist) theological definition is seperation between a being's existance and being,when in reality no such seperation can exist coherently.they are the same exact thing.if it could be coherent,it would be reality,and everything would be a infinite loop of contigencies,which is impossible and would destroy theism altogether.[/quote]

I haven't read Aquinus. I might know a little bit about some earlier writings, maybe a bit of Augustine. I would imagine to have a school of thought with followers, Aquinus probably explained his ideas a bit more coherently than you did in your last post. You can't expect people to understand what you are trying to say.

If someone rejects Aquinus' ideas of being versus existence, that doesn't disprove the existence of God. God existed before Aquinus, and so did theology, Christianity, and Judaism.

so either we are not contigent,or your 'God'is contigent and thus in both cases you lose.contigency in a absolute sense is not a real concept that can exist.

You haven't defined terms or explained Aquinus' theory. I didn't major in philosophy in school. I have taught a niche ethics course assigned to me, once. I went for virtue ethics and various other aspects of it. But I haven't taken a philosophy course. I have taken logic, and I have a masters and PhD in another field. So I am educated, and I know how to use logic.

You can't just throw a bunch of unexplained terminology at people like that and expect them to understand what you are trying to say. It isn't coherent without an explanation. Your inability to communicate or lack of effort to do so is not proof of your intellectual or spiritual superiority.

[Outcast9428]

I agree with @MrMan. @Kalinago’s post makes no sense.

[MrMan]

I agree with @MrMan. @Kalinago’s post makes no sense.

I suspect anyone else on this forum who reads it will feel the same way, whether they say so or not.

[MrMan]

If I met a cute transwoman that had a good heart and we liked each other I would happily marry her.

I do not consider myself gay,because I only like the female form sexually,but I do think a dick on a chick or chick with a dick is very hot.

I am transphilic.

I like what I like,why people are bothered by this is because it threatens their worldview,so they seem us as inferior or impure for liking this ?

I am also for gay marriage and lesbian marriage.

That's always been my true view which I don't have to pretend otherwise to line up forcefully with Abrahamic values.

Masculine energy is the energy of stillness and bein,feminine is vibration(though not physical or spatial or related to lower concepts like time)or becoming yet one is impossible without the other and fundementally they are absolutely the same thing and equal to each other,at a higher and real understanding.

Transwomen just have a predominant feminine energy and consciousness,both being the exact same thing,and this are women even if their bodies aren't yet,and when they transition thru hormones and surgery to me they are full women atleast almost or mostly,but I look at the inside.

So basically, would you say if you like a guy who is really, really, gay, then you think it makes you not gay to do sexual stuff with him? Your line of reasoning above is really gay.

Confused men who have mental problems and think they are women are really men. If you want to have sex with them, then you want to engage in homosexual sex. It's not that complicated.

[MrMan]

If I met a cute transwoman that had a good heart and we liked each other I would happily marry her.

I do not consider myself gay,because I only like the female form sexually,but I do think a dick on a chick or chick with a dick is very hot.

I am transphilic.

I like what I like,why people are bothered by this is because it threatens their worldview,so they seem us as inferior or impure for liking this ?

I am also for gay marriage and lesbian marriage.

That's always been my true view which I don't have to pretend otherwise to line up forcefully with Abrahamic values.

Masculine energy is the energy of stillness and bein,feminine is vibration(though not physical or spatial or related to lower concepts like time)or becoming yet one is impossible without the other and fundementally they are absolutely the same thing and equal to each other,at a higher and real understanding.

Transwomen just have a predominant feminine energy and consciousness,both being the exact same thing,and this are women even if their bodies aren't yet,and when they transition thru hormones and surgery to me they are full women atleast almost or mostly,but I look at the inside.

So basically, would you say if you like a guy who is really, really, gay, then you think it makes you not gay to do sexual stuff with him? Your line of reasoning above is really gay.

Confused men who have mental problems and think they are women are really men. If you want to have sex with them, then you want to engage in homosexual sex. It's not that complicated.

One of the biggest risks about having sex with ladyboys and trannies is that they are essentially extremely feminine gay men. And since gay men tend to be highly promiscuous the risk of STDs is very high. They are disease riddled creatures moreso than real biological women because women have higher standards of who they sleep with whereas faggots go by the philosophy of "any hole is a goal". For this reason alone a smart man would not stick his Johnson into such a risky place. Is any transvestite in the world really hot enough to risk getting AIDS over?

Well, that is a bit crudely written, but contains an eye-opening warning for those who aren't warded off by the fear of God or the shear disgustingness of the idea of having sex with another man.

In Indonesia, 'bencong' (transvestites, sometimes used for effeminate men who act gay) have a reputation for getting jealous of each other and getting into knife fights over one another and junk like that.

Getting into an relationship with a man who is mentally ill or at the very least has made some of the most foolish decisions possible (hormones, surgeries, or even choosing a lifestyle of dressing like a girl) is also unwise.

[MrMan]

There is so much brainwashing already going on among young kids these days. Schools throughout the Western world are selling this insane notion that kids can pick and choose what gender they are on a whim, the way one would decide to try on new pants or wear a particular sweater in the morning. To not allow this makes you a "bigot" and "transphobe". It's sick. I'm very all-or-nothing about the whole thing... give the LGBT a finger, they greedily take the whole hand. So best not to give them a single concession.

It's sick and crazy these days. I know of one high school that had an LGBT and 'allied' club. They are corrupting the children. Is the world full of evil idiots? Why would they have any kind of sex-themed club in high school. What's the difference between that and a club for those who oriented toward wanting to have sex with red-heads with big breasts? I don't mind a man having sex with a big-breasted redhead if she's his wife, but don't make a club about it in high school for children. They shouldn't use state resources to have sex-themed clubs in colleges either. It's insane.

And the politicians have given special minority rights to people based on what kind of sex they want to have. That's insane. It's selective protection from discrimination. If you say at a job interview, "I am attracted to red-heads with large breasts', they can refuse to hire you for being a creep. But if someone says he's gay and asks if the company is supportive of LGBTs, they can't refuse to hire him, even though that's creepy. A redheaded big-breasted woman who heard the first request might feel it's creepy. Why shouldn't a guy who hears another guy ask that feel creeped out? They should be allowed to discriminate in either case.

And considering what 'orientation' means, how can they defend the idea that pedophilia isn't just as much an 'orientation' as homosexuality? The legal framework has been laid. At some point, some judge is likely going to say the pedophiles have the right to work in the preschools, and the zoophiles have the right to work in the chicken factory and on the cattle farm... and there goes to food supply.

Btw, don't give LGBT's a finger. That sounds nasty. You don't know what they'd do with it.... or even worse, a whole hand.

[WilliamSmith]

Come on guys, it's not that complex:

If you "had intercourse" with a ladyboy then you're a f***ing faggot, end of story, so get your faggot asses to Israel, France, San Francisco, Jew York City, the Philippines, or other rotting pits of filthy sodomy where the population are allegedly such a bunch of f***ing degenerates that they will tolerate this !@#$, and keep your homosexual asses the !@#$ out of the rest of our gene pool, you f***ing disgusting degenerate buttfucking pieces of !@#$.

And if even in the age of peak globohomo you still reject that wealth of options where faggots are being openly pampered, subsidized and promoted, and still try to invade those few bastions of heterosexuality that properly keep your homosexuality illegal in their nations (as they should):
Don't come crying to me if based islanders or Africans find you trying to force your disgusting homosexuality into their nations, and properly respond by chopping you into a thousand pieces, gunning you down with firearms, turning you into a human torch, etc, because you !@#$ing had it coming, f***ing fags.

[CaptainSkelebob]

They present extremely feminine behavior from a young age,

That would explain Mr. bottom G's hyperfeminine behavior...

https://youtu.be/UPVhRU0ovb4

@CaptainSkelebob and @MarcosZeitola

Should Mr Andrew Tate become a ladyboy?

I heard aboot this guy getting arrsted for aex trafficing LOL
So he may not have a choice since it looks like he might become someones bitch in a romanian prison
I think he deserves it!!!
The fella did nothing but talk shite
Spread shitty conspiracy theory and larp as an alpha male when its clear hes a little p***y who will be spending the rest of his life blowing off badass alphas in jail LOL

[CaptainSkelebob]

Come on guys, it's not that complex:

If you "had intercourse" with a ladyboy then you're a f***ing faggot, end of story, so get your faggot asses to Israel, France, San Francisco, Jew York City, the Philippines, or other rotting pits of filthy sodomy where the population are allegedly such a bunch of f***ing degenerates that they will tolerate this !@#$, and keep your homosexual asses the !@#$ out of the rest of our gene pool, you f***ing disgusting degenerate buttfucking pieces of !@#$.

And if even in the age of peak globohomo you still reject that wealth of options where faggots are being openly pampered, subsidized and promoted, and still try to invade those few bastions of heterosexuality that properly keep your homosexuality illegal in their nations (as they should):
Don't come crying to me if based islanders or Africans find you trying to force your disgusting homosexuality into their nations, and properly respond by chopping you into a thousand pieces, gunning you down with firearms, turning you into a human torch, etc, because you !@#$ing had it coming, f***ing fags.

Ur f***ing wrong my alpha bro!!!
Some ladyboys are stunning and better looking than real women
If you saw some of the hot thai ladyboys I nailed fella you wouldnt be calling me a f***ing fag
So who would you rather f**k then???
A hot size ten ladyboy with a hot p***y sculpted by some surgeon with hot feminines features and a curvy body wiry perky tots
Or some big fat wildebeest like Denise
Wildeniset
The answer is obvious fella
If ur gonna say Denise just to save face then ur just telling porky pies