I think its interesting that you conflate sex and gender liberation with liberalism. In fact, most of the queer people I know aren't liberals and pretty much revile liberalism in favor of things like socialism or, to a lesser extent, anarcho-capitalism (you might conflate that last one with liberalism).
But also: having the opinion that certain kinds of sexual relations and gender expressions' morality should be re-evaluated is not the same as believing "do what thou wilt." This seems obvious. Eg, those who wished to abolish slavery before the civil war did not wish to abolish society. It is possible to want to reform without wanting to utterly dispense with every moral fact. I don't know a single queer person who expresses or believes in this kind of moral anarchy. Indeed, the very ideal of queer liberation is to assert _moral status_ for a class of people that have previously not had it, not to eliminate the idea of moral status all together.
In fact, the only place I've ever seen moral chaos conflated with queer stuff is among conservatives, who do so because it makes queerness seem more scary than it actually is.
I would like to pose a question to you. If, as you state, 60% of the population is ambivalent to or supports queerness, how do you distinguish this state of affairs from a genuine social evolution compared to what you are implying, some kind of sinister plot imposed by "them." If "them" is 60% of the country or even just 40% of the country, and, as you suggest, opposition is actually smaller than 40%, then isn't the acceptance of queerness just a social change like any other?
You must know very different queer people than I do, because queer communities in my experience tend extremely anti-capitalist. I see various flavors of anarchism, but anarcho-capitalism is not typically one of them.
But also: having the opinion that certain kinds of sexual relations and gender expressions' morality should be re-evaluated is not the same as believing "do what thou wilt." This seems obvious. Eg, those who wished to abolish slavery before the civil war did not wish to abolish society. It is possible to want to reform without wanting to utterly dispense with every moral fact. I don't know a single queer person who expresses or believes in this kind of moral anarchy. Indeed, the very ideal of queer liberation is to assert _moral status_ for a class of people that have previously not had it, not to eliminate the idea of moral status all together.
In fact, the only place I've ever seen moral chaos conflated with queer stuff is among conservatives, who do so because it makes queerness seem more scary than it actually is.
I would like to pose a question to you. If, as you state, 60% of the population is ambivalent to or supports queerness, how do you distinguish this state of affairs from a genuine social evolution compared to what you are implying, some kind of sinister plot imposed by "them." If "them" is 60% of the country or even just 40% of the country, and, as you suggest, opposition is actually smaller than 40%, then isn't the acceptance of queerness just a social change like any other?