The Gay Marriage Debate in America

There was an interesting discussion on SDA this evening about a new poll that will soon be published in Macleans magazine. Here's the comment I left:

To Snowbunnie et al: Let me expand further on what you're saying and get your thoughts . . .

The entire gay marriage issue is a perfect example of how the Left changes society via what Mark Steyn calls the "Drip, Drip, Drip" of slow, incremental change.

I've long felt that:

• Gay couples should have the same financial benefits as heterosexual couples
• Gay marriage is a minor issue for me, personally
• If I was given the chance to vote on it, I would vote 'No'
• I am not homophobic
• I do not hate gay people
• My reasons are not based at all on religion
  

I don't know what the polls revealed in Canada when the laws were changed here but I am confident that the majority of Americans today would vote 'No' to gay marriage.

Realizing this, what do members of the Left do? They ridicule and mock anyone who believes that marriage laws should not be changed. They even have no hesitation calling anyone who disagrees with them the modern day equivalent of a racist.

This is done at beauty pageants, on entertainment shows, on news shows, in newspaper & magazine articles, and in the political & legal arenas as well. The messages are three-fold:

1. We will publicly label you a bigot if you dare to disagree with us.
2. The scarlet letter on your forehead will be an "R", because we will loudly make the case that you are the modern-day equivalent of a Racist.
3. We have control of most of the media outlets in the country and you do not.
   

So what happens? True debate is silenced; not just a little but absolutely. Average people, knowing that there's nothing to be gained from expressing their opinions and so much to lose, shut their mouths and get on with their lives. Furthermore, the change of marriage definitions does not actually directly & immediately affect their own lives so what's to be gained by expending a lot of energy fighting such an issue?

Most people then, do the logical thing and get on with their lives, working hard and paying the taxes that ironically will contribute to the next social change down the road that the same taxpayer will also disagree with! And on & on it goes, like a snowball rolling down a hill.

The problem though is this: In the long term, are these incremental changes healthy for our society? I don't particularly want to get slammed for my thoughts about whether there's a causality between promotion of gay marriage and a longterm reduction in population replenishment, but I suspect it may very well be the case. (I can explain the logical connections if anyone wants.)

But after opposition to gay marriage is silenced, what do you think will be next? I predict that by no later than 2020, polygamy will be fully legal in Canada; soon after that in the U.S. Based on historical evidence, this will often mean 50+ year old men with multiple teenage wives. Is that a healthy thing for our society?

After the opposition to polygamy is silenced, what do you think will then be next? I have several suspicions but will leave it to you to come up with your own ideas of where things will likely head.

Thought for the day: Do liberal democratic societies like ours have a built in self-destruction mechanism? More precisely, if more & more rights are assigned to everyone, does that eventually cripple our society?

---

Update: Here are a few interesting responses I received:

Robert W.: "I don't know what the polls revealed in Canada when the laws were changed here but I am confident that the majority of Americans today would vote 'No' to gay marriage."

Apparently, Robert, members of Parliament received an overwhelming number (hundreds of thousands) of letters and e-mails from Canadians before the vote here -- more than any other issue had elicited -- saying "no" to gay marriage.

What did the reigning Librano$ do? They ignored Canadians' wishes and brought the issue to a vote in the HOC. As we know, the "yes" option won by the narrowest of margins, even though it would appear that the vast majority of Canadians were against it. We know which way the leftards and the MSM wanted the vote to go, and they got their way by ramming this legislation through.

If this issue was ever allowed to go to a referendum, it's pretty clear that Canadians would vote the way the Americans did. Look at California!

Posted by: batb at April 24, 2009 7:32 AM

Robert W.: "Do liberal democratic societies like ours have a built in self-destruction mechanism?"

Yes, and especially when one of the most prevalent characteristics of a "liberal democratic society" is secular humanism. Secular humanism is completely wrong about human nature. Secular humanists insist that we are all "good" and have the best of intentions for our fellow human beings and society, and as such, "equality" means that there is no difference between religions or cultures. There is no "good, better, best," just equality.

That view of human nature is completely erroneous and wrong-headed; just look what it's led to in the past century: the most horrendous loss of human freedom, dignity, and life in history.

If liberal democratic societies throw out, with gay abandon, the Judeo-Christian faith and values upon which their democracies were built, then, yes, they have built in a self-destruction mechanism.

And we're watching the self-destruction right before our eyes and seem very reluctant to diagnose the problem.

Posted by: batb at April 24, 2009 7:40 AM

It's been obvious for a very long time that the average Joe isn't buying into the nonsense of the leftard elite.

Why do you think they need charter-crushing HRC's? Thought police are required in order to force people into publicly pretending that up is down. People will always know better but if they are afraid to speak out, the state gets to do what it wants and those who see the truth are marginalized and irrelevant.

It starts in schools. They terrorize the students from a young age that non-elite opinion will be persecuted mercilessly - unlike actual criminal behaviour which is to be dismissed. In fact, if a principle DARES kick a bad seed out of the school, they are forced to take another school's bad seed in return.

One of the central tenants of Marx was that in order to create the new utopian society, the "old order" had to be destroyed ("swept away" in commie-talk.) This is the elites creating their own, top-down version of Marxist idiocy through the back door in increments. It's slow-motion communism. They clearly didn't learn from the other attempts.

Posted by: Warwick at April 24, 2009 12:33 PM