As Gay Becomes Bourgeois

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.

Now prove your absurd statement that “Many modern bishops are freemason and/or homosexual”

"Pope Paul VI dismissed [Archbishop Bugnini, author of the post-Vatican II New Mass] and exiled him to Iran because he had been convinced that the Archbishop was a Mason."

http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/vatican_liturgy.htm

A diocesan priest who crossed over to tradition told me that any bishop, even a "conservative," who permits gay masses is probably gay himself. Here is an Wikipedia article about some of the more obviously homosexual CINO bishops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bishops#Roman_Catholic_Church_in_modern_times

The book Good Bye Good Men chronicled the gay takeover of many seminaries. Here is an article documenting the Communist Party infiltration of the priesthood:

http://www.inatoday.com/20030728.htm

It is time for the Church to remove traitorous bishops by restarting the engines of Holy Inquisition.

This ambiguous conception is made very clear in the word games or battles—full of obscene allusions and double meanings—that are so popular in Mexico City.

These sh*t-talking competitions are no basis for asserting that Hispanic culture is gay-friendly. It is obvious that taking it up the rear end (mericon) is the lowest form of degradation. That does not mean that one who sticks him (bugeron) is not also sick in the head.

To back up your assertion, you will have to demonstrate there are practicing public bugerons that have maintained high status. I seriously doubt you will find any.

These sh*t-talking competitions are no basis for asserting that Hispanic culture is gay-friendly

To back up your assertion

I made no such assertions.

Go back and reread my original reply. I asserted that the "catcher" was more disapproved of than the "pitcher"

You denied it, I proved it and you took a small portion of that proof way out of context and to top it off you still haven't backed up your absurd statement that "Catholic Bishops were homosexual and/or Free Masons".

Go back and reread my original reply. I asserted that the "catcher" was more disapproved of than the "pitcher"

That would be no different than any society, including our own. You said that provider/bugeron homosexuals were considered normal or acceptable in some Hispanic societies:

Graybeard58: "I understand that in some Hispanic societies that only the "catcher" is considered queer."

you still haven't backed up your absurd statement that "Catholic Bishops were homosexual and/or Free Masons".

First you falsely accuse me of misrepresenting you. Then you go on to misrepresent me by cutting off the qualifying words "many modern" from my statement. Apparently there is nothing you can dispute in my proof that many modern Catholic bishops are homosexual and/or Free Masons. Here is more proof from Bishop Fellay:

"we have big problems, and these problems mean that there's a fight in the church. You have different tendencies: you have the progressists, you have the conservative. And then also in Rome, you have certain other, other things, like "lobbies": Mafia, the Freemasons."

http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2006/03/rome-and-its-scarecrows.html

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.