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.
Nope. While far less common than polygyny (many wives), polyandry (many husbands) has existed in many societies, sometimes upheld as an ideal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry
Polyandry is certainly far more common across time and space than anything resembling marriage between people of the same sex.
Fair warning. If these homosexuals are allowed to redefine marriage, polygamy is coming next and not from the Mormoms.
Moslems will demand it.
Sharia Law.
And yes, you do seem to think it is okay as per your comments in this thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2648969/posts?page=19#19
-claiming that a majority of people support it?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2648969/posts?page=15#15
-It’s okay if it’s consensual?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2648969/posts?page=3#3
-rather offended by post 2, weren’t you?
Right. Use the words homosexual and lesbian.
Wikipoedia, the unrivaled source of information that may or may not be correct [citation need] and a time traveling Abe Lincoln whacked a bunch of zombie molemen in Canada with a flaming fly swatter [.23].
The goal is the same.
The destruction of the family unit.
Father, mother, children.
Remove God from way of life, less Church attendance, No fault divorce, both parents working; etc.
The abomination of homosexual conduct, is against nature itself as well as Gods Law, and has no room in a foxhole.
So if you want to promote the agenda, its on your soul.
You decide!
Exactly!
-KICK THEM OUT OF THE MILITARY DUE TO THE PROVABLE FACT THEY ARE MENTALLY UNSTABLE.-
_____________________________________________________________
Mental Health Issues 3X Greater For Homosexuality
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/whiteheadcomorbid10_2.pdf
Sexual immorality has no excuse. None. Societies crumble when they wallow in filth. It’s been done before doesn’t make it right. Just as crimes have always been committed, that never makes it “right”.
How does this person KNOW it is popular among republicans and it is popular because two sexual fetishists are attempting to raise a little girl without a mother?
There are two leaps in that article that can not be supported.
Besides who watches the ghetto of the broadcast channels? Last time they were complaining men 25-55 had abandoned television. Best guess then it is predominently women watching that show.
Many of them fail to understand simple English.
“No” means “No” and not “maybe in three seconds”.
Many of them refuse to leave their target dujour alone despite repeated point blank statements to go away.
And where homosexuality goes, pedophilia follows close behind and concurrent to.
Case in point: The fetish sex gear for toddlers showcased at the Folsom Street Fair recently.
Roman Empire, Caligula, Nero.. etc etc..
I agree with you on that.
However, they only vote decisively against it when it's the only thing on the ballot, as the various marriage referenda.
In elections for office, it's one issue among many, and there are plenty of voters who put their gubmint cheese first when it comes to the privacy of the voting booth.
‘cultural subversion’
you may wonder what’s could be the next movement to ‘coarsen the culture’...
Switzerland may repeal ‘obsolete’ incest laws | Mail Online
The upper house of the Swiss parliament has drafted a law de-criminalising sex between adult consenting family members which must now be considered by the government.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338227/Switzerland-repeal-obsolete-incest-laws.html
Why homosexuals and not polygamists?
I can assure you that this will be next because from a historical point of view polygamy has a lot more justification than homosexual marriage does.
______________________________________________________________-
All part of their agenda from the start...
1972 Gay Rights Platform:
#8 - Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.
...and guess what #7 is......
#7 - Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
http://www.article8.org/docs/general/platform.htm
Don’t mix apples and oranges. When given the choice, Americans vote against the homosexual agenda. The courts strike down the peoples will.
I also love when someone repeatedly mentions the ‘cultural norm’ of other cultures as if it is valid for the American Paradigm.
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.