The homosexual “marriage” movement reveals its real agenda

We learn at The Thinking Housewife that Katherine Franke, director of the Gender and Sexuality Program at Columbia University, has

called for a new frontier in homosexual activism: public sex. She worries that the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in New York has stigmatized promiscuity. Therefore, homosexuals need to be more publicly and openly sexual. She writes,

It’s time sex pushed back and resisted a hygienic sexual politics that aims to cleanse homosexuality of its raunchier elaborations, and demanded a legitimate presence in quasipublic spaces such as Twitter and Facebook, along with the more commonly understood public space of the street, the bar, or the bookstore. Since same-sex marriage advocates have surrendered to, if not embraced, the heteronormativity of the private family, the public sphere may be the last refuge for sexual liberty.

Commenter Patrick at TTH writes:

…It seems the conversation has already shifted from normalizing gay marriage to normalizing the hyperpromiscuity of the gay lifestyle. Marriage must shift to accommodate rampant promiscuity. Monogamy is a fascist social construction, blah blah blah.

I am astounded at the complete bad faith of these people. Seems like a bait and switch—i.e. alter your laws so we can join in your straight institution of marriage. But once this is done, well—this isn’t “straight” marriage, this is gay marriage, non-monogamous in form and in practice. We must now accept not only gay marriage, but marriages which are explicitly adulterous, by design—not by accident.

- end of initial entry -

S. writes:

If this becomes a reality, it could be very damaging to the homosexualist movement in the long term. If the homosexuals really want to push the boundaries of decency, and to expose the public at large to their dysfunction and perversion, we can expect a backlash. Their strategy until now has been to relentlessly portray themselves as “normal,” hoping to convince most people that homosexuality is just heterosexuality with matching genitalia. But suppose homosexual dysfunction and perversion start to become visible, as these sexuality “experts” propose that it should. Once the general public sees the social reality of homosexuality, including the rampant diseases, suicide rates, pervasive drug and alcohol abuse, and the utter contempt for normalcy, how long will be before we witness a groundswell of opposition?

Ten years ago, it was impossible to find white people who were visibly and openly critical of the black community. Now, with the increasing attention to flash mobs and black on white violence, it is as if a dam has broken. Many whites no longer buy the official lies anymore, and they are no longer afraid to criticize blacks. If the homosexuals really want to push their sickness onto the rest of society, how long will it be before open criticism of homosexuality becomes acceptable? Eventually, another dam will break and we will find heterosexuals who no longer accept the official lies about the gay community.

Gintas writes:

This is not a sudden revealing of their real agenda—the agenda has always been the same, and wise men have long seen it. This is another step in the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution is a sexual boot camp—tear down the old man, rebuild him in a new image, a new man totally obedient to new masters. The goal is to sweep away all virtue, truth, beauty, and turn man in every way into a rutting animal with no thought above his immediate urges. Does not Katherine Franke herself talk like that, but with the obfuscating Cultural Marxism of a modern educrat? And does not the faculty of the Columbia Law School Center for Gender and Sexuality look like the drill instructors of the sexual boot camp?

Dimitri K. writes:

Recently I visited San Francisco, and its homosexual neighborhood. What surprised me most were the shop windows. Usually shores show some dress, or appliances, in their window. But in this neighborhood, windows of drug stores and even coffee shops presented penises, dildos, vibrators, inflatable dolls and rubber arses.

Some heterosexual people may want those items too. However, they are usually sold in special shops and never advertised openly downtown. But in San Francisco, they were all in the front as if they were the most necessary and hot goods. As if they were the items of primary need and everyday use.

Karl D. writes:

Adding to Dimitri K.’s comment. I lived in San Francisco for about three years back in the early 1990s and even then I saw stuff that took my breath away. During the infamous Folsom Street fair (which is basically a vision from Hieronymus Bosch come to life) and in the Castro district I not only saw homosexual males walking around in leather chaps and little else but even saw a “couple” having full on sex on the hood of a car and who were being cheered on by some of the spectators! Coming from New York City I thought I had seen everything but I was wrong. Is this the new “norm” that is being proposed? If this is our future I think I will find the nearest lamppost and proceed to hang myself.

Robert in Nashville writes:

Commenters seem to ask for what further purpose the homosexual activists continue to push. Perhaps it is, as Gintas suggests, “to tear down the old man, rebuild him in a new image, a new man totally obedient to new masters. The goal is to sweep away all virtue, truth, beauty, and turn man in every way into a rutting animal with no thought above his immediate urges.”

I was reminded of a response made long ago in Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons which suggests it’s a lot easier to simply destroy. I was able to track it down.

Turgenev’s young nihilist Bazarov says to the old aristocrat Pavel Petrovich: “In these days the most useful thing we can do is to repudiate—and so we repudiate.”

Pavel Petrovich: “Everything?”

Bazarov: “Everything.”

Nikolai Petrovich: “However, if I may say so, you repudiate everything, or to put it more precisely, you are destroying everything … But one must construct too, you know.”

Bazarov: “That is not our affair … The ground must be cleared first.”

Mark P. writes:

I’ve written to you before about this gay marriage business. The purpose is eventually to introduce the “no-fault” open marriage. Gays will spearhead the legal practice of letting married people have sex outside of marriage without that being grounds for divorce.

Mark my words.

September 16

Beth M. writes:

To Mark P.:

No-fault divorce has been firmly entrenched in America since the 1970s. Judges haven’t cared about adultery for decades, because the law, as written, gives any married person the absolute right to a divorce, at any time and for any reason. Each of the 50 states has its own set of laws, of course, but in all states, divorce became easier after WWII, and was increasingly “automatic” by the 70s. By the 1980s, at least in California, the attitude of the court system was that the marital behavior of the spouses should not be a factor in deciding custody issues, because “you can be a great dad even if you weren’t a perfect husband.” Believe me, character and behavior count for very little these days in the family courts.

At least one very traditional Christian group (sorry, can’t remember where I saw this) now marries people in a religious ceremony WITHOUT a state-issued marriage license.

LA replies:

Of course, no-fault divorce is the same as no marriage at all. Where no-fault divorce laws prevail, the only thing holding the married couple together, practically speaking, is their own preference/choice/desire/will. The moment the preference/choice/desire/will of one of the marriage partners changes, the marriage ends. And as the great reactionary thinker Louis de Bonald wrote two hundred years ago, when marriage is instantly dissolvable, society itself is instantly dissolvable.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 14, 2011 02:09 PM | Send