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,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.
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?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.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.”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.September 16
Beth M. writes:
To Mark P.: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