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.
Then maybe you should clarify. Will you answer these questions:
1. What should be taught about homosexuality in schools? That it is:
A. Normal behavior.
or
B. Deviant and abnormal behavior.
2. Should two people of the same sex be allowed to marry each other? YES or NO
No, no confusion at all pal.
Bawney Fwank had a homosexual underage prostitution ring in his basement, and that was consensual.
Here you are trying to normlize the disease by “using the term is to ensure force or rape is removed from the discussion.”
But, even though some things are consented to, the people consenting are incapable of legally doing so.
Just because it is consented doesn’t mean it is right.
And curious that you won’t answer wagglebees question.
I guess they're right about Americans being xenophobic. ):
According to you, we are not only supposed to believe our values are better, a POV with which I generally agree, but we are apparently also supposed to never recognize that other values have ever existed. There is nothing at all we can learn from a discussion of other cultures, not even confirmation that our values are superior to theirs.
Interesting article save the concessions near the end.
America is the cultural melting pot.
Theodore Roosevelt said of immigrants that they should assimilate with us.
Meaning, you become an American, learn the lingo, embrace American culture.
That is the American Paradigm
Trying to normalize what is valid from other cultures is invalid in the American Culture.
Unless, of course, tribal headhunters are what you’d like in your neighborhood - we can emulate that.
Your ‘point’ is invalid.
That is not what you are doing. Keep talking. I'm enjoying watching you sink. Oh and, ANSWER WAGGLEBEE.
Except with food.
I disagree with your analysis of Sherman Logan’s comments.
It makes sense to discuss these issues ONLY in terms of consenting adults. Otherwise you have additional legal issues involved.
This doesn’t NORMALIZE the behavior. But for the discussion, it means it is IMMORAL but not ILLEGAL.
This does not mean Sherman agrees with the behavior. But it does raise the question, “How do we/society deal with behavior we may find immoral but which isn’t illegal?”
Possibly true.
However, you should list the unnamed five last emperors, not Nero and Caligula.
It is as if I were to point out the homo-ness of James I as the “cause” of the present decline of the UK. The timespan involved is similar. Yet everybody recognizes today that the sexual preference of James is pretty irrelevant to anything happening today.
For about the last 75 years or so of the Empire, who was Emperor and who he preferred to bed were remarkably irrelevant, as the Emperors were merely figureheads for military commanders and barbarian chieftains.
Are you aware Constantine (died 337, over 150 years before the Fall) made sodomy a capital crime? What is your evidence the late Roman Empire was overrun with homos?
Yeah, I’m wishing to finally see them answer wagglebee.
Hey, Sherm, post 101!
Answer the question.
Oh, and.. Sherm?
Debate fail yet again.
1. B
2. NO
Never said otherwise, regardless of what some have read into a post.
Yeah, you have that right.
The meaning of ‘is’ and whether or not ‘giving back medals’ actually meant ‘giving them back.’
And the current wannabe in the whitehouse with his ministry of truth and doublespeak.
I see you know NOTHING about homosexuals. Tell me what a chicken hawk is.
Thank you. Your question does a considerably better job of explaining my thought than I did.
Sherman doesn’t dare answer them. He’s been pegged correctly from his first post.
A “chicken hawk” is engaging in illegal behavior, trying to involve someone who can’t give consent.
Sorry buddy.
But the push has been to reduce the age of consent.
Now why would the homos do that?
Please see post 112.
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.