Individualism

Be Who You Are, Love Who You Want

|

One of the weirdest things about social progress is that it almost immediately gets so normalized that we forget how awful even the recent past could be. Nowhere is this truer than when it comes to what used to be called the "love that dare not speak its name." Until recently, being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or anything slightly off the beaten path sexually meant living in silence, if not living a lie.

Back in the day, openly having a kink or being attracted to people of the same sex invited not just physical abuse and forced psychiatric counseling but also the possible loss of your livelihood, family, and friends. Even sympathetic treatments such as The Boys in the Band characterized gays as inherently neurotic and unhappy. Whole sitcoms, such as Three's Company, which bestrode the small screen as a ratings colossus for eight years in the '70s and '80s, trafficked in repetitious, mean-spirited, and comedy-free gags about men who were "light in the loafers," "tinkerbells," or, worse still, florists.

That was then. Somewhere along the line, queers convinced straights of their fundamental humanity, and many of us, in turn, realized that finding love and meaning was hard enough without layering on religious, psychological, and legal guilt trips.

Facebook began offering its users no fewer than 58 gender descriptors, all the way from agender to neither to two-spirit, and Porn Hub, the X-rated website, has more flavors of offerings than Baskin-Robbins and Howard Johnson's combined.

The literary critic Camille Paglia, who identifies as both queer and trans, sees the proliferation of ever-more-subdivided sexual identities as a premonition of the end of civilization, a narcissistic indulgence that becomes incapable of sustaining itself literally or figuratively. The same thing, she told Reason three years ago, happened in the last days of Rome, the British Empire, and Weimar Germany.

Well, maybe. Or perhaps everything in our world, from the food we eat to the clothes we wear to the medicine we take, is just more personalized than it used to be. And it's only going to keep getting more so as we grow increasingly comfortable acknowledging both our common humanity and our unique individuality.

How we define ourselves in terms of gender and sexual orientation is a crucial part of self-expression. It's nothing short of miraculous that Bruce Jenner, who as the commie-vanquishing 1976 Olympic decathlon champion was the apotheosis of postwar American masculinity, evolved into Caitlyn Jenner. And when she became the butt of jokes on an infamous episode of South Park, it was not because of her transition but because of her terrible driving skills.

NEXT: Brickbat: Nosing Around

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.

Please to post comments

237 responses to “Be Who You Are, Love Who You Want

  1. …is just more personalized than it used to be.

    Doesn’t everyone getting shoved into his or her (or other) pigeonhole just further separate us?

    1. I thought everyone getting their own pigeonhole was the American Dream.

      1. That’s not even a punchline dude. Fuck. If you can’t think of anything clever to say it’s totally permissible to just say nothing instead of groping for a non-sequitur.

        1. “The same thing, she told Reason three years ago, happened in the last days of Rome, the British Empire, and Weimar Germany.”

          Life is a cabaret, my friend.

          Now dish on that, killjoy.

          1. He’s just upset because CMW didn’t say, “I thought everyone getting his or her own pigeonhole was the American Dream.”

            1. Semantics shemantics.

          2. “The same thing, she told Reason three years ago, happened in the last days of Rome…And it’s only going to keep getting more so as ” the little caesar in the White House invites more of Tiberius and Caligula’s inheritors to join Mar Del Lago and the National Security Council.

    2. Doesn’t everyone getting shoved into his or her (or other) pigeonhole just further separate us?

      Open-minded describes people who avoid getting pigeonholed. Labels make it easier to clearly express what type of partner someone wants so people can find each other and avoid miscommunications. When I meet a straight man, he and I can start a platonic friendship. When I meet a “straight” man I avoid him like the plague until he figures out what the fuck he wants.

      1. OK, I don’t get it, and apparently no one else here does either (since no one else has responded).

        You’re looking for a straight man, to ask you a question in response to the above, right? So that you can deliver the punch line?

        Since we are all duh-heads, apparently, PLEASE tell us WHAT question one of us should ask, so that we can get to your punch line!

        (PS, if the punch line is “There stood the pig and the cow”, then, I have already heard that one!) (Yes, I liked it, at least the first time around).

    3. The kids are all the same in their uniqueness; blue hair, tattoos, 2.3 on the Kinsey scale…

  2. Then it went to legal and cultural guilt trips to force the larger society to acknowledge and celebrate obscure and incomprehensible self identifications, and just utter denial of physiological reality. Like the schadenfreude inducing firing of the Planned Parenthood president last week.

    This aspect of sexual “progress” has developed into a strangely dogmatic and intolerant quasi-religion of its own.

    1. “…a strangely dogmatic and intolerant quasi-religion of its own.”

      Shades of the French Revolution, non?

      1. History making bad rhymes again.

    2. This aspect of sexual “progress” has developed into a strangely dogmatic and intolerant quasi-religion of its own.

      Requiring people to act as if an M-T-F trans can get pregnant today is just as nutty as requiring people to act as if a woman got pregnant in the first century while remaining a virgin.

      1. Before.

        That particular virgin birth was the staring point of the first century.

        And there is no requirement to act as if a woman could get pregnant while remaining a virgin for anyone save those who are members of a faith that has that particular act as a prime tenet. And, even then, it is acceptable to see it as allegory.

    3. This aspect of sexual “progress” has developed into a strangely dogmatic and intolerant quasi-religion of its own.

      By some….

      Others, the libertarian types, really are just happy to finally be able to just get on with life, worrying about paying the bills, aging parents, etc,; just as sick as their straight fellow citizens of all of the fuss about who sleeps with whom. Just like most people, you don’t know they are there, since they tend to keep their mouths shut.

    4. Be who you are, love who you want, force the language and the culture and science to bend to your whim….

      1. Perfectly put.. lol…

    5. Progress, mi arse!!!!….Below from Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute:

      “Fifty years ago, who would have predicted that God would place kindergarten teachers and wedding florists and cake-bakers on the frontline of the cultural war for truth about sexuality and marriage? All believers should be prepared to answer when God calls, and other believers should come alongside them during their trials. We look with admiration at the costs of discipleship for men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and then when God puts a trial before us, we rationalize taking the path of least resistance. We should be ashamed.

      Remember when sexual anarchists told us all they wanted was to be left alone to do whatever it is they do in their bedrooms? Remember when they claimed that their private actions would have no affect on the culture?

      Initially their claims seemed believable because all they asked was that society tolerate (i.e., put up with) their private sexual peccadillos. Then they asked for approval of them. Then they demanded celebration and began marching down Main Street in costumes that should have stayed in their closets in their bedrooms.

      Then they transmogrified non-marital unions into unions legally recognized as “marriage.”

      Then couples whose erotic activities are inherently non-reproductive started acquiring children—acquisitions that they view as “rights.” They even demanded that laws be changed so that they could acquire children and that any organization that believes children have a right to a mother and father be shut down.

      They then went for citizens’ right to assemble by going after the Boy Scouts.

      Then they came into our public schools, including our elementary schools, to introduce malleable minds and kind hearts to positive images of a phenomenon that God abhors, teaching children that Leftist moral beliefs are facts and conservative moral beliefs are hatred.

      Then they fought to compel people of faith to violate their commitments to God by using their God-given gifts in the service of celebrations that God abhors.

      And now they seek a linguistic revolution. They’re coming for our pronouns.

      No stone unturned, no aspect of life untouched by the sullied hand of pagan sexuality unrestrained.

      The movement to normalize homoeroticism and gender confusion is the most pressing issue of the day. Leaders in the church, leaders in academia, and leaders in government who don’t understand this or who don’t want to address it need to get out of the way and let those who do lead.”

      1. And there it is.

        I was pro-gay rights until they got all the rights that were reasonable… And then started acting like Gay Nazis trying to force everybody to bend to their will. I’ve never cared if somebody was gay… But all the shit they’re demanding now is madness.

  3. Back in the day, openly having a kink or being attracted to people of the same sex invited not just physical abuse and forced psychiatric counseling but also the possible loss of your livelihood, family, and friends.

    Oh how the tables have turned, the shoe is on the other foot, guess who has the whip hand now? I was just reading a piece about “white fragility” wherein the author made an offhand comment about how straight white males feel like they’re under attack just because they’re getting a little taste of the treatment they’ve dished out to everybody else for all of human history, which sort of gives the game away – they don’t actually want equality, they want payback. Of course straight white males are going to bitch about “being treated the way they treated everybody else”, isn’t that exactly what you were bitching about, too? If you justify “diversity hiring”” and “affirmative action” in the name of discriminating just until we get even, well, who decides when we’re even? We’re never going to be even, crying racism and sexism and homophobia and all forms of discrimination provides a handy excuse for failure and a denial of responsibility for failure. And the less of an excuse you’ve got the more desperately you’re going to cling to that excuse. It’s no joke that the Jussie Smollett case shows that the demand for racism has outstripped the supply, it’s the plain truth. The more equal we all become the more people are going to bitch, the more unhappy they’re going to be because of any little perceived inequality, because their whole damn identity is wrapped up in being victims. Well, we’re all equally victims now, have we achieved maximum happiness?

    1. You raise a good point. Those that were for a long time oppressed and now have a voice are thirsting for revenge. That is not the path forward. The path forward is more empathy for all sides and some forgiveness.

      However, as for white men complaining, are they really complaining about being oppressed? Or are they complaining about losing the power and privilege of controlling the conversation?

      1. God you’re a piece of shit. I really legitimately hope you get an extremely aggressive form of cancer and die.

        1. Not good, go for peace and kindness

      2. However, as for white men complaining, are they really complaining about being oppressed? Or are they complaining about losing the power and privilege of controlling the conversation?

        I guess it depends on which white men you’re talking about. Most of us never controlled the conversation or anything else.

        I grew up in the Midwest and the thing I hear from my kin and friends still out there is wondering how deep the quest for “social justice” will dig. It’s hard to convince them that the Left won’t go after their guns or their churches when said Left tries to control piddly things like referring to a woman as “she” .

        1. He means the olden days. You know, when white men could just come out and openly say that we should abolish slavery and that was it. No more discussion. Fucking pricks.

      3. When psychiatrists start talking about “toxic masculinity” it’s time for LGBT cultural wariors to tell the man haters, “Bitch, I’m busy. I’ll help you after my nails finish drying.”

      4. Those claiming that “they” have been “a long time repressed” weren’t even born when there was actual repression, and they want Revenge on those who never did any repressing. That is the situation, you stupid corksoaker

        1. Fantasy > Reality/Experience
          -Progressivism

      5. There is DIRECT prejudice against white men today.

        I ended up skipping college… But had I gone, I am a really smart dude. I probably could have got into an Ivy League school (or at least a DAMN good state school) if I had made the effort to build up the proper resume in HS.

        If I applied to such a school, and was denied, because they wanted to have more diversity… That is a HUGE injustice. That is happening tens of thousands of times a year, every year, nowadays.

        Same in work hiring. And a ton of other injustices that are lesser. But there is real shit going on. Asians and Jews get screwed by all the same stuff. I’m just waiting for both of them to swing hard to the right as groups once they realize the leftists are going to eat them too.

    2. “…they’re getting a little taste of the treatment they’ve dished out to everybody else for all of human history,”

      So who is “they,” anyone and everyone who lived years before me? Who oppressed, given the convention of the times, anyone and everyone who lived before “them?” Fuck that noise.

    3. What conversations did I get to control and when?

  4. While I don’t agree that anyone should fear for their safety for ANY reason – I also don’t agree that this depravity shoved down our throats 24/7 is an “advancement.” Social advancements are things that help the greater society at large, I’m not seeing how this helps anyone except those immediately involved.

    1. You can say that about just about anything though. Did abolishing slavery help the greater society at large, or did it primarily help those “immediately involved?”

      1. Uh, it benefited society at large and those immediately involved.

      2. Slaves were actually shitty workers, as had been noted even during the time. Everybody came out ahead… The only mistake we made was not shipping them back to Africa, or giving them their own chunk of the USA to call their own. Then we would have been rid of all the troubles caused by that nonsense since then.

    2. NuriSol,

      I think you are confusing your eyes and ears with your throat. Either you get fed by a nurse, or you should talk to someone about the legal definition of rape and perhaps report your experience to authorities.

      1. sharmota4zeb,

        so, you are accusing NuriSol of rape on what basis? This is the sort of thinking/knee-jerk reacting that tells everyone there is reason to beware of those advocating cultural change. It is purely a cover (in your case) to push a narrative that all men are stupid, evil, misogynistic rapists based on nothing more than your desire to shut down debate.

        I suggest you grow a pair… of brain lobes capable of arguing your side without resorting to baseless slander and arrogant self-righteousness.

  5. We should all be perfectly delighted with these “liberation” movements that liberate about 2% of the population, which then generate a raft of new anti-discrimination laws, public benefits, and taboo topics the other 98% are obliged to support. Now that’s a real advancement for freedom!

    1. You’re not free unless you’re free to get fucked in the ass and then put the taxpayer on the hook for millions of dollars per year in AIDS treatment for the rest of your truncated life.

      1. The current annual cost of ART for AIDS is estimated to be about $19,000, and the total lifetime cost is estimated to be about $370,000.

        As a physician, I see more, and more expensive, threats to health from cigarette smoking and alcohol use. I’m not sure that it’s “taxpayers” who are on the hook for such costs, since anyone who buys health insurance, taxpayers or not, is on the hook, but “taxpayers” does have a nice ring of entitlement about it.

  6. This article and the comments on it so far remind me of the lyrics to a Jimmi Hendrix song I loved back in high school:

    “Mr white-collar conservative
    Flashing down the street,
    Pointing his plastic finger at me.
    He’s hoping my kind will soon drop and die,
    But I’m gonna to wave my freak flag high!”

    1. The problem is Jimi Hendrix was a useless piece of shit human being… Who fortunately was an awesome guitarist and song writer. But he was a waste of flesh, as evidenced by his early death thanks to his stupidity.

      Mr. Conservative is the guy who makes the world go round, built the modern world, improves the quality of life for all, etc.

      Most freaks and degenerates are wastes of flesh. Maybe Mr. Conservatives cocktail parties aren’t quite as fun, but he will create a functional society if he is in charge. We can see the collapse of civilization that is happening now by allowing the freaks to run things.

      Sorry to kill your groove, but reality is what it is.

  7. “Whole sitcoms, such as Three’s Company, which bestrode the small screen as a ratings colossus for eight years in the ’70s and ’80s, trafficked in repetitious, mean-spirited, and comedy-free gags about men who were “light in the loafers,” “tinkerbells,” or, worse still, florists.”

    Mr. Roper was played as a fool. He was so backwards and stupid that he would only rent an apartment to a man living with two women if he thought the man was gay, which meant that he was willing to accept something far worse–in his own estimation–than what was really going on. Mr. Roper’s homophobia made him the butt of the series’ whole joke. Mr. Roper did for homophobia what Archie Bunker did for bigots of all kinds: It made us point the finger and laugh at them.

    An excellent comparison of Mr. Roper might be to Dale on King of the Hill. Dale is a conspiracy theorist who seems to be oblivious to the fact that his wife has been having an affair with a Native American, John Redcorn, for more than a decade, and his tween son is obviously of Native American ancestry–not his son. Some conspiracy theorist! Every time Dale launches into another conspiracy theory, he makes himself look stupid–and it was more or less the same with Mr. Roper with homophobia.

    I the 1860s, driven by religious revival and patriotism, plenty of Americans decided they’d rather die on a battlefield than live in a country with slavery. In the 1980s, people laughed at a homophobe on television for being such a gullible idiot that a character like Jack Tripper could dance around Mr. Roper’s stupid morality by pretending to be gay–something he wasn’t but didn’t care if people thought he was. It’s hard to imagine that audiences today could tolerate the bigoted buffoonery of an Archie Bunker or Mr. Roper, which is to say that society today is probably less tolerant than it used to be.

    1. Mr. Roper was played as a fool. He was so backwards and stupid that he would only rent an apartment to a man living with two women if he thought the man was gay, which meant that he was willing to accept something far worse–in his own estimation–than what was really going on. Mr. Roper’s homophobia made him the butt of the series’ whole joke.

      And as usual the point is missed by the rot-brained NPCs despite them being the intended audience. Nick is precisely the type of stupid cunt who probably rioted to get Money For Nothing taken off the radio for homophobia when it’s actually mocking the ostensibly lowbrow blue collar worker.

      1. What? Rock musicians weren’t making fun of rock musicians?

      2. Bradley Manning

        You are another person (see above) making baseless accusation of bigotry based on nothing more than bigotry. You know nothing at all about Ken Shultz and his activism for/against such songs as Money for Nothing.

        I grew up in a very working-class/lower middle class houshold (my father a machinist and my mother a nurse) and loved Money for Nothing. So, either address his arguments or admit you have none of your own.

    2. What the hell are you talking about?

      1. It’s okay that you can’t follow the conversation or read the big words, but I have no idea why you’d deliberately draw attention to the fact.

        1. I can read big words just fine. It’s just that Ken doesn’t know how to use them.

          1. Cogent analysis. You sure got him good.

            1. Ha.

              Seriously, dismissal is the best tool for dealing with pseudo intellectuals. Especially libertarians, who at once pine for recognition of their greatness by the establishment and throw a tantrum when they don’t receive it. Engaging people who believe that crossing guards and librarians are equal to the KGB on any other level is kind of a waste.

              1. You’re dismissed.

          2. I actually found this to be one of his more coherent posts

            1. I like to think of Ken’s posts like David Bowie songs. Usually he’s at “Cygnet Committee” levels but every now and then rises to “Young Americans” levels.

              1. It’s always nice to meet a fan, but, honestly, I thought you were new here. At least, I don’t remember reading any of your comments before. I guess that would your comments like songs that are easily forgotten by artists I’ve never even noticed.

                1. I’m the Foghat of commenters, then?

                  1. Certainly a progtarded one.

    3. That’s a shallow interpretation of Three’s Company. That is what it appears to be on the surface. Beneath it, watchers were laughing most at Mr. Roper’s gay jokes at Jack’s expense.

      1. Lol. Holy fucking Christ. Yeah that’s the shallow interpretation. The one that looks at the layers of social commentary baked into the characterizations and writing. The complex analysis is gay jokes bad. Bigots think funny.

        I’m trying to decide if it’d be more fun to watch you die of pancreatic or colorectcal cancer.

        1. Eunuch is by far our most shallow commenter, but has no idea

        2. Wow, ok, talk about impotent rage. Thanks for showing us what utter intellectual defeat looks like. Yours is an ego caught in a tailspin from the turbulence of the realities of our world. I really hope your parents don’t have a poor cat for you to take out your frustrations on. Seek professional help.

          1. Your analysis was idiotic, eunuch.
            You completely mistake the superficial for the deep, and it’s glaringly obvious.
            Maybe get Hamlet’s question right tonight, and be spared deserved ridicule tomorrow.

          2. Chip, you’re garbage, just admit it, and take our insults. You deserve so much worse.

            You know, we really do spoil you here.

          3. Sorry, Chipper Morning Wood, I meant that comment for Bradley Manning

        3. Absolutely no actual engagement with the intellectual question. And your wonderful hopes and dreams expose your desire, not for convincing other, but for hating them.

      2. I remember this being a frequent criticism directed at “All in the Family” by highbrows back in the day. The show was deemed harmful because the Joe Sixpacks in the viewing audience identified with Archie and loved his outbursts.

        1. That was the whole strength of the show. You could identify with the characters to some extent and with the exception of Sally Strouthers they had an excellent cast.

    4. Fun fact: the first time I watched The Graduate, I was surprised to recognize Mr Roper (well, the actor who played him) as the guy who rents out an apartment to Dustin Hoffman’s character. He plays the same kind of nosy, judgemental snooper, too—demanding to know if Hoffman is one of those campus agitators. (Hoffman’s character of course has zero interest in politics and is actually there to sorta stalk Mrs Robinson’s daughter.)

    5. Agree. Also Suzanne Somers was hot.

      1. That and those other two blonde ginches that replaced her.
        It was an awful teevee show regardless.

      2. I was more of a Janet guy myself.

        And Maryanne over Ginger. I have a theory about that show as well. Gilligan and the Skipper were a couple. Everyone had a reason to want to stay on the island and that was theirs.

        I agree that the joke was on Roper. Even his wife knew the truth.

        Not a great show I agree and people would just not get the joke today. Don Knotts was in it though replacing Roper and he was a terrific comedic actor.

  8. Libertarianism is mostly about disliking or disapproving of other people’s choices, while simultaneously defending their right to make those choices. It’s not easy, and that’s why most people are not libertarians.

    Reason now seems to think libertarianism means liking everyone else’s choices. (Wrong.)

    1. Libertarianism has always – always – been about libertinism. Full stop. Recently the international council of libertarian thought – which is about a dozen guys begging for the Koch brothers’ table scraps – gay-poly-married the libertinism to racism and internationalism to form the new holy trinity of libertarian philosophy.

      1. Best of luck getting over your stroke

        1. How dare someone accurately characterize your shitty creed!

          1. Heh. So cute when toddlers try.

            1. You’re trying?
              Don’t strain yourself.

      2. Bradley, would you kindly give the intellectual/historical basis for the comment:

        Libertarianism has always – always – been about libertinism. Full stop.

    2. The traditional Libertarian political stance says nothing about either liking or disliking specific choices – it simply says those likes and dislikes should be legally irrelevant. They do not give the state moral authority to act as the aggressor.

      Gillespie has laid out his framing of small-l libertarianism as a “pre-political” instinct in several different pieces here. It’s one I happen to agree with and it does entail something beyond mere tolerance – it implies an active appreciation for the diversity and scope of human life. It’s a solute to the multitudes of freak flags.

      There are two different ways to arrive at the “live and let live” stance. One is egocentric and paranoid – it basically says stay the hell away from me. The other is based on love and appreciation for others.

      1. The latter way being the self-lie of tyrants and eunuchs

      2. Libertarianism does not require me to LIKE people who have unhealthy, weird, shitty lifestyles, that are self destructive. I have had gay friends since middle school, I never cared. But a lot of the crazier elements of the Gay Mafia have got out of control in recent years.

        Being gay IS NOT cool. It isn’t the worst thing in the world either. But they want to destroy anybody who doesn’t think that being a homo is AWESOME! And that’s dumb.

        To me it’s like somebody demanding that my favorite color has to be neon pink… That color makes me want to vomit. I don’t care if YOU like that color, but you demanding I like it, and making REAL threats against my life (job, personal standing in community, etc) if I don’t acquiesce is out of control.

    3. It’s not easy, and that’s why most people are not libertarians.

      Eh, I don’t think this is why most people aren’t libertarians. I think most people aren’t libertarians because libertarian thought boils down to a binary choice governed by the NAP, and the world just isn’t that simple. Once you realize in a truely libertarian world, rural areas wouldn’t have landline or cellphone service – and we should probably make sure that farmers have access to these services – people quickly stop giving a shit about being libertarian.

      1. The binary is due to the need for order and hierarchy in conservative thought. If someone says “Pepsi is good” a conservative has to assume that speaker is making the implicit statement that “Coke is bad”.

        According to a conservative, when someone says “Black lives matter” it means that white lives don’t. If “gay is okay”, then straight isn’t. And on and on. Conservatives need to frame the world in up-or-down, either-or terms.

        1. That’s a pretty simplistic view of hundreds of millions of people.

          1. Love it when progs talk about what conservatives believe.
            No people have ever been as ignorant of human psychology as modern progressives.
            Necessarily so, for they are a wreck.

          2. I don’t think that that’s the sum total of what every conservative thinks. I think, based on what I’ve seen, that it’s a fundamental, implicit premise which shapes conservative thought.

            1. Based on what I’ve seen

              Your anecdotal experiences have uncovered an “implicit premise which shapes conservative thought?” Seems like a lot of weight to give to anecdotal experience.

              1. I have a lot of experience. Of course, as far as I can prove here, I may as well have read nothing but one comic from a Cracker Jack box.

                How about we just skip the question of unprovable intellectual gravitas, then? I take it you disagree with my assertion? What are your objections?

                1. If we’re going on anecdotal experience, most of the conservatives I’ve run into are the “I might dislike what you say and think, but I will defend your right to say and think it.”

                  But then again, I live in an area with a mix of conservative and liberal types. So maybe people’s positions here are a bit less hardened.

                  1. I’ve run into conservatives who’ve said they thought that way. But acted very different. Maybe I’m overgeneralizing a bit, though. I’ll think about for a bit.

                    1. I think you overgeneralized to the point of describing a fault in the way a lot of humans think, in general –

                      If someone says “Pepsi is good” a conservative has to assume that speaker is making the implicit statement that “Coke is bad”.

                      ^ That’s a problem I run into with people in general – right, left, center, etc. It doesn’t even have to be political. If I tell a rabid baseball fan that “I think American Football is the greatest sport of all time” they are very likely to take it as an insult to the sport of baseball and an insinuation that I dislike baseball. Same thing happens with tastes in food, clothing, color, fashion, etc. I haven’t found this problem to be a uniquely conservative one, or one that conservatives are more inclined to struggle with. If anything, anecdotal experience has shown me that my progressive friends are lot less tolerant of different ways of thinking than my conservative friends are. My conservative friends will call you stupid and argue with you. My progressive friends will call you unethical an evil. My liberal friends… well, I guess my conservative friends are liberal.

      2. Eh. I see it more as people being unwilling to be cold enough to let people die on their own sword. Because they know threat in the end we *will* end up having to split the bill for your AIDS medicine after your unprotected sex, or your food stamps when your meth smoking makes you unable to hold down a job.

        1. Virtue signaling to themselves and vicarious exercise are the motivations of progressivism.
          Conservativism, on the other hand, is motivated by a desire for order and stability that limits experimentation.
          Libertarianism is all over the place, but can be very appealing to antisocial attitudes.

      3. I don’t see it as being a binary thing. You can apply libertarian insights in degrees – you can advocate for increased freedom and choice without railing against publicly funded fire departments.

        1. I hope there are more libertarians like you than, Rhayader, since this is not what my encounters with libertarians has taught me personally.

          I still find libertarians to be a whole lot more reasonable and better informed than team red and team blue, though.

          1. Stated vs revealed…

      4. Or to put it another way most people are not libertarians because it is a hard sell. The major parties fall all over themselves promising people more and more. Libertarians promise them less.

        What we have to sell is a harder life where you need to take responsibility for your own actions. Who wants that?

    4. Disliking and disapproving of other’s choices is mostly meaningless outside of personal experience. It isn’t some kind of prerequisite to libertarianism. Defending the right of individuals to make their own choices, however, that is more meaningful.

      Put it this way: if you enjoy spending your free time playing golf, and I enjoy my free time doing woodworking, and this person down the street from us enjoys spending his free time drinking whisky—-who cares? Unlike the late Hugo Chavez, I don’t dislike or disapprove of golf—I just don’t care about it one way or another. As for drinking whisky, it’s nice sometimes but hardly holds enough interest for me to do it frequently. As a libertarian, I expect you not to try to force me or shame me into learning to play golf, nor do I want you to pass Prohibition again to keep our mutual acquaintance from drinking whisky. I just want to be left in peace with my preferences and promise to show you and the drinker the same courtesy.

      1. Until the whiskey drinkers are found cutting up the golf course late at night on borrowed carts, and the miss hit golf balls start breaking windows.
        Even with reparations, it builds animosity.

    5. Libertarianism is more about acknowledging your freedom to do or say as you want, as long as I am free to do the same, including making fun of your choices.

      1. That shall be the whole of the law (of libertarianism… ideally)

  9. Back in the day, openly having a kink or being attracted to people of the same sex invited not just physical abuse and forced psychiatric counseling but also the possible loss of your livelihood, family, and friends.

    No, it didn’t. As long as you kept your shit to yourself A) nobody knew and B) nobody cared. You can easily verify this by reading all of the gay propaganda regarding the spread of AIDS in the bathhouses of SF in the ’70s being ignored by the mainstream (ostensibly as a further conspiracy against the noble buttfucker). You can’t have it both ways. Either society let AIDS spread in your community because it didn’t give a fuck about you OR you were more persecuted than the holy negro, but not both at the same time.

    Of course going back further than the 1960s when the Boomers have now agreed that history officially began, homosexuality was celebrated throughout the ancient world at various times and places and tolerated in the same “don’t ask don’t tell” manner throughout Europe even after Christianization. Ask Oscar Wilde how hard it was being a faggot in the 1800s.

    Take your narrative, roll it up real tight, shove it up your boyfriend’s asshole, and dig it out with your teeth. Nobody gives a fuck. Nobody has ever given a fuck.

    1. So, liberty is mindless conformity to a narrow set of arbitrary values? Libertarianism in one lesson, indeed.

      1. So, liberty is mindless conformity to a narrow set of arbitrary values?

        It sure is. Narrow arbitrary values like immigration good. Orange man bad. Communism good. Fascism bad. See how easy?

        1. So, progressives aren’t going to be called fascists today? Or just this moment when it suits your rhetorical needs?

          1. So, you still have no argument?

    2. “Oscar Wilde how hard it was being a faggot in the 1800s.”
      Two years in Reading Gaol for sodomy must have been a picnic for him?

      1. He got an award winning poem and small personal fortune out of it.

        1. We should bestow that kind of gift on you; given the kind of wimp you are, you’d get a first hand education in homosexuality out of it.

      2. Two years in Reading Gaol for sodomy must have been a picnic for him?

        The literature of the time is rife with men and women getting similar sentences for various acts of fornication and other social trespass. I wonder what the ratio of hetero to homo violations or prison terms is/was. Wilde’s treatment for sodomy was hardly exceptional.

      3. Oscar Wilde swished all over high society with impunity, until he had his lover’s father arrested for criminal libel. Again, he had his lover’s father, the marquess of Queensbury, thrown in jail for calling him a sodomite.
        There has never been a better subtext to bring up in this particular comment section.

        If Wilde had not tried to imprison out of spite his enemy, there would never have been a trial, and there would never have been a need to prove that he was in fact a sodomite, and he would not have served the same sentence he tried to impose on another man.

    3. Nobody has ever given a fuck.

      That’s bullshit, just like the article is bullshit. Homosexual intercourse used to be a crime; people were locked up for it. That was the thing libertarians ought to object to. Achieving equality under the law (including legalization) was the primary objective of the political gay liberation movement.

      What Gillespie gets wrong is that he wants all of society to accept homosexuality; that’s collectivist, illiberal drivel. You’ll never accept homosexuality, for example, and that’s fine. I don’t need your approval or acceptance any more than you need mine.

      Having said that, in my experience, 95% of Americans have no problem socializing and working with homosexuals, so if you have any hangups that way, that places you into a weird minority. But that’s fine. It’s a free society, and that includes the freedom to dislike each other and choose not to associate with each other.

      1. I think part of Manning’s statement or issue is that homosexuals have been more narrowly oppressed and persecuted throughout history while other persecutions have been more broad and direct. In a broader view of American history; there has never been a constitutional amendment against homosexuality but there has been one against drinking. There’s a very objective case to be made that we’ve persecuted alcoholics and social drinkers in this country worse than we’ve persecuted homosexuals.

        The point where I agree with Bradley Manning is that to hear homosexual( activist)s tell the tale, they’ve been fed to the lions, lynched, gassed, and interred systematically and top-down as bad as or worse than any Jew/Christian/Slave/immigrant.

        1. Well, yes, homosexuals were thrown in jail, executed, and put into concentration camps around the world. What’s your point?

          1. Well, yes, homosexuals were thrown in jail, executed, and put into concentration camps around the world. What’s your point?

            Saying some people were thrown in jail while lots of people were being shot in ditches is between disingenuous and craven lie. Whichever it is, it betrays the fact that the speaker doesn’t give two shits about morals or improving humanity as much as their perceived virtue and social standing.

            Homosexuals were thrown in jail, executed, and put into concentration camps around the world. Of course, in virtually every instance, heterosexuals and people of unknowable and irrelevant orientation were jailed, executed, and put in concentration camps in significantly larger numbers but you don’t really care that lots of people died it’s clearly more important to you that some people were gay.

            1. Homosexuals were thrown in jail, executed, and put into concentration camps around the world. Of course, in virtually every instance, heterosexuals and people of unknowable and irrelevant orientation were jailed, executed, and put in concentration camps in significantly larger numbers

              As I was saying: Homosexual intercourse used to be a crime; people were locked up for it. In other countries, homosexuals were jailed or killed merely for their orientation.

              Saying some people were thrown in jail while lots of people were being shot in ditches is between disingenuous and craven lie. Whichever it is, it betrays the fact that the speaker doesn’t give two shits about morals or improving humanity as much as their perceived virtue and social standing.

              Yes, and that obviously includes you, you asshole. I had to emigrate because I grew up in a country where homosexuality was illegal.

    4. Nobody has ever given a fuck.

      Wow, what a load of bullshit. People used to be executed for homosexuality (in some countries, they still are). Are you deliberately trying to rewrite history or are you just this ignorant?

      1. Emmett Till didn’t even speak to a white girl.

        Manning is being a bit over the top, but he’s not wrong about the bullshit that gets wrapped into these psychoses/narratives.

        Apparently, for a while, there was a legitimate question as to whether Lincoln had a homosexual relationship. Obviously, at this point, nobody knows the truth and as both homophiles and closeted homophobes can agree, it really doesn’t matter to the life of Lincoln. However, there is a considerable load of bullshit cognitive dissonance going on that asserts that homosexuals have always been dragged to death behind (first horse then) pickup trucks in this country and then turn around and asserts that Lincoln may’ve been gay and that first ladies Rose Cleveland and Elanor Roosevelt were gay. Either homosexuals have been exceptionally despicable degenerates throughout history exclusively persecuted or even outright annihilated at at least some era or they were generally disregarded and haven’t been repressed much more than drinkers, smokers, philanderers, gamblers, prostitutes, users, lefties, etc.

        1. Either homosexuals have been exceptionally despicable degenerates throughout history exclusively persecuted or even outright annihilated at at least some era or they were generally disregarded and haven’t been repressed much more than drinkers, smokers, philanderers, gamblers, prostitutes, users, lefties, etc.

          Why would history be restricted to these two views of gay people? Also, wouldn’t these things change culture to culture and throughout time? I see no logical reason why history would follow the either/or situation you’ve described above.

          1. Why would history be restricted to these two views of gay people?

            You do know that the word either can refer to more than two options, right? That you can go into a restaurant and order either a cheeseburger or a chicken sandwich or chili and that the cheeseburger, chicken sandwich, and chili represent three distinct options or outcomes?

            So, given that we aren’t talking about discreet course of history and are, instead, talking about reasonable and sensible narratives, there are generally opposing ideas that can’t simultaneously be true. You can’t be the most oppressed minority when there are other more oppressed contemporary minorities. You can’t be an exceptionally oppressed minority when the majority are similarly and just as much, if not more, oppressed. You can’t be simultaneously remarkable and special and elusive and unrecognized; the central or pivotal issue and also the issue perpetually looked past. You, as a class, can’t be a victim of a system that, as a class, you sit at the top or right hand of (without oxymoronic sadism and self-loathing). You can’t be both genetically ingrained axiomatic behavior and then a counter cultural curiosity or kink. These sorts of things can and do exist in fiction, but they specifically should not make sense to rational thinkers.

            I admit that I’ve brought Occam’s Razor to an SJW gunfight but, presumably, at a place that identifies as Reason (*drink*) logic tools would be sufficient. I will say it’s interesting how many libertarians dispel naked collectivism intrinsically and at all corners and then freely subscribe to narratives and causes that necessitate it as a prerequisite on several levels, past and future.

            1. Honestly, you’ve lost me here. I’m not even sure what your point is. Why are we ranking various group’s oppression again?

              1. Because Bradley Manning said “As long as you kept your shit to yourself A) nobody knew and B) nobody cared.”

                And you refuted him. I’m not ranking their oppression or, if I am, it’s in regard to bodies buried without regard to orientation, I oppose the broader and more heinous oppression itself regardless of who it was enforced upon. *You’re* the one who seems to think there’s something special about gay people.

        2. Buchanan was almost certainly gay.
          I can see why nobody is quick to claim him, though

      2. So we are erasing and replacing American law, culture, language, biological science, and in the case of the Ts – medicine and psychiatry – because of Iran??

        1. Oppression is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. I’ve always thought extending and ensuring freedoms we enjoy to groups that have been unfairly oppressed is better than getting rid of freedoms.

          1. I’ve always thought extending and ensuring freedoms we enjoy to groups that have been unfairly oppressed is better than getting rid of freedoms.

            You’re okay with continuing to deny freedoms to groups that were, by your estimation, oppressed fairly. It’s so noble of you to choose to whom (you think) freedoms should and shouldn’t be granted or protected.

  10. Warriors for progress are replaced, sooner or later, by attention whores. In this case, the transition was complete about 10 years ago.

    1. Warriors for progress are replaced, sooner or later, by attention whores. In this case, the transition was complete about 10 years ago.

      Huh? Both politics and the entertainment industry has been rife with attention whores hocking political agendas for at least 40 yrs.

  11. We have made tremendous progress, but there is much more work to do. As a member of the LGBTQ+ community (I’m non-binary), I still experience systemic oppression on an almost daily basis.

    For example, last week I was at the store just when it started getting crowded. When I was standing in line to pay, another register opened. The cashier said “I can help you over here, sir.”

    “Sir.”

    Just because I have short hair on top of my head and some hair on my face, the employee assumed I identify as male. When in fact, I came out as non-binary a few years ago in college. I’m not a sir, or a gentleman, or a he / him. Yet strangers consistently misgender me. It’s exhausting.

    1. What’s your sign? Perhaps you should wear one that reads “a member of the LGBTQ+ community (I’m non-binary),” Citizen.

    2. Well, sir, a good therapist could help you much more than that cashier.

      (disclosure: I know it is OBL, but the coffee is not ready yet, so – – )

    3. You’re ignoring the obvious agism behind that “sir”.

    4. We need to know: Was that an ironic or un-ironic “sir”?

    5. Next time: cashier says “Move your lazy ass over here, fuckhead.”

      Feel better?

      1. “Move your lazy ass over here, fuckhead.”

        Now that’s inclusive!

  12. Well, maybe. Or perhaps everything in our world, from the food we eat to the clothes we wear to the medicine we take, is just more personalized than it used to be. And it’s only going to keep getting more so as we grow increasingly comfortable acknowledging both our common humanity and our unique individuality

    As a gay man, all I ever wanted was equality under the law. I understand perfectly that a significant portion of society will never be comfortable around me or acknowledge “my unique individuality”, for the same reason that there are people who I will never be comfortable around. It’s fine not to like people, Gillespie, really. It’s the hallmark of a free society that people can split up into groups they are comfortable with and choose not to interact with groups they don’t like, for any reason or no reason at all.

    This article is the typical drivel we have to listen to from progressives and communists, the idea that somehow, after remaking society, everybody will accept and tolerate everybody and we will form one big, happy Borg collective. And you know who that kind of belief places most at risk? That’s right: the minorities and fringe groups, because the only way you are ever going to create a society where everybody “acknowledges their common humanity and their unique individuality” is by eliminating everybody who is different.

    Thanks, Gillespie, for proving again that Reason has gone collectivist and progressive, and that you don’t have a clue about what liberty is about.

    1. “the only way you are ever going to create a society where everybody “acknowledges their common humanity and their unique individuality” is by eliminating everybody who is different.”

      And to prevent that, what will you do? Eliminate anyone who is different? Or just those who choose not to accept their foreordained place in society and the duties those places require?

      1. Esmeralda, reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, it it?

        I was pointing out that “eliminating anybody who is different” is the consequence of the progressive/communist vision. Obviously, I disapprove of “eliminating anybody who is different” (though given your own hateful comments in the past, Esmeralda, I’m not so sure you do).

        The goal of a harmonious society with universal mutual tolerance is fundamentally incompatible with liberty or libertarianism.

    2. Nick is fresh off a weekend with Thad Russell, a post modernist with some very fresh ideas on how society forms itself and who does that forming. One of the things that I think Thad nails is the idea that the people on the fringe, the people with naughty thoughts and livelihoods, are the most influential.

      The irony of it all is that once these fringe ideas (such as being gay in the 60s) is no longer fringe (being gay now) there must be a new fringe to which we all either support or look to shun. My theory is that the new fringe is the new coalition of right wingers who have become tired of the progressive dogma controlling the media, universities, and the democratic party.

      I can’t wait for Nick’s analysis on this new fringe right wing movement consisting of people of all sizes, genders, and colors that only have one thing in common, the destruction of the gated media narrative.
      (Read Malice’s new book Nick)

      1. Over the coming years, as the left becomes increasingly socialist, it’s reasonable to suspect that the right may become more capitalist. Reason may be like an extreme metal band that decides to go glam metal–right when glam metal is about to become incredibly unpopular and being a founding extreme metal band is about to take off. Reason may have thrown their lot in with the progressive crowd right at the moment the rest of the non-progressive world is about to get more capitalist and libertarian. If they decide to change direction, again, it’s not like they can pick up on their authenticity where they left off. And the progressive left will always treat them as outsiders anyway.

        1. “Over the coming years, as the left becomes increasingly socialist, it’s reasonable to suspect that the right may become more capitalist.”

          While it may be a reasonable suspicion, I don’t see this happening. Instead we see the right becoming more populist. On the left and right, there is a heavy interest in using government policy to protect chosen tribes. The right/left schism today (and I suspect, in the reasonable future) will be between which tribes get access to the pie.

          1. For the short term.

            I believe there is a force at work, maybe subject to Duverger’s Law, to at least some extent, that makes the opposites on the political spectrum strive to become the caricatures their opponents make them out to be.

            If America is awash in AR-15s, a nice chunk of that may be attributable to progressives on the left striving to ban them.

            If people on the left say they’re willing to sacrifice their standard of living in order to save polar bears they’ll never see, a significant portion of that may just be about spitting in the face of the right-wing rednecks in their mind.

            As the left continues to embrace socialism, I’d expect the right to embrace capitalism. Both sides may not be principled and may falter in the execution, but we’re talking about Reason influencing the conversation as much as anything, right? They’re not about to put Gillespie in charge of Justice Department.

            1. “If people on the left say they’re willing to sacrifice their standard of living in order to save polar bears they’ll never see…”

              All the homeless polar bears I am meeting on the street and under bridges these days? I am inviting them to come and stay with me in bitter-cold refrigerated tents in my back yard, with a pool full of giant blocks of ice! I refuse to feed cute little baby seals to them, thought, so they have to content themselves with veggie-burgers…

              1. Good one SQRSLY

                Though I worry about the polar bears.

                Cats for example. You can’t feed them a veggie diet. You gotta give them some tuna or something.

                Throw in the occasional dolphin.

        2. They claim to have no home, but its just not true. There’s a large group of outsiders who think like they do 90 percent of the time. But within that 10 percent is their deep seeded desire for fairness and utopia, so the home they have is not the home they want.

          “it’s not like they can pick up on their authenticity where they left off”

          The only man never redeemed is the man without passion

        3. Over the coming years, as the left becomes increasingly socialist, it’s reasonable to suspect that the right may become more capitalist.

          I don’t know what you mean by “the right”.

          In any case, the reaction to too much left wing authoritarianism and interventionism is not an embrace of small government and individual liberties; quite to the contrary: the more government acquires the means to force people to do stuff, the more the different political groups have to fight over what it is government forces people to do.

          You can see that in Europe, where the political distinctions are only between different kinds of authoritarians (“left”, “right”).

          And you can see it in the US, where the natural reaction to political organization and favoritism by racial groups has been for many whites to say “if there are organizations for blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, then there need to be organizations for whites as well”. This is even more likely given that, as progressives love to point out, the US will supposedly be majority-minority in a few decades.

          The US will just become another gigantic shithole like India, torn apart by ethnic and social divisions; liberalism will be dead in the US like it is elsewhere.

      2. “Become tired of the progressive dogma”.

        Yes, a very loud, self righteous demand of guilt, and pandering to grievance is tiring. Maybe climate change, bigotry and income inequality really are big problems. Don’t care. And the SJWs have only themselves to blame.

        Haha

    3. Bam! And he’s gay, so you know it’s true!

    4. “It’s fine not to like people, Gillespie, really. It’s the hallmark of a free society that people can split up into groups they are comfortable with and choose not to interact with groups they don’t like, for any reason or no reason at all.”

      While I tend to agree, there is a problem with this mindset. People are forming tribes- and that is even easier in this world of social media where you can find the people and thoughts that will reinforce your worldview. One of the most powerful aspects of the Tribe is identifying an “Other”. That existential threat to your tribe unfortunately works too well to bring the tribe together, and many people consciously or unconsciously exploit that mechanism.

      So, the preferable state is that we all segregate according to our preferences and leave others to their own fate, but this tribal dynamic causes that segregation to lead to even further conflict as the “fear of the other” rises in these societal enclaves.

      How do we combat this? Nick’s answer is to create more inclusive tribes. Don’t self-segregate and instead welcome all others as part of a tribe called humanity. As you note, this has problems. It is a form of collectivism, and tribes of sufficient size tend to splinter in any case.

      A third option is to navigate these tribes and help them to define an “Other” that isn’t each other. The book “Tribal Leadership” talks about several leaders in the past who were able to do this. Sadly, these leaders are notable precisely because of how rare they are. George Washington is an example- a man who navigated tribes of the aristocracy, legislators and military, helping them to find common ground and work together- but he also had trouble defining an “Other” such as freedom, rather than “British Army”.

      1. but this tribal dynamic causes that segregation to lead to even further conflict as the “fear of the other” rises in these societal enclaves..

        Really? Where is the evidence that this “leads to further conflict”? The Amish, Orthodox Jews, and Christian fundamentalists are about as “other” as they can be from me, and I have never had any desire to harm them nor have they had any desire to harm me.

        The only conflicts I see arising is when government forces us to bake cakes for each other. I don’t have any desire to bake Amish cakes, and the Amish have no desire to bake gay cakes.

        George Washington is an example- a man who navigated tribes of the aristocracy, legislators and military, helping them to find common ground and work together- but he also had trouble defining an “Other” such as freedom, rather than “British Army”.

        People don’t need to “be comfortable acknowledging both our common humanity and our unique individuality” in order to work together. In fact, I strongly suspect that the majority of the people who made my clothes or my electronics have nothing but contempt for me as a rich Western homosexual. Nevertheless, through the power of markets, we still engage in mutually beneficial transactions. If we insisted on “acknowledging both our common humanity”, we’d both be a lot worse off.

    5. Head over to the Chik Fil A story and comments, we could use you there.

      Apparently, according to Reason, a company that does not discriminate in any way in any business transaction – but whose owner commits thoughtcrime – is now the same as a company that deliberately discriminates in all of its business dealings.

  13. The literary critic Camille Paglia, who identifies as both queer and trans, sees the proliferation of ever-more-subdivided sexual identities as a premonition of the end of civilization, a narcissistic indulgence that becomes incapable of sustaining itself literally or figuratively. The same thing, she told Reason three years ago, happened in the last days of Rome, the British Empire, and Weimar Germany.

    I haven’t read a lot of Camille Paglia outside of Reason. Considering this puts her in intellectual company with Glenn Beck, Milo Yiannapolis, Bradley Manning, and Kaitlyn Jenner, I’m glad I didn’t waste my time.

    1. She’s basically an old 60’s campus liberal who wants these SJW whippersnappers to get off her lawn. Also, she talks like a James Cagney gangster.

      1. “She’s basically an old 60’s campus liberal”

        Yes, the self identified anti-feminist is a boring old lady

    2. You’re missing out on one of the great free thinkers of our time. Watch her on youtube, she spits hot fire

      1. Paglia is truly a thinker…an intellect. Search C-SPAN videos and you’ll find several on her.

        If I had a kid in college, I’d want Paglia to teach said kid the humanities.

      2. You’re missing out on one of the great free thinkers of our time. Watch her on youtube, she spits hot fire

        Disagree. People jumping on the ‘identify as both queer and trans’ bandwagon shortly before it peters out aren’t great or free thinkers.

    3. she used to be with it but then they changed what it was.

  14. “Be Who You Are, Love Who You Want”

    …and be sure to bake the cake, whether you want to or not.

  15. Test for LGTBQRSLAZYFOX progressives: how do they feel about polygamy (especially the prairie bonnet type)?

    1. No problem, so long as everyone is doing it of their own free will.

      1. No problem, so long as everyone is doing it of their own free will.

        You’re going to have to be more clear about free will. The ‘prairie bonnet’ type of polygamy, to me, implies a number of girls under the age of legal consent and a man well over it, all consenting. Are you really suggesting that a girl of the age of 14, shielded from dissent and groomed by slightly older girls to serve a specific role for a man older and largely responsible for setting the whole arrangement up can rightly give consent? I’m loathe to apply the label ‘free’ to any such arrangement.

        I generally agree with the notion of polyamory and agree with concubines and harems but ‘prairie bonnet type polygamy’ polygamy contains a certain undertone, or maybe even dog whistle, to me. One our society doesn’t generally tolerate even among older consenting adults and/or not exactly for sexual/taboo reasons.

        1. The problem you raise is with under-age marriages, not polygamous marriages.

          And that’s a problem perpetuated by straight folk, specifically conservative straight folk, who routinely fight attempts to raise the legal age of marriage.

          Queer folk and polygamy are pretty irrelevant to your identified problem.

          1. You’re full of shit.

            Queer folk and polygamy are pretty irrelevant to your identified problem.

            Tell it to NAMBLA, Jonathan Yaniv, and The Catholic Church, dipshit.

        2. I’ll admit to ignorance when it comes to “prairie bonnet” stuff. I agree, I wouldn’t call that free by any means.

          But, when it comes to people who are of age and are of sound mind, consent is all that matters. If someone wants to get into a poly group, a 1950’s household, Gorean stuff or anything else, so long as they do it of their own choice that’s their business. And I’m sure you will be surprised that I’m far from alone in this.

          1. And I’m sure you will be surprised that I’m far from alone in this.

            I’m not surprised to find thoughts and conceptions on the idea changing. I also wouldn’t be surprised to find someone’s stated intentions to differ from their revealed preferences. I’m also fairly certain that your narrow opinions hardly represent the LGBTQ+ or broader sympathies from the left-wing, identity culture, or larger society. When discussing marriage reform there was a decent push even from some decidedly conservative circles to make civil unions both more prolific and broadly inclusive. Such that M/F = civil union, M/M or F/F = civil union, nM/F or nF/M or nF/nM = civil union. While some libertarians, pro-gay rights, and other groups found common cause in the idea, it was unpopular and considered to be anti-women, pro-religion, and stealing or cheapening the *marriage* *rights* of homosexuals.

            Even to this day, Utah takes an almost anti-religious stance that polygamous couples can cohabitate but not marry.

        3. The issue is age of consent. Admittedly somewhat arbitrary. Yet humans have a long track to adulthood. Something to do with neural pathways.

          If marriage is a contract then you need parties able to be competent enough to agree. Same with sex or other things.

      2. No problem, so long as everyone is doing it of their own free will.

        Esmeralda, you simply delude yourself into thinking that it’s not a problem because you only ascribe “free will” to people who agree with you. Everybody else is a “self-hating X” or a “race traitor” or an “Uncle Tom” or a victim of “white heteronormative indoctrination”, or simply a “white male” even if they are jet black. The kinds of mental gymnastics you people go through to hide your own bigotry and intolerance from yourselves is truly astounding.

    2. Ask the LGBTQ crowd that question and you get nothing but crickets.

      All of a sudden, they become Jerry Falwell when it’s suggested that 3 guys and 1 female could legally form a marriage.

      Actually, why can’t 3 brothers…..or a mother and daughter form a legal marriage?

      1. Ask the LGBTQ crowd that question and you get nothing but crickets.

        Really? ’cause every queer person I know goes “meh”. It’s just not a big deal for us.

        Actually, why can’t 3 brothers…..or a mother and daughter form a legal marriage?

        Because laws and social customs passed/perpetuated by straight people to control other straight people.

        1. Because laws and social customs passed/perpetuated by straight people to control other straight people.

          You wouldn’t say this about parking tickets because parking tickets are platonic. The reason you say it about marriage is because marriage has and does contain an implication of non-platonic relationships, despite prior assertions that marriage is about 1100 other things besides sex and procreation. Of course, a significant portion of you dipshits were only on the gay marriage bandwagon to get votes to enact other social agendas but, apparently, the time has come to memory hole that era of history.

          Really? ’cause every queer person I know goes “meh”. It’s just not a big deal for us.

          Right. When you were the ones “oppressed” it was as bad as slavery and everybody who’d so much as spoken with a lisp or made a flippant hand gesture was being treated as a second class citizen as policy. Now that you’ve ‘got’ your ‘freedom’ you don’t give two shits about anybody else or anything resembling actual oppression. You’re every bit the self-serving social engineering assholes you claimed to be opposing.

  16. It’s a swinging pendulum. Constant jokes about light loafers then suddenly we have 58 genders. Both poles are full of idiots. But I have to say that “light in the loafers” is a lot less problematic than “58 genders”. Methinks someone doesn’t even understand what “gender” even means.

    “Light in the loafers” may be derogatory, but it referred to a common affectation deliberately adopted by gays. A particular set of mannerisms were employed by gay men as a signalling device. But gender is not something one chooses. Even in the sense of a social role, there are NOT 58 social gender roles. It’s utterly ridiculous. It’s something made up out of whole cloth by academics unfamiliar with the English language. They are making up new categories in order to game the Intersectional Theory ranking system. Because modern American Leftism is all about the hierarchy of victim status. And “transsexual” is far too mainstream to accord any status.

    1. Gender as a social role is rapidly disappearing in the West. This is separate from sexual roles. We’ll still have straight marriage, but “husband” and “wife” are just names for the partners in a marriage, and less and less refer to a social role. Men and women increasingly have the same legal and social rights. Men and women increasingly perform the same social roles.

      This is a good thing.

      The actual gender pay gap is only around 0.5%. It’s pretty damned small once actual equivalent roles are compared. A problem still exists, but it’s evaporating. Doctor versus nurse is no longer a gender distinction. Men can be elementary nurses and women can be doctors.

      Men can stay home with the baby while women are the family breadwinners. Women can ask men out on a date. Women can be forward and take the sexual initiative. Men-only clubs are disappearing, even without government hastening the disappearance. Even gender differences in children’s toys are disappearing, and they disappearing voluntarily from the bottom up, not because of government meddling. I figure in about a generation there will literally be no social gender roles left. This is a good thing. There will of course still be sexual roles. 90% of people will still be heterosexual, after all. But the gender roles will vanish until only fashion differences remain. And even that may be a bit fuzzy.

      But the Leftists can’t stand it. They want a rigid hierarchy at the same time they claim to despise all hierarchy. They want everyone ranked according to power or victimization. Dissolving social gender roles is scary to them, so the come up with innumerable bogus classifications to keep a hierarchy in place. Because without hierarchy there are people on top oppressing the people on bottom. And that’s what these people feed on.

      1. I figure in about a generation there will literally be no social gender roles left. This is a good thing. There will of course still be sexual roles. 90% of people will still be heterosexual, after all. But the gender roles will vanish until only fashion differences remain. And even that may be a bit fuzzy.

        That’s probably not true. Given the real scientific research that’s been done, men and women DO tend to choose different roles due to differences in brain function. Perhaps that’s not what you mean by gender role, so let me clarify what I mean. All the best evidence shows that women will trend towards certain roles and careers and men will trend towards others.

        As you say, yes, a man can be an elementary school teacher etc.

        As for Women asking men out on the date, of course they can, but again, you’ll probably see certain stereotypes remain because of our biological differences. The ability for a woman to have a baby/become pregnant gives them a very different worldview– even if expressed in subtle ways.

        All of these things filter out into the culture and result in what we label “gender gaps”.

        1. Moreover, the idea that it’s good is a bit amiss. The idea represents a dual loss. The loss of gender and/or role-specific specialization *and* the ability to socialize, conceptualize, or empathize across such barriers.

          Something like half a dozen men worked for over 40 yrs. to develop the technique of the epidural before the first woman was able to use one in delivery. It’s just as dumb to say that those men should’ve experienced labor pain as equals as it is to say they swerved outside of their gender lane.

        2. Not what I’m saying. I mean that gender will no longer determine one’s role in society, except in the very narrow sense of who gives birth and si primary care giver in the first few years.

          Contrast this with two hundred years ago or one hundred years ago or just fifty years ago. Being born female no longer consigns you to specific social roles. No longer would you need a male on your scientific paper just to get published. No longer do you need to use initials instead of your name in order to be a Hollywood writer. No longer will people assume you’re a nurse because you have breasts. Which is where the term “nurse” came from.

          People just want care anymore. At least most people. The rabid intersectionalist Left will care, and tiny segment of the cultural Right will care, but no one else will.

          1. I thought you might be talking about the legal framework, not the personal choice framework. Thanks for clarifying.

          2. I mean that gender will no longer determine one’s role in society, except in the very narrow sense of who gives birth and si primary care giver in the first few years.

            I’m with Diane Reynolds (Paul) on this. I think the patriarchy has been largely overblown or, more accurately, women’s duplicity in ‘the patriarchy’ has been undersold. I remain unconvinced that people will suddenly wake up and realize that social norms that they trace back to their Victorian Era origins were, almost by definition, enacted by a Queen. I believe the current trend to be just that, little more than small chested women in the 60s burning their bras blissfully unaware that women don’t wear bras because men really want them to.

            Birth and primary caregiver have been the underlying or overarching driver of women’s roles in society much longer and more exactingly than any law and while there has been progress on this front, I don’t see 50 or 100 yrs. of culture undoing thousands of years of social evolution and tens of thousand of years of biological evolution. Technology like birth control may obviate lots of it, but women have been completely capable of taking responsibility for their own reproductive habits for almost 50 yrs. and still, even when educated and participating in the workforce, lean rather heavily towards the role of hapless pregnancy vessels at the whims of brutish men who should support them.

      2. Gender and sex are not going away. I still like, anyway you know what I mean.

        Marriage has always been a contract since ancient times. Still married to my high school sweetheart and she is still a challenge.

        I really don’t care if some people prefer something else.

  17. Assault has always been wrong, it’s just that there seem to be people (including govt people) who think assault is OK against a socially-designated “other.”

    The “others” used to include sexual minorities. That’s no longer the case – yay progress!

    Good thing assault against designated others has now been totally banned from society.

  18. Porn Hub, the X-rated website, has more flavors of offerings than Baskin-Robbins and Howard Johnson’s combined

    There have been surveys indicating that people are having less sex than ever. Perhaps pandering to everyone’s kinks has led to point where people are left jerking off because so few actually share them and other people in the proximity of the newly freed jerk off are jerking off to their own kinks. Perhaps people would be better off compromising their tastes in order to actually get laid.

    1. Perhaps people would be better off compromising their tastes in order to actually get laid.

      You really want those people breeding? Margaret Sanger had it right. I say put sterilants in the drinking water and divert the entire federal budget to abortion services.

  19. I grant everyone the freedom to live whatever lifestyle they wish. But I am not going to pretend it is OK. It is not OK. Male homosexuality in particular is highly destructive both to the individual and to society.
    The end of persecution is wonderful, the end of rational thought isn’t.

    1. Thanks for granting us freedoms, humanoid…

      1. Yes, I wouldn’t harm you just because you’re a queer. And you can change, get help.

        1. I was mocking you for thinking you provide freedoms to people, when in reality no one likes or respects you.

    2. I think you want a cock in your ass like really bad.

      1. Uh oh. Another queer.

  20. How we define ourselves in terms of gender and sexual orientation is a crucial part of self-expression.

    At what level are we required to participate in everyone else’s crucial self-expression. The transgender issue has been around for 30 years. I knew someone back in the 80s who was what they used to call a “transsexual”. Someone who had transitioned to a woman via surgery and hormones. There was never any thought as to rights and privileges. She was accepted as a woman.

    What’s happening now is not the same, and it’s orwellian when people lose their livelihoods, jobs and careers over reluctance to participate.

    Here’s Reason contributor, Brendan O’Neill discussing his resistance on this issue.

    1. “These days everyone is expected to repeat the mantra ‘Trans women are women’. But some of us don’t believe that. We don’t believe trans women are women. And we must have the right to say that without being forcefully shut down.”

      1. Define “forcefully.”

        Other people speaking? Calling you names? You wouldn’t want to be a snowflake.

        1. Probably referring to the banning of people off of social media, locking them out of payment systems and calling their employer to get them fired.

          If you’re a libertarian- none of this counts as “force” since it doesn’t involve a no-knock raid from the police.

  21. Here, someone was forced to participate in the gender-fluid fallacy and got shut out of competitive sports. And they’re filing a title ix lawsuit. Finally, someone is using title IX for what it was intended.

    Three Connecticut high school track and field athletes filed a federal Title IX discrimination complaint over the state’s athletic transgender policy, stating that it has put them at a competitive disadvantage and harmed their chances of earning college scholarships.

    The complaint was filed Monday to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights by the law firm Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of the three girls. The complaint asks the government agency to initiate an investigation of the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference’s policy that allows athletes to enter competitions corresponding with their gender identity.

    “What we are asking for is a return to fairness, and anything that allows a biological male to come into a women’s sporting event and take away their medals or their podium spots or their opportunities to advance or college scholarships is unfair,” Christiana Holcomb, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a phone interview. “Any solution cannot end up with that as an outcome.”

    1. How about asshole conservatards just stay out of a conversation they are evidently not equipped to deal with. It’s a really minor issue, I’m sure you’ll agree. Let trans people and their allies decide what they want minor semantic changes they want to make. You have other problems to deal with.

      1. Let trans people and their allies decide what they want minor semantic changes they want to make.

        No.

          1. Infinity

            I do not think it means what you think it means.

            There is no meaning to + ♾️

          1. I’m just being who I am and loving who I want.

            1. Do they want it back?

      2. Tony: just let a tiny segment of the population dictate what everyone else is allowed to say! what’s the worst that could happen?!

        1. Being polite isn’t difficult, and there is no excuse for rudeness.

      3. By “minor issue”, I’m guessing you mean it’s an issue prohibiting minor girls from getting sports scholarship, thus transforming a space for women to a space for men and invalidating the athletic achievements of our young women?

        1. I’m sure this issue causes much genuine angst among parents who think sending their kids to waste their educational years throwing balls into holes is a good use of their time, and I’m sure my solution of simply banning sports will not go over well, so perhaps this is not my area of expertise.

      4. How about asshole conservatards just stay out of a conversation they are evidently not equipped to deal with.

        Ironic from the guy who has issues with consistency in single-sentence conversations with himself.

      5. The male faggot gets to decide for women that biological sex is irrelevant and take away the sex-segregated spaces set up for them by law 50 years ago. Maybe the patriarchy actually is a thing.

        1. I am Jewish. Heredity is more matriarchal in our tradition.
          You always know who mom is.

          Homosexuals have been around forever. Male or female.

          I have do idea why that is a problem for some folks.

  22. >>>How we define ourselves in terms of gender and sexual orientation is a crucial part of self-expression.

    is it? this statement does not apply to like 99% of the genpop

    1. You mean you haven’t updated your business card?

      1. Exactly, if you don’t let potential employers know upfront how non-binary you are it makes it a lot harder to sue them for not hiring your crazy ass.

      2. lol. kobayashi maru.

  23. My neighbor down the street wants to marry his dog.
    It told him no cleric will marry them.
    He called me an asshole.
    But its not my fault his two-legged girlfriend is butt ugly.

  24. The way I try to look at it this: I’m just gonna be me, and other people are going to be themselves, and that’s wonderful. I don’t need anyone to agree with me or accept my beliefs into their worldview. I take issue with being forced to be a certain thing, to live or think or believe according to someone else’s beliefs. Maybe most of us feel like that, but some percentage of us also strongly believe that others must live precisely as they do. I suppose it is in our collective nature to try to exert control over others, to force conformity (for the greater social good, perhaps as a matter of survival?). Arguably, we do a very good job at it.

    We are an incredibly beautiful and diverse species, which is something I celebrate — I love our differences, all of them, absolutely. But some of us are also magnificently horrid, and I can see no law nor religion that can fix that part of us, but it is infinitely worse when it is the law or a religious belief that justifies and empowers that horribleness.

    1. You don’t seem to tolerate behaviour that diminishes us. Why should others?

      1. Truly, I have no idea what you mean. Sorry.

        1. No need to feel embarrassed.

          Try using a dictionary for words you don’t understand.

  25. Yup, SO much individualizing on the left — TOTAL freedom.

    As long as you obey …

    You are a fucking TOOL Nick …

    1. Nick sees the writing on the wall for Reason, and he’s running into the arms of the rich American elites, hoping for some more handouts.

  26. There are three parts to life, birth, reproduction and death.

    There’s only one you can miss. Fill your boots.

  27. few in modern America care what the lgbtqxzy123 crowd does, what a majority, including libertarians, don’t like is that crowd now forcing it into our childrens world through required classroom learning and if any object or even mention scientific facts contradictory to their story they are to be removed from school or what amounts to re education counseling

    1. That’s what tolerance results in.

      When I say “fill your boots” that’s not tolerance. It’s more like “fuck off and die”.

      My life carries on in my loved biological descendants. They won’t miss those who miss reproduction.

  28. And do get over yourself…

  29. Be Who You Are, Love Who You Want — The BUTT-HOLE isn’t a sex organ. It doesn’t need fertilizing. It doesn’t need poked at. Gay people are sick in the head!!!! Frankly though; I really don’t care what the sicko’s do so long as I don’t have to support it.

    What – you fags gonna try and force me to make your weeding cake? Beat me up behind the bushes. File legal suits and sue my butt off?? What happened to being allowed to, “Be who I am?”… Oh yeah, that’s right. I guess I have to be who the sickos want me to be is that it???

    1. Any sexuality other than heterosexuality is either a choice or a disorder.

      They’ll never admit it’s a choice or they’ll lose their “protected group” status that they use to leverage their agenda by law. Losing that would end this social lunacy.

      If it’s not a choice and they want to mate to form a biological family, their sexuality would by definition be a disorder. When nobody could advocate that they are “normal” this social lunacy would end.

      It’s simply logic.

  30. Grammatisch Oberstleutnant Spock here.

    Has anyone pointed out it should be “Be who you are, love WHOM you want” yet?

    1. No but you did.

  31. I’m against Miss-Gendering Laws, not because of any beliefs on the number of Genders, but more on the facts that

    A) Government have No Business Regulating Mere Insults
    and
    B) Government should be completely Neutral on Concepts Like Gender.

  32. This discussion spiraled down fast.

  33. What a sad state of affairs that a trans writer is less cucked AND more correct than Nick on this issue…

    IMO there’s a difference between REAL gay people and trans people, and all this other nonsense.

    I believe gay and trans people are born with a birth defect that makes them the way they are. That is a natural anomaly. Fortunately one that isn’t THAT harmful to society or the individual, as they’re both in low numbers.

    But all this other stupid crap is purely CREATED madness thanks to leftist brain washing. And it IS a sign of degeneration of the society, and it WILL lead to a lot of stuff falling apart… If we don’t swing back hard to the right… Which we probably will. THAT is part of the natural cycle of things too. People always like to push boundaries on degeneracy, then society falls apart, and people overcorrect back to the right. It sucks we can’t just get to, and stay in, the nice in between spot where everything still functions, but people are pretty free to discretely do what they want.