Posted on 12/09/2006 9:29:40 PM PST by Joseph DeMaistre
I posted it because it bares the origins of contemporary debates over homosexuality, and it refutes the propaganda that there is no such thing as a Gay Agenda.
The other interesting thing is the early homosexual radicals rejected the idea of inventing homosexual marriage. There still is a faction that rejects marriage completely, except they are an unfunded minority.
Divide and conquer.
>>I especially love this part for its honesty and because it undermines the propaganda fed by the "Human Rights" Campaign, GLAAD, etc.
COMPULSIVE MONOGAMY. We do not deny that it is as possible for gay couples as for some straight couples to live happily and constructively together. We question however as an ideal, the finding and settling down eternally with one 'right' partner. This is the blueprint of the straight world which gay people have taken over. It is inevitably a parody, since they haven't even the justification of straight couples-the need to provide a stable environment for their children (though in any case we believe that the suffocating small family unit is by no means the best atmosphere for bringing up children.
Monogamy is usually based on ownership-the woman sells her services to the man in return for security for herself and her children-and is entirely bound up in the man's idea of property furthermore in our society the monogamous couple, with or without children, is an isolated, shut-in, up-tight unit, suspicious of and hostile to outsiders. And though we don't lay down rules or tell gay people how they should behave in bed or in their relationships, we do want them to question society's blueprint for the couple. The blueprint says 'we two against the world', and that can be protective and comforting. But it can also be suffocating, leading to neurotic dependence and underlying hostility, the emotional dishonesty of staying in the comfy safety of the home and garden, the security and narrowness of the life built for two, with the secret guilt of fancying someone else while remaining in thrall to the idea that true love lasts a lifetime-as though there were a ration of relationships, and to want more than one were greedy. Not that sexual fidelity is necessarily wrong; what is wrong is the inturned emotional exclusiveness of the couple which students the partners so they can no longer operate at all as independent beings in society. People need a variety of relationships in order to develop and grow, and to learn about other human beings.
It is especially important for gay people to stop copying straight-we are the ones who have the best opportunities to create a new lifestyle and if we don't, no one else will. Also, we need one another more than straight people do, because we are equals suffering under an insidious oppression from a society too primitive to come to terms with the freedom we represent. Singly, or isolated in couples, we are weak-the way society wants us to be. Society cannot put us down so easily if we fuse together. We have to get together, understand one another, live together.
Two ways we can do this are by developing consciousness-raising groups and gay communes.
Our gay communes and collectives must not be mere convenient living arrangements or worse, just extensions of the gay ghetto. They must be a focus of consciousness-raising lie. raising or increasing our awareness of our real oppression} and of gay liberation activity, a new focal point for members of the gay community. It won't be easy, because this society is hostile to communal living. And besides the practical hang-ups of finding money and a place large enough for a collective to live in, there are our own personal hang-ups: we have to change our attitudes to our personal property, to our lovers, to our day-to day priorities in work and leisure, even to our need for privacy.
But victory will come. If we're convinced of the importance of the new life-style, we can be strong and we can win throu
Somewhere I have a compilation of quotes from homosexual spokespeople of their reasons for wanting "gay" marriage. I'll dig it up and post it on this thread later.
They are very clear in wanting marriage so as to change the very meaning of marriage and family, not because they want to emulated normal families (aka "real" families).
A well deserved BTTT and I hope all the homosexual cheerleaders read every word, and then comment.
The fact homosexual activists elevate narcissism and arrogance as cultural virtues alone is enough to say embracing them is bad for society.
Personally, for me the problem is their arrogant attitude. I've met homosexuals who I've disagreed with, but with whom I have maintained a cordial relationship.
Tammy Bruce is homosexual, yet she doesn't try to push her bedroom into my living room. I can tolerate that type of person. I don't have time for arrogant people.
Unfortunately, her kind seems to be rare.
I have run into mucho trouble (and so have other people I know) for holding viewpoints supporting traditional morality.
The homosexuals who I have met have been some of the meanest, most vulgar people I have ever met. I have always wondered, knowing what I do about clinical depression, if depression manifests itself as homosexuality in some people. I say that because depression can cause some people to do some rather bizarre stuff.
The homos don't want responsibility for their actions, so they cook up studies to justify their disordered desires. The real issue isn't "homophobia," it's homoarrogance.
In ancient Greece, which sanctioned "gay marriage," a household consisted of two male lovers and female slaves kept for breeding so this "manifesto" is kind of projecting.
And performing same sex acts and immersing oneself in the "gay culture" causes depression. This is explained medically in various systems (Ayurvedic, yoga system, traditional Chinese medicine). Actually according to eastern medical philosophy, same sex acts, especially anal sodomy, can cause aggressive psychosis.
What source do you have for ancient Greek "gay" marriage? My understanding was there was no such thing.
It was not an internet source. I remember reading it many years ago in a book on Jewish history. Now I will have to go and look it up, I will post a link here if I can find it.
I've read varying things about the cultural acceptance of homosexuality in Greece...apparently it was not a universal acceptance. Sparta may have been more universal accpetance. Of course, the Greek civilization lasted for a long time and changed over that time.
If you do find anything, ping me, thanks!
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.