Gay Marriage

At Turning Point USA's Summit for Conservative Teens, Dave Rubin Said He Was Gay Married—and the Crowd Cheered

"I'm gay married. You people don't care about that, do you?" They did not.


On gay marriage, the ship has indeed sailed. Never was that more apparent than at Turning Point USA's High School Leadership Summit on Wednesday, where an audience of hundreds* of conservative teens erupted into wild applause after speaker Dave Rubin said he was in a same-sex relationship.

"I'm gay married," said Rubin. "You people don't care about that, do you?"

They did not. In fact, they cheered Rubin.

Make no mistake: This was a deeply conservative, politically active audience. When former Fox News anchor Eric Bolling polled them earlier in the day, I estimated just 40 percent of them self-identified as libertarian or center-right (Trump-skeptical, in other words). The rest are conservatives. The vast majority seem both pro-life and passionate about the pro-life cause. I saw Make America Great Again hats and National Rifle Association hats. The teens cheered for Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro. They even broke into chants of "lock her up" whenever anyone uttered the name "Hillary Clinton"—something that attracted considerable derision from the mainstream media. (This was not an edifying moment for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, though the press made too much of it: He didn't actually join the chant.)

If these teens represent the future of the right, then the right will continue to be pro-Trump, pro-gun, and pro-life. But thwarting gay marriage has faded as an animating cause, and that's certainly something for liberals and libertarians to be happy about.

*Update: I initially described the crowd as consisting of roughly 200 people. A spokesperson for TPUSA tells me that they had 800 attendees overall, though not all of them were sitting in the front section where I could see them.

NEXT: Idiots on the European Court of Justice Rule Modern Gene-Edited Crops Must Be Overregulated

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Off topic, because I think this article was written in 2015, but can Ken and Trump be right?

    WTF is happening?

    General Kelly: Quit while you're still ahead, Mr. President

    Trump: Shut up, my show is on. And get me a diet coke

    General Kelly: May God help us

    1. 60-dimensional chessmaster?

      1. I don't really see how telling someone "if you don't want to give me what I want, I will make life hard for you in return" is exactly 3D chess. But, considering most people in the media are profoundly stupid, maybe it seems that way to them.

    2. This should surprise no one with any sense. The scare mongering over a trade war never made any sense. If trade wars are so horrible, then why would other nations not throw Trump a bone or two to avoid one? The entire thing rested on the assumption that every nation on earth was willing to destroy their economy in retaliation for the US implementing tariffs, which is absurd.

      1. Why did it take 5 years for Japan and the EU to conclude a trade deal?
        That stinks of protectionism and winner/loser picking. Free the markets!

        1. It took five years because every nation on earth is protectionist and will screw the others if it gets a chance. So, you can want "free markets" all you want but you are not getting them. You are getting some form of protectionism. It is just the way it is.

          1. "every nation on earth is protectionist"

            Gee! Really?

            "..and will screw the others if it gets a chance."

            Protectionism doesn't screw other countries, it screws the consumers in countries that practice it.

            1. Not to the eyes of the politicians doing the negotiating. To them they win because they get to tout the "jobs saved" by their actions.

            2. Protectionism screws the workers in other countries. When other countries are protectionist against the US, they are in fact hurting US workers. That is the problem. The blindest to this simple fact is why most of the country is turning against open trade.

              1. Then why do people think it's OK to boycott? Surely boycotts hurt workers too.

      2. If trade wars are so horrible, then why would other nations not throw Trump a bone or two to avoid one?

        Classic case of "Prisoner's Dilemma" in action.

        1. Tiger always eats the lady.

      3. Isn't this a thread about someone being gay married?

    3. can Ken and Trump be right?

      I was totally wondering that earlier.

      1. Liar. No one ever wonders that, because that is such a crazy idea. But, I'm scared now

        1. A lot of times Ken is a bit off on things. But he has been on a bit of a roll lately. He called this one perfectly. It wasn't hard to figure out. But to Ken's credit, he was right.

          1. Not over yet.

  2. You're just asking for it now, Soave. Now, people who might have been having an enjoyable and productive day will be either shouting at you for being a Cosmo or shouting at the people calling you a Cosmo for calling you a Cosmo and the rest will be again wrestling with the definition of Cosmo so they can yell at the first two groups equally.

    Is it really worth the web traffic to cause such strife?


      1. KRAMER!!

      2. Fuck that faggot shit. Cosmo is what I read while I am getting my hair done.

        1. Cosmo is for closers.

  3. You're just asking for it now, Soave. Now, people who might have been having an enjoyable and productive day will be either shouting at you for being a Cosmo or shouting at the people calling you a Cosmo for calling you a Cosmo and the rest will be again wrestling with the definition of Cosmo so they can yell at the first two groups equally.

    Is it really worth the web traffic to cause such strife?

    1. Susan, the skwerrlze got your number.

    2. Can't we just all get along?

  4. If these teens represent the future of the right, then the right will continue to be pro-Trump, pro-gun, and pro-life.

    My God...

    1. With the increase in medical technology, I suspect the future belongs to the pro life side.

      1. It is awkward that viability keeps getting earlier and earlier.

          1. For all the increasingly absurd deepening of cultural progressivism's hold on this country, it is truly remarkable that public opinion on this particular issue has not really changed over more than four decades. The idea that gay marriage would advance far ahead of legal abortion would have been an absurdist punchline as little as a decade ago, but here you go.

            I do worry that in traditionally conservative countries the legalization of gay marriage, and even more than that recent feminist campaigns, is at least symptomatic of a weakening of religious values that will lead to legal abortion. It's already poised to happen in Argentina, thanks to the new "staunchly anti-legalization" president, the first rightist elected there since World War One, who suddenly commanded the Congress that "it was time to have a mature debate on this matter, listening to all sides," and promised he would not veto. This will open the floodgates in the world's most pro-life region, as its proponents have long crowed.

            It is inevitable that social policy in the developing world will be increasingly shamelessly dictated by the cultural mores of the first-world neoliberal-bureacratic class.

            1. If there's anything you can't stand, it's progress! Unless it's diminution of superstition and at the cost of increased reason.

              You sound like local chapter president of Libertarians For Government Discrimination Against Gays and Libertarians For Authoritarian Womb Management.

              1. Bitch I am a member of Libertarians Who Do Not Give a Flying Fuck About Government Marriage, and nothing I wrote suggested otherwise.

                As for that other club...I am the motherfucking General-Secretary.

              2. Buy a gun and shoot yourself in the face.

              3. Progress is AIDS-infected homosexuals getting "married"; often a conspiracy to commit pedophilia, but in most cases it's not what's presented on TV with these sanitizedshows like Glee or Will & Grace, but in virtually all cases they're still out there racking up huge notch counts of promiscuous gay sex that spreads diseases.

                If people's objections to this were purely based on kneejerk dislike of it as disgusting (and it is disgusting) that would be one thing. It's not an argument on its own. We have mountains of data about the proclivities of these people and why it's a bad idea to promote this.

                They said they just wanted to do what they wanted to do behind closed doors in the privacy of their own homes, consenting adults. They said they'd leave the kids alone. They lied.

                1. Ummm...Sounds like you are really worried about getting AIDs from gay sex.

                  1. Like seriously dude, use a condom and get on PrEP. Or, y'know, be monogamous and get tested.

    2. The horror, the horror.

  5. So contemporary American conservatism embraces white nationalism, gun fetishism, and Vladimir Putin ....... but they're on the right side of history with respect to marriage equality. I have to say, even as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, I cannot get too excited about this.

    Call me when serious, respectable conservatives like David Frum are back in charge.

      1. I have a problem with any hostile foreign leader who hacks our election and steals it from the most qualified candidate ever.


        1. Putin stole the election and he is going to steal the midterms too.

          1. He'll undoubtedly try, but he won't succeed again. The #BlueWave is guaranteed. Democrats WILL gain control of the House.

            1. No they won't. But it is funny how you have given up on the Senate.

              1. I cannot believe anyone ever seriously talked about the Republicans not gaining in the Senate, no matter how grim the news might get. Although they are the kings of own-goals; exhibit A: Missouri. Actually a lot of people like Manchin and Tester have been looking much better lately.

                The House is indeed looking good too for the Republicans, although there was that prognosticator who shifted toward a Democratic takeover recently.

                Will be a nailbiter. I will just be thrilled if the Republicans can hold the NY Senate, which doesn't look very likely to be honest.

        2. It.

        3. Did you have a problem with Wikileaks releasing the files provided by Chelsea Manning, or is it just when it's the DNC that you get upset?

        4. But you would have been OK if a foreign government hacked the election for the purpose of helping the "most qualified candidate ever". (I actually typed that out without laughing.)

    1. Let me guess, you're Q+.

        1. I always think of him more as Visitor Q.

      1. Serious question Tony. When did "queer" become acceptable? Back in my day it was a slur or the person who had the ball and deserved a good smearing.

        1. Rules of play change and evolve over time. Nowadays there is no roughhousing allowed at recess, if it even exists, so today's kids smear the queer by spreading rumors that he once wore socks with sandals.

          1. Man that was a fun game. Kids are really missing out. Probably no more dodge ball either. I'd still play smear the queer if I could find adults to play with.

            1. I haven't heard that for a long time. We also called it "kill the man".

              1. I thought the official name was "Kill the Carrier." It's a cooler name in the sense that it ups the implied violence to murder - and that's always fun - but "Smear the Queer" often won the day because it rhymed. I played the game at a time period and age that no one really stopped to think of it as a reference to a sexual preference. "Queer" seemed more likely to imply "different," as in the guy with the ball. It wasn't an insult because the goal was to BECOME the "queer."

                That said, in this day and age I can see how the name could be inferred differently. I'm no PC warrior, but I would discourage kids from calling it "Smear the Queer" for one reason: why be a dick when you can simply choose to not be a dick?

                Kids are clever. They can probably come up with another name that rhymes, if that has value to them.

        2. In-group acceptability has always been different from out-group acceptability. For example, I can call my sister a bitch, but if you do it? Them's fighting words. Another example: how black people use the n-word among themselves.

          Specifically, I know that at least back in the 80s there were various GLBT groups (before the acronym was re-arranged) that were using "queer" as a catch-all term for "not straight". Especially in the more "counter-culture" and angry groups, you find it a lot.

          Nowadays it has softened a little, but used in the right (wrong) context, it's still obviously a slur and gets treated as one.

          So to make a long story short... if you and a bunch of your girlfriends are out getting mimosas, you can probably get away with playfully pushing each other and calling each other "queer" without issue. If you're driving down the road and shout it out of the window at two women holding hands, you're an asshole.

          Context matters.

          1. Universities all over the nation have "Queer Studies" courses.

            That would suggest the term is one that is open to use by people of all backgrounds, in-group and out-group and should not be counted as a slur.

            1. Sorry, y'all spend way too much time treating academics as out-of-sync with society for me to seriously consider a good-faith attempt to cite them as indicative of social acceptance.

        3. I hate the term "queer" personally. Not only is it a slur, but it doesn't mean anything. It provides no information other than that the person is not straight and traditional. But they could still be straight... I don't get it.

          1. It was not originally. C.f.. OED.
            Odd. Different. Strange.
            Quit hijacking our language.

      2. OBL is the +

      3. And you're douche-minus.

    2. Frum your lips to Gaia's ears

    3. Frum your lips to Gaia's ears

    4. Call back when you get a few vowels.

    5. as a member of the LGBTQWTFBBQ community
      That explains a lot about you.
      All the homosexual men I know, identify as themselves and Canadians, not idiotic acronyms and creepy social groups and subcultures. They just happen to be attracted to men.

  6. The hand wringing over this will be amusing, but it remains a net positive, even if there's work still to be done. I'd be ecstatic if the left moved toward a libertarian stance on religious liberty, but I'm not holding my breath.

    1. The libertarian stance should be 'no special privileges,' especially not those distanced from reason.

      1. No special privileges except those amenable to "reason", which would be anything you agree with.

  7. But thwarting gay marriage has faded as an animating cause, and that's certainly something for liberals and libertarians to be happy about.

    I have trouble keeping up with the news like that late-20s whippersnapper Robby Soave. What was the name of the decision where our activist court ruled that government marriage is unconstitutional?

  8. How lovely that we've stopped serving as the minority scapegoat for the GOP. It served its purpose in 2004, now here's the baton, Mexicans!

    1. Hey, the scapegoats for the left are food truck owners who sell meals to cops and white girls who dare to wear cornrows, so you were in decent company at least.

      1. Who could forget '70s legend Bo Derek?

    2. That's true, Tony. The GOP has moved on from blaming everything on the economically illiterate and have instead joined their ranks.

    3. It's ok, every sentient being on this planet still hates you personally.

  9. "Not an edifying moment"? That's putting it mildly. Here's from the link you provided:

    Then chants of "Lock her up" broke out.

    "Lock her up," Sessions said, chuckling at the brief interruption from the audience as the chant then grew louder.

    "I heard that a long time over the last campaign," he said before continuing with his prepared speech.

    Oh, so he didn't join the chant, he just repeated the words and said he'd heard them before. Big difference. Why is it such a tradition in the U.S. that the attorney general is (usually) the cabinet member with the least respect for the law?

    1. Sessions didn't join the chant. That is fake news Vanneman.

      1. Anything but looking horrified at a mob of people chanting for the imprisonment of a political leader they disagree with but who has committed no crimes is a problem.

        1. Claiming she committed no crimes is more horrifying. Some people ACTUALLY believe that

          1. Others have paid her dues
            Time after time.
            She's done no sentence
            But committed many crimes.
            And bad mistakes--
            She's made a few dozen.
            She's had her share of votes stole
            By the hands of the Russians!

        2. Tony|7.25.18 @ 5:52PM|#

          Anything but looking horrified at a mob of people chanting for the imprisonment of a political leader they disagree with but who has committed no crimes is a problem.

          ...I think we might have a winner for least self-aware, most ironic, and most hypocritical comment of the day, all in one!

        3. Other than commodities trading fraud
          real estate fraud
          defrauduing a Savings and Loan causing its collapse and bailout by the taxpayer
          Overbilling her clients and the government as a lawyer
          hiding records under subpoena
          illegally seizing and leaking protected FBI raw background files
          campaign finance violations
          more bribery
          influence peddling
          failing to secure classified info
          more influence peddling

          1. Why isn't she in prison? I'm all ears.

        4. The fact that you think you have anything remotely interesting or intelligent to contribute to humanity is what's truly horrifying, you retarded prick.

        5. So, having the connections to avoid getting prosecuted is the same as not committing any crimes. Please remember this in the future.

    2. Perhaps there is a point lurking here. One that I fail to discern. Way back when, when we all lived in the forest, and nobody lived anywhere else, we had something called a ' sense of humor. Sheesh. Lighten up.

  10. The good news is that gay-bashing seems to be becoming objectionable even among some right-wingers. The fledgling wingnuts will continue to support bigoted candidates until those small-minded conservatives die off, of course, but the liberal-libertarian alliance has made great progress on this issue.

    The other good news is that gun absolutism may be next on the list of issues regarding which the liberal-libertarian mainstream wins the culture war.

    1. Kirkland, the self-identified libertarian who can't stand liberty for those that aren't him.

      1. Political ideology is like gender: it's what you say you are, not what evidence dictates you are.

      2. I'm libertarian mostly by Volokh Conspiracy standards.

        Why would government gay-bashing be libertarian?

        With respect to guns, I believe a citizen should be entitled to possess a reasonable gun for self-defense in the home.

        I'm for Liberty . . . And Justice For All.

        1. I'm libertarian mostly by Volokh Conspiracy standards.

          That makes sense. You're fucking retarded by all standards.

          1. So you're on, a company that Volokh Conspiracy joined, calling them "fucking retarded by all standards".

            I don't visit often, mainly because I don't consider myself to be libertarian, but truth be known the values that get me labeled "libtard" are the ones where I say "that's none of the government's business". Apparently "that's none of your business" is retarded...

        2. With respect to guns, I believe a citizen should be entitled to possess a reasonable gun for self-defense in the home.

          Because that's exactly what the second amendment says:

          "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep reasonable arms in their homes shall not be infringed."

          Or maybe I don't have the wording exactly right?

          1. You're missing a couple of crucial commas, but the wording is right.

            1. Narrator: "No. The wording is not right."

    2. Aka you admit you are wrong, and gun absolutism will win.


    3. The bad news is you haven't offed yourself yet.

    4. Ayy. Saruman lost. Get it?

  11. But the Reverend assured me we wouldn't be able to increase gun rights because only "redneck white males" support gun rights!

  12. So does this mean Kim Davis isn't the next attorney general?

  13. When former Fox News anchor Eric Bolling polled them earlier in the day, I estimated just 40 percent of them self-identified as libertarian or center-right (Trump skeptical, in other words). The rest are conservatives.

    What? Why would "libertarian" or "center-right" versus "conservative" be a particularly good proxy indicator of Trump support? This is so stupid even a polling firm would not do it.

    1. Well, when you use a leftist's definitions for all these things, then I guess it makes sense. My understanding is that "center-right" is either conservative or a RINO (depending on where we claim the center is.)
      Those who support Trump broadly tend to do so because he provides lots of pro-America rhetoric. Otherwise, there are plenty of issues where the "conservatives," "center-right," and "libertarians" could support his words and/or actions. Likewise, many people who voted for him are democrats who aren't fully on board globalism, sjw, and socialism. It's kinda silly to ignore that without those people Trump wouldn't have won.

      1. You're either for totalitarian socialism, or you're an uneducated, inbred, pale-skinned uberbigot...

        who also hates puppies and kittens, making one an omnibigot as well

  14. Yes, the surprising thing is, despite all the crap they take for being backward, when you look at the stats, Christians are becoming dramatically more and more tolerant of gays.

    Meanwhile the progressive left is re-evaluating freedom of speech.

    You can debate who's on the wrong side of history, or has recently been.

    You can also debate who's pointed to the wrong side of history.

    And here's a hint: you don't get acceptance of gays in a society that won't even accept expression.

    1. You try to make 'taking crap for being backward' and bigoted sound like a bad thing.

      You fail.

      1. If taking crap for being backward and bigoted were a bad thing, why would you keep on coming back here?

    2. Being "tolerant" of people who spread disease and have a penchant for raping children isn't a good thing. If the objection was just that they find it icky and instinctively repulsive that would be one thing, but we have reams of data showing why the promotion of the gays in the public square is a terrible idea.

      1. I'm assuming you are pretending to be this extreme as some kind of parody of a conservative.

        I don't love the tactic, as it persuades no one, and should only be employed if you can manage to do it in a funny or even somewhat amusing way.

        On the other hand, you did manage to paint your extreme social-conservative character as extra closeted by making sure to work in the word "reams."

        So points for that. 🙂

  15. "They even broke into chants of "lock her up" whenever anyone uttered the name "Hillary Clinton"?something that attracted considerable derision from the mainstream media. "

    Derision is not an argument.

    Hillary broke the law to the tune of centuries of criminal penalties. She would have been locked by the Obama administration if they weren't a lawless criminal conspiracy.

  16. " I estimated just 40 percent of them self-identified as libertarian or center-right (Trump skeptical, in other words). The rest are conservatives. "

    It's a realignment.
    Globalists to the Left, Nationalists to the Right.

    Small government, self government libertarians are Trump's strongest supporters.
    Muh Anarchy, Open Borders Uber Alles libertarians are some of his biggest haters.

    The Globalists at Reason and Neocon, Inc. will increasingly be joining the lawless left, because replacing Americans with Not Americans is Job One.

    1. Libertarians despise Donald Trump. Even the dumb ones.

      Faux libertarians, however, adore him. Especially the dumb ones.

      1. Libertarians leftists and conservatives are all united in despising your obsolete old ass Mikey.

  17. "thwarting gay marriage has faded as an animating cause"

    Yes, thanks to the Supreme Court, nobody will go to prison any longer for getting gay married, as happened all the time before 2015. /sarc

    These kids have the excuse of being kids, so I guess it's understandable why they're vulnerable to the bait-and-switch. They're cheering the "legalization" of gay marriage while opposition to gay marriage - even from bakers - becomes illegal.

    1. Who said they were cheering that though?

      Rubin was smart enough to have worded his applause line carefully. I don't imagine, in fact, that John and Just Say'n "care" particularly whether he chose to avail himself of the gay-marriage option that the government makes available--even though their moral codes do not permit gay sex, and they opposed the government extending its seal of endorsement to gay sexual unions if it felt the need to continue the practice at all (which is of course the real libertarian issue). I think most of the new generation of conservatives are liberty-minded enough that they think much the same. They know where the real lines lie in the upcoming culture war, and are grateful for any kind of ally. It would be downright silly to not welcome a friendly gay with open arms at this point--like Roosevelt grumbling at Churchill over outstanding Jay Treaty disputes.

      Of course I can't speak for the few pure traditional SoCons and what they "should" do to further their cause; I don't want to "concern troll" here. But it's pretty safe to say the college-conservative outfit that brought Milo in the spotlight doesn't have many of these folks represented.

      Does Dave Rubin, in fact, support cake laws? Probably. But that's not what he asked them to cheer. Besides, if they had to boo one aspect of Rubin's "classical liberalism," it'd probably be his support for universal Medicare.

      1. He was solidly on the side of the bakers on that one. There's several talks where he asserts his position. He's generally pretty good about taking the side of liberty.

        1. Sounds great - I wanted to search his site but it was a bunch of talks, no text I could search.

          However, the message Reason is taking from this is that it's now an Established Truth that the government should expressly ratify and endorse gay relationships - and based on their previous coverage, this seems to take priority over the implications for bakers and other icky dissenters.

          1. Is there *anything* in the current gay-liberation crusade which is consistent with limited, constitutional government? Anything which would make Hayek cheer rather than shake his head sadly?

            1. The SoCons have been making the right call on this one:

              The Limited Government Case Against Gay Marriage - an article from 2012


            2. It's now subsumed by the general LGBT crusade, in which gay cismales are little more than tolerated "allies." And in a sense that is for good reason, since the answer to your question is no. Its final two legal victories that did not involve becoming the oppressor were military service and marriage--two things that are not rights per se but IMO were just good public policy. (Though the latter was probably a bad thing in the long term because it killed any chances of marriage privatization for the forseeable future.) I would say the big unfinished business for the LGBT rights struggle is protecting them from risk of violence where it still exists. A lot of this would be directly up our alley--strengthening gun rights, preventing exploitation by the police, stopping the easily abused and counterproductive crackdowns on drugs and prostitution, and so forth would all be huge. I'd even include stopping interfering with families, including stopping teachers and social workers from pressuring parents of gender nonconforming kids to "affirm" their transgenderism and so forth.

              1. The right to bear arms sounds like a good way to counteract literal gay-bashing, but apparently silly coalition politics won't let that happen.

                Turkeys for Thanksgiving:


                1. Well, there's always the Pink Pistols and other pro-2A gay groups to push back.

          2. ? you do know that non-discrimination laws and marriage are two separate topics, right?

  18. Welfare is OK as long as people I like get it.

  19. What is "gun absolutism"?

    1. What is "gun absolutism"?
      It's what the motherfucker tells you it is!

  20. He won't be once Der F?hrer Trump hears about it.

  21. Safeway is having a sale on wedding cakes with pink log cabins.

    1. I don't know why they didn't limit themselves to the approved gay socialist symbols. No one needs 23 different kinds of gay wedding cakes.

      1. A portrait of Bernie on the cake should be the only state approved design for weddings.

      2. Wait...being gay is socialist now?

        I'm not even sure I know what socialism is anymore. Was it redefined to "things I don't like"?

    2. Those aren't 'log' cabins.

  22. If they didn't care then why did they cheer?

    1. Huh? I don't know what to tell you. Distinguish these two propositions:

      (1) p
      (2) We don't care about p

      Loudly cheering a proposition is indeed incompatible with not caring about that proposition itself. But cheering (2) is not incompatible with not caring about (1)! It's what you do when you don't care about (1), and are loud and proud of it!

      Let us suppose there is a violent, corrupt dystopian city ruled by a Democratic machine. (I know; just try to imagine.) The local Republican Party is the center of reform activity. Recently the mayor has announced that he plans to rename a park after Freddie Mercury. And the machine has been loudly proclaiming for months, "We are renaming this park after a gay brown immigrant, and we don't care what the alt-right Drumpftards who want to take over this city from the people think. This is the People standing up to the powerful." And the national and international media has been devoting breathless story after story to covering the city's wonderful leadership and its brave stand against hate.

      Now, if you were invited to the city to give a speech at a big Republican rally in the center of town discussing the corruption and violence, better yet if you yourself were a gay brown immigrant, wouldn't you open your speech with, "You guys don't care about the fucking park, do you?" And wouldn't you expect to hear deafening cheers when you said it?

      1. If "gay rights" is to be seen as a cynical distraction, let's look at who's doing the distracting. It's the people who pressed for all the states and the federal government to recognize gay relationships because it's literally The Most Important Thing in the World, and who turned on a dime from supporting RFRAs to opposing them as The Most Hitleriest Thing Ever.

      2. Hello, Thunderdome?
        Just sayin'.

      3. We just wait for the hammer to fall.

  23. Honestly most conservative leaning people I have known from Gen Xers on down haven't given a shit about The Gays. At least not as far as marriage.

    I'm an older Millennial and have never cared. That said, there are a lot of other things the Gay Lobby tries to push that I AM against. Some of it gets pretty fucking weird and twisted. Like their nonsense push about how kids should be treated gender neutral and that kind of nonsense. 99.5%+ of people identify as their biological gender, even if they're gay. That kind of stuff is just stupid as fuck, and I am not for it. Despite having had gay friends since middle school, and trans friends for many years as well... In some cases people need to realize that some small ass minority group with weird problems/hang ups cannot dictate policy to the overwhelming majority.

    But other than the stupid shit, The Gays should be free to gay it up.

    1. The problem is they want to be free to indoctrinate and rape children, too. Which is where it's headed. It didn't stay as consenting adults doing their own things behind closed doors.

      1. Rape of children is illegal and punishable as a crime. It will stay that way no matter whether gays are married or not. You can't indoctrinate someone to be gay. You can indoctrinate someone to be tolerant of gays, which is perhaps your problem.

        1. The things being pushed in schools right now go far beyond the pale. It is not simply "indoctrinating someone to be tolerant of gays." It is pushing homosexuality and transexual degeneracy and mental illness upon small children with impressionable minds.

        2. You can't indoctrinate someone to be gay, but you *can* indoctrinate someone to embrace a sexually libertine lifestyle.

        3. Yup. They're not just saying "Hey if somebody is gay, you should be nice to them."

          It's "Being gay is awesome! It's better than being straight, because it's super cool. You should AT LEAST experiment with having sex with a same sex partner, or you're boring and not cool."

          I live in Seattle, and I've literally heard shit like that 1000 times. The number of gay men has actually been going down (probably because they're not having children in sham marriages as much anymore, and not passing on their "gay genes" as much), but the number of people that say they're basically confused or bisexual has skyrocketed. The same types of people are also just pushing fucking everybody in sight as being a virtue too, which it isn't.

          There's a difference between tolerating something and pushing it. I want crack to be legal... But I'd be kinda pissed if they were pushing trying out crack in schools/the media/etc.

    2. Honestly most conservative leaning people I have known from Gen Xers on down haven't given a shit about The Gays. At least not as far as marriage.

      Either you haven't been paying attention or the people you know haven't been representative.

      [Lots of data]
      [Specifically about marriage]
      Admittedly, they don't have a year/age/ideaology cross-tab, but you can make educated guesses when you have year/age and year/ideology.

      1. Your reasonableness makes you suspect. The authorities shall be notified.

      2. Well, I have grown up on the Left Coast my whole life. So I imagine many of the conservatives round these parts are a little more libertarian leaning than in saaay the Bible Belt.

    3. Besides which: welcome to alimony.
      High priced divorce lawyers. Pain and suffering beyond your puny iminaginations. 'Gay' will revert to its original definition.

  24. Government still discriminates (heavily) on the basis of marital status. That has always been the real problem.

    1. this^^^
      Nix the soicial engeneering intent of marriage privelages and incentives the gov dabbles in and this issue melts away.

      1. I'm going to be generous and assume you're not talking about nixing legal marriage all-together, just the "social engineering" parts.

        So what would that actually be?

        Joint tax returns? Helping our soldiers move their wives and kids when they get deployed to a new base? Social security spousal benefits? Survivor benefits of any sort? Easier inheritance to a spouse? Family insurance plans? Assumption of paternity for married women giving birth? C'mon, enumerate what you want to get rid of.

        'cause let me tell you, if I'm being overly generous and you really mean "everyone should have to secure the rights and privileges of marriage through private contract", gay folk tried that and it sucked. It cost thousands of dollars with lawyers for a fraction of rights, and they were never as secure as a marriage contract.

  25. Gays should pay an Aids tax, like smokers.

    1. Smoking is banned in many places. We just need to ban Aids. Problem solved.

  26. The log cabin is now a stone ranch-house.

  27. This article commits the classic fallacy of assuming that because you can get a bunch of dumb kids to cheer something, that actually means something.

  28. Honestly, does anybody remember Robt. A. Heinlein??
    Mind your own business. ( MYOB)
    An armed society is a polite society.

    Well then.

  29. Jesus taught that we can love a sinner while despising their sin. It's a simple concept. We are all sinners in one way or another, and many of us are still good, respectable people.

  30. Conservatives embracing female, minority, and/or gay conservative voices is nothing new. Many were red pilled by Thomas Sowell. Today it might be Lauren Southern, Dave Rubin, or any of the chorus of conservative voices who are not hetero white males. Such people are empowering to everyone like the moment you realize Wonder Woman reduced Batman and Superman to sidekicks in their own movie. Or the time you see Peter Thiel cheered giving a speech to the RNC.

  31. Conference was in DC. Not a haven for knuckle draggers.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.