1 vote

Gays and Bikers

I have no problem with people who enjoy the biker lifestyle. In fact, I can go years without them ever crossing my mind. If I see a hardcore biker advertising his identity in public, I might stare and think he's a bit nuts, but if he isn't rude or obnoxious I will just be amused by him and get on with my life.

I would welcome all bikers into the liberty movement. They seem like people who would appreciate the way the market can tailor circumstances to individual choices. If I meet a biker who's into the liberty philosophy, I will enjoy discussing the things we have in common. I will still have no interest in his lifestyle or public image choices.

I might tell snide jokes about bikers, but it doesn't mean anything. I don't hate them. I don't even care about them. (What's the difference between a Harley and vacuum cleaner? The positioning of the dirtbag.)

If a bank teller, waiter, etc., happens to be a biker in their off hours, it doesn't concern me or have any effect on my professional dealings with that person (except to the extent they advertise the fact that they're a biker during our transaction).
BUT if an extremist contingent began using the political system to force the acceptance of biker identity and the biker lifestyle on my family, my attitude would change from amused indifference to something like hatred.

I'm not convinced being a biker is a healthy lifestyle choice, and do not want my kids exposed to bikers. The fact that bikers become obsessed with their public image, eschew traditional family and community, and revel in what I see as amoral sex practices, seems to indicate to me that there is some emotional scarring or some other disorder at work.

If my kids grow up to be bikers without any biker-bias corrupting their choices along the way, I will be stunned, but I will work to accept them. What I ask is for the opportunity to raise them without the biker lifestyle, which I see as unhealthy, being part of the equation.

If in the media and in the political realm I am repeatedly challenged to have a reaction to the biker lifestyle and identity, I will end up putting my feelings in blunt terms. I will describe them as degenerates and lunatics just to get everything on the table and get them to leave me the hell alone.

If, however, bikers don't demand I have interest in their choices, and if they don't use the political system to force me to spend two minutes of my life ever thinking about them, I will let bikers go in peace. I might even think their small, strange subculture makes the world more interesting.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You are making a straw man argument.

I agree with everything you said, except for the fact that what you are implying is that Gays want to force their lifestyle on you and your family. By enlarge, they don't. Now, there is no doubt that there are a few in the Gay community who do express those desires, but it is a VERY SMALL segment and it does not represent the group as a whole or even a majority. I hear people say a lot of bad things about feminists and it's true that many of the most outspoken ones are out of their minds and I don't like them or agree with them. However, I do not make the assumption that they represent all women. They don't. I don't even assume that they represent all feminists and if most American's did assume that, then we would have opposed and negated their efforts in correcting some of their legitimate concerns.

I'm sorry to say but I think you have been fed a line of BS. Your heart is in the right place and that is good. You don't have to like or accept homosexuality. No one is trying to make you do so. You cannot, however, deny rights and/or privileges to gays or bikers for that matter. It's sad that we have come the point where we have to decide who gets what benefits. It would be much easier if there were no benefits to argue over, but that is not the case. Gay couples are forced to pay higher taxes, more legal fees, and have a harder time enjoying the legal privileges of a straight couple. This is neither acceptable nor moral (from a liberty perspective). There are legitimate concerns here that should be dealt with. I hope you can take the time and put forth the effort to determine what is legit and what is not. Judge each opinion or issue on it's merits alone, not on your opinion of a movement.

Many of your concerns are not concerns about gay people. You are confusing the issues. If you object to teaching gay sex in public schools, then your beef is with public schools and I would agree with you. If you object to gays in the media, then your beef is with the media and I suggest you turn off the TV. The list goes on.

"When I say liberty I do not simply mean what is referred to as 'free enterprise.' I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life as he desires to think and to live..." - Robert A. Taft

You're right about my concerns....

My concerns aren't about gay people. My concerns are about anyone who wants to dictate moral and behavioral standards to everyone else.

I think gays are being used as pawns in a larger agenda that has to with mindless equality imposed by the state.

I'm just trying to point out that the role of gays in society (and in the species) is being exaggerated by propagandists in order to advance this agenda.

Sorry iPhone put my comment

Sorry iPhone put my comment in the wrong place

I think that's all good and fine...

...up to a point. But if one segment of the population is denied equal treatment or has to hide in the shadows so as not to upset another (shrinking) segment of the population's sensitivities, then that becomes a form of force and oppression.

I assume you would agree that allowing a gay or biker couple to marry doesn't fall under the set of circumstances you've described as: "using the political system to force the acceptance "

or Not?

I'd challenge your first assumption.

If government and government-controlled media policy is to marginalize normalcy and normalize insanity--and with many other issues, such as war and spying, I'm sure you can agree with this--then you can't take current circumstances, with regard to what segments are more prevalent or growing or shrinking, as evidence of any sort of "organic" trend.

Gays becoming mainstream, and families and community organizations on the decline, could be equated with socialists becoming mainstream, and free market and civil liberties advocates being on the decline.

Both circumstances could be seen as effects of a long-standing attack on institutions that challenge central power.

I'm 100 percent in favor of gays calling themselves married. I'm 100 percent in favor of a biker marrying his Harley. I'm 100 percent in favor of you believing my hetero marriage is not valid....The problem arises when you involve the federal government and force me, to one degree or another, to alter my personal standards of families and relationships.

And I shouldn't impose my standards on you, either. The Ron Paul position is exactly right. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage.

Outside of government standards, I'm glad to think gays are deeply dysfunctional, and I'm glad to have gays and liberals think I'm a closet-gay bigot. We can go our own ways and happily agree to disagree, and if one of us sees the other group having more success, we can alter our conclusions....Without behaviors being distorted by a central authority, the market will sort it out.


Government should not be involved. From my pov the whole idea is totally offensive, that people should have to go on their hands and knees pleading to a govering body to be granted a natural right in their private life.

And from your pov, their private life is now a public matter and you feel asked to condone it. I thank you for arguing your case in intellectual terms, much respect even if we don't see eye to eye.

The last issue I have with your pov though is that gays cannot help the fact that goverent IS involved in marriage. So they work within the system given to obtain the same social privilege you have. Your fight ought to be with government alone, and not with those who really don't mean to trample on you: the gays...

Also, my reference to the size of this segment of society was not meant as a basis to legitimize one pov over another, quite the opposite, I wanted to take the moral majority argument off the table. So that's another place we agree.

I feel the same way except about politicians

My only beef against bikers is the exhaust noise. If you live in a built up city area a bunch of Harley's make a godawful racket.

Read this book and you'll find that bikers don't give an f...

about libertarianism:

Hell's Angels: A Strange and Terrible Saga
by Hunter S. Thompson

At best they would have respect for Ron Paul because they would recognize he's as bad of an ass as they come. As for the philosophy or politics of libertarianism they will tell you f it, I don't need to know what being free is called.

As for bikers in real life, not just in some old book, I was glad to learn from the book that being kissed on the mouth by a Hell's Angel, with a little tongue, isn't a bad thing or a gay thing, it's a test. And the correct answer is 'I don't give an f either.'

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

What's the next test?

Whether you can take it in the rear and not give a f?

Reminds me of that old weight lifting skit by Joe Rogan.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

You appear to be implying

You appear to be implying that when gays ask for equal protection under the law, they are trying to force the biker ideology and biker lifestyle on to you (others).

I think that your thoughts on force and what not simply shows how people think differently about force and the initiation of it. If on one side, you have "the parent has all of the responsibility; he has to live with other's doing whatever they want around his children", you are on the other side: "the parent can force others into behaviour that he finds acceptable).

Of course there is always the in-between "parents should reasonable respect the rights of others while at the same time they can reasonably force change in the behaviours of others."

It is simply a difference in philosophy.

In a simpler example, what do you expect if you someone starts smoking next to you, and the smoke offends you? Should you leave, or should he leave?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

The smoking example

The smoking example illustrates the principle once again. If I think smoking is unhealthy, I have a right to avoid it. I don't have a right to force people not to smoke, and I wouldn't bother trying.

If a person smokes near me in a business situation, I have a right to deny them my business going forward. If smokers come near my kids, I have a right to get my kids out of that situation. I have a right, likewise, to tell my kids that smokers are harming themselves and will ultimately be less happy.

Mostly, I will be (as I am in real life) utterly indifferent to smokers.

But if smokers' rights advocates get laws passed requiring I acknowledge and embrace their culture, and requiring that my kids be exposed to pro-smoking material in public settings, my rhetoric and action against smokers will become more extreme. If there seems to be a pro-smoker agenda that denounces people who don't like smoking as bigots, and tries to normalize smoking so people who would have never smoked are likely to begin, I will resist it and try to educate people regarding the fact that this lifestyle is probably very unhealthy for them.

I understand where you are coming from I think...

but now can we set the metaphor aside for a moment?

"But if smokers' rights advocates get laws passed requiring I acknowledge and embrace their culture, and requiring that my kids be exposed to pro-smoking material"

Has this happened in terms of gay rights, or is this simply to describe how you would react if this were to happen?

I feel like people who have a problem with something existing often see the public acceptance of its existence as a personal attack directed at them. In actuality it has very little to do with them.

I don't think that last statement describes you, am I wrong?

I think gayness has been

I think gayness has been falsely normalized in political spheres and in the state-controlled media, yes.

I take as evidence for this the idea that gayness in the species would be naturally self-limiting, or self-eliminating, because by its nature it's hostile to procreation. Over the arc of human development, some people who were "born gay" would mate, but the more gay they were, the less they would mate. So both the frequency and potency of gay tendencies, like any other trait with survival disadvantages, would be minimized or eliminated.

The fact that this behavior is cropping up frequently in our rather insane modern society is pretty weak evidence for there being a genetic cause.

The forced normalization theory is also supported by the idea that traditional institutions have agendas and support systems that often stand in defiance of central authority. Therefore, by advancing gayness, traditional institutions are divided and destroyed, and state power meets almost no resistance.

So there is, as far as the state is concerned, means, motive and opportunity for normalizing gayness.

Or maybe your a little bike

Or maybe your a little bike curious yourself?


(Im not trying to hate, I just couldnt pass up the similarities between this and the episode haha)

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.


I thought the gay = biker thing was an original take on the topic.

South Park has pretty much

South Park has pretty much covered everything. The episode is more about the use of the word "Fag" and how its meaning has changed over the years and how it now more or less means someone is an Asshole rather than them being Gay.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

but bikers dont have a chip on their shoulder

like gay people do. Personally I know a couple gay people personally and they are not like the gay people on tv, they are completely troubled about being gay but since everyone is going out of their way to "accept" them they can not get out of the vicious cycle. Men who are looking to get out of that situation can not because as soon as they seek help and someone gives it another gay person who is militant about it sues the crap out of the person helping the guy looking for help. Being gay is like being in a gang. if you try to get out other gays will hurt you and those helping you, maybe not physically but with the legal system. Sad.

What utter nonsense!

Dude, you have serious misperceptions of my community, As a gay man, I don't know where to begin. The truth is that we are just as messed up as the straights are, though most of us do have a bit more freedom to pursue interests given that most of us have no kids. But know this one thing. If a gay person wants out, gay people will NOT hurt that person. That is such nasty nonsense. Now if you are talking about the elite activists that is a different story, but most gays are just like the average straight person, just traveling down their own road, doing the best he or she can.

The liberty movement ought to include...

It really ought to include those who are homosexual and those who are opposed to it.

I see what the author of this article is saying...he is saying, "Look, if you want to do what you want to do, fine. Don't tell me, though, that I must accept it as something nonperverse. My religion dictates it to be so. Don't tell me, though, that I may not in my personal dealings and with my personal property, that I must do whatever you tell me in acceptance of it. I am fine with it, ok? But if you push me to accept it as nonperverse, then I will push back...but only then.

I'm an atheist. But that's

I'm an atheist. But that's pretty close to the logic.

If a bank teller, waiter, etc., happens to be a bigot in their

Off hours, it doesn't concern me or have any effect on my professional dealings with that person, (except to the extent they advertise the fact that they're a bigot during our transaction).

Now you're catching on

That statement is perfectly accurate when you substitute "bigot." You don't have to approve of someone else's preferences at all. You can detest that person's preferences. It's right of you to ask that they don't impose them on you, and if they do so in a business setting, it's right of you to object and punish them by taking your business elsewhere.

I'll give you a partial benefit of the doubt

Because I believe in the freedom of association, and I think that's your point. However I can't agree with doing so specifically based on misguided prejudices. I'm not a big fan of anybody acting "in your face" as they say about any aspect of themselves, but I understand that it's no one's duty to disprove stereotypes simply for the benefit of keeping my own panties from bunching (that's my job).

I think an essential component of your argument is that you want to keep your kids away from people because you're afraid they're going to catch "the gay", please do correct me if I'm wrong. The disparity in your false equivalence between bikers and homosexuals is that (and here's where you're misguided) bikers choose to be bikers, while homosexuals don't choose to be homosexuals. Maybe that's my failing though, since the ad lib in my first post was perhaps just as inaccurate. I don't think bigots choose to be bigots either, it's inherited from their parents. Feel free to pass on your disease.

Not quite right.

We're all living according to patterns established in our formative years. It could be said that nobody chooses anything, except how to shape their kids.

What if I'm not a bigot at all? What if I just think my kids will be far happier in the long run living according to more traditional and time-tested value systems?

Buzz-words like "bigot" and "disease" don't make an argument. More likely, they're a way for you to shield yourself from simple logic.

Questioning my logic

From someone who equates homosexuals with bikers? An intrinsic value reduced to what, a hobby? You're absolutely pathetic, and I feel real sorry for your kids, who unfortunately didn't get to choose whether they wanted to be brought up as bigots.

Buzz-words like "bigot" and

Buzz-words like "bigot" and "disease" don't make an argument. More likely, they're a way for you to shield yourself from simple logic.

You claim you only take issue when it's thrown in your face

Yet you write slanderous things about homosexuals on here and you expect to be taken seriously. You have the right to decide who you interact with, but when the reason why you choose not to interact with someone is based solely on your own imagined slights against "normalcy", your own opinions and your own prejudices it makes you, by the very definition of the word, a bigot. Parroting your bullshit is more of a shield against logic than a single word I've typed to you. Enjoy the last word and feel free to upvote yourself again, you narcissistic bigot.


I have the right to logically disagree with the idea that homosexuality is a rule, rather than an exception, for the species. I even have the right to try to explain my position in a public forum.

You have the right to make a fool of yourself by having no argument beyond sputtering and name calling.

Everyone else has the right to weigh our ideas and see what makes sense.

Ain't the free market of ideas great?

stfu dude

you make the liberty movement want to kill kittens with this bigotry.