The United States, a nation built by outsiders, whether through immigration or, in the case of Black Americans, forced migration, has long been defined by its cultural melting pot. Pilgrims escaping religious oppression came from UK; Irish, Italians, Mexicans, and many more came here for available work; Eastern Europe refugees arrived, escaping dictatorial governance. Most others, who still crave being a part of this country for its democratic ideals and financial stability, have created an unprecedented mix of often radically different cultures, languages, and habits. That’s all well known and has been discussed many times, often fueling culture wars, immigration spectacles, and at times, unjustified entitlements.

Not going as far back as Ancient Greece, but in its current form, it began with John Locke’s introduction of the power of every individual’s consciousness, where personality variations were no longer disregarded in favor of stronger state governance or authoritarian rule. That shift became a symbol of human progress and gave birth to the modern definition of democracy, where every individual in a country should have a voice in how that country operates. The desire to be more open-minded and to include more people in the everyday fabric of society has grown exponentially and brought about many changes that once seemed well out of reach for millennia.

In the U.S. itself, women gained the right to vote only in 1920, just a few years after the USSR introduced that right into law. Interracial marriages were only legalized on a national scale in 1967. Homosexuality became fully legal only in 2003, and same-sex marriage was legalized just 10 years ago, in 2015. It wasn’t until 2020 that SCOTUS ruled that transgender people are equally protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet in practice, it became a major talking point during the 2024 political campaigns, which proved that Americans still aren’t truly ready to protect transgender rights at scale. Less than a hundred years ago, it was socially acceptable for husbands to frequent brothels or maintain mistresses, while today’s society often encourages ethical non-monogamy as a viable alternative to the conventional family structure. Empowered women often reject the idea of playing traditional homemaker roles, especially as women frequently exceed men in earning power, while many men still crave variety without risking a costly divorce.

A lot of the relatively newly recognized movements, even if rooted in history, albeit typically in a form of perversion, such as sexual preferences and even gender identity, are associated with liberalism, while more traditional values, from the family unit to religion, are often seen as conservative. While much of this framing is based on distorted explanations suited to various political circumstances, religion did not just recently become a source of conflict. As far back as the 15th century, Martin Luther critiqued the Catholic Church, and the concept of the traditional family often tolerated and even encouraged domestic abuse. On the other side, Rome’s Saturnalia embraced sexual liberation through widespread homosexuality and same-sex marriages, with Emperor Nero famously marrying two men and even playing the role of a bride with Pythagoras. This became synonymous with sexual perversion, especially as Jesus supposedly rejected the use of temples as marketplaces, saying they had become a den of robbers, while Sodom and Gomorrah burned after losing their moral compass in similar fashions.

A Columbia University professor, psychologist, and grief expert, Heidi Horsley, once said, “It’s not a question of whether it is right or wrong. It’s a question of whether it works or not.” And that is where the levee breaks. Many people love the concept of embracing liberalism and open-mindedness, take pride in being empathic, and attempt to integrate many concepts close to their heart into their lives. Conservative values often became synonymous with human rights abuse, while the perceived freedom of choosing one’s own sexual partners, without limitations, even within a relationship, same or opposite sex included, seems like true sovereignty and nonconformity. At the same time, going to church every Sunday to connect with a higher power and likeminded community members, and coming home to a cooked and served meal, often sounds heavenly.

As Henry David Thoreau said, “The true price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it.” How much do people consider the price of what they get? In commerce, things are far more straightforward: one works to earn the right to acquire what they need and want. Time, energy, and effort become the price for tangible things. In personal life choices, it is far more difficult to draw such a clear conclusion. The price of nonmonogamy is sharing the object of your love and affection, your partner and their most private bits, with another person, limiting the value of how special you actually get to become for that person. After all, most people share conversations and time with any number of people, but bodies with only the chosen few. Bisexuality can be an endless source of inability to decisively pick what makes you happy. Gender dysphoria is obviously a constant source of unhappiness, with even currently available medical solutions carrying health risks and requiring total dedication, along with often a great expense and lack of a complete transformation.

In the same way, gender roles often lead to abuse, with housewives frequently finding themselves unable to find any other purpose beyond raising kids and keeping a neat home. Religion limits options greatly, while offering similar results to many that can be obtained through alternative methods such as yoga, meditation, or even logic.

Most people prefer the simplicity of choosing one side. The alternative is simply too complex, the goals become too elusive, and the price of it all too taxing. Some often attempt to play both sides, landing somewhere closer to the middle, but is that actually possible?

Take nonmonogamy, for instance. How can one enjoy the love and support of a family unit with the care and partnership of a loving marriage, while also enjoying multiple partners? In some cases, it can be called “ethical,” albeit that comes with plenty of limitations as well, but in most scenarios, it is simply cheating. Bisexuality offers a far wider array of options, while it simultaneously comes with the inability to have it all from one partner, even just sexually. Something as accepted as interracial marriages often serves as a source of ongoing conflict due to differences in cultural upbringing. While often managed well during normal times, stress and anxiety, typical of most lives, even if only periodically, often cause partners to realize that their closest ally in life simply does not get them, regardless of great intentions. How can a third-generation white American accurately understand the struggles and the causes of permanent distrust felt by an African American person, who has always had to be on guard due to systemic racism? Can they truly comprehend the life and views of a new immigrant, who struggled to learn the language, absorb the culture, and integrate into a consistent life stream? Even the differences between men and women are not easy to reconcile, but when additional challenges arise, they add to the complexity of making a union work.

Along the same lines, can one be truly religious while also embracing transgender and homosexuality rights, even in the name of “Judge not, that you be not judged” from Matthew 7:1–2, or “Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone” from John 8:7? Can a man take a wife to become a stay-at-home mother, only to cast her aside when his preferences change and another woman or activity captures his attention, and still call it a success?

If anything is clear in this assortment of choices, lined with confusion and frequent limitations, it is that any choice is an imperfect one. Being close-minded is often associated with cruelty and a lack of understanding. Being open-minded is often accompanied by a lack of grounding. Whether something works or not is often too temporary to even register and make a truly meaningful impact.

Thus, a better question becomes: what costs and benefits are you willing to entertain and tolerate, and what are you actually trying to get out of it, beyond a specific and frequently temporary state of mind?