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.
Michael Lerner. There's a name we haven't heard in a while. He was Hillary Clinton's "Politics of Meaning" Rabbi-Guru, remember?
It's interesting that Lerner was affilated with that group of violent activists, the Weather Underground, which included the infamous William Ayers, who was and still is close to none other than Barack Obama. Also, Hillary, Ayers, and Obama each have at some point called Chicago home. Small world, isn't it.
I think that gay soldiers will be in some personal danger when they are forced to come out of the closet.
Where is that same overwhelming sex drive in a 12, 13, 14 or 15 year old? Society now tells those pubies that if they don't have an attraction to the opposite sex then they are obviously homosexuals or lesbians. And there are plenty of homosexual and lesbian counselors available to help them thru that awkward age.............
Genetic predisposition to homosexuality has been tried by the scientific community but ultimately debunked as junk science...And there are many ex-homosexuals and lesbians who are coming forward and also debunking that theory.
Sexual desensitivation classes in our grade schools, middle schools and high schools are nothing more than an attempt by the homosexual and lesbian community to teach our children to not only accept that deviant lifestyle but to recruit naive and unknowing children into their lifestyle.............
Ask any homosexual or lesbian that you know when was the first time they ever had same sex with another homosexual and it will most likely be when they were an adolescent or teenager.............
There are plenty of people who CHOOSE not to have sex/abstain. If it was a disease like malaria one could never control it and would always be at the mercy of the disease. Similar things are said about alcoholics. It's just a way to excuse rancid behavior.
Agree 100% on alcoholism.
Homos are always saying: “There’s nothing I can do about it...I’m born this way!” If I could CHOOSE to be otherwise, wouldn’t I?
I just relish the thought of being able to tell them: “ Take this pill and you can!”
Then what excuse will they have?
Hank
God gave us His laws for our protection. The natural result of sin is desolation because when we sin, we move away from God and thus from His protection.
"But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear." -- Isaiah 59:2
He gave us free will to do so, but warned us of the consequences of such a choice.
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." -- Romans 6:23
Good example, but I'm not so sure I'd agree with you about there being no "adultry pride" parades. They're shown 24/7 on cable TV and the internet. ;-)
Well, you do have a point there. I don’t have a TV so I forget about that stuff... But there are no mandated “adultery sensitivity” classes etc. Or if someone criticizes it or quotes the Bible condemning it, they are guilty of “hate speech”.
It’s freaking insane.
Female, married to a normal heterosexusl man who has a gay twin brother.
Alcoholicsm is not in the same class...it’s a chemical addiction.
And does the virus also make men walk funny and induce them to worshio Barbra Streisand?
Very interesting hypothesis and the first I have heard it. Thanks for posting it.
Actually if you read the article he does talk about physical aspects like a lisp as being possibly attributable to a virus...I suspect the swish woulf fall into that same category.
The Streisand thing I can’t account for. ;-)
Hank
And being catty and a penchant for hysteria and drama.....
In today's New York Post the two-legged creature known as Jonah Goldberg endorses the homosexualization of the U.S. military. In doing so, he adopts the argument first used by the neoconservatives' paramount leader Norman Podhoretz in 1996 with regard to homosexual "marriage": that the demand for homosexual "marriage"--like the demand for homosexuals in the military--is proof that homosexuals are no longer revolutionary or threatening to society, but want to become part of society's bourgeois and patriotic institutions. Therefore such demands are actually a victory for conservatism and should be welcomed by conservatives.
To repeat the point, which almost redefines the word chutzpah: Podhoretz, and now Goldberg, define the total subversion of America's moral values and institutions--they define the most radical social innovation in human history--as a victory for conservatism.
Goldberg also says: "Personally, I've always felt that gay marriage was an inevitability..." In other words, he always supported it. No one ever says that a revolutionary step is "inevitable," unless he supports it.
Of course, for the last many years Goldberg's frequently repeated position has been that he supports civil unions, not homosexual marriage. Which is further proof of a point I've made many times (and I made it recently about President Obama): when people say they support homosexual civil unions but not homosexual marriage, what they really mean is that they support homosexual marriage, but just aren't ready to say so yet.
In any case, we keep seeing with more and more clarity--though the clarity is far from pleasant--the real role of the neocons, midi-cons, micro-cons, NRO-cons, and teeny-cons in modern American politics. As was stated plainly by Irving Kristol in 2003, it is to turn American conservatism into a form of liberalism. The neocons have carried out that traitorous task with a total absence of intellectual conscience, and with an almost total absence of intellectual opposition. Yes, there were the paleocons; but the paleocons had so many sins on their heads that they lost all credibility as critics of the neocons. The upshot is that at present there is no real conservative movement in America--despite the fact that the whole world bizarrely believes that American conservatives, especially the shrieking feminist Sarah Palin and her supporters, are the most right wing people on the planet. If there is to be a real conservative movement, it has to be created.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018279.html
I'll make you a deal, you cite your references to this sweeping statement that you posted and I'll cite mine.
Many modern bishops are freemason and/or homosexual.
For the readers, the mention of "Bishops" in the above statement referred to Catholic Bishops.
Fe fi fo fum, I smell the stench of a moral relativist Lib-er-al-tar-i-an.
If people are convinced that alcoholism isn't a disease, I'm fine with that but when you say "chemical addiction", I'm fine with that too, having been addicted to alcohol, I know the addiction on an "up close and personal" level.
If I live until July 7, 2011 and don't partake of an alcoholic beverage, I will have been sober, by the grace of God, for 30 years. I'm still not "cured", In my opinion the only cured alcoholic is a dead one.
Don't get me wrong, I don't still have the compulsion but am 100% certain that it would only take one stiff drink to get me back on that road to the soul sickness, that only another addict can understand.
It's a disease? It's not a disease? Who cares? I didn't take a drink today, tomorrow will take care of itself.....and that's the important part for me.
You cannot back up your assertion so you try to distract by dragging in an old post from another thread.
Baaaah! Was that intended to be hilarious???
I think this virus theory is probably fairly unlikely.
Seeing however as it is quite impossible to imagine choosing this as merely a matter of preference, there must be a genetic or developmental basis for it. The only natural, say evolutionary basis, that I can imagine for it would be nature's way of discouraging some idividuals from breeding, since most of nature seems relentlessly programmed for that purpose, and much of reproduction amongst other animals is based on dominance and the notion of survival and reproduction of the strongest and fittest. But, even that hypothesis fails without a direct coralary in orientation amongst identical twins. There really is no explaining it, which is why I think it is a deviance or form of mental or genetic defect and should be approached with diagnosis and eventual cure in mind.
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.