Gay/Lesbian Issues

Trump Is Continuing Obama's Opposition to Other Countries' Anti-Gay Laws. This, Somehow, Has LGBT Leaders Angry

President George W. Bush was once attacked by the same people for rejecting the very same policy.

|

Donald Trump and rainbow flag
CARLO ALLEGRI/REUTERS/Newscom

President Donald Trump's administration plans to continue the U.S. government's advocacy favoring the decriminalization of homosexuality worldwide. This has, in a baffling and yet predictable pattern, angered several loud voices in the LGBT community.

Yesterday, NBC News reported that the administration, pushed by U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell (who is openly gay), was "planning to launch a worldwide effort to end the criminalization of homosexuality worldwide." There are 70 countries that still have laws on the book that treat homosexual behavior as a crime, and some countries have extremely harsh penalties. This announcement is widely being seen as an attempt to challenge and target Iran and potentially get international support for sanctions.

The response to this announcement was nearly comical in the fabricated outrage among certain LGBT voices who wanted to scream from the rooftops that Trump doesn't really, truly care about gay people. The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT lobbying organization that typically favors Democratic Party interests, responded with a thread of tweets about how much Trump administration policies and practices have not been in favor of LGBT folks. (Though if one of your complaints is that Trump made fun of Vice President Mike Pence's anti-gay attitudes, you're kind of stepping on your own point.)

An even stranger response came from the gay magazine Out, which gave space to a writer who attempts to argue that the whole plan smacks of some sort of white colonialism coming from Western countries because the targets are in the Middle East, Africa, and the Caribbean. The headline of Matthew Rodriguez's piece is "Trump's Plan to Decriminalize Homosexuality Is an Old Racist Tactic." Mind you, a significant amount of anti-gay animus in some non-Muslim African and Caribbean countries is a result of the spread of certain strains of Western Christianity to these countries. It was colonialism that arguably pushed anti-gay attitudes on some of these countries and encouraged them to treat their gay and transgender inhabitants as evil threats. It's just a remarkably stupid, shortsighted argument for a gay outlet to suggest that anti-gay governments should not be subject to criticism on the basis of the race or ethnicity of their leaders. The gay press has regularly reported on the violence and abuse foisted on LGBT people in these countries.

But that's not even the real punchline here. The actual punchline is that the United States had already signed onto a United Nations declaration that called for the decriminalization of homosexuality years ago. NBC News is not accurate in calling this a new push, though the motives may be shifting.

President Barack Obama's administration, just months after he came into office in 2009, signed onto a United Nations statement condemning human rights violations against LGBT folks and opposing the criminalization of LGBT behavior. It had come around during President George W. Bush's administration, and he didn't sign it at the time because he was concerned that it was an attempt to override states' rights on issues like marriage recognition. Bush was widely criticized by LGBT groups for not signing onto the declaration. The U.S. was the only Western country to decline back then.

The Hill followed up on NBC's reporting yesterday, and a State Department representative makes it very clear:

"This really is not a big policy departure," [spokesman Robert] Palladino told reporters. "This is longstanding and it's bipartisan."

When asked whether he would describe the meetings as a "new initiative," Palladino replied: "I would say that this is a good opportunity to listen and to discuss ideas about how the United States can advance decriminalization of homosexuality around the world. And that's been our policy."

So just to be clear here: Trump is being yelled at by some LGBT voices for continuing on a policy implemented by the Obama administration. And the Obama administration's move was a widely lauded reversal of Bush's rejection, and Bush's rejection of this very same declaration was previously attacked by LGBT leaders.

Trump has shown himself to be a very transactional political leader. His support for policies is often tied to what he stands to gain politically from their implementation. This is hardly new for a politician—it's just that it's extremely obvious when it comes to Trump. He's not empathetic and he's not very good at pretending to care about things that he obviously cares little about. So it's probably very true that Grenell and Trump want to use this policy to try to attack Iran in some way.

The appropriate way to respond to all of these decisions is to grasp Trump's transactional nature. Trump is just flat-out not going to see a relationship between this policy encouraging other countries to decriminalize homosexuality and his anti-amnesty measures that make it harder for people from these very same countries to come to America for safety. And he deserves criticism for that.

But pushing those other countries to decriminalize homosexuality is a positive move that advances human liberty and should be supported. If this policy moves into a space where the U.S. attempts to use coercive tactics or force (military or sanctions) to punish other countries, then that behavior should be opposed. You don't have to support actual aggression against Iran to support a policy calling for better treatment of gay and transgender people there.

NEXT: Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Victory for Asset Forfeiture Challenge

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. >>>The appropriate way to respond to all of these decisions is

    not to tell me the appropriate way to respond.

    >>>Trump is just flat-out not going to see a relationship between this policy encouraging other countries to decriminalize homosexuality and his anti-amnesty measures that make it harder for people from these very same countries to come to America for safety. And he deserves criticism for that.

    oooh criticism you’re a badass. what do you want? “okay everyone who’s gay from an oppressed country now gets Montana.” wtf

    1. They’d just have to tweak the state motto a bit, from “Big Sky Country” to “Big Guy Country.” Or a Brokeback Mountain reference.

      1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
        >>>>>>>>>> http://www.payshd.com

      2. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
        >>>>>>>>>> http://www.Aprocoin.com

    2. “Trump has shown himself to be a very transactional political leader. His support for policies is often tied to what he stands to gain politically from their implementation. This is hardly new for a politician?it’s just that it’s extremely obvious when it comes to Trump. He’s not empathetic and he’s not very good at pretending to care about things that he obviously cares little about. ”

      So, Scott can see into Trump’s heart & soul & tell us exactly what is going on!!!…WOW, maybe he should start his own religion or do psychic readings!

      1. Yeah I see no evidence that Trump isn’t empathetic and is just pretending to care bout this issue. That may be the case but article certainly isn’t convincing on the point. This is just Reason boilerplate TDS.

        Reason editor: Need to talk Scott. Loved the article but you seem to be praising Trump here. Are you sure you wanna go there?
        Scott: Well it’s a good policy and the point really is the crazy reaction.
        Reason editor: Well you know we have a policy here Scott. If Trump does something we agree with we’re allowed to write about it. But it must be counterbalanced with a paragraph from the TDS file.
        Scott: I could throw a line about him being a big poopyhead. Or open with “orange man bad but …”
        Reason editor: Well you know we hired a full time staffer to come up with anti Trump lines that we can all use so the message is consistent. They’re all in the TDS file. Just cut and paste. I’ll email you the PDF.
        Scott: Gee thanks!

        1. I’ve seen no evidence that SS needs any nudging to throw in some ridiculous Trump hate. He seems more than willing, personal credibility be damned!

          1. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

            click here =====>>>> http://www.payshd.com

        2. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

          click here =====?? http://www.Aprocoin.com

      2. Your arguments makes no sense. Trump doesn’t have a soul.

      3. Don’t be an idiot. It’s not just this policy, it’s across the board. Trump used to donate to Planned Parenthood until he realised that he would need support from evangelicals. So suddenly he had to be strongly against abortion, though he didn’t really know what sort of policies would go down well. (Remember when he said that the woman should be punished, until he got the memo that this was not the angle that the right had been pushing, because it alienates voters.)

        As the article says, all politicians do it but Trump is more blatant and often doesn’t try very hard to rationalize his change of policy.

        You seem to have Anti-Trump Derangement Syndrome: the slightest perceived criticism triggers you.

    3. Do they have to prove they’re gay? Do they have to stay gay?

      1. Do they have to prove they’re gay?
        Claimants bend over and present, and an immigration officer calls for Ricardo from processing and hands him a tube of astroglide.
        If you start to cry you’re deported.

  2. Outrage junkies have to get their fix somehow.

    “Shit is *strong*, we gonna sell it; shit is *weak*, we gonna sell twice as much. You know why? ‘Cause a fiend, he gonna chase that shit no matter what.”

    1. We just need to euthanize our progressives. Please everyone, take your progtards to the vet to be put to sleep, ASAP.

      1. Or just spay and neuter them.

        1. “spay and neuter them.”
          Useless to bother. They breed via viral replication in universities.
          It’s not like they can reproduce normally where they like to stick it.

          1. You guys are casually promoting genocide against millions of people. What the fuck is wrong with you?

            1. Lackonookie syndrom?

            2. Define “people”.

            3. Well why not? It’s not like progressives are “real people” or anything. Just like those illegal invaders. Who really gives a shit about them. Isn’t that right Shithead and Fancypants?

              1. I nominate jeff as the new worst.

            4. It’s casual Wednesday?

            5. “You guys are casually promoting genocide against millions of people. What the fuck is wrong with you?”

              Procrastination.

              1. LiborCon FTW

            6. They’re not people, they’re property of the state

            7. God, you fags have ZERO sense of humor!

              You do KNOW the commies talk about throwing libertarians and conservatives in gulags right? So why not make jokes about genociding their asses too?

              Honestly, they deserve it A LOT more than cons and libertarians do… At least we’d create a functional and prosperous society for whoever was left.

            8. So Chippie, are you saying that you believe that progs are a genetically identifiable subgroup of people, or that you don’t know what genocide is?

            9. “promoting genocide against millions of people”
              1. I said it was pointless
              2. Progressives aren’t people

          2. It was a standing joke that if Trump did anything to help protect any kind of progressive they would get mad about it. No joke, we now have here living proof. What next? Will the anti war crowd start protests in the streets if Trump gets us out of wars? They did get awful quiet about war when their hero was in there getting us into violent conflicts in other nations, maybe they like wars now.

            What will they do if Trump starts praising oxygen as the best stuff to breath, will they start carrying signs about the wonders of carbon monoxide?

            The black employment rate is the lowest on record that I have ever seen. That was mentioned in the State of the Union speech and from the democrats public reaction to it a person working must be an insult to everything they believe in and support. Ditto for Hispanics, no record of it ever being this low before but they looked angry as he spoke about it. Maybe democrats just do not want Americans to have jobs.

            Sure explains a lot.

            1. Love Trumps Hate takes simply amazing amounts of arson and violence. Is that a true statement?

              Prove me wrong . . .

      2. Come and try it, bub 🙂

    2. Got – Damn! Pusherman!

    3. [“Shit is *strong*, we gonna sell it; shit is *weak*, we gonna sell twice as much. You know why? ‘Cause a fiend, he gonna chase that shit no matter what.”]

      Yo, Omar comin’!

  3. You can’t be even a little grateful Trump’s doing the right thing if he’s doing it for the wrong reason. And if it benefits Trump in any way then it’s definitely the wrong reason and it’s an evil that must be condemned.

    1. Not to mention which, it’s racism and anti-Islamic bigotry of the worst sort to expect the same sort of civilized behavior out of the dusky-hued savages as you would expect out of white people. You know the nappy-headed little monkeys can’t be held responsible for their behavior, it’s certainly not their fault they don’t know any better. Us white people need to get over our privilege and accept responsibility for imposing our imperialist cultural beliefs on the lesser animals.

      1. …nappy-headed little monkeys…

        Good band name.

        1. “…nappy-headed little monkeys…

          Good band name.”

          As in, “hey hey we’re the nappy-headed little monkeys…
          We’re too busy stoning,
          To put anybody down…”?

          The pre-fab fanatics?

      2. The left has been pretty open about the fact that only white men have any agency for a long time. It’s simply assumed that all other genders, sexes, and races are so inferior that they need the white man to protect them from…the white man?

        Marx and Malcolm X both had words regarding this type of special moron in their midst.

        1. Look dude… Let’s be scientific about this shit… CLEARLY Asian men ALSO have agency, since they can pee standing up, and have even higher IQs on average than white men. But the rest of ’em are all fucked and need honky and Asian dudes to run the world for them.

          1. Or so progs believe (but won’t admit).

    2. They fabricated a “wrong” reason.

  4. “Trump has shown himself to be a very transactional political leader. His support for policies is often tied to what he stands to gain politically from their implementation. This is hardly new for a politician?it’s just that it’s extremely obvious when it comes to Trump. He’s not empathetic and he’s not very good at pretending to care about things that he obviously cares little about.”

    This is a, erm, queer statement, Scott.

    Youtube has quite a bit of footage going back to the 90s (and maybe 80s) of him consistently on the side of blacks and gays before he was a politician.

    I don’t know. Can we maybe have an article without a ‘to be sure’ TDS angle?

    1. This is hardly new for a politician?it’s just that it’s extremely obvious when it comes to Trump.

      Assuming that that’s true, IT’S A GOOD THING.

      (yelling at Reason, not RTM)

    2. Seems like a fair enough assessment of Trump. He’s not good at projecting sincerity and everything is deal making for him.

      1. Which is, quite frankly, an improvement in most ways.

        1. Yes, those are not among the things that I have problems with Trump about.

          Seems like a lot of people prefer someone who is better at convincing them that their lies are truth.

          1. And at root, Trump DOES have basic objectives. It is just that he is willing to deal on nearly everything else in order to get those basic objectives. And as was pointed out, he has always been this way. It is also what makes him successful. If EVERYTHING is a moral imperative, it is impossible to make ANY deal or get anything done.

            Most of his critics prefer a highly “moral” leader who loudly gets nothing done.

      2. If nothing else, you can rarely if ever misread the man. He’s always about the deal. Always has been, always will be.

    3. “Youtube has quite a bit of footage going back to the 90s (and maybe 80s) of him consistently on the side of blacks and gays before he was a politician.”

      That was long before he became a racity racist Nazi Klansman. Don’t let his past fool you. He totally changed in his 70s.

      1. Yep, including awards from Jesse Jackson and hangers on for hiring and promoting blacks. It was magical how they all changed their minds about him as soon as he began to run for office instead of writing them checks.

    1. And nearly epidemic.

      1. There are two types of TDS: 1) freaking out over everything Trump does, and 2) freaking out over every criticism of Trump. What we got here at Reason is a bunch of number twos.

        1. What we got here at Reason is a bunch of number twos.

          There is a bunch of shit around here.

          1. And not a lot of fans.

        2. 2). Not really. Mostly just laughing at the number ones. But when you’re a number one, you can’t help invent number two.

          1. #2s are a lot better represented here than #1s. Which honestly is a nice change of pace from the regular news. But still pretty silly.

            1. Well, when almost every criticism of the dude is ridiculous hypocrisy or hyperbole, what else is a sane person to do?

              The man ain’t perfect… He also ain’t Hitler V 2.0. I basically tell shit libs all the time that you can like or not like many of his individual policies… But the hyperventilating is nonsense. He’s basically Bill Clinton from 1998, but with less bad sex scandals!

              1. “with less bad sex scandals!”

                Well, at least none while actually in office anyway!

                1. In all fairness, banging porn stars is less bad than banging interns. One is an abuse of power… The other is just being kind of awesome! Even if she isn’t my porn star type…

        3. There’s a fair amount of number 1’s in certain commenters post and some headlines, if not entire articles.

          1. Really? There are headlines that freak out about everything Trump does?

            1. Fair enough.

        4. “…2) freaking out over every criticism of Trump…”

          So you didn’t bother to RTFA?

  5. “The Libertarian National Committee today condemned the Warren administration for abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and eliminating the federal income tax because Pres. Warren didn’t reference the Non Aggression Principle or acknowledge that taxation is theft.”

    1. “It’s just so obvious that she’s not sincere. She’s only doing it for the votes!” claimed Reason writer Kurt Kochette.

      1. Yes, like Obama was a big fan of asssex.

      2. Both sides = Equally to blame

    2. The Warren Administration would make the Commissioner of the IRS a cabinet secretary.

  6. So it’s probably very true that Grenell and Trump want to use this policy to try to attack Iran in some way.

    Well exactly. This policy is actually an incentive for backwards countries to worsen their treatment of gays, in retaliation to Trump’s sanctimonious grandstanding. It is so misguided and dangerous. Trump is not an ally to gay people, he is an enemy.

    Russia does exactly the same in Chechnya. They inflame homophobia and then they can say, “At least we’re not as bad.” How can any gay person fall for this transparent, cynical ploy?

    If we really want to help gay people, the answer is simple: promote freedom and equal rights for ALL.

    1. Progtards will never allow that. Race baiting, poverty pimping and identity politics in general are part and parcel of the de ocrat party. They need to divide Americans to stay in office.

      1. I was reading about Tammany Hall again the other day, and it’s obvious that the DNC hasn’t changed their modus operandi one iota over the last two hundred years.
        Still concern trolling, still race baiting, still using divide and conquer tactics.

    2. Progs rely on a good cop bad coop strategy to keep gay people on the plantation. White Progressives denounce religious conservatives in the name of tolerance for gay people. This brings the LGBT community into the tent. Then homophobic Black Progressives put gay people in their place if they ever get uppity. If gay people complain about this mistreatment, Straight White Progressive call them racist.

      Progressive identity politics maintains order the same way hierarchical tittles of nobility do in an aristocracy. If the earl starts to disobey, leadership asks the duke to have a talk with him.

    3. So, it gets worse? what are they going to do to them after they are thrown off a 6 story building tied to a chair?

    4. The truly Libertarian view is to stay out of other people’s countries & cultures & let them chart their own courses…If they want to criminalize LGBT behavior that is their business! Sooner or later, after LGBT behavior is decriminalized, sanctification, promotion, glorification, & funding by Business, Academia, Media & Govt. results in Special Rights for LGBT behaviors & the loss of Natural Rights for most others, many who who want no part of LGBT people or their rituals! America is a prefect example!

  7. Orange man bad, even when good.

    1. It’s astonishing.

      Low minority unemployment.
      Inner-city urban renewal EO.
      Criminal/tax reform.
      No wars/wants to draw down wars.

      But I guess it’s not enough unless he *acts* sincere.

      Know what? Give me an asshole like Trump who gets it done over a facia di culo like Obama who talked ‘sincere’ about issues and did precious little.

      1. You go with faccia di culo over testa di cazzo?

        1. I can live with that.

        2. WE SPEAK MURICAN IN MURICA!

      2. Give me an asshole like Trump who gets it done

        I’d like to know what “it” is first.

        1. He just did.

            1. Trump was not exactly opaque about his agenda during the election. And unlike most recent predecessors he has actually stuck with his campaign promises pretty well.

              So you may disagree with his agenda, but if you don’t know what “it” is you haven’t been paying attention.

        2. ‘It’ is what ‘it’ is.

          /Mind blown look.

          1. But did he leave some of it on a blue dress?

  8. “This, Somehow, Has LGBT Leaders Angry”

    Somehow?
    Here’s how:
    TRUMP!!!!!!!

    1. I’m surprised they didn’t call him a racist for calling out Islamic countries about gay rights.

      It’s all so….upside down.

      They have no principles. Simple as that.

      1. They did call him a racist.

      2. They have no principles.

        Oh, no. They have many, many principles. A whole different set of principles for each Identity Group, and with each set ranked according to the Marginalization Score of the Group to which it applies. The principles which apply to any particular person, group, nation, or situation depend on their particular Identity Intersection. In the matter at hand, being at the intersection of Muslim, dark skinned, impoverished, and under military attack or threat from the US and allies greatly outranks being homosexual, so the principle of sexual liberation must be set aside.

      3. They have 1 principle – Leftist Power.

        Once you accept that, you stop fretting over their logical inconsistencies. They certainly don’t fret over them. All their rhetoric is nothing manipulation toward Principle 1.

        1. Correct.
          Their principle is totalitarianism – everything else is window dressing

  9. Orange Hitler clearly just wants to trick the world into thinking he’s not a bigot ? despite the fact that he’s literally trying to establish The Handmaid’s Tale in the US. It’s a well-established fact that hate crimes against marginalized groups have increased since his election has emboldened extremists. Has everybody already forgotten that two white MAGA punks attempted a modern-day lynching of a gay actor of color just weeks ago?

    Ellen Page was exactly right: Ellen Page Calls Out Trump And Pence Over Hate: ‘This Needs To F**king Stop!’

    1. Did you write the ‘Out Magazine’ article ?

      Are you MATHEW RODRIGUEZ?

      How about the one called “Don’t Be So Quick to Trust the Chicago Police Department”

      Jussie is being framed !

      1. His friends affectionately call him Smelly Jockstrap.

    2. Sorry, OBL, there’s just no opening any more for your act. What passes for real life self-satirizes, esp. along these lines.

    3. Trump’s trying to push these countries to decriminalize homosexuality, so that he and Pence will have an excuse to invade them for their “immoral ways” once the American Theocracy is complete.

      1. It could be worse: we could have elected that drunken, corrupt, warmongering shrew.

    4. I must have missed your reference supporting “hate crimes against marginalized groups have increased since his election”.

  10. “Out” knows and accepts where gays rank on the SJW totem pole of outrage.

    1. Heck, they already moved down a notch when they went from GLBT to LGBT. Musta been serious since it’s harder to pronounce. Ladies 1st?

    2. Gay men are not even on the “SJW totem pole of outrage” anymore. They’re considered “privileged”. Unless they have vaginas, of course.

      1. Seriously. The first time I read about how gay white men are privileged I about shit my pants… Since they’d been a HORRIBLY oppresses group like, literally, a day earlier. It’s insane.

    3. “pole of outrage” phrasing?

  11. “”This has, in both a baffling and yet predictable pattern, angered several loud voices in the LGBT community.””

    Of course it has! SJW is not about the J it is about the W! Individual rights take a back seat to group rights, which take a distant back seat to upholding the narrative du’jour.

    Cripes almighty, Trump could help an elderly person cross the street the and Left would bitch about ageism or something.

    1. You know the new saying

      If Trump walked on water the media would report that Trump doesn’t know how to swim.

      wish i knew who the author was to credit him

      1. interestingly enough the media did think Obama could walk on water when in reality he probably would sink

        1. Doesn’t it mean that you’re innocent if you sink and drown? Or…wait…that just means Obama wasn’t a witch…right?

          1. So you are saying we should have elected Hillary because, she IS a witch?

        2. Stereotypes are there for a reason…

  12. Phew, I thought that Scott was going to blow his chance to disparage Trump.

    Upshot, Scott maligned Trump a little less than the activist from the LGBT community that Scott was criticizing.

    1. One should always take the chance to disparage those in power.

  13. This crap is ridiculous. Whatever his numerous faults (and they are numerous), Trump, is, literally, the most pro-LGBT President in the history of the United States. He would probably retain that title even if you included all the manifold Presidential *candidates* throughout history.

    1. It really is nuts. You are totally right, yet so many people are absolutely convinced, whatever evidence there might be to the contrary, that Trump must be some terrible anti-gay monster. There is a lot of insane criticism of Trump, but I think this takes the cake.

      1. It’s because the left and Democrats in general simply take it as read that if you are Republican, you are anti-gay.

        Period.

        It doesn’t matter what you say or do, it matters what party you are in.

        Period.

        In fairness to Democrats, the right and Republicans make their own wrong assumptions about Democrats as well (Like lumping them in with especially dim bulbs like AOC or Sanders.). That said, you’ll see Republicans agree with Democrats way more often than you’ll see Democrats agree with Republicans. This is because Republicans are slowly learning to embrace government spending as a way to maintain office.

        That tends to happen when one party runs on giving everyone a free Unicorn that cures AIDS in every pot.

        1. “It’s because the left and Democrats in general simply take it as read that if you are Republican, you are anti-gay.”

          Identity politics is identity market segmentation selling Leftist power.
          Never believe for a second that they care about you.
          They hate *all* of us.

        2. I belong to a LGBT group dedicated to LGBT conservatives and libertarians. It appears to be a growing movement (as does some polling show that among African Americans and Hispanic Americans, Trump’s popularity is increasing).

          1. Reading the comment section on Out there wasn’t a single positive comment in the article and a number of the community stated this is why they have left the LGBT rights groups and many more stated they are tired of being taken for granted and thus we’re #walkingaway. Some of us realized that a long time ago.

          2. So GoProud 2.0?

            I mean, not to be unkind, but we hear this sort of thing every few years. Why should anyone take you seriously this time after so many previous failures?

            1. Why would it be a failure? It sounds more like he’s describing a possible trend, not something that would be considered either a failure or a success.

              1. If he’s just talking about a social group, then sure.

                But as my comment made perfectly clear, I interpreted his comment to mean a new advocacy group, similar to LCR and the defunct GoProud?. In which case success and failure can be measured by how much they actually achieve their objectives. Which conservative gay rights groups have a shitty record of doing.
                ________
                ?Which was the shiny and new “LGBT group dedicated to LGBT conservatives and libertarians” a few years ago, which was growing and going to do all these amazing things, and the GOP was going to drop it’s anti-gay policies… and then none of that happened, it’s board of directors pushed out all the gays from leadership roles, and it shut down. If you want a more charitable reading of the rise and fall of GoProud, i’m sure you can find it somewhere, but to the rest of us it was a pretty dismal failure.

  14. He’s not empathetic and he’s not very good at pretending to care about things that he obviously cares little about.

    “That I can tell you is horrible,” the former Celebrity Apprentice host said Thursday when asked about the racist and homophobic attack on Jussie Smollett that seemingly occurred early Tuesday morning. “It doesn’t get worse,” the president added.

    It doesn’t get any less pretend than that!

  15. Mind you, a significant amount of anti-gay animus in some non-Muslim African and Caribbean countries is a result of the spread of certain strains of Western Christianity to these countries. It was colonialism that arguably pushed anti-gay attitudes on some of these countries and encouraged them to treat their gay and transgender inhabitants as evil threats.

    Hey I dislike Christianity as much as the next neo-Germanic pagan. But this is just more of the “noble savage” bullshit. Is Scott actually arguing that pre-Christian African and Caribbean tribes were welcoming to homosexuality? Evidence? I know there is evidence of my pre-Christian ancestors not being particularly welcoming to homosexuality. Even the Allfather was criticized by Loki (him who actually changed sexes. And species.) for being feminine because he used feminine magic.

    1. Yeah, I don’t think you can lay all the blame on Christianity being introduced. I’m no expert, but I don’t think there are a lot of traditional cultures or religions that are particularly accepting of homosexuality. Gay rights/acceptance and protecting and respecting traditional cultures are goals that are largely at odds.

      1. Uhh…look up the culture that invented the term ‘long pig’ and tell me more about how great those cultures were.

        Factually speaking, ‘savage’ is underselling how fucked up plenty of them were and, in some cases, still are.

        What’s perhaps the most amusing of all is how openly hostile the gay community is towards Christians (and deservedly so in many cases) yet Muslims are the one’ still throwing gays off buildings. Somehow, the gay community is ok with increased Muslim immigration?

        Something tells me they are a whole lot less ok with that, but to me the bigger question is why exactly is it evil for the United States to encourage other nations to stop murdering people? Why is the only possible solution to import them into the United States? To me, it seems pretty rational to keep foreign problems as foreign problems instead of making them domestic problems RE: Pulse nightclub.

        1. No kidding. I know there are a few Christians who would still prefer to have sodomy laws on the books. But most of the ones I know (I live in Kansas, I know quite a few!) while not condoning it, don’t wish any ill will to gays.

          1. Which is the correct Christian answer, at least in my view. The central premise of the Christian faith is that everyone sins, and that all sins are equal. This notion some Christians have that homosexuality is especially evil is not supported by their own faith and it makes me sick to see people who claim the faith treat it as a badge that says they are better than others.

            1. That first clause is central. The second clause, is debated often, and at the least would have a large asterisk next to it.
              The fact that homosexuality is called an abomination puts it into a separate category for some people, even above other sexual sins.

              1. I don’t recall Jesus giving a list of particular ‘abominable extra-super bad sins’, and as he supposedly died for the sins of everyone including the sin of homosexuality…well…the faith is named after a certain individual after all and I don’t recall it being named ‘Pope-ianity’ or ‘Judaism’.

                1. Yeah, Christians have really fucked up Christianity.

                  I’m not a religious man, but I will say that what I see as the real core of Christianity (which aligns pretty well with what you say) is a pretty good guide of how to live and treat other people.

                2. This is how I understand it. A person is either in a state of Sin or not. Why doesn’t really matter. Any sin can be forgiven, no matter how “bad” it might be considered by others. It’s better to have sinned in a very big way and be forgiven (after sincerely asking for it, of course) than have a very small sin and not ask for forgiveness.

              2. This is really simple.

                Gays are welcome in every church I have ever encountered. Homosexual ACTS are considered sins just like having sex with your brother’s wife is.

                If you get up in the pulpit and say “I am fucking my brother’s wife and intend to continue doing it because it does not feel like a sin to me” you should not expect to keep your day job in the church any more that you would by saying “I am fucking my brother and intend to continue doing it because it does not feel like a sin to me”.

                On the other hand, saying “Church, I have sinned against God and failed you as a congregation. Please forgive and help me resist sin as I repent and ask God for forgiveness.” And you will probably get lots of support and keep that church job.

                If you demand that the churches abandon considering homosexual acts as sins, the problem is not them, it is you. They are not enforcing their views on you, you wish to enforce yours on them.

            2. Is it even mentioned in the new testament? Isn’t the prohibition against sodomy akin to the prohibition on masturbation and “spilling your seed on the ground”, and also related to polygamy? The reasoning behind all of these is that the tribe was small, and sperm shouldn’t be wasted because the tribe wanted more offspring? (And who doesn’t, Offspring is a great band)

              1. And the thing Sodom got destroyed for wasn’t gay sex, it was trying to violently rape guests.

              2. The spilling of the seed as an anti-masturbation commandment is contested by a number of theologicians, and not taught in a number of denominations. The phrase comes from the story of Onan who was a second son. His older brother was killed and God commanded Onan to impregnate his brother’s wife to carry on his brother’s line (this was Hebrew tradition). Onan refused and pulled out “spilling his seed on barren ground” i.e. he spooged on her rather then in her. God struck him down for disobeying him. Some in the 19th century twisted this story to make it about masturbation.

                1. Onan could also be seen to have committed incest with his sister in law by Hebrew traditions, since they only reason he would be permitted to sleep with her is because he was trying to impregnate her but by purposely withdrawing he was blatantly not trying to impregnate her. That is also a crime. However, ejaculation just made one impure, which was not a sin, and one only had to ritually bathe to become pure again (Leviticus). The story of Onan is from the Book of Genesis.

              3. Re: DenverJ
                Responding as it seems you’re asking a genuine question. Homosexuality is mentioned several times in the NT.
                Romans 1
                “26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

                At the same time, Romans 3:10 is where you find the statement that we’re all basically in the same boat.
                I would agree that it’s wrong to put any certain kind of sinner in a different category, as we’re really on a level playing field in relation to God.

                Jesus himself said that looking at a person with lust is committing adultery in your heart. Christ never used a definition of marriage outside 1 man/1 woman.

              4. It is mentioned, but only three times (in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy). Jesus never utters a word on the subject; all three references are by Paul, who had a lot of sexual hang-ups besides just gays. After all, he is the man who excoriated both women with short hair and men with long hair. He was, er, difficult to please.

        2. Somehow, the gay community is ok with increased Muslim immigration?

          I suspect that it is not the gay community (whatever the fuck that is) but some gay activists who hold that peculiar position.

    2. Ever wonder how much of Lokisenna was influenced by Xtian propaganda? (BTW, ever see the version of Lokisenna in the movie Dogma?) Also, did he lay into Thor for x-dressing? I forget.

      Scott may have been thinking about Amerindian traditions of berdaches.

      1. If I remember correctly, I believe Loki did berate Thor for dressing as Freya.

        I think most people acknowledge that the Prose Edda was heavily influenced by Christianity. I think it is a lot harder to tell for the poems in the Elder Edda.

    3. For the most part, former British colonies with anti-gay laws on the books inherited them from colonial times. I can’t prove that their residents were tolerant of gays before the British arrived, but it’s easy enough to research the passage of anti-gay legislation during colonial rule.

      1. However, the British also brought with them law books in the first place for a number of places. So I don’t think that really would prove how gays were treated, either socially, or by whatever tribal hierarchy was in place.

      2. Sure. And the UK didn’t make sodomy legal until the 60s I think. Everyone treated the gays like shit until very recently. It just wasn’t controversial.

    4. What traditional cultures object to is not homosexual acts per se, but sexual freedom. Most pre- and non-Christian cultures everywhere and throughout recorded history have institutionalized male homosexual activities in some ways, either openly and publicly, as with pederasty in ancient Greece and feudal Japan or with designated “berdaches” in Native American and Polynesian cultures; or in underground activities that are officially forbidden but tolerated, like the “bacha bazi” culture in Afghanistan. What is shocking to traditional cultures is people defining themselves sexually and conducting their sex lives outside the established rules?men having open relationships with other adult men of their own choosing, and women rejecting men and the role of wife in favor of partnering with women. That is what they see as foreign and a threat to their cultures.

      1. I think you do have something there. It was one thing to know that “whatshisname” likes boys, or that when he is out in the fields, maybe he gets a little randy with the sheep. It is altogether another to have a sacred ceremony binding 2 men or 2 women together.

        1. This sort of thing would make a lot more sense if the traditional opposition was just to gay marriage, and not just to gays.

          Fact is, folks getting worked up over a “sacred ceremony” is a relatively modern thing. The concern for most of Christian history has been with gay folk being gay at all. Pretending that they only objected to gay folk because they were worried about marriage is to ignore the actual history.

          1. The concern for most of Christian history

            Christian history, yes. The point I was making above is that it hasn’t been that way in pre- and non-Christian lands. In those cultures, the concern is about acceptance of homosexuality as an alternative to fulfilling ones traditional role as a man or woman, and not so much about simply engaging in homosexual contact. If a traditional Afghan man is married and has children, no one much cares if he goes to the dance hall and rents a boy for the night once in a while. On the other hand, if he eschewed marriage and fatherhood and lived with an adult male partner instead, that would not be acceptable. That or something similar has been the state of affairs in most of the world, most of the time. The Christian world, on the other hand, stands out in its focus on the sexual acts themselves and its strict prohibition of homosexual contact under any circumstances.

            1. if he eschewed marriage and fatherhood

              It all comes down to reproduction. Societies survive by reproducing. It would not be in the best interests of a society to encourage behavior which ran counter to members of that society reproducing.

              1. But the point is that homosexual activities do not preclude reproduction so long as they are in addition to marriage and parenthood and do not take the place of them. Most societies throughout history have either openly or grudgingly accepted that homosexual activities will take place, and most have provided institutionalized or ritualized ways to accommodate them that don’t interfere with traditional roles. Christian societies stand out from most others in condemning and prohibiting the homosexual acts themselves, under any circumstances, regardless of whether those who engage in them fulfill their reproductive roles.

                1. So, I could rewrite your posts and insert sexual acts with girls for homosexual acts and it would be true. in your enlightened view should sex with 7 year olds be ok too so?

                  Most societies throughout history have either openly or grudgingly accepted that adult males having sexual relations with young girls will take place, and most have provided institutionalized or ritualized ways to accommodate them that don’t interfere with traditional roles. Christian societies stand out from most others in condemning and prohibiting adult males having sexual relations with young girls, under any circumstances, regardless of whether those who engage in them fulfill their reproductive roles.

                  If YOUR argument is valid, then the one above is equally valid since the facts involved are equally true.

                  1. Your reading comprehension is poor. I said nothing about what I think is “OK”.

  16. At this point I want Trump to take progressive positions just to watch the radical left become radical right

    1. I’ve had conversations with people at work about that very thing. If I was Trump, I would be tweeting all kinds of stuff just to rile up the leftards.

  17. If Trump resurrected Mother Theresa and gave her a 7 billion budget to cure homelessness, the left would claim he was violating the separation of church and state in the Jefferson letters.

    The left is simply refusing to accept the results of the federal election in 2016. There is a term for that, more clinically accurate than TDS.

  18. According to the native American counter protesters at the infamous high school MAGA event, Donald Trump is latently gay.

  19. I’m sure that Scott has realized that if you’re gay and you’re not a mouthpiece for the Democrat party that you’re the homosexual equivalent of an Uncle Tom. That’s how this works now. Once you’re on the plantation, you don’t leave kiddo.

    1. The supposed “champions of the marginalized” will savagely marginalize the marginalized if they stop supporting Leftist power

      Identity politics is identity market segmentation selling Leftist power
      Never believe for a second that they care about you
      They hate *all* of us

    2. Wait, what? Uncle Tom was gay?

  20. ” Mind you, a significant amount of anti-gay animus in some non-Muslim African and Caribbean countries is a result of the spread of certain strains of Western Christianity to these countries. It was colonialism that arguably pushed anti-gay attitudes on some of these countries and encouraged them to treat their gay and transgender inhabitants as evil threats. ”

    I’m a little shaky on the history of these places prior to Christian missionaries… But I’d be pleasantly surprised if they were gay and trans meccas prior to Trumpian influence.

    1. Scott steals a huge base by implying that ‘trans’ was a thing prior to this century. Same sex fucking wasn’t uncommon, but I think the closest you’d find to ‘trans’ would be eunuchs who had their junk cut off so they literally couldn’t fuck the harem. Or so they would never hit puberty and would sing real pretty.

      Who knew Scott was into historical revisionism?

      1. A perfectly fair way to portray it, assuming we don’t have any hard evidence on what the gay and trans acceptance culture was in sub-saharan countries might have been:. While evidence about homosexuality and transgender acceptance is scant prior to the arrival of Christians, one can assume that missionaries were teaching Christian doctrine which treats homosexuality as a sin. This could have affected modern attitudes today.

        1. It wouldn’t even occur to someone in a culture without cosmetic surgery that they were, or even could be, a different sex. Gender theory is such a modern invention it’s ludicrous to apply it retroactively.

          So, yeah, a massive stolen base.

          Gay sex is in the Bible, at the very least, and Roman accounts which is probably made up of stories going back around 4000 years ago. Maybe, and it’s a big maybe, you could find what we call transvestites today in there somewhere. If you asked about gender 4000 years ago, you’d get the ‘there are only two of those’ answer. Shit, if you asked that question twenty years ago it would have been the same answer.

          1. It’s ludicrous to apply at all.

          2. It wouldn’t even occur to someone in a culture without cosmetic surgery that they were, or even could be, a different sex.

            I forget the exact details, but you had instances with plains indians and other groups having, for lack of a better term, an “other” gender classification. As I recall, at least for one tribe of the indians, you had males dressing in female garb, assisting with homefront duties, and even taking husbands.

            While certainly not common, not as rare as you are making it out to be.

            1. It seems like the exact details might come in handy when making a claim, since I know of cultures who took slaves then raped them too. Is that another gender, or something else?

              1. I’m sorry, I missed the supporting details for your own claims as well. Informality and all that.

                Although reading through the entire thread, some people have even more information regarding the practices that I barely remember

                Although I applaud your definitive expertise in slave raping.

                1. The culture I was speaking of was our own (RE: Jefferson family tree), and that of the ‘Native American’s’ you were talking about as well. There are only about a few hundred tribes, so I was curious.

                  Sadly, I do not click on shortened links but I will assume it’s in support of your point. I’m not trying to be snarky or dismissive, it’s just something I don’t do.

                  I’ve read the other comments, can’t say I saw any claiming that some native tribes had man-wife genders. I assume there were gay Indians as well, so I suppose one must ask themselves what differentiates a gay man from a trans-man. It would seem the answer is that a trans-man can be a lesbian, and I’m having a hard time coming up with historical examples of that.

                    1. The thing about the “transgender” portion of the Two-Spirit phenomena that’s never mentioned is that it was only applicable when the medicine man was channeling a female spirit.
                      When he was channeling male spirits, the spirit possessing him may take a wife who wasn’t the host’s wife.
                      I see the Wikipedia article has been edited again to make it seem like the practice was a form of transgenderism, and remove the religious aspects.

                2. I’m sorry, I missed the supporting references for your own claims as well.

      2. I think there have probably always been a tiny percentage of people who perhaps wished they were the other sex, or exhibited traits more indicative of the opposite sex.
        I think the big change is that it is “cool” now so a whole lot more people who may have other emotional issues jump on this.

        I do think the whole “gender fluid” thing is pretty much a load of shit. Or the idea that there are 43 or 78 or infinite number of “genders”. That is new from the last 50 years or so.

        1. I do think the whole “gender fluid” thing is pretty much a load of shit.

          Why? I mean, if you accept the idea that gender is separate from sex, then “gender fluid” just means that a person refuses to accept a single state of gender for their identity.

          1. Because at that point it becomes a term without meaning. If one of your categories is ‘this category includes all categories’ you’ve fucked up somewhere along the line.

            1. Not really.

              “We have 10 categories that 99.9% of people will sort themselves into, and remain constant to, in their adults lives. The remaining 0.1% of people will spend most of their time either defying categorization or moving from one to the other, having no fixed identity”.

              Bam. Acknowledges that some people are fluid, while also identifying the categories that apply to the non-fluids among us.

              1. Anyone who is fluid will eventually dry up.

          2. I never said I did accept the idea that gender is separate from sex.

            However, I am certainly open to the idea that sex and gender, while intimately related, aren’t the same thing.
            Sex is the physical description of either male or female (XX vs XY as exhibited via genitalia, hormonal differences, grey to white matter ratios, etc.)
            Gender being the manifestation of traits traditionally associated with males (masculinity) or females (femininity).

            Sex is binary. Male or female. (It doesn’t make any sense to refer to the tiny percentage of people who are intersex or hermaphroditic. Those are obviously aberrations. Just like there are different kind of healthy cells, but cancer cells shouldn’t be discussed in the same way.)

            I can accept that gender could very well be on a spectrum. 100% feminine on one side to 100% masculine on the other. There can exist feminine acting men, and masculine acting women. Which is fine. Which seems to imply that really, there exists 1 gender for every individual human since there are literally an infinite number of places that can exist on the spectrum. And it follows that the very idea of defining gender is completely useless. There is quite literally no point in arguing over someone’s gender. If a man says they “feel feminine” how can anyone argue that.

            The fundamental problem with the progressive left, is that they intentionally mix the two whenever it benefits their position.


            1. Which seems to imply that really, there exists 1 gender for every individual human since there are literally an infinite number of places that can exist on the spectrum.

              Well said. The attempt to create basket categories would appear to be a fools errand given that view of gender. The fact that one of those categories is ‘all of the above’ is a giveaway that their ‘gender theory’ has more holes than substance.

          3. Just be how you want to be. Why the hell does every different kind of expression of gender/sexuality/etc. need its own category? If you are feeling extra feminine today, go for it.
            Seems to me a big problem here is that people are looking for identity in the wrong place. I mean, who you like to fuck (unless it’s me) or what gender you feel most like today are really not the most important things about a person.

          4. There are two sexes.

            There are two genders.

            Because humans have no other gestational roles.

            There are a nigh infinite number of sexual orientations, fetishes, proclivities, preferences etc that are being incorrectly luimped into the category ‘gender’

            And all of the genders boil down to what type of hole you like to get stuck in, or have stuck in. Even the myriad ‘ace’ ones (yes, there are tons of asexual genders that describe the preferences of the ‘gender’ that doesn’t want to have sex. There are also ‘ace’ parenting books, for asexuals with kids. Yeah. You read that right.).

            The higher incidence of ‘trans’ these days comes not from persons desiring to transition from male to female, but from those ‘transitioning’ from greygender to….say ….demisexual.

            There is, therefore, no way to be ‘gender fluid’. It is transitioning to be trans—and THAT says everything you need to know about all of this.


        2. I think there have probably always been a tiny percentage of people who perhaps wished they were the other sex, or exhibited traits more indicative of the opposite sex.
          I think the big change is that it is “cool” now so a whole lot more people who may have other emotional issues jump on this.

          Maybe, I can agree with that. I just don’t think that in a world without cosmetic surgery or first world problems it could have possibly mattered to more than a few people, or cults, historically. Generally, you’d be more concerned with ‘what am I going to eat today’ rather than devoting a whole lot of time to thinking you feel like a sex you are not, especially when you literally can’t know what it feels like to be them in the first place.

          The example I love to use is this: If you tell a woman you know exactly what it feels like to be them, and face their daily challenges, I think you’ll be surprised at their answer. That is basically what men who claim to be women are saying, and it’s precisely what makes them mentally ill and delusional (and yes, this works for women who claim to be men as well).

          1. I think too, there is a difference between:
            a man wishing he was a woman (and/or pretending to be a woman)
            and
            a man thinking he is a woman, just born with the wrong junk

            I don’t want to get into the arguments about SRS or anything.

            My gut feeling, is that throughout history, there were a few that fit the first, but hardly any that would have fit the second (except perhaps those men who thought they were Queen Victoria or something).
            Now, it seems that it is common to hear people express the second much more often.

            1. That’s where they start to lose me. If someone thinks they can be happiest living as the other sex, good for them. I wish them luck. But the insistence by some that no, they actually literally are the other sex, despite anatomy and genetics indicating otherwise is a bit much.

      3. Same sex fucking wasn’t uncommon, but I think the closest you’d find to ‘trans’ would be eunuchs who had their junk cut off so they literally couldn’t fuck the harem.

        Ironically, this is basically what happens with kids whose parents put them on puberty hormone blockers.

        1. “Ironically”? Is it? Or is it in fact the same practice?

    2. I’m a little shaky on the history of these places prior to Christian missionaries… But I’d be pleasantly surprised if they were gay and trans meccas prior to Trumpian influence.

      No they probably weren’t “gay and trans meccas”. But the point Scott is trying to make here, I think, is that the *current* push to criminalize homosexuality in many of these countries *is* being directly abetted by Western Christian groups

      See e.g.: http://www.thenation.com/artic…..ht-africa/

      So sure, before these groups got involved, homosexuality was already illegal in many African nations in one form or another. But current meddling by these Christian groups is turning the penalties up to eleventy.

      1. The quote is ‘Trumpian influence’ not ‘Christian influence’, and notably Trump is possibly one of the worst examples of a Christian I can think of. How many wives has he had again, and how many of them has he cheated on?

        Trump, in the context of this story, is breaking with conservative Christian values and promoting a modern classically liberal agenda oversea’s via peaceful tactics. I take it you’re cheering him on for this move?

        1. I think I’ll wait and see precisely what his strategy is in pursuing this goal before I start the cheering.

          1. Here’s my guess:. Bureaucrats and institutional momentum live longer lives than presidents. Trump probably hasn’t spent a lot of time thinking about this subject at all, it’s just continued momentum from previous administration’s.

          2. Right after you decry private religious institutions going abroad to spread their faith to third world countries? What about their freedom of religion and freedom of movement, yo?

            1. Yes, what about their freedom of religion and freedom of movement? Can you point out where I said I wanted to restrict their freedom of religion and freedom of movement? Oh no wait you can’t, you’re just playing lame gotcha games.

              1. Personally I found it amusing that you were bitching about American fundamentalists going to another country to change their laws to be less liberal. Pretty ironic, even.

                1. More lame gotcha games.

      2. Here’s the thing Chemjeff, the whole “Xtians are turning countries anti” is absolute horseshit, and is done for political purposes by special interest groups who need the fearmongering dialed up to eleven to keep the money flowing.

        For example, The Evangelical Fellowship of Zimbabwe the article and Huffpo scream about, is run by fourteen people, none who have influence in the Nigerian Government. And their big concern is actually the spread of Sharia from Northern Nigeria, not teh gay. Natalie Baptiste makes a big deal about a pamphlet (a fucking pamphlet, super effective) they were purported to have written which they say they didn’t.

        Baptiste then frets about Pat Robertson’s channel which she shrieks is BROADCAST IN OVER 200 COUNTRIES (via the internet), and declares that old Pat isn’t fond of buggery, and all Nigerians watch him. But Pat speaks English, not Yoruba, and actively avoids the topic of homosexuality on his show now.

        But you know what pisses me off the most about concern trolls like you and Baptiste, Chemjeff? It’s the fact that you don’t actually believe that African peoples have their own agency. You think they’re all gullible children who swallow anything a white Bwana tells them.
        Fuck you both, you patronizing bigots.

  21. Yeah, Trump is many despicable things, but homophobe probably isn’t one of them.

  22. Eh. this is hardly unexpected from the all hat, no cattle wing of LGBT cosplay activist. Let’s not forget Obama (and most democrats) had the same reservations as Bush the Lessor over gay marriage (or in the parlance of the time, “evolving”), but somehow didn’t manage the same level of ire from the parade enthusiasts.

    Once more, when it is pointed out Obama actually sabotaged LGBT legal standing (Republicans you say) by repealing DADT, denying homosexuals legal precedent, the response is somehow twisted into Obama and democrats championing gay rights. With friends like these… and from a Constitutional scholar to boot!

    AND EVEN THAT was derided by parade enthusiasts as grandstanding (pot; kettle) from the Log Cabins. Except Log Cabin Republicans v. United States was initiated in 2004, under Bush. Ooops.

    The whole from LGBT “leadership” has been a complete farce, with the mainstay of legal advancement coming strangely from those they condemn. That Trump is supporting this means something more than progressive stack bingo might take place. And in some of the worst places in the world for homosexuals.

    1. Yep. When Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, the state was arresting people for same-sex relationships, but people who supported Clinton in the 1990’s without objecting to his homophobia expect me to like him now just because I am bi.

    2. It’s a farce because, as John pointed out a few yrs. ago, like the rest of the “left”, they can never win. They can never acknowledge victory. They have to keep going on as if the ground ahead to gain is the same as the ground behind.

      1. Hey Robert Hihn, fuck off

  23. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,

    ============>> http://www.SalaryHd.com

  24. The joys of intersectionality and the progressive stack. You can offend radical Muslims to the point that woke gays start defending the very people who would throw them from the rooftops if given the chance. I want to laugh, but at the same time I am constantly reminded of all the radical leftist Jews who invite these very same Muslims into our country. It stops being funny the moment your ass is on the line.

  25. Trump has a firmly established habit of talking up gay rights only as a means to bash Muslims as a whole, a particular bigotry of his that nobody can deny.

    More speculatively, Trump probably doesn’t care one way or the other about any of it. He doesn’t seem to care about anything but whether Fox & Friends stroke his toadstool in the mornings.

    1. A bigotry shared by Obama, who’s administration compiled the list of nations to restrict immigration from before Trump ever took office. Because those nations in particular were unstable and hotbeds of terrorist activity. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim worldwide.

    2. Trump has a firmly established habit of talking up gay rights only as a means to bash Muslims as a whole, a particular bigotry of his that nobody can deny.

      Weird how he was doing it before he ever considered running for office then.

      He must be psychic!!

  26. It should be pretty clear by now — The Democratic Party doesn’t really hate Policy they just hate Trump and the Republicans. Why else would they support a Wall for Obama yet shutdown the government for a month OBSTRUCTING the exact same Wall for the current administration.

    1. They hate us all
      They hate themselves
      They hate life

      Their primary motivation is resentment of existence

      1. They hate the planet
        They hate the solar system
        They hate the universe
        They are ultra-nihilists who want to blow up all of existence out of sheer rage

        No wait a minute, that’s a comic book villain, not anyone real

        1. I dunno. I bet AOC would be down. Certainly if AOC had some of Bernie’s children, that child would be down.

  27. Very rational and intelligent argument.

  28. “The appropriate way to respond to all of these decisions is to grasp Trump’s transactional nature. Trump is just flat-out not going to see a relationship between this policy encouraging other countries to decriminalize homosexuality and his anti-amnesty measures that make it harder for people from these very same countries to come to America for safety. And he deserves criticism for that.”

    Always and forever, Open Border Uber Alles.

    Americans exist as chunks of protein for foreigners to consume.

  29. These angry LGBT Leaders are just yapping little dogs that are barking fearlessly because they can’t do anything else. But all this noise does prove something though. It proves that all though Trump has not done anything to hurt them and much to help them, economy, jobs etc. And now how can they claim that after the administration, urged by U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell (who is openly gay), was “planning to launch a worldwide effort to end the criminalization of homosexuality worldwide.” Yet they claim that it is some kind of hate by the whites. That with most of the nations that criminalize homosexuality are in the dark skinned nations such as in Africa and the Middle East. Yep this show just how much they and the left hate Trump! Not just his action.

  30. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  31. This is very simple to understand; under the Progressive Left most, if not all, ’cause’ groups are more about promoting the Progressive Left than they are about the cause they supposedly represent. Thus ‘Feminist’ groups that don’t give a fat damn about Islamic treatment of women, ‘Gay Rights’ groups that are rather more interested in criticizing Trump than in promoting legal tolerance for Gays worldwide, and ‘Environmentalists’ who push for ‘solutions’ that would be environmentally disastrous.

    1. In the march through the institutions, they’re just more institutions to march through. Only the Party exists for its own sake, every other organization exists only for the Party.

  32. In this “post truth” age, people are encouraged to make decisions based on emotions and ignore the inconvenient facts.

    That’s why highly divisive conflicts don’t get resolved. When facts are irrelevant whose emotion is right?

    This gay issue is easily resolved with logic and science, but the LGBTQ’s are obstructing.

    LGBTQ is either a choice or it isn’t.

    As a choice, cultures have the right to regulate it as part of their sovereignty. The numerous examples of people changing their genders throughout life indicates a choice. As an identifying characteristic on documents sex cannot change arbitrarily.

    As not a choice, logic demands that LGBTQ is a disorder that inhibits and interferes with the normal human function and established system of mating and raising ones genetic offspring in a nuclear family. The sterilizing sex reassignment surgery for transgender requires the diagnosis of gender dysphoria mental disorder. As a disorder, treatment, not persecution would be choice of sovereign governments.

    Neither option suits the LGBTQ’s, so they obstruct the resolution of the conflict.

  33. Trump is such a fag!

    In all seriousness though, I really don’t give a shit if somebody is gay or whatever. I’ve had gay friends since middle school, I was the 2nd person in the world a friend came out to because he knew I wouldn’t rip on him. But Big Gay (Like Big Tobacco, but GAYER!) has gone too far the last few years. They’ve gone from fighting for semi-reasonable things, to trying to be oppressive Nazis themselves. And that shit needs to stop. Until that does stop, I’m basically not down with helping The Gays get their way on anything.

    This is not to say that the Saudis shouldn’t stop throwing The Gays off of roofs and shit, because that is clearly mean. But I just don’t see why we should be spending any government time/money/effort on this bullshit. I think this is a bad miscalculation for Trump though. He is more likely to lose some of his actual gay hating Evangelical voters than gain any homos. If he just kept some of this stuff going, but didn’t make a point of mentioning it, that might be his best play. He still seems to not realize that certain people just DESPISE him, and no amount of cucking on things will change their minds. It’s like his fucking over 2A people FOR NO REASON. Nobody on the left came to his side over a pointless bump stock ban, but he sure as hell pissed off 2A people.

  34. Trump has shown himself to be a very transactional political leader. His support for policies is often tied to what he stands to gain politically from their implementation.

    Like the wall? Tariffs? Paris accord? Lower corporate tax rates? Embracing N Korea? Out of Syria?

    No, these are done NOT because they were widely popular – they were NOT particularly popular – but because Trump sees them as beneficial. This whole idea of him being transactional seems like BS.

    What exactly is transactional anyway?

  35. What, no update about Trump’s “whatcha talkin’ ’bout Willis?” moment?

    Long story short, yesterday a reporter asked Trump about this. He had no idea what they were talking about. So he either rubber-stamped something or his own folks are going rogue on him.

    1. Hey, you must’ve misplaced that cite…..

      1. As I’ve made clear before, I don’t bother with cites ’round here because I have zero faith that any of you will engage me in good faith, and as such it’s just not worth the effort.

        That said, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, in this morning’s round-up, did include the cite. You can find it there if you actually care.

  36. “So just to be clear here: Trump is being yelled at by some LGBT voices for continuing on a policy implemented by the Obama administration. And the Obama administration’s move was a widely lauded reversal of Bush’s rejection, and Bush’s rejection of this very same declaration was previously attacked by LGBT leaders.”
    People are so f&@?Ed up in their thinking.
    I oppose Social Security as a wealth transfer program, but would be a fool to not accept that monthly check and the idiocy of Medicare coverage that comes along as well. LBGTQs should take the good from wherever it comes. They cry “bipartisan” and then rail against it. They have lost esteem!

  37. “It was colonialism that arguably pushed anti-gay attitudes on some of these countries and encouraged them to treat their gay and transgender inhabitants as evil threats.” Why does Reason support Intersectionalist views over Trans-Exclusionary-Radical-Feminism?

    1. Such a bunch of BS to begin with. Being gay is basically looked down on in almost every single society I have ever read about in history. I can think of a few societies where it was acceptable, but none where it was being pushed as being a POSITIVE like it is in the modern west.

      I’d bet my ass 100%, or at least 99% of the the countries that were colonized WERE NOT pro gay before honkies showed up. It’s just more BS trying to frame white people for all the ills in the world, when in fact we’re the ones who have mostly righted all the historical wrongs.

  38. Trump is a Lindsay era New Yorker with a greater than average need to be liked by others. Regard and treat him in those contexts and you can both understand and manipulate him.

  39. Some people say they want to end bullying, but what they really want is to be the bully.

  40. I’ve just about had it up to here with faggots and queers. Nothing is ever good enough for the hershey highwaymen.
    We should invite them to take themselves and their stupid fucking parades to some enlightened Muslim country and see how the local Prince Diaperhead treats them.

  41. When you placate the angry’s nonsense, expect more anger and nonsense.

  42. Martina Navratilova has them angry. Anybody who doesn’t precisely bow down to their dogma angers them.

  43. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+…………….. http://www.pay-buzz.com

  44. What’s surprising about this? When it comes to liberals, intentions count for more than actions. So Trump is to be criticized for not really *intending* to help LGBT people, even though he is clearly taking actions that will help them. Furthermore, Trump is supposed to be criticized for being Trump, even if he does the EXACT same thing previous presidents did. You just don’t get liberal-logic, that’s all!

  45. Yeah, all that, but “Orange Man Bad” beats “Mullahs Hanging Gay Men From Construction Equipment Using Piano Wire Bad” every time.

  46. All the outrage, and fewer and fewer places to spew it. Progressives are not content to succeed at a cause, as the cause was never the goal, rather progressives seethe as part of their self hatred, and must continue to spew their hatred at whatever ‘just’ cause they can latch onto.

  47. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.