Skip to comments.As Gay Becomes Bourgeois
Posted on 12/29/2010 11:03:28 AM PST by Kaslin
So now openly gay soldiers get to fight and die in neocon-imperialist wars too?
David Brooks saw such ironic progressive victories coming. In his book "Bobos in Paradise," he wrote that everything "transgressive" gets "digested by the mainstream bourgeois order, and all the cultural weapons that once were used to undermine middle-class morality ... are drained of their subversive content."
Two decades ago, the gay left wanted to smash the bourgeois prisons of monogamy, capitalistic enterprise and patriotic values and bask in the warm sun of bohemian "free love" and avant-garde values. In this, they were simply picking up the torch from the straight left of the 1960s and 1970s, who had sought to throw off the sexual hang-ups of their parents' generation along with their gray flannel suits.
As a sexual lifestyle experiment, they failed pretty miserably, the greatest proof being that the affluent and educated children (and grandchildren) of the baby boomers have re-embraced the bourgeois notion of marriage as an essential part of a successful life. Sadly, it's the lower middle class that increasingly sees marriage as an out-of-reach luxury. The irony is that such bourgeois values -- monogamy, hard work, etc. -- are the best guarantors of success and happiness.
Of course, the lunacy of the bohemian free-love shtick should have been obvious from the get-go. For instance, when Michael Lerner, a member of the anti-Vietnam War "Seattle Seven," did marry, in 1971, the couple exchanged rings made from the fuselage of a U.S. aircraft downed over Vietnam and cut into a cake inscribed in icing with a Weatherman catchphrase, "Smash Monogamy."
Today Lerner is a (divorced and remarried) somewhat preposterous, prosperous progressive rabbi who officiates at all kinds of marriages -- gay and straight -- and, like pretty much the entire left, loves the idea of open gays becoming cogs in the military-industrial complex.
The gay experiment with open bohemianism was arguably shorter. Of course, AIDS played an obvious and tragic role in focusing attention on the downside of promiscuity. But even so, the sweeping embrace of bourgeois lifestyles by the gay community has been stunning.
Nowhere is this more evident -- and perhaps exaggerated -- than in popular culture. Watch ABC's "Modern Family." The sitcom is supposed to be "subversive" in part because it features a gay couple with an adopted daughter from Asia. And you can see why both liberal proponents and conservative opponents of gay marriage see it that way. But imagine you hate the institution of marriage and then watch "Modern Family's" hardworking bourgeois gay couple through those eyes. What's being subverted? Traditional marriage, or some bohemian identity politics fantasy of homosexuality?
By the way, according to a recent study, "Modern Family" is the No. 1 sitcom among Republicans (and the third show overall behind Glenn Beck and "The Amazing Race") but not even in the top 15 among Democrats, who prefer darker shows like Showtime's "Dexter," about a serial killer trying to balance work and family between murders.
Or look at the decision to let gays openly serve in the military through the eyes of a principled hater of all things military. From that perspective, gays have just been co-opted by The Man. Meanwhile, the folks who used "don't ask, don't tell" as an excuse to keep the military from recruiting on campuses just saw their argument go up in flames.
Personally, I have always felt that gay marriage was an inevitability, for good or ill (most likely both). I do not think that the arguments against gay marriage are all grounded in bigotry, and I find some of the arguments persuasive. But I also find it cruel and absurd to tell gays that living the free-love lifestyle is abominable while at the same time telling them that their committed relationships are illegitimate too.
Many of my conservative friends -- who oppose both civil unions and gay marriage and object to rampant promiscuity --often act as if there's some grand alternative lifestyle for gays. But there isn't. And given that open homosexuality is simply a fact of life, the rise of the HoBos -- the homosexual bourgeoisie -- strikes me as good news.
Dump the word *gay* = call it homosexual.
It’s deviant, sinful and abnormal.
Let us assume your definition is entirely correct.
What is your prescription for dealing with the people who fit it?
Goldberg doesn’t usually miss the point so completely. Homosexual conduct is morally reprehensible under every conceivable set of circumstances, so why should we be trying to find either “gay” marriage, or any alternative, to be acceptable?
hahaha, Goldberg is always fun to read.
For many years it was a diagnosable mental illness or condition and treated as such. Why not return that that construct?
that that = to that
Rape and sodomy charges.
They do it for domestic violence for women who are clueless, they need to do it for victims of gays. Period.
Only because of the Latin Chick (extremely hot) and the Blonde Babe (also hot)....the rest of it I speed through - thanks to DVR.....
There is something left of this aggressive tendency, however, and although it might be categorized as violent revolution reduced to juvenile whining, it's still there in those gay activists who don't really want to marry, have children, or join the military, neither do they want their friends to, but insist on forcing the issue only because it pisses the straight world off. That may be cultural subversion but it certainly isn't revolution.
You got it. The consequences of acceptance will not be nice. For example the “gay” legislator in California that wanted to legalize possession of small amounts of kiddy porn. The sodomites will start harvesting school kids once gays get EEOP “rights.”
I've a suspicion there will be a drop off in gay enlistees.
Frantic efforts have been made over the past 30 years to accommodate women and gays in the military. If the draft was ever re-instituted, think of the mad rush by many to suddenly be “unaccommodated.”
Discourage it, ridicule it, not celebrate it.
HIV/AIDS wasn’t an accident. It is nature’s way of dealing with deviant promiscuity. Keep giving them the Ok’s and pats on the back and when the next wave hits, watch out.
So which person in a consensual relationship is the perp, and which is the victim?
Its deviant, sinful and abnormal.
Amen to that.
As a behavior that is inherently disordered, it then points to other behaviors that are disordered. The Left doesn't want that pointed out.
It still is a diagnosable mental illness.
> What is your prescription for dealing with the people who fit it?
The same prescription I would have for pedophiles, porno addicts, drug addicts, thieves, and criminals of all stripes.
That’s who saved me from drug addiction.
Check out http://www.exodusinternational.org/
Homosexuality is slavery. It is a curse. Christ can break any and all curses.
Because a significant majority of Americans today disagree with the construct, and it cannot possibly be enforced against such an opinion?
Your prescription might work, but it would require first changing back the opinion of most Americans. And, unfortunately, the trend is the other direction.
Thats who saved me from drug addiction.
And me from alcoholism. He's the ultimate answer for everything.
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.