I'm 61, I came out gay in 1980. I think we were Libertarian back in the day. Not consciously, it was a live and let live attitude we were promoting and logic and reason was on our side. Any objections to our relations were based in religious doctrine, legalizing homosexuality did not contradict the Constitution. People seem to think that marriage was the ultimate goal. Not true, that was a nice outcome but it was never a priority but maybe that was the perception in the end. The marriage movement gained momentum in the media because of religious right opposition to same sex couples suing for equal rights at the state level and winning. Prior to Republicans making it one of their priorities, most of us were patiently watching it play out at the state level. We never demanded anything from Democrats on this issue. We were fighting for basic rights and dignified treatment. Homosexuality wasn't even decriminalized in the US until 2003. A case of two men arrested for having sex, while having sex in their bedroom. This was in Texas in the 21st century. The Constitution allowed us to advance our rights legally, almost every right gained was through the judicial process. We almost never demanded anything from Congress or the White House, our movement was a political toxin for Democrats. At least they didn't openly oppose us and many quietly supported us, so we supported them. They only voiced solidarity openly when it became politically advantageous, sometime during the Obama Presidency imo. The alphabet movement today is anti-Libertarian. The Woke movement is very much like the self proclaimed Moral Majority of the Reagan Revolution. Humorless, self righteous, falsely believing they stand on the moral high ground. Demanding conformity by bullying and threatening to cancel people. Religious conservatives are very much like this when they have the cultural power. I don't know what the solution is but acknowledging the problem is a good first step to finding one.
I'm 62 and came out in 1981.It was more fun in the 80s than now with the trans-queer movement and we didn't even have rights back then and it was far more dangerous.
yeah look maybe libertarianism and queer rights don't always align in every situation. We understand the situation, and we're starting to realise that the people that want us gone don't care about the rules - they're happy to use violence or misinformation or whatever means necessary to advance their agenda. if they don't care about playing fair, why should we?
Extremely refreshing views! Put very logically and eloquently. I wish this dialog and belief could be wider held. It would surely help with all these ridiculous divisions among the masses.
The Gays are really different now. The 90’s with grunge dance music and all the festivals was the most open and warm society was. Now it’s garbage elitist racist and weird. I have had beer and played Pool with Trans after our Gay night in an arts Rock n Roll pub. But now they are just too judgemental controlling and elitist. I agree with this Man. It’s gone to crap and hatred.
Gender ideology is based in Critical Queer Theory. What is it? Marxist logic applied to sex, gender, and sexuality. It is also a religious cult. Under this ideology, being queer is not a sexual orientation but a political identity. By their own definition, being queer is whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. It is oppositional all things normal... to reality itself. Why? Because they believe it to be oppressive. Two things to check out: 1) Logan Lansing's UA-cam channel. An episode titled The Queering of the American Child. He explains Queer Theory comprehensively and straight from these activists literature. 2) Listen to James Lindsay's talk at the European Parliament. Best summation of Woke Marxism, the cultural revolution in the West.
that is because the left wing marxist liberal owned corporate media wants everybody to be fighting each other while they steal our tax dollars for their own benefit, after 40 years of improvement with the Right Wing politicians and people the Trans community screwed it all up in 2 years with drag shows at kindergarten classes. WTF? Absolute insanity. So yeah, all the progress that was made in the Right wing communities over the past 40 years has been dissolved just the way the corporations wanted. All according to plan.
8:55 from a Trans person. Thenk you. This takeover is doing so much harm for trans people and spsificly for trans people who are unlikely to have an identity thet was completely hijacked by the crazies
Just wanted to comment on being against the nuclear family and indoctrination. As a 45-year-old gay man having grown up and live in the deep south of the USA (came out fully at 15), my views on these matters stem from ultra conservativism. I am not against the nuclear family. To each their own. What I have always been against is the idea that that is the only "right" way. The nuclear family is a given among the general population. I don't think anyone is trying to change that or take it away from others. It's not the only way now and these are fairly recent developments in society. I think that's where so-called indoctrination stems. So, to with things like sex education, family planning, etc. You don't have to exist in a traditional box. Even among straight people. Roles have changed and there's more freedom. People have more choices. That's what I advocate for. It's not trying to take anything from people (not a war as is often said) or forcing anyone to behave in a particular way. I think it is a disservice and irresponsible towards people when you remove sex education from schools and make any discussion of it out to be taboo or inappropriate. Plus, among many conservatives, these things get tied to religious beliefs and the morals that those beliefs dictate. That has a negative effect on people and the youth as much as anything else and can be perceived as indoctrination.
You disavow the 'radical' approach yet at 24:18 you claim that having lots of straight writers writing about anything from BDSM to polyamory to kink and tying it all to gay rights is somehow considered as part of the 'liberal' approach? That is the exact thing the radicals did, trying to make the lgbt rights movement not about lgbt rights but about normalising every single 'perversion' there exists. And this is the exact argument people who are against lgbt rights make, that it's some kind of trojan horse for more radical agendas. So you're part of the reason why gay rights are facing backlash right now, even though you claim to be part of the cure.
I'm gay and I definitely DO NOT accept that these heterosexual narcissists claim to be what they are not!! This heterosexual woman has a LOT of nerve saying that!
I'm 62 and was beaten by the police and thrown in jail protesting for gay rights.There were transvestites and transexuals but in my city,none of them were there for our so called stonewall moment like I was in 1990.
I am only halfway through this conversation, but I would be interested in how you would correlate increased procreativeness of predominantly bisexual males with the declining birth rate globally. Also, I don't think direct connections between sexuality in the human and animal worlds as being entirely or at least automaticallly justifiable. For instance, in animal courting rituals, the male is usually the more colourful whereas in human sexual culture it is the female who traditionally assumes that role, so I guess all that I am saying is that a more nuanced analylsis is need based on anthropological observations in human and animal species
I hear the term "community organizer" and my warning light goes on bright red. I can't think of a positive connotation for the term, except maybe "mothers against drunk driving" (MADD - wasn't that the acronym?). All this advocacy for homosexuals is despicable to me and probably a majority of people because these movements inevitably go too far. How could they not? Having gained some ground, they keep pushing and end up with a bandwagon for others to glom onto. The entire concept of "social justice" is the root of the problem. There is no such thing. There is legal justice and there are social mores that are arrived at through a variety of social processes. Norms are important in society and should only be challenged when they violate the constitution. There should be no constitutional "right" to participate in the institution of marriage if you're not a heterosexual couple (the framers of the constitution could never have anticipated "gay marriage" and so wrote no prohibition against it), no right to adopt kids for non heteros (although no one has a constitutional "right" to adopt, that is for localities). The constitution should apply to everyone equally as it was intended - though not practiced. That should be the focus. Identity politics has always been a problem in the US because we are a country of immigrants and people have evolved to be quite tribal - as all "pack animals" are (the non protestants of all sorts have faced bigotry in society - although it is not the job of the government to force people not to be bigots, this is for religion and ethics to address - it is for the law to protect the rights established for everyone). It took us a long time (a civil war and Jim Crow) to arrive at the social norm of relative equality among ethnicities and an acceptance of homosexuality as something biologically innate rather than as some sort of psychological perversion. This is as it should be. So, to now continue with "identity politics", to advocate for the so called "rights" of LGBT (yes, the Q and other following initials must absolutely be removed as they are not biologically innate, and I am not sure T should be part of this movement either for that matter) is making the same mistake we've been making since the "civil rights" era of the 1960s, which is to create protected "classes" that enjoy government advocacy. Mine is not a unique position, it is the obvious one that stands up for "tradition" as tradition is the foundation to any successful culture. My position is one put forward during the "gay marriage" movement that has gone on to be the law of the land - sadly - and has undermined the supremacy of the family in our society (to claim that children can be born to or adopted by same-sex couples might be nice for the couples, but it is a social experiment we're conducting on children without good reason and, as I said, displaces heterosexual family as THE foundation of society). Big mistake and hard to go back from here. Unfortunately, without an actual education in conservative thinkers - sorely missing from higher education in the last 60 years - leftist ideals have run rampant and enabled the "success" of groups advocating to dismantle or de-center the traditional family from its rightful dominant position in American society (I say "rightful" not from subjective judgment but as the value inevitable merrited by normalization). Now, a fascist reactionary movement is an inevitable counter to the left going too far, when what most people want is a reasonable conservative (i.e. traditonally liberal) society. Instead we get this "social justice" movement and watch our civilization crumble before us. I say this as someone who used to be on the left until about 5 years ago - i.e. since my awareness of "woke" was awakened. And Rio can argue against the woke all he likes but he is still part of the problem.
I disagree with almost everything you say here, but I'll admit that same-sex marriage happened too soon and sparked a fascist movement that will likely be the end of America and the end of gay people being able to live openly in any way. America is unique because of it's puritan roots. That's why countries like Canada and many in western Europe had no issues with same-sex marriage, but it has brought the US to the brink of total destruction due to the backlash. If SCOTUS would have punted and waited 10-20 years, there would have been no Trump, same-sex marriage would have eventually happened sometime around 2025-2030, and nobody would have cared.
what a stupid comment lmao. social justice exists and has a definition, you can look it up on the internet also norms should only be challenged when they violate the constitution? what about norms in places that aren't the US ya freakin numpty jfc. the left hasn't gone far enough
I'm 61, I came out gay in 1980. I think we were Libertarian back in the day. Not consciously, it was a live and let live attitude we were promoting and logic and reason was on our side. Any objections to our relations were based in religious doctrine, legalizing homosexuality did not contradict the Constitution. People seem to think that marriage was the ultimate goal. Not true, that was a nice outcome but it was never a priority but maybe that was the perception in the end. The marriage movement gained momentum in the media because of religious right opposition to same sex couples suing for equal rights at the state level and winning. Prior to Republicans making it one of their priorities, most of us were patiently watching it play out at the state level. We never demanded anything from Democrats on this issue. We were fighting for basic rights and dignified treatment. Homosexuality wasn't even decriminalized in the US until 2003. A case of two men arrested for having sex, while having sex in their bedroom. This was in Texas in the 21st century.
The Constitution allowed us to advance our rights legally, almost every right gained was through the judicial process. We almost never demanded anything from Congress or the White House, our movement was a political toxin for Democrats. At least they didn't openly oppose us and many quietly supported us, so we supported them. They only voiced solidarity openly when it became politically advantageous, sometime during the Obama Presidency imo.
The alphabet movement today is anti-Libertarian. The Woke movement is very much like the self proclaimed Moral Majority of the Reagan Revolution. Humorless, self righteous, falsely believing they stand on the moral high ground. Demanding conformity by bullying and threatening to cancel people. Religious conservatives are very much like this when they have the cultural power. I don't know what the solution is but acknowledging the problem is a good first step to finding one.
I'm 62 and came out in 1981.It was more fun in the 80s than now with the trans-queer movement and we didn't even have rights back then and it was far more dangerous.
I find your views refreshing
yeah look maybe libertarianism and queer rights don't always align in every situation. We understand the situation, and we're starting to realise that the people that want us gone don't care about the rules - they're happy to use violence or misinformation or whatever means necessary to advance their agenda.
if they don't care about playing fair, why should we?
Extremely refreshing views! Put very logically and eloquently. I wish this dialog and belief could be wider held. It would surely help with all these ridiculous divisions among the masses.
The Gays are really different now.
The 90’s with grunge dance music and all the festivals was the most open and warm society was.
Now it’s garbage elitist racist and weird.
I have had beer and played Pool with Trans after our Gay night in an arts Rock n Roll pub.
But now they are just too judgemental controlling and elitist.
I agree with this Man.
It’s gone to crap and hatred.
Gender ideology is based in Critical Queer Theory. What is it? Marxist logic applied to sex, gender, and sexuality. It is also a religious cult. Under this ideology, being queer is not a sexual orientation but a political identity. By their own definition, being queer is whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. It is oppositional all things normal... to reality itself. Why? Because they believe it to be oppressive. Two things to check out: 1) Logan Lansing's UA-cam channel. An episode titled The Queering of the American Child. He explains Queer Theory comprehensively and straight from these activists literature. 2) Listen to James Lindsay's talk at the European Parliament. Best summation of Woke Marxism, the cultural revolution in the West.
that is because the left wing marxist liberal owned corporate media wants everybody to be fighting each other while they steal our tax dollars for their own benefit, after 40 years of improvement with the Right Wing politicians and people the Trans community screwed it all up in 2 years with drag shows at kindergarten classes. WTF? Absolute insanity. So yeah, all the progress that was made in the Right wing communities over the past 40 years has been dissolved just the way the corporations wanted. All according to plan.
8:55 from a Trans person. Thenk you. This takeover is doing so much harm for trans people and spsificly for trans people who are unlikely to have an identity thet was completely hijacked by the crazies
you can boot lick all you like, they're still not going to love you.
Just wanted to comment on being against the nuclear family and indoctrination. As a 45-year-old gay man having grown up and live in the deep south of the USA (came out fully at 15), my views on these matters stem from ultra conservativism. I am not against the nuclear family. To each their own. What I have always been against is the idea that that is the only "right" way. The nuclear family is a given among the general population. I don't think anyone is trying to change that or take it away from others. It's not the only way now and these are fairly recent developments in society. I think that's where so-called indoctrination stems. So, to with things like sex education, family planning, etc. You don't have to exist in a traditional box. Even among straight people. Roles have changed and there's more freedom. People have more choices. That's what I advocate for. It's not trying to take anything from people (not a war as is often said) or forcing anyone to behave in a particular way. I think it is a disservice and irresponsible towards people when you remove sex education from schools and make any discussion of it out to be taboo or inappropriate. Plus, among many conservatives, these things get tied to religious beliefs and the morals that those beliefs dictate. That has a negative effect on people and the youth as much as anything else and can be perceived as indoctrination.
You disavow the 'radical' approach yet at 24:18 you claim that having lots of straight writers writing about anything from BDSM to polyamory to kink and tying it all to gay rights is somehow considered as part of the 'liberal' approach? That is the exact thing the radicals did, trying to make the lgbt rights movement not about lgbt rights but about normalising every single 'perversion' there exists. And this is the exact argument people who are against lgbt rights make, that it's some kind of trojan horse for more radical agendas. So you're part of the reason why gay rights are facing backlash right now, even though you claim to be part of the cure.
I'm gay and I definitely DO NOT accept that these heterosexual narcissists claim to be what they are not!! This heterosexual woman has a LOT of nerve saying that!
Managed about a third then gave up - meandering interviewer plus the ad frequency
Such a sane conversation...makes a nice change.
The early activism was about LGB righs. Don't rewrite our history for "trans." I'm 61, and I was there.
Thank you for saying this. 👍🏼
They re write it all as "Queer"
And making the drag queen pimp into a Stonewall hero and he wasn't even there. Anyone else notice how authoritarian things are becoming?
I'm 62 and was beaten by the police and thrown in jail protesting for gay rights.There were transvestites and transexuals but in my city,none of them were there for our so called stonewall moment like I was in 1990.
@@howigotover798 maybe they were there, and they just weren't out yet
woefully under informed about the degree of extremism in k-12
Iona, this green is YOUR colour. Rio seems like a lovely guy.
Thank you, Shawnelle! And he is.
I am only halfway through this conversation, but I would be interested in how you would correlate increased procreativeness of predominantly bisexual males with the declining birth rate globally. Also, I don't think direct connections between sexuality in the human and animal worlds as being entirely or at least automaticallly justifiable. For instance, in animal courting rituals, the male is usually the more colourful whereas in human sexual culture it is the female who traditionally assumes that role, so I guess all that I am saying is that a more nuanced analylsis is need based on anthropological observations in human and animal species
Thank you - it was so refreshing to hear your explanation - you regained my trust in the rights of LGBT people - keep the good job.
It is right and proper that the guest have outlets for all the BTQ+ activism he wants to do.
Yikes she's a terrible interviewer
Very very hard to follow what she was asking/saying. Jumbled thoughts.
I enjoyed listening to her. The transcripts help for me....I think she had some great questions.
Lady, um. Um um stop
Thank you! Someone else picked up on that and once you hear it, never stops!
SICK
I hear the term "community organizer" and my warning light goes on bright red. I can't think of a positive connotation for the term, except maybe "mothers against drunk driving" (MADD - wasn't that the acronym?). All this advocacy for homosexuals is despicable to me and probably a majority of people because these movements inevitably go too far. How could they not? Having gained some ground, they keep pushing and end up with a bandwagon for others to glom onto.
The entire concept of "social justice" is the root of the problem. There is no such thing. There is legal justice and there are social mores that are arrived at through a variety of social processes. Norms are important in society and should only be challenged when they violate the constitution. There should be no constitutional "right" to participate in the institution of marriage if you're not a heterosexual couple (the framers of the constitution could never have anticipated "gay marriage" and so wrote no prohibition against it), no right to adopt kids for non heteros (although no one has a constitutional "right" to adopt, that is for localities). The constitution should apply to everyone equally as it was intended - though not practiced. That should be the focus.
Identity politics has always been a problem in the US because we are a country of immigrants and people have evolved to be quite tribal - as all "pack animals" are (the non protestants of all sorts have faced bigotry in society - although it is not the job of the government to force people not to be bigots, this is for religion and ethics to address - it is for the law to protect the rights established for everyone). It took us a long time (a civil war and Jim Crow) to arrive at the social norm of relative equality among ethnicities and an acceptance of homosexuality as something biologically innate rather than as some sort of psychological perversion. This is as it should be. So, to now continue with "identity politics", to advocate for the so called "rights" of LGBT (yes, the Q and other following initials must absolutely be removed as they are not biologically innate, and I am not sure T should be part of this movement either for that matter) is making the same mistake we've been making since the "civil rights" era of the 1960s, which is to create protected "classes" that enjoy government advocacy.
Mine is not a unique position, it is the obvious one that stands up for "tradition" as tradition is the foundation to any successful culture. My position is one put forward during the "gay marriage" movement that has gone on to be the law of the land - sadly - and has undermined the supremacy of the family in our society (to claim that children can be born to or adopted by same-sex couples might be nice for the couples, but it is a social experiment we're conducting on children without good reason and, as I said, displaces heterosexual family as THE foundation of society). Big mistake and hard to go back from here.
Unfortunately, without an actual education in conservative thinkers - sorely missing from higher education in the last 60 years - leftist ideals have run rampant and enabled the "success" of groups advocating to dismantle or de-center the traditional family from its rightful dominant position in American society (I say "rightful" not from subjective judgment but as the value inevitable merrited by normalization).
Now, a fascist reactionary movement is an inevitable counter to the left going too far, when what most people want is a reasonable conservative (i.e. traditonally liberal) society. Instead we get this "social justice" movement and watch our civilization crumble before us. I say this as someone who used to be on the left until about 5 years ago - i.e. since my awareness of "woke" was awakened. And Rio can argue against the woke all he likes but he is still part of the problem.
I disagree with almost everything you say here, but I'll admit that same-sex marriage happened too soon and sparked a fascist movement that will likely be the end of America and the end of gay people being able to live openly in any way. America is unique because of it's puritan roots. That's why countries like Canada and many in western Europe had no issues with same-sex marriage, but it has brought the US to the brink of total destruction due to the backlash. If SCOTUS would have punted and waited 10-20 years, there would have been no Trump, same-sex marriage would have eventually happened sometime around 2025-2030, and nobody would have cared.
cretin
it;'s just that it attracts every kind of nut case there is
what a stupid comment lmao. social justice exists and has a definition, you can look it up on the internet
also norms should only be challenged when they violate the constitution? what about norms in places that aren't the US ya freakin numpty jfc. the left hasn't gone far enough