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.
I believe the death penalty is the only really appropriate response to the forcible rape of a child under the age of 18 by an adult over the age of 21. For a rapist under the age of 21, a long imprisonment with attempted therapy.
After 21, lights out.
Yes, but many people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism, but that does not make it a desirable behavior. People can change even their brains over time and with support from their community and especially from their doctor.
Many identical twin studies have been conducted and have found that homosexuality is not genetic -- one may be gay and the other straight, even though they share identical genetics and greatly similar upbringing.
That's a load. Homosexuals call it "camping it up" and I've seen them drop the affectations in a heartbeat when it suits them to do so.
Your "virus theory" takes away responsibility for their actions. That's not a conservative value. Homosexuals make choices. They are responsible for those choices, not a virus. They can CHOOSE not to live that life. Your giving them an excuse for their lack of self-control.
Which you cannot back up and I can mine.
Well, here it is, even if you cannot prove your absurd statement about Catholic Bishops being homosexual and/or Free Masons:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/QAMEX00.pdf
Machismo has important implications for how most Mexicans view homosexuality.
Unlike the United States, where homophobia tends to be directed more evenly against all individuals who are attracted to other persons of the same sex, in Mexico it is far more intensely directed against those who violate norms of male and female conduct. That is especially pronounced among men, where effeminate behavior elicits far greater levels of social disapproval than does homosexuality per se.
In the machista perspective, a man’s greatest offense against the norm is to not act like a man. Effeminacy and cross-dressing are serious violations of the masculine ideal. But the greatest transgression is for a man to assume the sexual role of a woman in intercourse.
The man who penetrates another man remains masculine. The man who is penetrated loses his masculinity, and incurs by far the greater social stigma.
According to Mexican Nobel laureate Octavio Paz,
It is likewise significant that masculine homosexuality is regarded with a certain indulgence insofar as the active agent is concerned. The passive agent is an abject,degraded being.
This ambiguous conception is made very clear in the word games or battles—full of obscene allusions and double meanings—that are so popular in Mexico City. Each of the speakers tries to humiliate his adversary with verbal
traps and ingenious linguistic combinations, and the loser is the person who cannot think of a comeback, who has to swallow his opponent’s jibes.
These jibes are full of aggressive sexual allusions; the loser is possessed, is violated, by the winner, and the spectators laugh and sneer at him.
Masculine homosexuality is tolerated, then, on condition that it consists in violating a passive agent. As with
heterosexual relationships, the important thing is not to open oneself up and at the same time to break open one’s opponent.
So ingrained are these distinctions that they are reflected in the popular vocabulary. In common parlance, Mexicans distinguish male homosexuals by their degree of masculinity, and their sexual roles.
According to Joseph Carrier, From early childhood on, Mexican males are made aware of the labels used to
denote homosexual males—puto, joto, maricón—with the clear understanding that these homosexual males are guilty of unmanly, effeminate behavior.
It is important to note that homosexual and afeminado are synonymous with the more often used colloquial terms puto, joto, and maricón. Since all these terms apply only to those males who play the anal-receptive sex role in a homosexual encounter, the implication is that the anal-insertive masculine male is not homosexual—and separate terms exist to describe him (mayate, chichifo, and
picador). Thus, from an early age Mexican males are likely to be aware of samesex contacts and of the activo-pasivo dichotomy that exists between males having sexual contact, and that there is a stigma associated with the pasivo but not the activo sex role.
I had to format this myself, but it is directly copied and pasted from a P.D.F. file.
mas cerveza por favor, Now prove your absurd statement that “Many modern bishops are freemason and/or homosexual”, por favor.
I’m not “excusing” a damned thing. The desire can be an affliction - whether mental or physical - but the queers make the choice as to whether or not to engage in the actts.
I like the theory because: A) it’s novel; and B) it drives homosexuals crazy.
Two good enough reasons for me.
Hank
It doesn’t drive them crazy. There is no cure for a virus. They will then claim they’re “sick” and there’s no cure. That lets them off the hook and they will claim the behavior can’t be controlled. It neatly takes away their responsibility.
In their queer heads perhaps it would.
God almighty says it's an abomination, that's good enough for me.
Me too but it only works for those who know He's watching.
You left out Necrophilia. What are you, some kind of "hater?"
If they wanted to test the theory, they would focus on identical twins. Unfortuantely, they're actualy trying to prove the theory without regard to the truth.
Early research showed that when homosexuality occured among identical twins, typically only one was homosexual.
I call BS. Which societies are those?
I don't know about Hispanic societies, but it's true in moslem societies.
Before joining the SCOTUS, Justice Ginsberg advocated lowering the age of consent, for all forms of sex, to the age of twelve.
See my #266, I proved it to the noob and he hasn’t answered me back yet with proof of his asinine statement that “Catholic Bishops are Homosexuals and/or Free masons”.
During my first year in the AF, we had a very effeminate Chapel Manager. The kid was straight but he used a lot of "questionable" hand gestures and his voice was a bit odd. He would hang out in the day room wearing a lot of flashy, but real, gold jewelry (nugget rings, chains, bracelets) and drinking excessive amounts of wine.
I was going back to my room, one evening. Chapel guy was on his way to the shower in a towel. He stopped by my door to talk. While we were talking, another young man stepped out of his room, looked over and went back into his room.
The Chapel guy went on to the shower. About five minutes later, he came back, still in his towel. He said that the other guy had followed him into the shower room.
Then he told me that he had been switching his shower times because the other guy was making him uncomfortable, but the other guy seemed to be showering whenever he showered. The other kid was very slender, extremely quiet and creepy as hell. Fortunately, he never tried to shower with me!
I wanted to tell Chapel guy, "Dude, we know you're not gay, but damn it you really try to convince everyone that you are!"
I PCSd soon after, so I don't know if anything ever came out of the situation.
> You left out Necrophilia. What are you, some kind
> of “hater?”
Uh, oh. Sorry I missed that one. Promise not to report me to the New Hampshire Human Rights Commission. They could fine me into penury and give me jail time without a trial and without appeal.
Yes, such a “commission” actually exists in the “live free or die” state, and, yes, they can fine and imprison “haters” without a jury and without appeal.
That’s why the sodomite marriage law passed last year, and signed by the governor who promised never to sign such a thing, is so dangerous to us.
Coming to you at the Federal Level, soon.
'tis a scary world, my FRiend...
In cases of drunk on drunk sex, the first one to complain is usualy the gainer. However, for real, it’s a question of finding intent, premeditation, possession, exploitation etc... The devil goes into the details. It’s difficult to manage, that is why it should be banned in the end altogether.
They key is that just as the police state wants to remove freedom of speech, of assembly and mutual support of Christians and jealous feminist powers want to remove or control communication between father and children (ever wonder why it was Mother and not Common Folks Against Drunk Driving?), when a gay is found to prevent another gay from freeing themselves from burning lust to being true fountains of blessings of life, it’s right there intent of rape and possession found.
It’s going to come to that. Right now gays are profiting from the Police state’s always awkward attempts at controling communication for a free for all destruction. Mark my words, the police state wants its revenues and will ratchet up the very extermination of gays and hypies it is now promoting for worship “in tempore gratificas”.
Well, it depends what we talk about, whether it is the ever so “elusive preference” or sex addiction. A virus could definitely promote the sort of sex addiction for certain kinds of prefered flesh via the activation of over producing hormonal glands beyond the normal body capacity to satisfy (”eyes bigger than the stomach”). In that sense a fragile woman’s body might be less attractive.
Disinterest in the opposite sex sometimes produces, however, even greater disinterest in the same sex or anything sexual, for that matter, with “demons” transfering from the loins cerebros to the inner cerebros itself. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and depends on one’s ability to see the evil of the burning from the good of the never thirsting faithful who becomes a fountain himself.
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.