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.
Posting History. I checked.
Screaming always put *smile* as he posted his subtle (he hoped it was subtle) GLBTQ agenda.
Thank you, Jim. Imho, a very reasonable position regarding this issue.
***********************************
Imho, that is the problem. People simply don't know.
I see that now. Just catching up.
No lightning bolts headed your way either.....
My friend married a man who is an identical twin whose brother is homosexual. Very. So much for genetics.
LOL!!!
This is a great statement and right on target. Understanding this is key for economic and social conservatives to see common ground.
Before the "gay" movement had government power at its back (no pun intended) it was irrelevant.
Taking that government sanction away would render it irrelevant again.
"Trying to normalize what is valid from other cultures is invalid in the American Culture."
________________________________________________
Except with food.
107 posted on December 29, 2010 3:48:37 PM EST by wagglebee ("A
political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
************************************************
LOL!
Lutefisk is the exception to that.
***************************
I could not agree more. I've seen how it is made, and the thought induces nausea and a bit of a dizzying sensation.
I’m told that my coffee is an exception as well.
I don’t know why.
*********************************
I could not agree more, mm. Americans are very accepting of other people and their cultures. Think of the variety of foods that are popular here. Italian, Mexican, French, Thai, Japanese, Chinese, German, Irish, the list is as varied as the countries of the world.
How many of us continue to celebrate our ancestral homes? We are a country of immigrants, and proud of it.
Reverse the very wrong SCOTUS decision - Lawrence vs Texas - that prevented states from enacting anti-sodomy laws if they so wished.
That needs to be done. Infringement on states’ rights by an out of control fedgov.
Once states can make it illegal, then it’s a whole new ball game.
Other point is, why is the fedgov in the business of pushing the homosexual agenda at all? Even if it’s not illegal? Plenty of things are harmful and destructive but not illegal. Should a destructive, immoral, mentally ill behavior be promoted just because a tiny percentage of people want to indulge in it, just because it isn’t illegal (any more)?
Should the gov promote sado masochism? It’s not illegal but it’s immoral, depraved and dangerous. Of course, that’s a bad example since S&M is a subset of homo-behavior that is being normalized.
Let me try to think of another immoral, destruvtive nutso behavior that the fedgov does not promote. How about bulimia? Eating tons until you puke? Plenty of people do it, it’s not illegal. But the fedgov doesn’t promote it or normalize it. It’s immoral because it is gluttonous and wasteful, and since humans are supposed to treat their bodies respectully, it’s also immoral, but the immorality is no where near the level of homosexual acts, so it’s also not a perfect analogy.
Okay, adultery. It’s immoral, and not illegal. Or “swinging”. The fedgov doesn’t promote or normalize these immoral acts, but they are legal and destructive and immoral. No “adultery pride” parades, with city streets closed off, mayors in the convertable, cops with rainbow attire, etc.
:) We order our coffee online from Cafe Britt. It’s wonderful coffee, but imho, the trick is to add an extra scoop for each three cups brewed. I do love a strong, bracing cup of coffee. Don’t get me started. :)
**************************************
Excellent, excellent question, lj.
Goldberg is just a pro-war liberal.
FReepmail
We would most likely return to the status quo pre-Lawrence. I think there were about a dozen states whose existing laws were overturned by that case. Most other states had repealed their sodomy laws in the '70s or '80s.
I call BS. Which societies are those?
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.