Self-Hating Gay Man’s Disastrous “Take Down” Of Gay Culture


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 been kind enough to offer a master class on the above topics in his riveting expose 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.

Related: I Don’t: Six Kinds Of Relationships To Try Before, Or Instead Of, Marriage

“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 Dr. Judgy-Mc-Ass-Hole 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 get’s to his conclusion: we need a new “moral contract” for gay men.

What would that look like?

This moral contract, I believe, will forge a new culture, in which a milieu of respect and authentic validation transcends the obsession with validating oneself and others via an appeal to sexual anatomy…Whatever those rules of engagement are, though, they seem unlikely to be authentic unless we admit that, despite the growing acceptance of homosexuality, the psychological trauma of growing up and still living in a world that is run predominantly by heterosexual men is still a deeply painful world to live in.

Without claiming to be victims, this open admission of shame, guilt, and pain will allow us to connect to each other and the world in a way that is healthy, sustainable, and deeply loving. This ethos, generated by a radical break with the culture as it stands, is the only way to foster a love for humanity and create a new world in which we feel at home—one we have co-created by suffusing it with an original, passionate, and authentic assemblage of who we are as moral creatures.

What do we want? Heteronormativity! When do we want it? Now!

We offer our deepest condolences to any man who ends up on a dinner date with Mr. Hill. That will be one conversation you’ll definitely want back.

For someone so adamantly opposed to sexual pleasure, he sure does spend a hell of a lot of time thinking about it. Coincidence?