One Reason I Oppose Gay Marriage

It appears most gays have no respect for the institution of marriage.  In fact, according to a New York Times Op-Ed, the real goal of some gay marriage proponents, called liberationists, is to "knock marriage off its cultural pedestal altogether."  It also describes a mixture of conservatism and liberationism:

This vision embraces the institution of marriage, rather than seeking to overthrow it. But it also hints that the example of same-sex unions might partially transform marriage from within, creating greater institutional flexibility — particularly sexual flexibility — for straight and gay spouses alike.
This idea is most prominently associated with Dan Savage, the prolific author, activist and sex columnist who was profiled in Sunday’s Times Magazine. Savage is strongly pro-marriage, but he thinks the institution is weighed down by unrealistic cultural expectations about monogamy. Better, he suggests, to define marriage simply as a pact of mutual love and care, and leave all the other rules to be negotiated depending on the couple.
In “The Commitment,” his memoir about wedding his longtime boyfriend, Savage described the way his own union has successfully made room for occasional infidelity. “Far from undermining the stable home we’ve built for our child,” he writes, “the controlled way in which we manage our desire for outside sexual contact has made our home more stable.”

One thing curtails my pessimism:

But liberationism has been gradually marginalized in the gay community over the last two decades, and gay conservatism seems to have largely carried the day. The desire to be included in an existing institution has proved stronger than the desire to eliminate every institutional constraint.

That article also provides this:

The trouble is that straight culture already experimented with exactly this kind of model, with disastrous results.

Forty years ago, Savage’s perspective temporarily took upper-middle-class America by storm. In the mid-1970s, only 51 percent of well-educated Americans agreed that adultery was always wrong. But far from being strengthened by this outbreak of realism, their marriages went on to dissolve in record numbers.

This trend eventually reversed itself. Heterosexual marriage has had a tough few decades, but its one success story is the declining divorce rate among the upper middle class. This decline, tellingly, has gone hand in hand with steadily rising disapproval of adultery.

There’s a lesson here. Institutions tend to be strongest when they make significant moral demands, and weaker when they pre-emptively accommodate themselves to human nature.

(h/t GayPatriot)

Homosexuals do not deserve marriage until they demonstrate that they are willing to abide by the moral standards it demands.  I previously talked about the importance of the traditional family to the health of society.

An Ideology of Hatred?

Here is an excerpt from an editorial piece by Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League:

The attacks in Norway seem to stem from a different source. They are the first to emerge from a relatively new, specifically anti-Islamic ideology that moves beyond religious or racial prejudices to incorporate anti-Islamic sentiment as the focal point of a larger worldview.

Growing numbers of people in Europe and the United States subscribe to this belief system; in some instances it borders on hysteria. Adherents of this ideological Islamophobia view Islam as an existential threat to the world, especially to the “West.”

Moreover, they believe that leaders and governments in the Western world are consciously or unconsciously collaborating to allow Islam to “infiltrate” and eventually conquer democratic societies.

Left-wing “multiculturalist” sentiments tear down traditional European culture, they argue, allowing Muslim immigrants to replace it with “their own” culture and values. The result, they claim, will be the demographic, cultural and, eventually, political suicide of the West — unless action is taken to stop it.

These ideas are no longer geographically isolated. The Oslo perpetrator in his manifesto quoted extensively from the writings of European and American bloggers — including Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller — who promote a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the pretext of fighting radical Islam. Because of the reach of the Internet, these ideas float freely across borders and are reinforced by like-minded bigots.

This belief system goes far beyond anti-Islamic prejudice based on simple religious or racial grounds. In a sense, it parallels the creation of an ideological — and far more deadly — form of anti-Semitism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries on the backs of the previously dominant cultural and religious forms of anti-Semitism.

The presence of this new ideological form of anti-Islamism is clear in the Norway attacks. The perpetrator, though motivated by anti-Islamic sentiments, did not attack or kill Muslims. Rather, he reserved his extreme actions for those “traitors” whom he believed to be collaborating with and allowing Muslims to take over Norway (and Europe). He chose targets related to the Labour Party, the alleged “multi-cultural Marxists” who dominated his thoughts.

Breivik’s acts are so far the only major incidents like this. Perhaps they will remain unique. His thinking, however, is certainly not. Thanks to his carefully sourced manifesto, we can identify many of his intellectual influences, and they are prominent on both sides of the Atlantic. And many people hold views similar to Breivik’s. In the United States, we have seen frequent manifestations of this ideology, including the eager promotion by anti-Islamic zealots of a growing conspiracy theory about “creeping Sharia law.”

One bizarre twist to Breivik’s warped worldview was his pro-Zionism — his strongly expressed support for the state of Israel. It is a reminder that we must always be wary of those whose love for the Jewish people is born out of hatred of Muslims or Arabs.

The obvious danger to Americans and Europeans is that as this movement grows and solidifies, more people may become motivated to violence by this hateful ideology.

In America, the polarization, vitriol and fear engendered by anti-Islamic activists must be replaced by reasoned and civil debate. We must rally the voices of reason to overcome the voices of intolerance before it is too late.

What is clear to me is that either Mr. Foxman or I misunderstand this ideology.   However, given the following, I am pretty sure it is he who misunderstands it:

• Muslims attack gays in San Francisco, Washington, and even Amsterdam.  However, that is nothing compared to how gays are treated in Muslim nations. 
• Honor killings are widespread among Muslims.
• Pedophilia is sanctioned by the Quran. 
• Since 9/11, Muslims have committed over 10,000 terrorist attacks, resulting in over 60,000 deaths and over 90,000 injuries.

Those are just a few examples of why I believe Islam is a threat.  If immigration by Muslims to some locations is not curbed, we may see more examples of Malmö, Sweden, where:

• The presence of an Israeli sports team caused a riot.
• Emergency workers do not enter heavily-Muslim areas.
• Heavily-Muslim areas are plagued by rampant unemployment. 
• Crime is widespread; one in three families is affected by "immigrant-fueled crime."
• Over a 20-year period, the number of rapes has tripled. 
• Jews risk their safety by not hiding their religion. 

Malmö appears to have problems because of its quarter-Muslim population.  Assuming the above is correct, multiculturalism and immigration have turned the well-functioning Swedish society into one with many problems.  If certain locations continue their policy of multiculturalism, then they too may see the same problems (if they haven't already).  

It is important to make a distinction between Muslim extremists and everyday Muslims.  The former is likely a tiny fraction of the entire Muslim population.  And, although some people may believe otherwise, I would not judge someone negatively based solely upon their religion, even if it were Islam (however, I may not hold the same attitude toward the Westboro Baptist Church and a few others).  It is, of course, the Muslim extremists that are responsible for all of the terrorism.  However, the same cannot be said for the other things that I mentioned above.  I do realize that there also exists a more liberal version of Islam.  However, that does not erase the evident correlation between Muslims and the above.  Having said that, I would not automatically attatch any of those things to any Muslim without evidence that suggests they may have perpetrated them.  To do so would be, among other things, logically fallacious.  

So, it appears that you simply need to consider Malmö when Mr. Foxman says this...

Left-wing “multiculturalist” sentiments tear down traditional European culture, they argue, allowing Muslim immigrants to replace it with “their own” culture and values. The result, they claim, will be the demographic, cultural and, eventually, political suicide of the West — unless action is taken to stop it.

And, when he says this,

This belief system goes far beyond anti-Islamic prejudice based on simple religious or racial grounds. In a sense, it parallels the creation of an ideological — and far more deadly — form of anti-Semitism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries on the backs of the previously dominant cultural and religious forms of anti-Semitism.

...you must simply remember how unlike modern Muslims the Jews of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were.  That is, they cannot be effectively compared.

And, to this...

The obvious danger to Americans and Europeans is that as this movement grows and solidifies, more people may become motivated to violence by this hateful ideology.

In America, the polarization, vitriol and fear engendered by anti-Islamic activists must be replaced by reasoned and civil debate. We must rally the voices of reason to overcome the voices of intolerance before it is too late.

...I say, although I cannot speak for anyone else, my ideology is not hateful.  I wish to propagate reasoned and civil debate.  Based on all the evidence I have seen, I have reason to deem Islam a threat.  If I am presented with evidence that contradicts the evidence I have seen, then I would be more than willing to reconsider my position.

I am not hateful; my position is quite empirical.  And, I will again condemn Breivik's detestable, evil actions.  I hope I have effectively communicated how my ideology is not hateful.  This appears to be yet another example of the acknowledgement of reality being confused for hatred.  Only through civil and reasoned discussion can things be effectively understood, and violence accomplishes absolutely nothing (aside from when it is necessary for protection).

Overreaction of Titanic Proportions over Imaginary Homophobia

I just saw this on the news:

Professor and former Surrey-North federal Liberal candidate Shinder Purewal sparked a Twitter storm on Thursday by tweeting that he finds the Vancouver Pride Parade “vulgar.”

He posted on Twitter that “Vancouver’s so-called ‘Pride Parade’ should be banned. It is vulgar ... to say the least!”

The Kwantlen University professor and former citizenship judge received a flood of responses, all disagreeing with him.

In a telephone interview Thursday about his tweet, Purewal said: “If I can’t take my family to a place because of open sexuality, my opinion is that it’s simply vulgar.

...

 Vancouver Pride Society president Ken Coolin said people are entitled to their own opinion, but called Purewal’s comments “unfortunate.

He said Purewal “should understand how comments like this can turn into challenges for the community.

“It’s sad he chose to make this comment; it is going to be interpreted as homophobic by many in our community, even though he doesn’t see it that way.”

I question whether he has sat and watched the parade the whole way through, because there are families, brothers, sisters, moms and dads, who go together to support each other,” said Coolin.

Emphasis added.
Let me just say that I completely agree with Professor Purewal, and his comments are in no way homophic.  The parade is vulgar.  For photos that showcase the parade's vulgarity, click here, here, here, here, and here (warning: that last image contains nudity).  A simple Google search will reveal many, many more obscene photos.  Is that really an event you want to bring your family to?

The following tweets showcase the irrationality of some people (sorry for the atrocious formatting):

 Top @ShinderPurewal tweets:

jarrahpenguin Jarrah Hodge
@ShinderPurewal's #vanpride2011 "clarification" didn't help. You can't say you support #lgbt rights but find the sexuality "vulgar"
KSAcouncil Kwantlen KSA
Kwantlen prof @shinderpurewal views on #vanpride2011 dont reflect the @KSACouncil
anotherPurewal Tavleen Purewal
Yup, why doesn't everyone jump on the hate @ShinderPurewal bandwagon! His opinion, "something I wouldn't want my children to see"

@ShinderPurewal life long learner? How is that possible when your mind is closed so tight?

tuxforpm TuxForPM
@ShinderPurewal Sure, why not? Lets ban every way people have to express themselves because it offends our intransigent morality #cdnpoli
tdhross Jonathan Ross
@shinderpurewal @liberal_party As a proud Liberal, this ex-candidate's disgusting views on #vanpride2011 does not represent our party. Shame

Emphasis added.

In case someone reads this that isn't familiar with me, I am gay.  Seriously, some of these comments leave me absolutely astonished and speechless.  I don't even know what to say.  People are entitled to their views obviously (this isn't the Netherlands, for God's sake), but I have never seen such overreaction.  Wow.  That is really all I can say.  I no longer have any hope for the "gay community."  It is clear that they are self-absorbed and intransigent, and, since they are a minority, they have the responsibility to listen to the majority (within reasonableness, of course).  

See also: this post.

UPDATE: Please also note that Professor Purewal also said this:

“That does not mean that I don’t support same-sex marriage, which I do and voted for, or that I don’t support people of different sexual orientation, but for it to be in public is vulgar.”

UPDATE: I edited this post a bit.

Rodeos and Drag Queens

In my previous post, I mentioned that I had originally intended to write about something completely different than what I ended up writing about.  In the first sentence of that post, I mentioned Vancouver Pride.  I originally meant to talk about drag queens, which are a staple at pride parades (or so it seems), but ended up talking about Alberta's conservative politics.  Anyway, what I was originally going to say follows.

I will spare you my opinion of drag queens.  I will say, however, that I do not see what relevance they have to homosexuals.  I do not know very much about drag queens, or transvetitism, or transgenderism (which I talked about previously), nor do I want to.  I am homosexual, but, even in my youth, none of my mannerisms were very "girly."  Aside from my sexuality and agnosticism, I am a traditional kind of guy.  Here, I opined on gay pride.  Since I never plan on attending a gay pride parade (except maybe to join the anti-gay protesters, although my motivation for protesting would be much different from theirs), the large occurrence of drag queens does not particularly bother me, aside from their association with gays.  Although I believe I know why drag queens are associated with gays, I do not believe they should be.  To me, they seem to be better associated with transgenderism, which is not a sexual orientation.  For the same reason, I prefer the term LGB to LGBT (although I do not use either).

In my previous post, I mentioned the Calgary Stampede, which includes a rodeo.  The spirit of the event appeals to me and my inner redneck.  That brings me to gay rodeo, which is possibly the only gay-themed event I would ever be likely to attend.  I wonder if it is an event that draws more conservative-leaning homosexuals, similar to how regular rodeos appeal more to conservatives than to liberals.  To anyone who reads this that is familiar with gay rodeo, I have a question.  Is it an actual rodeo, or it is just some campy parody?  I have researched the event a bit, and, much to my chagrin, drag queens seem to be a staple of the event.  This fact leads me to believe the latter is true.

Canada's Paradise

The Vancouver Pride Festival is coming up soon (in case anyone was wondering why I am writing about Gay Pride now).  A much different event, the Calgary Stampede, ended almost two weeks ago.  Aside from the festive nature of both events, the contrast could not be more different.  The Calgary Stampede, the world's largest rodeo, is a celebration of Calgary's western heritage.  The Calgary Stampede started in 1886 as the Calgary and District Agricultural Society Exhibition.  The Stampede is closely tied with Calgary's identity.

Alberta is sometimes referred to "The Texas of Canada" (at least by me), and, indeed, Alberta is well known in Canada for its conservative politics.  Alberta gave the Conservatives the highest percentage of its popular vote (67%) in 2011.  The Conservative Party has won very seat in Alberta outside of Edmonton for the past four federal elections (every election since the foundation of the Conservative Party), as well as every seat in Edmonton in one of those.  Rural Alberta ridings gave anywhere between 84 and 75 percent of their votes to the Conservative Party in 2011.  Alberta's Progressive Conservative Association (definitely not progressive) has formed the provincial government since 1971.  Alberta is also Canada's wealthiest province, due to its oil sands (which I will defend to the death, metaphorically).  In addition, Calgary, Alberta's largest city, is arguably one of North America's most conservative cities (which I consider to be metropolitan areas with over one million people).

During the Stampede, western wear is visible around the city.  So tied to Calgary's identity is the Stampede and its western heritage, a cowboy hat appears on the city's flag (see below).

Originally, this post was going to be about something else entirely.  However, as I was writing it, it turned into a post about Alberta politics.  The introduction, which I decided not to change (for a sense of contemporary relevance), is indicative of such.  I could go on and on about how much I love Alberta and I can't wait to move there (I was raised and currently live in British Columbia); incidentally, I am really starting to embrace my inner redneck.  At the same time, Calgary is sadly evolving (or devolving, if you ask me) into a PC hell, seemingly just like every other place in the Western world, which I guess is inevitable for a rapidly growing major city.  Fortunately, this process seems to be quite slow.  The Calgary Stampede (an event that showcases toughness and masculinity, and one that p*sses off animal rights groups) and the pride in which Calgary's residents show during said event, leave me optimistic.

Some Vitriol Worthy of "Daily Kos"

Every night at 7:00 PM, the inane diatribe of nonsense popularly known as “Entertainment Tonight” rears its pug-fugly face on my TV screen when the news is over.  And, I can’t change the channel fast enough.  Any second spared of their nonsensical rantings about drivel no one in their right mind should ever care about in the slightest means one extra day of sanity at the end of my life.  Gossip is the lowest form of anything.  Why don’t Entertainment Tonight’s viewers join those of us whose IQ is higher than “below average” in not giving a rat’s ass about what costume Lady Gaga wore at some stupid award show or what bonehead Jennifer Anniston is dating?  Seriously, who cares?  Why do people obsess over these morons whose only talent is looking like a plastic cup that spent too much time in the microwave?  And what kind of society puts these morons (oops, sorry, “artists”) above people who risk their lives every day to keep people safe, or above scientists who are finding cures for diseases?  And, even if actors’ and musicians’ names are widely known (which I don’t actually have a problem with), why does every fricking detail about their lives need to be scrutinized?  They aren’t that goddang interesting!  Very rarely do you see a comparable level of obsession with professional athletes, who, in my humble opinion, are vastly more talented and skilled.  This must be one of the very few ways in which non-Western societies are actually superior.  

Okay, maybe that wasn't even close to the level of vitriol at "Daily Kos."  Anyway, I needed to vent on how oddly furious I become every time that sideshow appears on my television.  Do not expect this style of writing from me again.  

The Horrors of Gay Pride

I am very critical of gay pride.  The concept of being proud of such a thing is absurd.  The actual parades showcase sexuality and immorality.  This morning, I watched an interview on the news with an organizer of a gay pride event in Vancouver, who said that people would have the opportunity to walk down a certain street naked during the gay pride events.  Is that how the gay community wants to represent itself?  Personally, as a homosexual person, the gay pride parade and its focus on sex offends me. 

I am neither proud of nor ashamed of my sexuality.  I would hope that it would be considered the least interesting thing about me.  But the gay pride events draw attention to sexuality, and those who participate seem to make their sexuality a significant aspect of themselves. 

I am an opponent of the concept of the gay community as well as gay pride.  Any other gay people who share my views, please speak up!  

So Much Death

At least 43 people have died in a train crash in China.

Six people were killed at a shooting at a birthday party in Texas.

Thousands are thought to be dead as the result of the famine in Somalia.

And the death toll of the attacks in Norway has risen to 94.

So why is Amy Winehouse receiving so much attention?  Yes, she died, and that is unfortunate, but how is her death any more tragic than those of the thousands of other people who died?  What has Amy Winehouse contributed to society that is so significant that her death should receive so much attention?  I do not understand this.  I do not understand why celebrities are placed on these pedestals that elevate them above the rest of society.  I do not mean any disrespect to Amy Winehouse or her family.  I just don't understand the inequality.

Terror in Norway

One of the world's safest cities, Oslo, Norway, was bombed today, resulting in 7 deaths.

Residents were stunned by the blast and the possibility that their placid city, which hosts the annual ceremony awarding the Nobel Peace Prize, had become the target of a large terrorist attack.

A jihadist group is thought to be responsible for the bombing.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the blast, but Norway has been singled out as a target by Al Qaeda. 

Almost exactly a year ago, three foreign-born Norwegian residents suspected of being affiliated with Al Qaeda were arrested on suspicion of plotting an attack. 

Last week, Mullah Krekar, an Iraqi-born cleric who lives in Norway, was charged with terrorism after allegedly threatening politicians with death if Norwegian authorities deport him. Krekar is the founder of the militant Kurdish Islamist group Ansar Al Islam. 

In 2003, an audiotape by Ayman Zawahiri, who succeeded Osama bin Laden as leader of Al Qaeda after his death in May, urged militants to attack the U.S., Britain, Australia and Norway. 

Many Norwegians were puzzled at the inclusion of their country on the list; explanations centered on Norway's participation in the war in Afghanistan.

Norway, like many other European countries, has a problem with their growing Muslim population.  

"It's hard to be a Norwegian in Norway." The Norwegians, as the Swedes and other EU member states, have been embarking on a 'hara kiri' self inflicted cultural-ethnic suicide of their own country.

Via Michelle Malkin, Muslims in Norway have taken it upon themselves to enforce their beliefs on others in a culturally diverse neighborhood of Oslo:

One of Oslo’s most multi-cultural neighborhoods, Grønland, has suddenly emerged as an area far from the ideals of cultural and religious tolerance. Many immigrants claim it’s “more Muslim” than the countries they left, and newspaper Aftenposten reports that both they and others face harassment on the streets if they don’t conform to a code of conduct that some stricter Muslims try to impose.

The leftist policy of multiculturalism is backfiring spectacularly.  Not only is it not having the desired effect (i.e. a society where a mosaic of cultures can coexist peacefully), but the native culture is being enveloped by the oppressive, misogynistic, homophobic culture of Islam.  The fact is that Sharia-law compliant Islam is not compatible with any other culture, ideology, or belief system.  That fact is a dangerous one to ignore.  We, in the Western world, cannot be blinded by our desire to be open-minded and by our love of diversity, because doing so has proven to be deadly.

Hopefully some good can come out of this terror attack.  Hopefully, this serves as a wake-up call to those who do not realize the threat that Islam poses to the West.  However, something tells me that it won't.

UPDATE: Nine or ten people were shot and killed by a gunman at a summer camp on the island of Utøya outside Oslo.  The total death toll of both incidents seems to be rising.

Also, it hasn't been confirmed that a jihadist group is responsible for this attack.

UPDATE: It has become evident that the bomber was a 32-year old Norwegian (i.e. ethnically Norwegian) man:

After the shooting, the police seized a 32-year-old Norwegian man on the island, according to the police and Justice Minister Knut Storberget. The acting chief of police, Sveinung Sponheim, said the suspect, who is not known to have any ties to Islamic extremists, had also been seen in Oslo before the explosions. The police and other authorities declined to say what the suspect’s motivations might have been, but many speculated that the target was Mr. Stoltenberg’s liberal government.

I rescind all comments I made about the connection between jihadists and this attack.  However, I stand by everything else I said about Sharia-compliant Islam.  Perhaps this attack cannot serve as the wake-up call I was hoping it would serve as, but, at the very least, hopefully this incident will spread awareness of Sharia reaching into Western society.  It shouldn't take an unfortunate incident such as this terrorist attack to raise awareness about the danger Islam poses, but it appears that Islam has nothing to do with this attack.

Something I neglected to mention in my original post was that the bomb explosion occurred in a government building in central Oslo.  This government building is the location of the Norwegian Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, who belongs to the Norwegian Labor Party.  Also, the sumper camp on the island of Utøya was affiliated with the Norwegian Labor Party.  And, I will point out the word "liberal" is usually reserved for a small-government (economically right and socially left) ideology in Europe.  The Labor Party is not liberal in the European sense, but rather socialist.  Stoltenberg's government consists of a coalition between the Labor Party, the further left Socialist Left Party, and the centrist Centre Party.

UPDATE: There have now been at least 87 confirmed deaths as a result of the attacks in Norway.  At least 80 people died as a result of the shooting spree on the island of Utøya and 7 people died as a result of the bomb in central Oslo.  The shooter is reported to have ties to right-wing extremists.

The Importance of the Traditional Family

Here is an old post from 2005, written by Jane Galt.  It is about gay marriage, but that is not the reason that I linked to it.  It is quite long, but it is very well written and it contains a lot of useful information.  The information that I am primarily interested in refers specifically to families, and the importance of the traditional family unit to society.

To sketch a brief history of welfare, it emerged in the nineteenth century as "Widows and orphans pensions", which were paid by the state to destitute families whose breadwinner had passed away. They were often not available to blacks; they were never available to unwed mothers. Though public services expanded in the first half of the twentieth century, that mentality was very much the same: public services were about supporting unfortunate families, not unwed mothers. Unwed mothers could not, in most cases, obtain welfare; they were not allowed in public housing (which was supposed to be--and was--a way station for young, struggling families on the way to homeownership, not a permanent abode); they were otherwise discriminated against by social services. The help you could expect from society was a home for wayward girls, in which you would give birth and then put the baby up for adoption.

The description of public housing in the fifties is shocking to anyone who's spent any time in modern public housing. Big item on the agenda at the tenant's meeting: housewives, don't shake your dustcloths out of the windows--other wives don't want your dirt in their apartment! Men, if you wear heavy work boots, please don't walk on the lawns until you can change into lighter shoes, as it damages the grass! (Descriptions taken from the invaluable book, The Inheritance, about the transition of the white working class from Democrat to Republican.) Needless to say, if those same housing projects could today find a majority of tenants who reliably dusted, or worked, they would be thrilled.
Public housing was, in short, a place full of functioning families.

Now, in the late fifties, a debate began over whether to extend benefits to the unmarried. It was unfair to stigmatise unwed mothers. Why shouldn't they be able to avail themselves of the benefits available to other citizens? The brutal societal prejudice against illegitimacy was old fashioned, bigoted, irrational.

But if you give unmarried mothers money, said the critics, you will get more unmarried mothers.

Ridiculous, said the proponents of the change. Being an unmarried mother is a brutal, thankless task. What kind of idiot would have a baby out of wedlock just because the state was willing to give her paltry welfare benefits?

People do all sorts of idiotic things, said the critics. If you pay for something, you usually get more of it.

C'mon said the activists. That's just silly. I just can't imagine anyone deciding to get pregnant out of wedlock simply because there are welfare benefits available.

Oooops.

Of course, change didn't happen overnight. But the marginal cases did have children out of wedlock, which made it more acceptable for the next marginal case to do so. Meanwhile, women who wanted to get married essentially found themselves in competition for young men with women who were willing to have sex, and bear children, without forcing the men to take any responsibility. This is a pretty attractive proposition for most young men. So despite the fact that the sixties brought us the biggest advance in birth control ever, illegitimacy exploded. In the early 1960s, a black illegitimacy rate of roughly 25 percent caused Daniel Patrick Moynihan to write a tract warning of a crisis in "the negro family" (a tract for which he was eviscerated by many of those selfsame activists.)

By 1990, that rate was over 70 percent. This, despite the fact that the inner city, where the illegitimacy problem was biggest, only accounts for a fraction of the black population.

But in that inner city, marriage had been destroyed. It had literally ceased to exist in any meaningful way. Possibly one of the most moving moments in Jason de Parle's absolutely wonderful book, American Dream, which follows three welfare mothers through welfare reform, is when he reveals that none of these three women, all in their late thirties, had ever been to a wedding.

Marriage matters. It is better for the kids; it is better for the adults raising those kids; and it is better for the childless people in the communities where those kids and adults live. Marriage reduces poverty, improves kids outcomes in all measurable ways, makes men live longer and both spouses happier. Marriage, it turns out, is an incredibly important institution. It also turns out to be a lot more fragile than we thought back then. It looked, to those extremely smart and well-meaning welfare reformers, practically unshakeable; the idea that it could be undone by something as simple as enabling women to have children without husbands, seemed ludicrous. Its cultural underpinnings were far too firm. Why would a woman choose such a hard road? It seemed self-evident that the only unwed mothers claiming benefits would be the ones pushed there by terrible circumstance.

 ...

Divorce, in the nineteenth century, was unbelievably hard to get. It took years, was expensive, and required proving that your spouse had abandonned [sic] you for an extended period with no financial support; was (if male) not merely discreetly dallying but flagrantly carrying on; or was not just belting you one now and again when you got mouthy, but routinely pummeling you within an inch of your life. After you got divorced, you were a pariah in all but the largest cities. If you were a desperately wronged woman you might change your name, taking your maiden name as your first name and continuing to use your husband's last name to indicate that you expected to continue living as if you were married (i.e. chastely) and expect to have some limited intercourse with your neighbours, though of course you would not be invited to events held in a church, or evening affairs. Financially secure women generally (I am not making this up) moved to Europe; Edith Wharton, who moved to Paris when she got divorced, wrote moving stories about the way divorced women were shunned at home. Men, meanwhile (who were usually the respondants [sic]) could expect to see more than half their assets and income settled on their spouse and children.
There were, critics observed, a number of unhappy marriages in which people stuck together. Young people, who shouldn't have gotten married; older people, whose spouses were not physically abusive nor absent, nor flagrantly adulterous, but whose spouse was, for reasons of financial irresponsibility, mental viciousness, or some other major flaw, destroying their life. Why not make divorce easier to get? Rather than requiring people to show that there was an unforgiveable, physically visible, cause that the marriage should be dissolved, why not let people who wanted to get divorced agree to do so?
Because if you make divorce easier, said the critics, you will get much more of it, and divorce is bad for society.
That's ridiculous! said the reformers. (Can we sing it all together now?) People stay married because marriage is a bedrock institution of our society, not because of some law! The only people who get divorced will be people who have terrible problems! A few percentage points at most!
Oops. When the law changed, the institution changed. The marginal divorce made the next one easier. Again, the magnitude of the change swamped the dire predictions of the anti-reformist wing; no one could have imagined, in their wildest dreams, a day when half of all marriages ended in divorce.
There were actually two big changes; the first, when divorce laws were amended in most states to make it easier to get a divorce; and the second, when "no fault" divorce allowed one spouse to unilaterally end the marriage. The second change produced another huge surge in the divorce rate, and a nice decline in the incomes of divorced women; it seems advocates had failed to anticipate that removing the leverage of the financially weaker party to hold out for a good settlement would result in men keeping more of their earnings to themselves.
What's more, easy divorce didn't only change the divorce rate; it made drastic changes to the institution of marriage itself. David Brooks makes an argument I find convincing: that the proliferation of the kind of extravagent [sic] weddings that used to only be the province of high society (rented venue, extravagent [sic] flowers and food, hundreds of guests, a band with dancing, dresses that cost the same as a good used car) is because the event itself doesn't mean nearly as much as it used to, so we have to turn it into a three-ring circus to feel like we're really doing something.
A couple in 1940 (and even more so in 1910) could go to a minister's parlor, or a justice of the peace, and in five minutes totally change their lives. Unless you are a member of certain highly religious subcultures, this is simply no longer true. That is, of course, partly because of the sexual revolution and the emancipation of women; but it is also because you aren't really making a lifetime committment [sic]; you're making a lifetime committment [sic] unless you find something better to do. There is no way, psychologically, to make the latter as big an event as the former, and when you lost that committment [sic], you lose, on the margin, some willingness to make the marriage work.

From the above passages, I conclude that society exhibits sensitivity to initial conditions.  That is, a minor change can cause more minor changes, and, after a period of time, that series of minor changes adds up to a much more significant change.  Given that conclusion, any change to society (through a change in law, for example) has the potential to cause further change.  For that reason, change to society should not be engendered unless there is a good reason for it.  Society will always change and evolve on its own, but any engendered change may have unpredictable, and undesirable, results.

See also this post in which I talk about traditional gender roles and this post in which I talk about the innocence of children.

Gender Bending Diversity Training

Gender Spectrum Diversity Training sounds hideously politically correct on its own, but that was the name of a program targeted towards kindergarten students:

Redwood Heights Elementary School in Oakland, CA has joined the chorus of those wishing to mainstream 'gender-bending' by enacting a program this week that, according to a press release, tells kindergarteners 'there are more than two genders.'

 The kindergarten through fifth grade school hosted a 2-day program for students titled, 'Gender Spectrum Diversity Training,' in which single-sex Hawaiian geckos and transgender clownfish were brought in to teach children that 'there are different ways to be boys. There are different ways to be girls,' according to Redwood Heights principal Sara Stone. Students received gender diversity training as they learned about 'boy snakes that act 'girly'.' 

This is only the latest example of what seems to be a New-Age, gender-bending agenda pushed into the mainstream media by those who refuse to accept the traditional sex differences between men and women. A couple in Toronto, Canada has sparked outrage because they refuse to assign a specific gender to their infant 'Storm,' preferring instead to believe 'a child's sex should not determine his or her place in the world.

Firstly, I highly doubt kindergarten students understand what gender is.  If little boys act like girls sometimes, they are not self-conscious about it.  They don't understand that what they are doing is "gender bending."  Secondly, lizards and fish are not comparable to humans.  There are numerous species that exhibit transsexuality (called hermaphroditism in biology).  For hermaphroditic species, either having both male and female sexual organs simultaneously or changing sexual organs at some point is common, if not universal.  Clownfish, unlike humans, are hermaphroditic (they are born male, but may become female).  Obviously, kindergarten students would not be able understand that, but deriving a "lesson" from a flawed comparison seems unethical to me.  That is not to mention everything else that is horribly wrong with indoctrinating children with this politically correct "gender bending" agenda.  

In human culture, there is a reason for the social construct of gender: that males and females are fundamentally different and have fundamentally different roles.  I think women should have the same rights as men, but that does not mean that women are the same as men.  If small children have problems with their gender, then they should be allowed to deal with that on their own.  This is yet another example of the illusion that life is easy and everyone loves everyone that children are perpetually exposed to in schools.  Life is hard, and it is even harder when you think it is easy.  Instead of indoctrinating children with vile ideals and exposing them to sex at a disgustingly early age (see also, this post), schools should focus on teaching children things like science and math and let them establish their own ideals through their own experiences.  

Society is gradually becoming more accepting of deviance of gender roles.  What is wrong with the expectation that men act like men and women act like women?  In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with that.  School is a joke and parents are becoming so over-protective that their children are not mature enough that they can't function in the real world because they never had the opportunity to learn from their mistakes.  The world is gradually becoming an abhorrently progressive dystopia.  The traditional family unit is important to the health of society.  I will go into that in more detail in a subsequent post.  For now, I will conclude that, given that premise, traditional gender roles are also important for the health of society.  Exposing children to androgyny cannot be good.  

I also wanted to say something about this, the Toronto couple that is raising a "genderless" child that was mentioned in that article I linked to.  

A Toronto couple is taking their beliefs about parenting and gender stereotypes to new heights: They refuse to tell people the gender of 4-month-old Storm, reports the Toronto Star. Even the kid's grandparents are in the dark. “In fact, in not telling the gender of my precious baby, I am saying to the world, ‘Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what s(he) wants to be?!”

I do believe that parents (not schools) should be able to raise their children how they want to, but this seems almost criminal.  This has to be some form of child abuse.

Militant progressivism has reached a new low.

Queer?

The nomenclature used to identify homosexuals is varied.  I tend to use the well-established term “gay” to describe homosexuals simply because it is well-established.  However, the term “gay” often has a negatvie connotation, as I recently found out.  Its original definition was “joyful” or “carefree.”  As an extension of its definition as “carefree,” it attained the new definition of “without moral constraints,” which led to a definition of “addicted to pleasure.”  It wasn’t until the 1960’s that the word “gay” was widely used to refer to homosexuality.  Prior to then, it was an adjective that meant hedonistic.  I am quite austere.  I now have mixed feelings on using the word “gay” because of this new knowledge of the word’s etymology that I have recently gained, and because my austerity contrasts with its original definition.  However, I use it habitually. 

I also use the term “homosexual” because it is the technical term.  Whether I, or anyone else, likes it or not, homosexuals are defined based on sexual preference. 

  

In its original meaning, the word “queer” was a synonym of “strange.”  When applied to homosexuals, it was originally used as a pejorative.  Why on earth people would want to embrace a pejorative (especially when its use is superfluous) is beyond me (other than, perhaps, shock value).  Perhaps they use it as some sort of confirmation of victimhood (just a guess).  I think my opinion of this word can be best explained by Homer Simpson.  When a gay person uses the word “queer,” Homer responds thus: “I resent you people using that word.  That’s our word for making fun of you! We need it!”  Now, I am strongly opposed to political correctness.  However, the use of this word just doesn’t make sense to me.  

Then there is LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender).  The issue I have with this term is that I believe it is over-inclusive.  I do not see why transgered people should be included, since transgender is not a sexual orientation.  There are several different versions of that term.  According to Wikipedia, there are also versions that include a Q, a question mark, a U, a C, an I, another T, a 2, an SA, an A and a P.  So, if all of those were included, the term would be LGBTQ?UCIT2SAAP.  Fortunately, I have never seen anyone use that term.  However, when you type in “LGBT” into google, its second suggestion is “LGBTTIQQ2SA.”  I believe that that is a bit too over-inclusive (to put it mildly).  I mean, homosexuals and bisexuals make up a small fraction of the population.  I can only imagine what percentage of the population is covered by the remainder of those various characters.  

Now, enough on homosexuality.