Posted on 10/25/2005 1:58:57 PM PDT by dukeman
Society Becomes Stranger and Stranger
Tragically, many psychologists and sociologists have noted that even in same-sex “marriages,” both partners take on heterosexual gender roles. That is, one person will play a female role and the other will play a male role. Some members of the gay community have denounced this imitation of heterosexual marriage by inventing a new term. The new term for the phenomenon to be avoided is called “couple-ism.”
Since marriage is thought to be an outmoded “patriarchal” institution, taking on gender roles within a same-sex marriage is to be avoided. In other words, same-sex marriage is good as long as it is not like real marriage, which is bad, because it is patriarchal and oppressive and involves sex roles.
In the words of one radical activist: “I was blind to racism, ageism, sexism, couple-ism, and in general, all of the ways that people are oppressed…”
The invention of a new term to describe a hitherto unknown phenomenon shows that society is becoming increasingly confused with regard to sexual morality.
It had better end now. Do not allow the coopting of the language. Words and phrases matter.
I once emailed Camile Paglia and asked her her thoughts on why homosexual men, who supposedly were not attracted to women, went ga-ga over men who looked like women (both in their natural state and those in drag). And why the drag queen who could most exaggerate feminine traits was considered the most attractive by homosexual men (who supposedly weren't attracted to women)?
At the same time, lesbian couples also often clearly have one playing the male and one playing the female role. Not only in appearance, but in multiple dimensions of their relationship.
I asked her if this suggested that homosexuality was a coping mechanism for some inability to be in a heterosexual relationship, even to the point of recreating heterosexual dynamics in same sex couples.
I also wondered if, anthropologically and sociologically speaking, she thought maybe this (homosexual couples recreating the male and female relationship dynamics, even down to outward appearances, in their relationships) suggested a male/female relationship was the natural norm--even like a relationship "set point" that human biology consistently strives to attain.
She replied in her column with some meandering answer about homosexual men and ignored the questions about lesbians altogether.
Yeah, and I'm trying hard to be a medical doctor. I know I haven't been to medical school, but the state should give me a license anyway because the requirement that I have to be a doctor in order to get a doctor's license violates my constitutional rights.
Parts...what a way to put it, brilliant
I like that, "stupidism." We can apply it to every canard of political correctness. Might actually catch on.
Yes, the reason it is never enough is that no amount of societal "approval" or "empowerment" or "normalization" is going to convince most down in their souls that their behavior is, in fact, normal.
If they were convinced it was normal and right, they wouldn't obsess over whether anyone else agreed with them.
When I'm convinced that I am doing the morally right thing, I don't feel the need to seek the approval of others--not to mention not an entire society---for me to feel comfortable doing the morally right thing.
No one seeks society's stamp of approval for their private behavior unless they feel they have something to prove---to THEMSELVES.
So now the truth is out. Not even happy now, where they are close to having the "marriage" option. I guess that's really not what they want after all. They see something precious beyond words and realize themselves that they would only be a fraud to it. It is what it is and been like that since it was introduced and in everyone's mind since ???? And what it is and what they want it to be are not the same. AND THEN, they also know that once it is destroyed by them, well then, they don't get those whatever they percieve as marriage "perks", because, well, they just "changed" it, destroyed its meaning, and IT AIN'T IT no mo. Its a fraudulent imitation, all around.
God help them, it must be their mother issues. Or father issues. Something bad has had to have happened to these people when they were young, because how else do you explain how someone could become so confused with their social identity and not be able to accept their gender assignment?
I have two sons, 18 and 22, and I would kill myself if it could be determined that my behaviour made them gay. (They aren't and no, I wouldn't go there, but I would surely feel compelled to enter a convent and say the rosary 24-7 to cancel the sin and get things back right)
"Something bad has had to have happened to these people when they were young, because how else do you explain how someone could become so confused with their social identity and not be able to accept their gender assignment?"
Well, yeah. SSAD in men is precipitated by a homosexual molestation or seduction in the pre-adult years.
In my opinion, the 'tragedy' perceived by the writer and those that parrot the same 'equality' premised social engineering agenda is that reality is hard to ignore no matter how hard they try. LOL --men & women are innately different -men and women naturally and predominantly each excel in different roles and vocations -complimentary roles and vocations. Equally meriting respect and dignity as human beings in spite of their differences -NOT as a result of ignoring, attempting to diminish or disparaging the differences...
Ohhhh the humanity.... LOL
Sounds right on.
Just wait a while. Incrementalism.
However difficult it may be to believe, many leading feminist "thinkers" are espousing absolute equality of the sexes. For example, they're looking forward to the day when both men and women share gestation. No, I'm not making this up. I read it in "Architects of the Culture of Death."
I WANT MY REPARATIONS!
""Anyone else sick of people with a severe mental disorder trying to change society to suit them?""
"That's what they do.
And we let them."
One of the great problems with America is that the founders failed to anticipate the need for a "cultural immune system". This leaves us vulnerable to a "tyranny of the minority" that allows them to infect us with psychobabble c@ap that becomes normalized. I don't know how a cultural immune system would work, but we desperately need one.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
So instead, they embtrace “copulism.”
This analysis is way to deep, and I think could be used to take peoples eye off the ball (like many other political issues) All people need to understand is "gay marriage" is bad - Not take sides in some gay civil war.
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.