Conservative National Review magazine goes homo

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

Re: “Rich Lowry not all that Conservative either.”

I gave up on Lowry and NR Online around 2006.

Lowry was openly sympathetic to the Bush-McCain Amnesty, and to man-made global warming, and he hired a “new breed” of young Conservatives like “Crunchy Con” environmentalist Rod Dreher and future New York Times and Washington Post “Conservatives” like Ross Douthat and Robert Costa.

Let me setup hidden video cameras in a home where a homosexual couple have children for a month and another in a gay bar I will show the public what they are all about with plenty of footage to prove it. They are constantly prowling looking for sex. If the public knew about all of the other practices they engage in to find homo sex they'd be disgusted. Gay bars, gloryholes, bath houses, foot tapping in bathrooms, hanging out in places where they can find teens to approach them for sex (same online where they pretend to be females), going to parks and parking in their cars where they have "signals" they use to indicate they want to have sex, etc...they are much more filthy and disgusting creatures than the piblic is aware of...i was exposed to this crap while working as LEO. You talk to any beat cop that works any are where there are homo communities and you will hear the same stuff. They have a whole side of their life devoted to finding gay sex and they ate not normal and definitely not "Gay O.K." (talk anout some naive and easily fooled kids; they have no clue what they are talking about; they were just chanting BS; I'm sure their mothers will love it when they announce they are lesbians)

And why is the public misinformed about the nature of homosexuals? Because the entire might of the Liberal propaganda weapon has been deliberately misinforming them about the true nature of homosexuals.

They keep showing these non-threatening, likeable characters on television who don't do any of that sick stuff, and who are amusing and entertaining.

In other words, they show a false picture of the norm, because this is what they MUST show to fool the public.

Much of our current troubles stems from the fact that the Liberals feed misinformation into our news and entertainment streams. They have a monopoly on access to the public while at the same time, conservative voices are deliberately censored.

The only ones allowed on the air are the pet conservatives they can count on not to say anything too objectionable.

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.

With this I agree. I don't want to be reading pro-Nazi arguments in a Jewish magazine, and I don't want to be reading any pro-homosexual arguments in a conservative magazine.

"...put a little more thought into what you're responding to before you sling around your silly little mini-tirades."

Hmmm - "mini-tirade"?
I agreed with you that we don't know much about JL Steorts, then mentioned he was the reason Steyn was kicked off NR.
You take exception that I think Steyn is more rational than Steorts?
If so, still doesn't make my reply a "slinging of a mini-tirade".

Note to self: don't engage Will88 in light banter.

(If you didn't quickly say Mark Steyn, you maybe should be on the DU site....)

That smart-assed nonsense is not light banter, but some line you were just waiting for a chance to use. Maybe you belong at DU.

And my main point was precisely that we know next to nothing about Steorts and you went off on a tangent.

On a thread several days ago I made the point that Steorts was so obscure, he didn't even have a Wiki page. But someone his since added one and now folks can learn all about him.

Jason Steorts - Wiki

So the whole rationale for fag marriage is a sham, even in the words of their gayru Andrew Sullivan.

And the unpleasant fact of the matter is that a fag, unlike a woman, can never get enough frequency or variety of gobbling penis and/or fornicating anus.

Boy Andrew ought to open a chain of child psychology clinics in order to explain that to the children they adopt.

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.