HERE is the faculty of the Columbia Law School Center for Gender and Sexuality. Eleven full professors comprise the center’s staff, easily totaling more than a $1 million in annual salaries. The center doesn’t feel the need to mask its partisan agenda with a token white male. There is one male and he is, of course, black.
By the way, Katherine Franke (pictured to the far right) is director of the Gender and Sexuality Program. She recently 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.
If the “public sphere” is a refuge for “raunchier elaborations,” they cease to be raunchier elaborations and become normal. But then there is no reasoning with this incredibly brazen professor. The Center for Gender and Sexuality should be offshored.
— Comments —
Thomas F. Bertonneau writes:
The faculty in the photo look to me just as I imagine the bureaucrat-rulers in Charles Eric Maine’s World without Men (1958) to look. Maine’s novel is about a lesbiocratic dystopia in which the male sex has been physically eliminated; education consists in indoctrination; no dissent is allowed.
They wear the drab, serious uniforms of the gender police.
On the one hand, proponents of gay marriage urged that they were not trying to change the institution of marriage, but simply wanted to be included in it. On the other hand, I’ve notice a, how shall I say it – a preoccupation, with the issue of monogamy among gay marriage proponents. Andrew Sullivan, a self-proclaimed conservative proponent of gay marriage now frequently posts and opines about how monogamy is outmoded and unnatural. 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.
The actual post about public sex sounds like a parody, but obviously is not. I think there is strong undercurrent of hatred gays feel for straights which is manifesting itself in these attacks on marriage, monogamy, and apparently public lewdness. This is a phenomena which I believe exists and has not been addressed or acknowledged by gays or heterosexuals. It should be.
The hostility is a complicated psychological phenomenon, but it was there all the time to some degree and motivated the desire for marriage rights from the beginning. If there wasn’t that hostility toward heterosexuals, why would homosexual activists campaign so hard for something so many normal people don’t want them to have? Why wouldn’t they defer to others out of a sense of self-sacrifice, if nothing else? They don’t want marriage. They want normalcy. In other words, they want homosexuality to be considered normal. Since that is an impossible goal and homosexuality will never be normal no matter how much indoctrination occurs in schools, the homosexual agenda is never-ending and totalistic. We must even stop using words like “husband” and “wife,” and “mother” and “father,” referring to “partners” and “guardians” instead. Since every aspect of the family is suggestive of heterosexuality, the family must go, replaced by friendships, liaisons and contractual agreements.
Wouldn’t it be great if Franke was just a parody? As it is, she’s a joke that’s not funny.