The question:
If liberal baby boomers stubbornly refuse to see the damage that their idea of "progress" has wrought, what about younger generations, for whom the sexual revolution was an inheritance, not a choice, and therefore perhaps not an essential component of personal identity, even among those on the left?
The prediction:
Even if Rick Santorum is not the next president, and even if Barack Obama crushes him in the general election (the latter, though not the former, is a big if), social conservatism will continue to grow in size and importance over the next couple of decades. That is to say, if Santorum loses, it will be in part because he is ahead of his time.
And speaking of James Taranto, I don't think he gets enough appreciation for the diligent work he (or some assistant) does cranking out comedy, day after day, based on headlines. So let me give him some. This made me laugh out loud:
Unappreciated Comic Book Heroes
"Tenant Allegedly Tapes Super Sodomizing Dog"--headline, Journal News (White Plains, N.Y.), Feb. 18
Isn't comedy like that inconsistent with social conservatism? I don't know. I'm a baby boomer and a social liberal. I am Taranto's demons. And speaking of demons, it's time for me to do my post about Santorum and Satan. I'm calling it:
Satanorum,
can we ignore 'im?
Posts
121 comments:
"Tenant Allegedly Tapes Super Sodomizing Dog"--headline, Journal News (White Plains, N.Y.), Feb. 18
Isn't comedy like that inconsistent with social conservatism?
Well, as long at the tenant doesn't try to marry the dog...
Ah, the tired old uptight social conservatives can't be funny meme....because "edgy" aging Baby Boomer folks like Bill Mahar and Kathy Griffin are just soooooo funny because they say lots of naughty words, insult what conventional wisdom says they can safely insult or take a sledgehammer to their personal filter are just soooooooooo damn funny.
Cleverness, not forced edginess, makes for good humor and the BOTW crew is quite clever.
This may entirely be projection on my part, but I can't see a future where the ideas of "social conservativism" don't split into a liberatarian/science-based pragmatic-conservative-ideal verses a traditional/religious for tradition's/religion's sake ideal. That's what I see happening to the younger generation, at least.
Take the 2 social conservative markers: abortion and gay issues. People who are now under 20(ish) are simply not going to be convinced that there's anything wrong with homosexuality. For better or for worse, the bias is simply going by the wayside (for better, IMO). In 20 years, we will wonder why people ever disputed or objected to many of the current issues, and homosexuality will seem, at most, as objectionable as pre-marital sex is today (that is, not much).
Abortion, on the other hand, is getting more undeniably wrong by the day. As science advances allowing earlier viability and better imaging, it's requiring more and more mental gymnastics to deny the horror of abortion, and that will only continue. It's already mostly lost it's connection with religion or strict "morality"; it's a simply human rights issue.
I expect more of this sort of thing in the future.
This post was entirely too long.
Thank you for mentioning the humor part of his columns. They always make me think, and then laugh.
I think putting a gay-sex obsessed evangelical fringe lunatic, who vows to dismantle modern civilization while starting WW III seems like a bad idea...but that never stopped anyone before...
Abortion, on the other hand, is getting more undeniably wrong by the day.
So too is contraception, apparently.
We're busy sliding down the long tail of the 60's and it's corrosive effect to the previous morale structure of culture.
We're seeing things like things like 50% of mothers under 30 being single not because we've "empowered" them to be single moms, rather we've de-stigmatized the idea of raising bastards.
We have gay marriage on the rise not due to our increased openness regarding homosexuality, rather the fact that marriage has become optional at best and at worst a serial event where we keep trying until, maybe, we find the right partner, damage to the kids be damned.
Yeah - Santorum is just a stupid dangerous fool. Better ignore him.
Taranto is great. I love reading him.
His analysis of progressive feminism and its effects on the family are spot-on:
"The social dislocation caused by feminism and the sexual revolution demands a political response, and so far the left has nothing to offer apart from bankrupting the country with more entitlements."
Progressivism has never made a mistake, in its own eyes. Unintended consequences are merely opportunities for further social engineering.
Let's be humble and admit our mistakes, shall we?
And some people wonder why Ron Paul continues to poll well. He's the only candidate who would even entertain such a notion as undoing previous legislation. Not 'fixing' it, but striking it down. Period.
Taranto is my favorite. Iowahawk could be, but Taranto cranks it out daily, which is hard work, and he's always good and often makes me laugh out loud.
Personally I'm very socially liberal, as long as it goes with personal responsibility, but I don't generally like the breed as self-defined. They seem to be angry, unfair and intolerant.
I've been in discussions about Santorum with groups that include the very religious and "social liberals". It's invariably the liberals that quickly jump to the name calling, hyperbole, and fear mongering. The conservatives almost always remain respectful, and tolerant even when disagreeing strongly.
This is one reason that while I am completely nonreligious, I still feel an affinity for the social conservatives. I'm generally very wary of social liberals, they seem ironically very intolerant and almost perfect examples of the caricatures they create of conservatives.
Lyssa, I loved your thoughts on abortion, and agree wholeheartedly. Not too long at all. Well said.
As for machine's comments, well, you're just the sort of progressive Taranto writes about in the piece. Here's a thought: go read it!
Machine make my point better than I did, even if he didn't mean to.
TriangleSo too is contraception, apparently.
Eh, you know as well as I do that this is a manufactured, fake, and entirely stupid blip issue. No one of any consequence is actually advocting that contraception be prohibited in any way.
I'm a baby boomer and a social liberal.
You say that like it's a good thing, and that you're proud of it.
Looking back at history, social mores are not at all linear and progressive. Much of what the Greeks and Romans considered acceptable was not afterward and a lot of it still isn't today.
I see a new social conservatism as being very likely. Change is the one constant, including change of direction, and we have been going liberal for a long time. It will be a new version, and it too will not last. We just get bored, that's all.
The article suffers from the usual social-con insistence on treating all social issues as one undifferentiated lump. I think I see them pretty much the way Lyssa does: some social-con positions are valid critiques of socially destructive behaviors and attitudes which we've put up with for too long, others are historically contingent prejudices against harmless behaviors and attitudes, which should and probably will fade away with time. Perhaps what we're going through now is a sorting-out process in which we all try to figure out which social-con beliefs are worth holding on to and which are not.
Triangle Man: So too is contraception, apparently.
bagoh20: It's invariably the liberals that quickly jump to the name calling, hyperbole, and fear mongering.
Yep.
Taranto is one of my favorite poitical writers, but he's not a social conservative. He writes for the Wall Street Journal, after all. So he's an economic conservative who's open-minded and smart. Like a lot of people on this blog.
As for the super sodomizer:
"After learning of the arrest, property manager Mike May promptly fired Nicaj, who had worked at Rye Colony for six years and lives in one of the complex’s units with his wife and two children."
I'd love to hear the conversation between him and his wife after she found out he was "screwing the pooch".
From Taranto yesterday:
Weird religion: Satan is against America. Normal religion: "God damn America."
Had a discussion about gay marriage with my teenagers the other day. They love to discuss and I try to make them see the difference between emotional arguments and logical arguments. They'll get there.
It is hard to make kids understand the dangers of unintended consequences. Abortion was meant to be rare and yet there are something like 1.3 million abortions in the US each year. Gay acceptance was supposed to be about stopping discrimination of those "born that way" but now we see middle schoolers choosing to identify themselves as gay. What would be the unintended consequence of accepting gay marriage? My kids don't have any way to think about that.
machine said...
I think putting a gay-sex obsessed evangelical fringe lunatic,
Um, Catholics are not "Evangelical"
At least try and get the facts correct in your silly smears.
@bagoh20
I'd love to hear the conversation between him and his wife after she found out he was "screwing the pooch".
The conversation was probably something along the lines of "Aw, honey, that bitch doesn't mean anything to me!"
Perhaps what we're going through now is a sorting-out process in which we all try to figure out which social-con beliefs are worth holding on to and which are not.
To continue my thoughts, I'm wondering where extra-marital parenting fits into this sorting process. IMO, it's obvious that this is a massive problem in our country for numerous reasons, but I have a hard time seeing social stigma against it returning in any meaningful way.
Perhaps more people will look at the numbers and see how much bringing up children in a broken home actually harms both them and society (the science angle that I mentioned above), but I'm not sure that enough people are hearing that over the din of (tolerance/acceptance/keep your religion off my body/etc.)
Lyssa, your post wasn't too long. I wonder how the "kids today" will perceive marriage at all, gay marriage aside. Marriage seems to be a temporary status for many, probably most, and because there is little stigma for unwed mothers, and a great deal of support (or much more than in the past), children born outside of marriage are common. Will the pragmatic-conservative ideal view this as bad, and start to change that? One can hope, I suppose, because kids really need two parents.
Yea, I don't how you convince your wife to have sex with you after you've sodomized a Labrador, but many Canadians probably pull it off.
Imus's Rob Bartlett's Larry King suspected that the dog had lead him on. Otherwise he would have picked up any dog.
@bagoh20,
Let me guess --- you're here all week.
The majority of children born today to mothers under 30, are born out of wedlock. The times they are a changing. Feminism takes it's spoils.
Taranto may be a little over the top with his prediction, but there is probably a good case to be made for a waning of über social liberalism and a waxing of certain social conservative values.
However, baby boomers made great strides in feminism, sex, and drugs... that won't be going away ever hopefully. Gay marriage hasn't even totally come to fruition yet... but it is coming.
There's a huge difference between living a relatively conservative lifestyle, and being a social conservative.
The former has remained common. It's not like the average American home has become a more affordable version of the Playboy Mansion, or you'll walk into many offices and find a group of nude people snorting lines of coke in the lunch room.
I think that the idea of forcing Santorum's (or anyone's) idea of a "correct" lifestyle on people is actually growing less popular by the day. For example: Bill Clinton signed DOMA in the 1990s, and there was little public outcry, compared to what I would expect, today. Clinton remained quite popular, with liberals, who voted for him without hesitation a month and a half after he signed DOMA. Imagine that, in 2012.
The increasing acceptance of homosexuality in many of our communities does not mean that we have more gay people.
The idea that government-enforced social conservatism is gaining popularity is without basis. And I'm a Gen Xer, who will grow old while bearing the brunt of the worst Boomer excesses, financially and culturally.
Thank you, Ann for coming out at both a baby boomer and a social liberal. We need more like you. I am ready, willing and able to join your parade.
I tend to disagree with Taranto about people becoming more socially conservative. I see the kids of my daughter's generation accept differences in lifestyle as a natural progression and things such as contraception a part of everyday life. Whoopee.
Vicki from Pasadena
@lyssa, et al.
As 21st c. Americans, we all believe that the arrow of history moves only towards greater freedom of personal expression. It's almost impossible for us to think otherwise, but it's not true.
A big part of both the Lutheran & Calvinist Reformations were reaction against Catholic "social license". Or, at least, that was a big part of their marketing, since abstruse theological theories on justification were a hard sell.
Well, it worked. Not only did it work in the Protestant countries, but it forced the RCC to clean itself up at Trent.
As one historian put it "Laws governing private behavior were not unknown in Catholic Geneva; their enforcement in Calvin's Geneva, however, was something new."
The wrought-work is ignoring how the world works, not ignoring social conservatism.
It was wrought by the media going for the reliable soap opera audience, which is the narrative-favoring group, not the calculation group.
The calculation group was never impressed by the media, and so were never in the business model.
But the MSM determines which stories live and which stories are never heard from.
These people determine every public debate and have done so for years.
I'm wondering where extra-marital parenting fits into this sorting process.
I fear this may be one of the issues where the good old Burkean traditional knowledge has simply been lost-- and not enough of us have been burned by the consequences yet (or-- following Taranto-- not enough of the people who count have been burned by the consequences yet) to enable us to rebuild it on rationalist grounds.
"People who are now under 20(ish) are simply not going to be convinced that there's anything wrong with homosexuality."
I'm not sure about this. I think the issue at hand has more to do with our ability to regulate, or judge, someone else's sexual choices. From what I can tell from people who work with high schoolers, there' still an immense amount of thinking that it's "wrong." That has less to do with moral choices and more to do with the level which sexuality affects our psychology. A heterosexual is generally disgusted by the idea of sexual activity with someone of their same sex. That disgust can be covered over by intellectual choices, but it's still there.
The challenge for social conservatives is a big one, though, if they are to recover any semblance of persuasion on the issue of sexuality. They have to come to terms with a deeper understanding of sexuality rather than mere prohibitions. And, honestly, the social conservatives have to find some measure of consistency in their own behavior.
The monastic movement arose out of a very lenient Roman culture, so it's not impossible. It's just unlikely.
Spot on about abortion.
bagoh20 said -
Personally I'm very socially liberal, as long as it goes with personal responsibility
You can support personal responsibility or you can support what passes for liberalism today, but not both. There needs to be a new term for you, as contemporary liberalism/progressivism is doubleplusungood.
Not sure that Santorum represents much, but Taranto's thoughts on generational change and liberalism are interesting.
In theory, two developments should bode well for the conservative worldview:
1. As people age, they question the assumptions at the very heart of most of our political debates - that is, what is the role of government to alleviate an array of social ills? Simply put, younger citizens tend to see it as government helping innocent victims, people who can't help themselves. As they grow older and interact, they see that the reality is quite different, and their views shift rightward.
2. The splintering of media in the internet/cable news era aids the rightward shift if only because the usual opinion-shapers -- news and entertainment media -- were once so monolithically liberal that they could temper the natural, rightward shift. That is less likely now.
* And, yes, I've long felt Taranto's (and staff's) headline wit deserved more attention. The Lonely Lives of Scientists is a favorite.
"things such as contraception a part of everyday life"
Most social conservatives see this as part of life too. Contraception is primarily, though not exclusively, a Catholic issue. Almost every Evangelical couple I know uses some form of birth control. It's the after conception control where the problem arises for Evangelicals and other non-Catholics (and for most lay Catholics).
Read his piece and it jibes with what I've noticed separately. People are voting with their feet away from the Lefty institutions toward more Conservative and/or decentralized ones, particularly in terms of media and academia.
Taranto, I think, is noting that younger people see the various cultural revolutions aren't working out and are beginning to look toward a better model (I think marriage will come back, along with a lot of other things, simply because it works). Some of this also dovetails with his Roe Effect.
machine said...
I think putting a gay-sex obsessed evangelical fringe lunatic, who vows to dismantle modern civilization while starting WW III seems like a bad idea...but that never stopped anyone before...
If the Lefty social model, as well as the economic model, is judged unworthy and unworkable, the Demos and their apparatchiks are out of the game for at least a generation.
Graveyard, whistling, do the math.
"You can support personal responsibility or you can support what passes for liberalism today, but not both. "
That's certainly true. I don't generally care what people do or believe as long as they don't expect me to pay for it with my money or freedom.
As I read why people think we are still moving left, I'm hearing that the young today are more tolerant of things that really are old news. These things have long ago passed any real objection other than the financial responsibility aspect.
The current trend seems to me to have stalled, with the young not willing to go any farther. The tolerance is widening but not deepening. We are all starting to see the cost of liberalism when it's government imposed and part of policy. Government has an infinite capacity to screw up any good thing, and they are doing that to tolerance. That's the root of the new conservatism - who's gonna pay for it.
Isn't comedy like that inconsistent with social conservatism? I don't know.
No, we keep telling you, it's liberals who have no sense of humor.
BTW - this new word verification is wack. It's like running a gauntlet to try and figure out what the hell I'm supposed to type.
We're seeing things like things like 50% of mothers under 30 being single not because we've "empowered" them to be single moms, rather we've de-stigmatized the idea of raising bastards.
FYI...
(Poynter / MediaWire):
The AP Stylebook added the term "illegitimate child" to its online version. The new entry advises against using the term and suggests using phrases such as "the child, whose mother was not married," or, "whose parents were not married," instead.
“It doesn’t come up very often in our news copy, but it’s a term that’s stigmatizing, and unfairly so,” said David Minthorn, deputy standards editor at the AP and one of the Stylebook editors.
and not enough of us have been burned by the consequences yet (or-- following Taranto-- not enough of the people who count have been burned by the consequences
This is veering OT, but there's a weird divide that I'm really seeing a lot of right now, as I consider my own family planning - you've got the people like me, women who went to a lot of schooling, settled down with just the right man, took some time, got their finances to perfection, used birth control religiously, then suddenly realized that they are in their 30's and time is running out - and their fecundity is necessarily limited. Then, alternatively, you've got the people who just never put any effort into it, didn't worry about finding a partner, using BC, etc., just let nature take it's course and figured someone will pay for it somehow. There's a huge divide there, and the 2 sides don't really see each other very often.
I'm not one to rail about "income inequality", but I fear that family inequality will continue to grow.
One thing Americans of all ideologies dislike is being told by the Government what to do, think, or say.
If Socially Conservative politicians ascend to power, I will guarantee they will do what all politicians do: Over Reach. And that will be the end (temporarily) of the social conservative movement.
Until the pendulum swings back.
Abortion, on the other hand, is getting more undeniably wrong by the day. As science advances allowing earlier viability and better imaging, it's requiring more and more mental gymnastics to deny the horror of abortion, and that will only continue.
Yeah but one of the big issues has always been the use of the word "fetus." The point of that word was to appear scientific and objective. But we all notice (or should notice) that we only say "fetus" when we're talking about abortion. When we're happy about the pregnancy, we say baby. We say baby all the time.
The baby just kicked!
What shall we call the baby?
In fact Carhart is so mind-blowing because it uses the "baby" word, as Kennedy quotes an excitable nurse.
Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus…
‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.
‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp… .
You can't actually say "fetus" in that passage. A fetus can't fall to the floor. A fetus is supposed to be in the womb. By dragging the baby out of the womb, that baby is now a baby. The only honest word is baby. And we advoid that word not because we are scientific, but because we are dishonest.
This dishonesty has kept the Supreme Court from even protecting the lives of born infants. Roe itself notoriously distinguishes between born and unborn. And yet here in Carhart the baby is outside the womb.
Why are we not applying equal protection to born infants? To babies?
Some late-term abortion procedures (D&X and D&E) require yanking the baby out of the womb. Well, that baby is clearly a baby now. And so that action should open the door to a murder prosecution.
At a minimum we should be talking about the morality of IUD and RU-486. We should not be discussing the morality of scissors in the neck.
Progressivism has never made a mistake, in its own eyes.
It takes a special amount of hutzpa…chuztpa -- gall -- to be on the wrong side of the two most significant developments of the 20th century – Soviet tyranny and fatherless children – and not pause for one moment to reflect and recalibrate.
Crack, don't rail against the word verification - embrace it! I plan on using these verification words in everyday life:
Flemat
Culabs
Ostedim
Enintare
Sunceth
Nedra
Isesses
Valsheit
Undowreg
Volocali
Ditio
Clarb
Ponounal
Vuler
Referring
Brefo
Reagan, and both Bushes were far more socially conservative than Carter, Clinton, and Obama, yet they did nothing to turn around the liberal progression. The liberal Presidents do move the ball, but the conservatives just slow it down...barely. That's why they don't scare me as a social liberal. A little slower is a good thing. For as Taranto correctly reminds, there has been significant damage done with the rush to the left.
The increasing acceptance of homosexuality in many of our communities does not mean that we have more gay people.
Legalizing abortion didn't mean that we would have more abortions.
Removing the stigma from having a baby out of wedlock didn't mean we would have more babies out of wedlock.
I think the "aspirational/pragmatic" distinction is a good and useful one. On the one hand, we want society to promote and reward things that we find virtuous. We want our society to be idealistic in its messaging. But on the other hand, we are cognizant of our own fallibility and uncomfortable using the power of soveriegn coercion to compel virtue. We want our society to be pragmatic in its use of force. A general description of the society that most people want is one that allows people to fail to live up to our aspirations, but does not make it especially desirable for people to do so.
In prior decades, this was usually accomplished by leaving aspirational failures largely unpunished by the government, while relying on a strong network of civic and religious institutions to provide moral, emotional, and material support for the aspirational goals.
At some point, though, the general concensus on aspirational goals began to dissipate, largely unable to counter the criticism that it's "unfair" to hold people to idealistic standards that - human fallibility being what it is - many people are bound to fail. Under sustained leftist attack for decades, these goals are now virtually dead. As such, the social institutions responsible for inculcating these virtues also waned, and the few that remain struggle for survival in a society that rejects virtue because it is aspirational and celebrates viciousness because anybody can achieve it, making it "fair."
And so we find ourselves where we are today, our civic institutions in absolute shambles, our only options seeming to be to call upon the sovereign to force us to aspirational goals, which as free people we are loathe to do, or to press forward and find out just what happens to a society that punishes the good and rewards the vicious.
We're seeing things like things like 50% of mothers under 30 being single not because we've "empowered" them to be single moms, rather we've de-stigmatized the idea of raising bastards.
Obviously the socialist plan was for all of those babies to be aborted. The socialists did not plan on women choosing to be single moms. The socialists are really unhappy about that choice, and try to discourage it as much as possible. And yet millions of women elect to keep their babies.
Meanwhile, men get drunk and screw and talk about how pro-choice we are.
Feminism shot at patriarchy and killed fatherhood. Oops.
The, to be generous, sloppy thinking of the baby boomers was made possible and only made possible by an unprecedented, in both degree and length of time, period of prosperity. The period of austerity we are now entering, and austerity is a very benign way of putting what is in store for us and CANNOT BE AVOIDED, will make mincemeat of social liberalism. People who are up against it can no longer afford to be oh so self-regarding in their decadence.
".. "You can support personal responsibility or you can support what passes for liberalism today, but not both. ".."
Sure you can. It's called being a libertarian. If you want to drop out of school and have three kids, go for it. Just don't ask the rest of us who didn't make dumb choices like that support you.
Great thread! Great to see such a serious, intelligent, and mature discussion.
Taranto is awesome, don't know whether this particular prediction is correct. While most people seem to need some form of religion in their lives, that religion need not be a traditional Christian religion or even a God based religion. For example, environmentalism is a religion for many.
In Europe, Christianity has waned and Islam and non God based religions (such as environmentalism) have waxed. Maybe the same thing happens here.
Lyssa said...
This may entirely be projection on my part, but I can't see a future where the ideas of "social conservativism" don't split into a liberatarian/science-based pragmatic-conservative-ideal verses a traditional/religious for tradition's/religion's sake ideal. That's what I see happening to the younger generation, at least.
Take the 2 social conservative markers: abortion and gay issues. People who are now under 20(ish) are simply not going to be convinced that there's anything wrong with homosexuality. For better or for worse, the bias is simply going by the wayside (for better, IMO). In 20 years, we will wonder why people ever disputed or objected to many of the current issues, and homosexuality will seem, at most, as objectionable as pre-marital sex is today (that is, not much).
The Libertarian view usually is the Lefty view, so that's distinction without difference.
There may be indeed a more "science-based pragmatic-conservative" view that takes hold, but one thing that's happening is that people are walking away from the feel-good squishy morality churches toward those that take a stand (a big reason the Lefties hate the evangelicals), so "a traditional/religious" may make a comeback, also.
As for homosexuality, most kids have only seen the "Will and Grace" view of homosexuality. Let them see how the homosexual activists work in the real world and that will change.
@Lyssa @ 9:01
Precisely.
Gay acceptance was supposed to be about stopping discrimination of those "born that way" but now we see middle schoolers choosing to identify themselves as gay. What would be the unintended consequence of accepting gay marriage?
Let me share my personal experience with you to shed some light. The reason middle schoolers are coming out with increasing frequency is because disrimination against gay people is decreasing in many (but not all) parts of the country.
Maybe some of them are "choosing" to identify as gay. But I suspect most of them were, as I was, born gay; and, unlike when I was in middle school, they are in a position to come out without the threat of serious violence or being sent to some religious reprogramming camp.
Sorry to get graphic, but around 12 or 13, most boys start masturbating. When I did, I never thought of women. Not once. I was naturally drawn to other men. It wasn't a conscious choice. I hope that helps you understand the issue.
And as an aside, what unintended consequences do you think gay marriage will have. It has been legal for nearly ten years in some countries. Don't you think that's enough time to get an idea of what ills will befall the United States if gay marriage becomes legal nationwide? Yet you don't hear anyone saying, "look what happened in Canada" or "look what happened in Belgium" or "look what happened in Argentina". Don't you think same-sex marriage opponents would be making these kinds of arguments if there were any to make?
Justin, I know there are kids like you out there. I also know what I hear among the middle-schoolers I know. As for unintended consequences, I really don't know enough about Canada, Belgium or Argentina to comment on those societies.
Thanks for your civil response. Some would have flayed me for ignorance, I suppose.
I believe that a mom’s feelings in regard to her baby are utterly irrelevant in regard to the baby’s humanity. Just like if you hate a black person or a Jew, their humanity doesn’t disappear. What we feel doesn’t matter. Either that baby’s a baby or she’s not. There’s an objective reality outside of our feelings and our biases.
Is the word “baby” describing an objective reality of the unborn? Or is that merely my pro-life bias? And what of the word “fetus,” have we escaped our selfish desire to make an unwanted baby disappear by stripping him of humanity?
“Baby” sounds human. “Fetus” sounds like an alien.
Words are important, they make up our ideas, and our ideology, and they can fool us and control us, if we let them.
At the same time we recognize our emotional biases, we have to remember how important our emotions are. For instance, it seems quite bizarre to write, “a mom’s feelings in regard to her baby are utterly irrelevant.” Isn’t that a jarring sentence? The mother’s love for her baby is the most critical thing! Society needs moms who love their babies. And we can’t force this stuff. Yet being honest about the humanity of the baby at issue is the first step towards doing the right thing.
What we need is a society where people always have love in their hearts. (Good luck with that, right?) But if men and women love each other when they have sex, and women love their babies when they are pregnant, then we will be a lot better as a society. So that’s what we should be striving for, a society where we have love. Man and woman love each other, and they love the baby they create, even if it’s accidental.
To get to that society, we first have to acknowledge that birth control is not really control. We don’t control reproduction. It happens, despite our will sometimes, when we have sex. So be ready for that to happen.
This is one of the difficulties I have with what I see as the worship of science. It’s hubris to think we know all this and all that. One of the damnable things about the left is that they think politics and morality should be scientific. They think socialism is science. They think smart people can run an economy from a room. There is no room in their ideology for human error.
You might want to call a baby a “person” just so, you know, you don’t fuck it up!
"... And as an aside, what unintended consequences do you think gay marriage will have..."
Heh. Well for gay couples its going to be the joys of divorce, attorney's fees, property settlements custody battles over the family pet or adopted designer child and child support.
In other words, some crappy side effects of being able to say I do and being able to file your taxes jointly.
"I'm a baby boomer and a social liberal."
On at least one issue; on others, not so much.
And as an aside, what unintended consequences do you think gay marriage will have. It has been legal for nearly ten years in some countries. Don't you think that's enough time to get an idea of what ills will befall the United States if gay marriage becomes legal nationwide?
Um, no.
See, we started the "war on poverty" in 1965 and we are just now realizing the total devistation those policies have visited on the black community.
And again, being gay is immoral, abnormal, and unhealthy. The state should no more encourage being gay (through legalizing gay marriage) than it should encourage smoking, obesity and drunk driving.
Love Taranto. (One of the benefits of the distaste for New Censorship Order here was to drive me to primary source subscriptions rather than relying on Althouse as a consolidator. Thanks Meade!)
St. Croix said: "Feminism shot at patriarchy and killed fatherhood."
A marvelous aphorism. Couldn't believe it was original, but don't see it anywhere else, so kudos to you, Sir.
Interesting article here about pro-life attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade.
They’re fighting to define a baby in the womb as a person. As the article makes clear, this legal move divides pro-lifers, as a matter of tactics. The reason is because all nine of the Supreme Court Justices are currently defining babies as commodities, so it seems like a bad strategy to go up against that.
I might be in a minority on this point, but I do not think that recognizing the humanity of a baby in the womb would result in the outlawing of all abortions. What it would mean is that a baby in the womb is entitled to the equal protection of the laws. That’s not the same thing as outlawing all abortions.
I’ll give you an example. Justice Blackmun in Roe asks the question of when life begins. In doing so, he divides the unborn apart from humanity. He asks a question that only applies to the unborn. But what if he asked a question that applies to all people? What if the Court asked, “when do people die?”
Unlike the beginning of life question, which is tricky and subjective, the death question is easy for the law to answer. You know why? Because people die all the time, and the issue has come up. We actually have statutes on the books in regard to when people die.
What’s interesting is that we have widespread agreement on this issue. Red states, blue states, we all agree. All 50 states and Washington D.C. agree: people die in our country when they suffer total brain death. When you have zero activity in the brain stem and cerebral cortex, you are not alive. In short, brain activity, any brain activity, is the important criteria for human life under current state law.
If we apply equal protection to the unborn, it would be the law for them, too. So under equal protection analysis, the courts would be outlawing some abortions and allowing others, depending upon what the state rules are in regard to when people (all people) die. That’s the genius of equal protection, the rules are fair because we apply them to everybody, including ourselves, and babies we dislike.
A zygote or embryo without any brain activity is pre-life. It’s not alive yet, as a legal matter, and cannot die under current death statutes in all 50 states regarding human death. This is why nobody talks about prosecuting IUD as a murder. That would be silly.
On the other hand, the Carhart homicides are not silly at all.
Of course there are still lots of disputes and debates about what to do with abortion of pre-life, or developing life. But I think it’s important to resolve the homicide issue first, and take those legalized murders off the table, as it were. Equal protection analysis would do that, in my opinion.
See, we started the "war on poverty" in 1965 and we are just now realizing the total devistation those policies have visited on the black community.
Really, you think the black community was better off in 1965 than it is today?
And again, being gay is immoral, abnormal, and unhealthy. The state should no more encourage being gay (through legalizing gay marriage) than it should encourage smoking, obesity and drunk driving.
You've said this before, and are painting with an awfully broad brush. You've used higher incidences of alcoholism in the gay community as an example before. Don't you think some of that has to do with the some of the terrible things that society visits on gay people just because they're gay. Like the idea that it's acceptable to disown your child if they come out?
I graudated college summa cum laude and law school magna cum laude. I clerked for a federal judge. I work at an international law firm. I'm about to celebrate five years in a committed relationship at the end of the week. We have friends over for dinner on the weekend, go to movies and plays, go out for drinks after work, hang out at home with our dog. Totally immoral, abnormal, and unhealthy.
I think the stereotype in your head is the exception and not the rule. And I suspect that you don't have any gay family members or friends that are gay, at least not any you're close to.
Thanks for your civil response. Some would have flayed me for ignorance, I suppose.
And for yours. And yes, unfortunately, on this blog there are a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum who respond to comments they disagree with by calling the commenter stupid of ignorant or a "libtard" or a "wingnut".
Those people are ignorant. Not you.
Jay said...
See, we started the "war on poverty" in 1965 and we are just now realizing the total devistation those policies have visited on the black community.
Hmmm,
I think we saw a lot of those by the time people were dumb enough to elect Carter.
What we've noticed since is that it seems to have become a permanent condition for most.
And again, being gay is immoral, abnormal, and unhealthy.
As for immoral, it's a Biblical definition (if Freud was right, it may be something they can't change without a lot of help) for those who follow the Bible, but abnormal is certainly true, no matter how much the PC crowd hates us for being "heteronormative".
And The Blonde, who worked 5 years in Communicable Disease, says homosexuals were always having all kinds of health problems, so unhealthy is also valid.
PS Nobody cares what happened in Belgium or Canada and, in Argentina, they dance naked in the street, so they're not a whole lot like us.
Really, you think the black community was better off in 1965 than it is today?
Note you didn't respond to the point.
Want to guess why that is?
And as family units, blacks are worse off today than in 1965.
I think the stereotype in your head is the exception and not the rule.
Except gays have higher incidences of HIV, STD's, depression, alcohol and drug abuse, and eating disorders than the general population.
Those are facts. And you're projecting.
Don't you think some of that has to do with the some of the terrible things that society visits on gay people just because they're gay. Like the idea that it's acceptable to disown your child if they come out?
And here I thought gays were all enlightened and such. Nope, turns out they sensitive little doves and when a mean, ignorant, conservative like me points out the destructiveness of their lifestyle they have to go and booze it up.
And yes, it is perfectly acceptable to disown someone for any reason. That's called being a free adult.
Unless you want to ban disowning.
Justin said: Really, you think the black community was better off in 1965 than it is today?
Justin, are you conflating civil rights with the war on poverty? No one's saying that civil rights was a negative, but if we had had the civil rights advances without the war on poverty, I'm certainly of the opinion that "black America" would be an extremely different thing.
Except gays have higher incidences of HIV, STD's, depression, alcohol and drug abuse, and eating disorders than the general population.
Those are facts. And you're projecting.
Even if those things are true, so what? Those things exist aplenty in the general population as well. Why is that a basis for treating gay people differently?
And don't you think permitting same-sex marriage would lead to an increase in stable relationships within the gay community? Which would lead to a decrease in HIV, alcoholism, etc.?
Do you have any gay family members or friends?
Unless you want to ban disowning.
Nope. Just because I think it's morally wrong doesn't mean I think it should be banned.
My son, a freshman in college, has a new girlfriend who is a "good" girl, meaning she doesn't screw. Although he lost his virginity as a freshman in high school, he likes it that way. Guess he's already realizing there are things in life a lot more important than sex, like being with someone whose presence you actuall enjoy.
Justin, are you conflating civil rights with the war on poverty? No one's saying that civil rights was a negative, but if we had had the civil rights advances without the war on poverty, I'm certainly of the opinion that "black America" would be an extremely different thing.
I was thinking of both together. I should preface this by saying that I do think entitlement programs are out of control, but if fewer people today fear and experience sickness or homelessness as a result of some of those initiaves, then I wouldn't call the War on Poverty an abject failure.
What it would mean is that a baby in the womb is entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
Would it mean they are a dependent on a tax form?
It's mostly not a flip question. If you can be charged with murdering a fetus, why should they not be claimed as a dependent?
(I am not a lawyer)
Even if those things are true, so what?
What do you mean, "so what"?
The "what" is that being gay is hazardous to your health. For example, rates of syphilis are reported to be more than 46 times higher among gay men and other MSM than among heterosexual men and more than 71 times higher than among women.
What don't you grasp about that fact?
The state should no more encourage being gay (through legalizing gay marriage) than it should encourage smoking, obesity and drunk driving.
Moving on, I loved this.
First:
Those things exist aplenty in the general population as well.
Then:
And don't you think permitting same-sex marriage would lead to an increase in stable relationships within the gay community? Which would lead to a decrease in HIV, alcoholism, etc.?
I like watching the lack of logic on your side. I really do.
Why is that a basis for treating gay people differently?
Gays are abnormal.
The rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.
Yet Gays are a scant 3% of the population but account for 49% of all new HIV cases.
You do the math on why we should treat gays differently.
Estimates run between 1.3 and 3.5%.
The 1.3 comes from tracking VD rates.
I like watching the lack of logic on your side. I really do.
You took two separate points and made a cute little insult instead of answering the questions I asked.
My first point was that HIV, STDs, alcoholism, etc. also exist in the general population. The question was, even if those things occur at a higher rate in the gay community, why is that a basis for the state to treat gay people differently from straight people?
My next point was related but distinct. Let's assume you're right that HIV, STDs, drug use etc. are more prevalent in the gay community. Shouldn't we look at the reason why that's so? Isn't it possible that one of the reasons is the state's refusal to recognize same-sex relationships? Doesn't instability lead to things like alcholism and drug use? Wouldn't having an incentive to seek out stable relationships reduce those things?
And you still haven't said whether or not you have any gay family members or friends. I'm just curious.
Thank you, Ann for coming out at both a baby boomer and a social liberal. We need more like you. I am ready, willing and able to join your parade.
Having done my obligatory tour of duty as a liberal 40 or so years ago (as a member of the boomer cohort), I no longer see any redeeming features of modern liberalism. Disingenuity, intellectual if not outright dishonesty, and the advocacy of unbounded governmentalism, all to obtain and wield power, are antithetical to sound policies and principles, and anyone who considers themselves educated and wise ought ot know it.
I was thinking of both together. I should preface this by saying that I do think entitlement programs are out of control, but if fewer people today fear and experience sickness or homelessness as a result of some of those initiaves, then I wouldn't call the War on Poverty an abject failure.
War on Poverty, War on Drugs. Better to think of those two things together when you are talking about effects on black families.
The question was, even if those things occur at a higher rate in the gay community, why is that a basis for the state to treat gay people differently from straight people?
Because gays are a tiny portion of the population yet have higher incidences of these things.
In other words, being gay leads you to engage in risky behavior.
How many more times do I have to point that out?
My next point was related but distinct. Let's assume you're right that HIV, STDs, drug use etc
You don't have to "assume" I am right. Those things are facts.
Shouldn't we look at the reason why that's so?
Um, ok. I vote: abnormal, screwed up sexual deviants as the reason.
Isn't it possible that one of the reasons is the state's refusal to recognize same-sex relationships?
Um, no state prevents the recognition of "same sex relationships" though it is cute you tried to substitute "relationships" for "marriages"
And no. Because those things were prevalent in the gay community before gays wanted to get married.
Wouldn't having an incentive to seek out stable relationships reduce those things?
What is preventing anyone from seeking a "stable" relationship?
Nothing.
And you still haven't said whether or not you have any gay family members or friends. I'm just curious.
This is entirely irrelevant, but revealing.
See, you want me to say "no" so you can say you would think differently if you knew gay people. Which only reinforces my point. You are aiming to use emotionalism to trump facts and reason.
I am not.
But to give you an idea, I lived in a very large East Coast city that was a gay mecca for over 15 years.
I'll leave it up to you to figure out whether or not I had any gay friends.
The view that things were much better for families when husbands could legally rape their own wives is rather flawed, in my opinion.
War on Poverty, War on Drugs. Better to think of those two things together when you are talking about effects on black families.
You're probably right about that. I used to tutor at an inner city school in Cincinnati and must say that neither entitlement programs nor drug laws did very much to help those kids.
Maybe net-net the war on poverty and the war on drugs have had no impact, which makes them both primarily a waste of money. I don't really know and haven't read enough on the subject to make much of a guess.
I guess I just think that on the whole and in light of all the circumstances, black families in American are on average better off today than they were in 1965. I could certainly be wrong about that. Just my gut belief.
bagoh20,
"I'm generally very wary of social liberals, they seem ironically very intolerant and almost perfect examples of the caricatures they create of conservatives. "
Yep, projection is one of their main stocks-in-trade. Do you pay any attention to the gun-rights discussion? Same phenomenon there, in spades.
Lyssa,
"No one of any consequence is actually advocting that contraception be prohibited in any way. "
And neither is Santorum (though it's hard to realize that if all you read is the MSM.)
If you can be charged with murdering a fetus, why should they not be claimed as a dependent?
Blackmun used a lot of examples like that in Roe v. Wade. His point being that we discriminate against the unborn. And his conclusion is that this discrimination proves they are not protected by our Constitution.
But of course legal discrimination does not mean that the unborn are actually commodities.
All discrimination shows is that we have discriminatory feelings towards a class of people.
When we stop having those feelings, and recognize the humanity that has been denied, a lot of laws (and behaviors) will change.
A lot of pro-lifers talk about the 3-D ultrasounds making a difference, since we can now see what was invisible to us before.
Anyway, pointing out other examples of discrimination does not prove the discrimination is right. It just proves the discrimination.
The Supreme Court calls a corporation a "person." So the next time Jon Stewart jokes about that, you might ask why a baby isn't one.
We might conclude money has more constitutional importance than a baby's life.
Justin -- Any time you have two people of any gender fucking in the ass, there is going to be blood, and a higher rate of venereal disease. Since gay men fuck the most in the ass, gay men will have higher rates of venereal disease than the general population.
Those are facts. What you choose to do about them (and I am making no suggestions) is policy. But don't get your little head confused.
Jay,
Your comments edge on the side of being uncivil. I don't think there's any point in continuing this or any other conversation on this subject.
In parting, I'll take your bait. I don't think you truly have any gay friends or family members. Maybe some gay people you are outwardly nice to, but no friends or family members. If you do, though, I hope they know that you think they are "abnormal, screwed up sexual deviants."
For better or worse, the teens today have been able to organize themselves much like a labor Unions that gets their demands from parents like employees do from employers using a myriad of legal rights and threats all upheld by the government Agencies that act as a NLRB enforcing rules in labor's favor.
At best the parents will home school. If not, then they must wait it out and pray.
"Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. . . ."
You can't actually say "fetus" in that passage.
_______________
Sure you can. In fact, courts have done so. It has been ruled that a "fetus ex utero" has no rights if the mother had chosen to abort. Thus, although the ruling was later vacated, there was the case of one court ruling that even if death occurs 20 days after delivery during an unsuccessful abortion, it still is legally permissible.
"Louise, a young, pregnant woman wished an abortion because her expectancy interfered with her hopes and plans to go to college. In July 1974, she went to plaintiff's clinic where . . . Dr. Floyd injected prostaglandin into Louise's uterus which later caused successive contractions and expulsion of the fetus. The male fetus was alive at the time of delivery. Under the care of the hospital personnel, he continued to live for twenty days. . . .
"The prosecutor, however, was chargeable with knowledge of what Roe v. Wade actually held, and he was not entitled to proceed on the basis of what he supposed the law to be without having read what the Supreme Court had said. Had he but read the opinion for the majority in Roe v. Wade, he would have known that the fetus in this case was not a person whose life state law could legally protect.*
-- Floyd v. Anders, 440 F. Supp. 535 (1977), vacated by Anders v. Floyd, 440 U.S. 445 (1979).
* echoes of Dred Scott, that blacks "had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
During the 1960s, median black family income rose 53 percent; black employment in professional, technical, and clerical occupations doubled; and average black educational attainment increased by four years. The proportion of blacks below the poverty line fell from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968. The black unemployment rate fell 34 percent.
Source.
Justin said...
Jay,
Your comments edge on the side of being uncivil. I don't think there's any point in continuing this or any other conversation on this subject.
In parting, I'll take your bait. I don't think you truly have any gay friends or family members.
Awww, such sensitive beings you gays are!
But of course whether or not I have gay friends is irrelevant to the idea that we should give state sanctioned "you're normal" to the 3% of the population that is coming up with 49% of all new HIV cases.
Run along now, I know you have the vapors.
Those are facts. What you choose to do about them (and I am making no suggestions) is policy.
I never denied them. I just don't think they're relevant to the issue of whether or not gay people should be able to be married [to someone of the same sex]. (Sadly I need to add that bracketed bit or else someone who thinks they're clever will come back and say, "But gay people do have the right to get married!")
But don't get your little head confused.
What is with all the personal attacks on this blog? Why is that necessary?
For better or worse, the teens today have been able to organize themselves much like a labor Unions that gets their demands from parents like employees do from employers using a myriad of legal rights and threats all upheld by the government Agencies that act as a NLRB enforcing rules in labor's favor.
They must not be very effective organisers.
Over the past 10 years, more than 20,000 American children are believed to have been killed in their own homes by family members. That is nearly four times the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The child maltreatment death rate in the US is triple Canada's and 11 times that of Italy.
The gay marriage issue points up an internal fault line within social conservatism. Letting gays get married is, after all, a pretty good way of encouraging them to act like respectable married people.
Are black families better off in America today?
In every American city, the disproportionate black-illegitimacy rate is matched only by the disproportionate black crime rate. In Chicago, blacks, at least 35 percent of the population, commit 76 percent of all homicides; whites, about 28 percent of the population, commit 4 percent. In New York City, blacks, 24 percent of the population, commit 80 percent of all shootings; whites, 35 percent of the population, commit less than 2 percent of all shootings. The black illegitimacy rate in New York is over 78 percent; the white illegitimacy rate in the city is 7 percent. The national rate of homicide commission for black males between the ages of 14 and 17 is ten times higher than that of “whites,” into which category the federal government puts the vast majority of Hispanics.
It would be hard to make that argument...
Bravos for Taranto's Best of the Web -- inciteful and fun!
I've been reading it for about 5 years and his site introduced me to the wonderful Ann Althouse too.
Bravo Bravo
I'd like to envision a 'new wave' of conservatism amongst younger folks, but then I go and read an article at Slashdot and get all depressed. The nerds of today/tomorrow appear to be a cynical and spoiled bunch of Obamatons and Paul-bots.
"The view that things were much better for families when husbands could legally rape their own wives is rather flawed, in my opinion."
Is someone arguing otherwise, Andrew?
"Your comments edge on the side of being uncivil. I don't think there's any point in continuing this or any other conversation on this subject. "
Just ignore Jay. He's around to reliably "stupid-up" a thread when Shiloh or Andy R. are otherwise engaged.
"What is with all the personal attacks on this blog? Why is that necessary?"
Seven Machos just likes to be "edgy". I think he's a lawyer, which helps explain why he's kind of an asshole. He's actually a good guy.
Andrew...I commented about teens which starts at 13, which is past puberty and usually socially active.
I bet that the abused/killed kids you cite are 9 or younger and trusted their family/siblings or keepers which was all they knew.
Perhaps it is better and not worse for some.
I guess I just think that on the whole and in light of all the circumstances, black families in American are on average better off today than they were in 1965. I could certainly be wrong about that. Just my gut belief.
They're not, by almost any metric you want to name. But, it's politically incorrect to point this out, so we will continue to pretend everything is going great.
Justin said: I do think entitlement programs are out of control, but if fewer people today fear and experience sickness or homelessness as a result of some of those initiaves, then I wouldn't call the War on Poverty an abject failure.
This goes back into the unintended consequences issues we've discussed, though. Sure, it sounds great that people would not have to fear homelessness. But, as it turns out, fear is a powerful motivator. We need some fear to acheive and support ourselves, and the so-called war on poverty effectively took that fear away for many people. It also, more importantly, took away the fear of having children that one could not provide for, leading to breathtaking amounts of illegitimacy in the poverty-stricken communities, perpetuating the cycle and aggravating it at every turn. Unfortunately, black families wound up being disproportionately affected by this, but it really is a poverty and culture issue rather than a racial one.
And a very, very sad one, that proves that the war on poverty was an abject failure.
P.S. - Jay's being a dick. Knock it off, Jay.
I feel a lot of sympathy for Justin, appreciate his honesty, and agree that insults don't improve the debate.
Agree with Lyssa about horror of abortion. May not be a political winner but if the baby is human then aborting it is murder.
Opposing birth control and human rights for gays is political suicide (and seems immoral to me). It might be better if marriage is none of the government's business (retaining traditional approach) and let the government instead recognize domestic arrangements that are not constrained by tradition (including gay relationships, of course).
Agree with Jay and Seven about increased medical danger of anal intercourse. Not using a condom when having sex with anybody who might have a communicable sexual disease is irresponsible.
Jay,
"we are just now realizing the total devistation [emphasis added]"
Late to the party, are we? Noted right-wing crank Daniel Patrick Moynihan issued his report on the dissolution of the "Black Family" way back in '95, no I mean '85, ooops make that '75... oh good grief, would you believe '65???
"In other words, being gay leads you to engage in risky behavior."
In other words, you still haven't passed Correlations 101?
it really is a poverty and culture issue rather than a racial one.
Sort of. It is also a war for power--our burgeoning prison industry needs prisoners to hold on to their power and the drug war (and now the porn war) provides the prison population. Mandatory minimum sentences have been a disaster for blacks, more than whites. Equivalent disasters at the personal level--because prison rips families apart, destroys a felon's job prospects, takes away the felon's vote, among other things--but at the community level, a much larger disaster for the black communities because an inordinate percentage of drug-war prisoners are black. Single parents stuck in poverty because the wage-earner is in prison. It's a mess, and until mandatory minimum sentences are seen as the foolishness that they are, it will only get worse.
Yeah, Prairie Wind, but all of that goes to the same poverty and culture issues that are related to the illegitimacy rates - there are plenty of poor white men in jail on drug charges, too.
I don't really want Santorum. We've already got a President who is a sex obsessed moralist intent on imposing his view of right and wrong on the rest of the country, heedless of the damage he causes in his wake...Obama.
Feminism shot at patriarchy and killed fatherhood
That is eminently quotable. I, too, couldn't believe it hadn't been said before, it sounded like such a perfect encapsulation of how feminism's attack on males has played out...
@Justin
And don't you think permitting same-sex marriage would lead to an increase in stable relationships within the gay community? Which would lead to a decrease in HIV, alcoholism, etc.?
Of course not.
Homosexuality is a behavior based on a fetish. Why should a fig-leaf of a word for a relationship make any difference?
And you know what? Gay marriage hasn't helped. Lesbians get divorced at rates greater than male gays, who get divorced at rates greater than straights. Marriage is disappearing in Europe, and following suit in the US in the middle and lower classes. There has been no decline in homosexual STD rates, or in lesbian domestic violence, or alcoholism or suicide. Greater acceptance of homosexuality seems to have resulted in an increased homosexual youth suicide rate, to the point that one guy started a "Hey, it gets better" campaign.
The bedrock of society is being undermined because liberals absolutely suck at basic logic:
It isn't discrimination to treat people differently because of behavior within their span of control.
"Homosexuality is a behavior based on a fetish."
And why isn't heterosexuality "a behavior based on a fetish"? Do you have a pussy fetish, Nate? Something about piloting your little rubbery dinghy into a dark and frightening cavern?
Can't all human behaviors be dismissed as "based on a fetish"?
What is a "fetish" anyway, Dr Nate? Have you any other trenchant bio-psychological insights to share with us?
Palladian said...
And why isn't heterosexuality "a behavior based on a fetish"?
Um, because it is the default normal human condition leading to reproduction.
Just ignore Jay. He's around to reliably "stupid-up" a thread when Shiloh or Andy R. are otherwise engaged.
I'm not the one asking idiotic questions.
P.S. - Jay's being a dick. Knock it off, Jay.
No, no I'm not.
But thanks anyway.
Kirk Parker said...
Jay,
Late to the party, are we?
No. I should have said that the left can no longer honestly deny the destruction of the black family.
In other words, you still haven't passed Correlations 101?
Given that my comment is factually correct, you'll have to try again.
Post a Comment