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.
1. Is it possible to believe a majority of people support the criminalization of a practice without personally believing the practice is morally right? There are two flaws in your argument: It is possible to believe a certain practice is morally wrong without believing the government should therefore criminalize it. It is also possible to recognize the fact a certain public oinion exists without necessarily agreeing with it. I believe the public is often wrong.
2. Please point out where I said I believed a consensual homosexual relationship was morally right. I used the “adult consensual” term to take relationships involving children or force out of the discussion as a way of making clear what I was talking about, not because I was trying to say anything that may be consensual is therefore morally correct.
3. My comment on post 2 was not because I was offended, but because I was curious what policies the poster proposed to implement his moral objections. The article is, after all, mostly about policies, not opinions or attitudes. Many people tend to post their attitudes, leaving implied what action they think we should take. I was asking for a little more detail, is all.
And what about all of this estate law nonsense? ANYONE is allowed to leave their estate to ANYONE they want (there are some states where provisions must be made for the spouse, but that shouldn't be an issue with homosexuals). Now, there are estate taxes, but if the left wants homosexuals to be able to leave large amounts of money to each other the ONLY fair solution is to eliminate estate taxes for EVERYONE.
The homosexual agenda is built around a bunch of these red herrings that people have never actually even thought about.
I used to think like you do but look where such social libertarianism has lead. Homosexuality truly is an abomination and God is punishing this country for its sinful toleration.
The Founers must be spinning as they watch a small segment of society spit on what they had wrought.
"Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it." John Adams
No flaws, just pointing out that you claimed you don’t support homos, yet your first three posts in this thread are pushing it.
The public is overwhelingly against homosexuality being painted as the norm.
You think the public is wrong?
You repeatedly used the term consensual.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2648969/posts?page=15#15
“So which person in a consensual relationship is the perp, and which is the victim?” -right there, you are saying it is okay.
No, you were offended.
Throw a rock over the fence and the dog that yelps is the one you hit.
Absolutely. It's as if no one has EVER heard of power of attorney and wills. They can even avail themselves of one of those "end of life" things that gives their "friend" the right to pull the plug.
Nope. Never said it did.
Although such practices have been very common through history, I happen to agree with the American consensus it is always wrong.
Isn’t multiculturalism grand?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2648969/posts?page=15#15
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2648969/posts?page=50#50
Liar.
Well, it’s simple...the more “victories” they get, the more they’ll hate it.
Greatest example. The Jews. A majority of “progressives” are Jews, yet they hate their own kind because of what Israeli is “doing” in the Middle East....
It is the destroyer of nations and cultures.
Sherman, are you a libertarian? That's not a popular thing to be. Social liberals have been banished from FR in droves recently.
Some people hold to the idea that using the norm of other cultures is valid for the American culture, and it isn’t valid.
The American Paradigm is so vastly different from other cultures, saying “Well, culture x thinks it is normal to have sex with fire fungus” is complete lunacy.
It is silly to reference the horrible immorality of these guys as the "reason" the Roman Empire fell, since it outlasted Nero by a good deal more than four centuries. Fourteen centuries if you count the Eastern Roman Empire.
Yes, there is a thread where a bunch of social libtards got the zot because they kept pushing the homo agenda.
Many of them subscribed to the “I’m a fiscal conservative but a social lib” viewpoint.
Speaking of other cultures, there is a culture where the young men, as a right of passage, tie vines around their ankles and jump off a cliff.
If they live, they become ‘men’.
Is this valid to the U.S. culture?
No.
Not one iota.
The norms of other cultures are not valid in the U.S. culture.
The last five emperors of Rome were all homos.
The social decline of Rome is well documented.
It is not silly.
Please point out where I said the cultural norms of other societies are valid for the American norm.
It is possible to consider such information interesting without claiming we should therefore change our own culture to coincide. Ours is at least as valid as theirs.
I suspect you are reading things into my post I didn’t actually say.
Every time you mention other cultures pal.
You keep pointing out other cultures.
By doing so you are trying to claim they are valid.
Debate skills fail.
Then make this statement: Ours is at least as valid as theirs.
You busted yourself.
Your are confused. "Consensual" defines the type of relationship (mutually agreed upon) not its morality or propriety. The purpose of using the term is to ensure force or rape is removed from the discussion.
Not all consensual sexual relationships are morally right. Notably all those involving children, but there are other examples.
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.