Read this gay man’s terrible ‘take down’ of gay culture

Jason Hill

Jason Hill Dan Tracer

If you’re looking for a lesson in how internalized homophobia can mix seamlessly with antiquated puritanism to produce a toxic sludge dressed up in a three-piece suit of “social analysis,” your search is over!

Jason Hill has written a hit piece on his fellow gays, posted to the conservative blog The Federalist.

Hill, a self described, “gay, Jamaican…conservative Democrat,” has so much to say about modern gay culture, we don’t even know where to begin.

So we’ll take his points as they come.

On gay marriage:

Marriage between two men in our contemporary culture is a colossal waste of time, a hopeless undertaking doomed for failure, and, fundamentally, a naive endeavor profoundly at odds with the hypersexual, broken, and ethically bankrupt ethos and nature of gay male culture.”

If it isn’t glaringly obvious by his eyebrow-raising opening argument, Hill is not a believer in open relationships or non-monogamy, but rather than say “to each their own,” it’s as if every gay man in the world who has an honest conversation with himself about love and sex and arrives at any conclusion other than life-long monogamy is actually chipping away at human decency itself.

We hate to break it to you, Jason, but gay men did not invent promiscuity. We’re pretty sure plenty of straight guys throughout history, some with fancy titles like Father, President and Your Excellency, have spent countless hours in the pursuit of “getting it in.” Let’s not pretend this is a modern, or gay, phenomenon.

“The majority of gay men, with their transparent and blatant preference for open relationships and polyamorous dalliances,” Hill writes, “will suffuse mainstream culture with ‘experiments in living’ that will radically alter the sexual landscape of our culture.”

Hill goes on to say that, “heterosexuals are considered to possess a higher share in humanity than gays,” but that the “worst” of the straight world shouldn’t be used to judge the groups “majority-forming members.”

So who does he lump into the “worst” category?

Prisoners, the mentally and physically handicapped, rapists, those who fail to care for their children, those unable to procreate, serial killers, the elderly, the asocial, the non-communicative, and those who participate in traditions of wife beating, philandering, and wife desertion are all accorded the right to marry. But at least some persons in this list are regarded as, at best, psychological aberrations who are incidental to the larger heterosexual marrying population and, at worst, social ballasts who, if we did not live in a civilized society would be a job for the sanitation department to dispose of.

We’ve never wanted so badly to realize we’re being trolled, because that truly makes the blood boil. The handicapped, rapists, the elderly — what’s the difference, anyway?

Let’s get back to the sex part because if we read the above quote one more time we’ll lose our lunch:

Sexual promiscuity among gay men is an addiction that has little to do with conquering prey and liking the chase. At some point in a heterosexual man’s life, mindless and maniacal cruising for sex with women ceases and he begins, like women, the biological search for an ideal mate who will be a suitable mother to his future children.

Thanks for that diagnosis and biology lesson. Those heterosexuals sure are noble creatures, aren’t they?

After literally countless more bogus points that you can read in full if you really have the stomach for it, Hill gets to his conclusion: we need a new “moral contract” for gay men.

This Story Filed Under

Comments