Posted on 06/06/2015 4:55:12 AM PDT by HomerBohn
National Review (NR) is a semimonthly magazine based in New York City which was founded in 1955 by the late author William F. Buckley, Jr. It describes itself as “America’s most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion.”
The managing editor of NR is Jason Lee Steorts. In a very, very long 7,000-word article in National Review on May 19, 2015, “An Equal Chance at Love: Why We Should Recognize Same-Sex Marriage,” with a quaint Victorian-era pic of a cupid (see below), Steorts — and therefore National Review — comes out in favor of homosexual marriage.
Cupid's Arrows
Steorts’ argument, briefly, is that marriage is no longer about procreation because many heterosexual couples don’t have children. Instead, marriage today is about “love” and, as such, should not be denied to homosexuals who “love” each other. In Steorts’ words:
Civil marriage was instituted, let us concede, to safeguard the interests of children by endorsing and protecting the kind of stable, committed relationships that produce them and are suited to their upbringing….
We can realize that a law that once seemed well designed could, in fact, be fairer. Reexamining marriage laws with this possibility in mind, we should register the following facts. First, civil marriage already includes a group of people — married, childless men and women — who are irrelevant to its child-centric purpose. Second, there is another group of people — committed same-sex couples who wish to marry — who have just as much reason to want the law’s recognition and protection of their relationships as married, childless men and women do. (Some same-sex couples are also raising children, much to traditionalists’ horror, but we leave this aside.) Third, couples belonging to either of these two groups have the same reasons and motivations, rooted in their love for each other, to abide by the standards of conduct that we traditionally associate with marriage, namely exclusivity and fidelity subsequent to a vow of permanent commitment. In light of all this, it is a matter of simple fairness to treat the two groups the same way, and legislators and voters should favor doing so.
There’s just one thing wrong with Steorts’ argument. For homosexuals, who are notoriously promiscuous, marriage isn’t about a commitment to exclusivity and fidelity
Outspoken public homosexual Andrew Sullivan admits that gay marriage does NOT mean monogamy. As Sullivan puts it: “there is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”
A January 28, 2010 article by Scott James in the New York Times says the same thing:
When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy. […] Love brought the middle-age couple together — they wed during California’s brief legal window for same-sex marriage. But they knew from the beginning that their bond would be forged on their own terms, including what they call “play” with other women. […]
A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. […] New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.
There are homosexuals who are honest enough to admit that promiscuity is inherent in being a gay man. An example is John Blair Linn, who describes himself as “an active member of the Washington, DC, gay scene for 25 years” who is now “disillusioned with the ‘homosexual lifestyle’.” In a searingly candid article for HenryMakow.com, “Insider: Gay Marriage is a ‘Total Farce’,” Sept. 5, 2012, Linn writes:
All that most homosexuals really care about is sex. Very few are in actual committed relationships, and those that are almost always have open relationships, and these are widely accepted in the gay community.
The gay bar is really the center of life for most homosexuals. They classify themselves as either “tops” (the one who screws) or “bottoms” (the one who gets screwed) and that is how they have structured their entire culture.
Unlike a man and a woman, two men need to know who plays the role of male, and who plays the role of female – set sexual positions – and homosexual relations are truly a hooking up arrangement. The public is so brainwashed to blindly accept gay relationships.
There is generally no stigma about any sexual behavior and those who belong to the S&M crowd are widely accepted by the general community.
Sexual perversions are widespread among gay men and involve urine, feces, and painful sex. Most gays are empty voids and fill their lives with sex and drugs. There is also a lot of anger among gay men. They are angry at their disorder, and display their anger by lashing out at normal healthy society. […]
I believe that homosexuality is almost always a birth defect. Some people are born crippled or with mental illness; the same goes for most homosexuals.
Homosexuality revolves totally around sex, pure and simple. Few homosexual men ever form relationships, and nearly all homosexual men are attracted to much younger men. Homosexuality is truly a compulsive disorder.
[…] homosexuals really love straight men. They would do anything to get at an attractive straight man.
Otherwise, most homosexual men prefer younger homosexual men by about 20 years and after about age 45, they start to get depressed and end up hiring young male prostitutes and risking their lives for sexual thrills.
Read the rest of Linn’s confessional here.
“All that most homosexuals really care about is sex” and “homosexuals really love straight men”. That is the real truth about homosexuals, which is readily evidenced by reading Michael K’s blog, Dlisted, in which the openly-gay penis-obsessed blogger lusts after straight men such as Prince Harry and the actor Jon Hamm.
Back to Scott James of the New York Times. James writes that “gay nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that” — which is to “rewrite” the traditional institution of marriage into a meaningless institution of open promiscuity, devoid of the emotional commitment of fidelity.
Writing for OUT magazine, Michelangelo Signorile admits as much:
A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to…radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing ‘same-sex marriage’] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.
Back to Jason Lee Steorts and National Review.
Very little is known about Steorts. Although he is NR‘s managing editor, there is no biographical information on him, other than what I can glean from his NR author’s page that he began working at NR in 2003. The only other information I found on Steorts is a page of links to his essays for The Harvard Crimson, which presumably means that he had studied at Harvard University.
Nor can I find a picture of Steorts.
I’ll bet you $25 that Jason Lee Steorts is a homosexual.
So long, National Review. If I wanted to read a screed by a liberal/Progressive, I would go to an authentic leftwing site, instead of a pseudo-conservative magazine that sells the same tripe, dressed up as a pretentious, tedious, long-winded 7,000-word essay written by a man more girly than a girl, with his head in a puff of icky-sweet Victorian cupids.
NR likes money. Weak knees on everything else.
William F. Buckley is spinning in his grave ... standing athwart this 'madness' and shouting STOP!
If Jonah’s mother had given up on family values, Monica would have been a crazed stalker hunted unto the grave and Billy would not have been impeached.
To be frank, I was never a fan of NR even in the Buckley days.
But what we do know, is that he took exception to an article by Mark Steyn and two weeks later Mark was off NR.
Hmmm, in a dust-up between Mark and Jason, who do you think would be the more rational? (If you didn't quickly say Mark Steyn, you maybe should be on the DU site....)
Kathy Shaidle in “Taki Mag” provides something of an overview on this stuff; at the end she kind of suggests this Steorts clown has something on somebody:
http://takimag.com/article/beta_male_suckiness_at_national_review_kathy_shaidle#axzz3cFY39Tc3
Yes. It was an online blog. Not an editorial position, but still coming from the managing editor on a public forum it was disappointing to say the least.
> Prior to the AIDS crisis, I worked at Studio 54, hung out with gay men, and learned it from the inside. While they kept much of their life hidden from me, it was still an open secret.
If homosexuals will really be honest with themselves about the new gay activism and homonazi movement their lives were not near the object of scorn today as the were when they stayed on their side of the street and we stayed on ours before they started trying to take over the Boy Scouts and forced people to bake them cakes and do weddings. So I ask if they didn’t start them down that path, who did? I believe its completely politically motivated and I bet when they discover who the real benefactors are they will question everything they’ve “accomplished”...
First, the author does exactly that. Maybe you should try actually reading the article.
Second, Steorts is the managing editor, and even though his is not the "official" editorial position of the publication, airing his view in a public forum using NRO goes a long way in explaining why he felt he had to call Mark Steyn into the street 15 months ago for retelling a very weak, old Bob Hope joke that Steyn used as a segue to launch his scathing attack the Gaystapo.
Now we know: Steorts didn't object to the joke. He objected to Steyn's column. The telling consequence of NR's refusal to defend Steyn was that the publication lost its [by far] most talented writer, and many of its subscribers as well.
John O'Sullivan's Law has prevailed against NR. RIP.
Well, part of the problem is that gay men often are big earners - put two of them in the same household and you have a lot of discretionary spending. And where else to spend it? On lobbyists, politicians and the like. So corrupt Washington took up their cause. Add in that they are some of the loudest, meanest mothers on the face of the earth and you have people getting out of their way while they mow down the opposition.
They don’t call themselves “mean queens” for nothing.
Alert for Steyn fans: he’s taking over Rush’s show next week for two days. I’m not sure which days but it’s always must listening when he’s on.
I'll have at 'go' at that one ...
"... and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, ..." Romans 1:27-29
Os Guinness has studied the American experience and the founding of its Republic. He understood, as did John Adams [Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.], that for such an ordered liberty to be sustained we must constantly work to support the foundation of the Golden Triangle of Freedom, of which faith in God the Creator is absolutely essential:
... the cultivation and transmission of the conviction that freedom requires virtue, which requires faith, which requires freedom, which in turn requires virtue, which requires faith, which requires freedom and so on.”
Only about one generation ago, BJ Clinton(!) signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Two generations ago, the very idea of "same-sex marriage" (sic) was ludicrous and unimaginable. That is because it is a complete rejection of the design of God, that is literally stamped into our very bodies, in our biology. To deny that is unnatural, Godless and debased. And the consequences of that are grave indeed.
Your become obsessed when you can never find satisfaction...
given the root of sexual desire is driven by the instinct for procreation most gays must live in a state of perpetual frustration...
“Using ridicule in an attempt to shut off debate is a leftist/liberal tactic. Why is the author of this piece trying to get away with such tactics?”
Why should a conservative magazine, founded to promote conservative values, have a managing editor who promotes the exact opposite? Why should a magazine that needs financial support from conservatives to stay afloat publish a long article by an editor at National Review promoting what NR is supposed to be arguing against?
Try promoting homosexual marriage on FreeRepublic. See how long you would be allowed to use this website to promote homosexuality.
That is the difference between FR & NR: one is serious about promoting conservative values, and one is not. I donate to the one that is serious.
Look for Skeeter to move fast on financing research to discover a method of re-plumbing perverts so they can conceive.
I agree. I read the article with initial interest to see if there was actually a legitimate argument to be made. There wasn’t.
It all centered around the usual social reasoning to allow it. He kind of made a weak stab at the significant religious side of the coin, and moved on to other pieces he could justify through unending wordsmithing.
Isn't this "mag" where John Derbyshire went after NR booted him?
Or maybe you should put a little more thought into what you're responding to before you sling around your silly little mini-tirades.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.