When I see the memes that berate social conservatives (conflated with Christians--I do think Christians should take the divorce statistics to heart) that imply that it's hypocritical to care what happens to the insitution of marriage under the soaring divorce rates, I can't help but see this as another way to say "Now that liberalism has successfully dealt a death blow to the institution with our social policies, affecting Christian households as much as any others, what the #$!%& do you care what we liberals do with it now?"
Yes, as long as the millenia-old tradition is practically a goner, let's hoist its almost corpse, cover it with confetti, and play pinata with it. That's a good idea. Perhaps more cynical yet is the "conservative argument for same sex marriage" which contends that we are somehow going to make the American marriage stronger. This is an inspiration for various memes. The heterosexuals have screwed up marriage--give the gays a chance. This is another variation on the same theme. Some people that have lived the gay lifestyle for years are less optimistic about this. (Remember your training, liberals--such people simply don't exist--and if they do, they don't count; repeat the mantra).
Then there is the related cynicism of the studies that underlie these memes in the public subconscious: Homosexuals don't have a bigger problem staying monogamous and if they do it's because they are oppressed. Homosexuals don't have a bigger problem with chemical addiction and if they do it's because they are oppressed. Homosexual couples' children are not more likely to be socially maladjusted, and if they are it's because they are oppressed. Do the results of all this rampant oppression we hear about all the time have no ill effects that show up in studies? Or does the magic of gayness overcome the ill effects that have a pronounced effect on humans that happened to not be gay? Or are the ill effects of an oppressive heterosexual regime "controlled" out of the study so that the unbiased, predominantly liberal social scientists are able to show how well-adjusted homosexuals would be if they weren't constantly oppressed?
Regarding the degradation of marriage, social scientists seem as clueless as the public as to why divorce rates have soared since the 60s.
Why oh why would most people want do-overs on decisions they make early in their lives? Why would people be unable to pick the ideal mate during the peak of their fertility? Why, now free of the social conventions that might otherwise hold people together, would young people decide to break up a family even when there are children involved? Why would a society that prizes self-fulfillment and self-actualization and self-expression as the highest goals, create young husbands and wives that routinely break up their familes? that routinely pick the "wrong person" at the first go?
Vote for gay marriage though, and you'll feel better about yourself even if society continues to fall apart. That's what's important, after all. The broken family has become the norm, because God forbid there be any stigma to divorced families and single parenthood. Nothing is any better than anything else, and a home with a dad and a mom is certainly no advantage over a home in which a single parent is trying to pull it together on his or her own. A home in which one's father remains committed to one's mother and vice versa is no advantage in forming healthy relationships. And remember, kids, most of all, that male and female are just a marketing gimmick thought up by Mother Nature eons ago, so don't believe there are any roles that aren't simply made up. You are whatever you think you are, because you started yourself from scratch after you were born. Unless you are homosexual--that is the one immutable thing you must be if you have any same sex attractions, the one given. If you don't like your private parts, well then, Nature made a mistake. If you have same sex attraction, well, as the song goes, there are no mistakes, 'cause you were born that way.
Welcome to Utopia where we can play any game we want with our biological programming with absolutely no repercussions, because there are no rules that we don't make up, nothing hardwaired, nothing planned, nothing 'natural' to the human condition, no ideal situation that we were adapted for, no environmental setbacks that good progressive intentions can't overcome by their very nature. Unless you are gay, and then you don't want to resist your programming at all. Don't mess with Mother Nature in that case. But if you don't like your body, that's not a disorder, God made a mistake, and we can fix you right up!
And there are certinaly no signs that the eroding familial safety net is causing people to look to the State for that support. It's just pure enlightenment that causes people to be unable to see how it ever coudl have worked any other way-- a society now in which kids often live in a different state from their parents, and very often live far away from their grandparents. The State is soon to be your parent, deciding your valgoods are spentues in school, paying for your college education. Which means every parent is paying your way, and ever social security recipient is your grandparent. The public is your family, the state administrators your parents. It will be so much better anyway when the choices of college majors will be determined by a Committee of Education and Cultural Values instead of being decided what parents will voluntarily shell out money for (corporate fascism! bourgeoisie!). Imagine when it's the State that will decide whether you can best serve the People as a common worker or get to be part of the cultural elite trasmitting the values of the Good. Hey, the State has an obligation not to waste the public's money, and once the State takes enough control over the distribution of resources, they will have to decide who is worth educating to what level.
And who is worth keeping alive. In England now, many infants and old people are being phased out because the state doesn't have the funds to sink into non-productive members of society. It's about the worker, you see. After Thatcherism improved the lot of Britain, the progressives used the increased wealth to stir up class envy (straight out of Orwell's 1984) and the workers' party took over. And infants and the aged can't work as hard. They consume more resources than they produce. So the ones with less chance of making it often get fast-tracked to death due to resource allocation. (The Rich can, for now anyway, come to America for help--making the divide between Rich and Poor much more pronounced in England than in America--ironic?) Remember, it's cruel to let the free market of voluntary trade decide whether someone is allowed to consume more than they produce--the humane thing is to place the power of life and death into the hands of administrators who make the hard choices over how the Workers' money is spent.
And it is administrators that should decide your children's values--as they do in California. What makes you as a parent better equipped to decide a child's values than educated social scientists? Just because you were able to procreate? Stop doing the social scientist's job and get back to producing goods and services, Worker! (Someone has to create wealth for us to redistribute.) We'll educate your child, thank you very much.
After all, it takes a village.
No comments:
Post a Comment