Posted on 09/08/2008 8:20:09 PM PDT by fwdude
...When I first came out in the 1980s, it was common for gay rights apologists to blame the promiscuity among gay men on "internalized homophobia." Gay men, like African Americans, internalized and acted out the lies about themselves learned from mainstream American culture. Furthermore, homosexuals were forced to look for love in dimly lit bars, bathhouses, and public parks for fear of harassment at the hands of a homophobic mainstream. The solution to this problem, we were told, was permitting homosexuals to come out into the open, without fear of retribution. A variant of this argument is still put forward by activists such as Andrew Sullivan, in order to legitimate same-sex marriage. And it seemed reasonable enough twenty years ago. But thirty-five years have passed since the infamous Stonewall riots of 1969 in New York, the Lexington and Concord of the gay liberation movement. During that time, homosexuals have carved out for themselves public spaces in every major American city, and many of the minor ones as well. They have had the chance to create whatever they wanted in those spaces, and what have they created? New spaces for locating sexual partners.
...
But at this point, how is it possible to blame the promiscuity among homosexual men on homophobia, internalized or otherwise? On the basis of evidence no stronger than wishful thinking, Andrew Sullivan wants us to believe that legalizing same-sex "marriage" will domesticate gay men, that all that energy now devoted to building bars and bathhouses will be dedicated to erecting picket fences and two-car garages. What Sullivan refuses to face is that male homosexuals are not promiscuous because of "internalized homophobia," or laws banning same-sex "marriage." Homosexuals are promiscuous because when given the choice, homosexuals overwhelmingly choose to be promiscuous.
(Excerpt) Read more at newoxfordreview.org ...
That’s: effect = effort.
It has been years since I orginally read the article. My subscription lapsed and it is not available to the rest of the FR land.
I was simply pasting the url from the original source, as is proper. Do a search and you can find the full article, as I did.
Now carry that same logic one step further and we see that homosexuals are not promiscuous because they are homosexuals. Rather, they are homosexuals because they are promiscuous.
Take women out of the equation and you're left with sex obsessed men.
bookmark
This was an excellent article and I admire this man for his tenacity in extricating himself from the “insane asylum.”
One thing he didn’t mention in discussing how lame and illogical and naive it is to believe that “marriage,” for example, will lead to happy, monogamous homosexual couples is the fact that still today most homosexual sexual activity occurs between strangers and in PUBLIC PLACES. Yes, beaches, rest stops, library bathrooms, parks, train stations, you name it.
Most heterosexuals can’t even name one person who regularly engages in sexual activity with strangers in PUBLIC PLACES.
Even heterosexual prostitutes mostly “get a room.”
So what’s the meaning of this? That homosexual sexual activity is, as the author points out, completely and only genital-focused. Ultimately, it has ZERO to do with the individual attached to the genitals. If homosexuals barely feel motivated to “get a room” for most of their sexual activity, why would they suddenly be transformed by having a “marital home”? Homosexual sex is an impersonal act that does not require even a facade of personal privacy or even a modicum of physical comfort (such as heterosexuals who tend toward finding a bed, rather than settling for a nasty stall in a public toilet) or hygiene.
Simply put, this type of sex is not done at “home”-—i.e., in the “privacy and comfort of one’s own home.” Therefore it does not support the establishment of a true “home,” which after all, is a place where people practice intimacy in multiple fundamental ways. One function of marriage is to create “homes,” but again, this type of sex is completely antagonistic to the function of a true “home.”
Even the few couples who do seem somewhat happy are so because they somehow became friends at a non-sexual level. But there is rarely monogamy . . . maybe celibacy as they grow older and exit the meat market, but that is all.
Interesting article.
I think you’ve got a point there. Most of the gay guys I know are rather promiscuous, in the “So I met this cute guy at a bar and we went back to his place...” way, but most of the lesbians I know are in relationships and wouldn’t think of having sex with a random person they picked up at a bar. When you look at STD transmission rates, they’re astronomical among gay men, and on the lower side of average for lesbians. Maybe it is the tendency of men to want sex and women to want a relationship that’s just exaggerated when they’re in a relationship with someone of their own sex - granted, there are exceptions, but that’s how it seems for the most part.
Gives a whole new meaning to the term "pro-choice".
:^(
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.