FT117: “If a gay gene is identified an abortion of a gay fetus will be labeled a hate crime.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 11th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

The Left opposes Traditional Marriage but supports Same-Sex Marriage for the Money

According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law there are approximately 9 million lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in the United States.  Based on a population of 311,591,917 that comes to approximately 3% of the population.  Which is a small number.  Which explains why same-sex marriage ballot initiatives are so often defeated.  Some people are opposed to same-sex marriage.  Some are opposed to making changes to existing laws to accommodate 3% of the population.  Whatever their reason voting majorities are against it.  Despite this same-sex marriage is a big issue.  Especially for some politicians.  In particular those on the Left.  As evidenced by President Obama’s recent evolution from being opposed to same-sex marriage to being in favor of it.  Which is puzzling when you consider the Left’s position on marriage in general.

They don’t like it.  Especially if it leads to a woman giving up a chance for a career to instead stay at home and raise a family.  For these women are not feminists.  These are enemies to feminism.  The Left has given women everything they could possible ask for.  So they don’t have to get married and become some man’s chattel.  Birth control.  Abortion.  Child support.  Public housing.  Etc.  Everything to help a woman avoid the tyranny of marriage.  Because marriage is nothing more than bondage.  A desire to keep women barefoot and pregnant.  To keep them cooks in the kitchen and whores in the bedroom.  While men go out and live life.  While coming home to a surrogate mother to attend to all of their needs.  Which is why the Left so opposes the repugnant institution of marriage.  Unless it’s for a same-sex couple.  Then it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread.

So why is the Left so opposed to traditional marriage but all for same-sex marriage?  Money.  There is a lot of money in the LGBT community.  Because there is a lot of talent in the LGBT community.  People who go on to great stardom.  And become rich.  Who want it all.  Including marriage and a family.  So though small in numbers they are large in money.  So by supporting same-sex marriage the Left is trading votes for money.  Votes that for the most part they’ve already lost.  Traditional conservatives and Christians.  But they run a risk with this policy.  With the Independents and moderates.  The political center.  For there are a lot of traditional marriage advocates in the political center.  As there are in the black and Hispanic communities.  Who have some strong religious values.  And support the traditional family.

As we Practice Selective Breeding we’ll Breed the Different Gradually out of Existence

These are very complex and polarizing issues.  For no one wants to be labeled a bigot.  Well, some don’t mind.  Sadly.  But the majority do not want that label.  So on the one hand they want everyone to be able to have and enjoy what they can.  Which makes it difficult for them to see severely injured veterans.  And people stricken early in life with a debilitating disease.  Who will never be able to have and enjoy what they have.  But on the other hand they are devout in their religious beliefs.  And it’s a matter of conscious that they can’t ignore.  For the same reason that they oppose abortion.  For they see it as the destruction of a human life.  Even if doctors determine their child will be born with a severe birth defect they oppose abortion.  And they will carry that baby to term.  While some on the Left say the kinder more humane thing to do would be to abort that pregnancy.  For what kind of quality of life can that child expect?

Scientists have been unlocking the mysteries of DNA.  And have identified a lot of the genes that make us who we are.  Now here’s an interesting thought exercise.  Let’s suppose they identify a lesbian or gay gene.  As well as a bisexual and transgender gene.  And a doctor tells a heterosexual couple that they are going to have an LGBT child.  A couple that votes for politicians on the left side of the aisle.  Who have no moral problem with abortion.  For they are staunch defenders of women’s health and reproductive rights.  This couple is aware of how hard it is for an LGBT child to grow up and come to terms with their sexual identity.  Especially in this cruel and bigoted world.  Some of these children suffer horrible.  And carry scars into adulthood.  What if this couple chooses to do the kinder and more humane thing?  And choose not to bring this child to term?  Would that be a hate crime?

People are aborting pregnancies when a doctor tells them their child will be born with a birth defect.  And there are lot of people aborting pregnancies when the sex isn’t ‘right’.  As some cultures favor a male son.  So when a sonogram shows a female in the womb many choose abortion.  So would they abort an LGBT pregnancy?  Perhaps.  For we do live in a cruel and bigoted world.  Let’s hope it doesn’t come to this.  Though we are beginning to practice selective breeding.  As people are buying eggs and sperm to create the ‘perfect’ child.  It’s sad to consider what we may lose as this technology advances.  For we will be leaving behind a better world.  To enter the surreal.  Where people begin to look like everyone else.  An Orwellian existence where conformity is the rule.  And they breed the different gradually out of existence.

The Same-Sex Marriage and the Traditional Marriage Groups will Join Together in Opposing LGBT Abortion

Whether an LGBT abortion would be a hate crime or not it would still be criminal.  For can you imagine aborting a pregnancy that would become another Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky?  Had his parents not brought him to term because he was going to be gay we would not have Swan LakeThe NutcrackerRomeo and JulietThe Seasons (Les saisons).  And the list goes on.  Then there is West Side Story.  One of the greatest musicals of all time.  Music by Leonard Bernstein.  Lyrics by Stephen Sondheim.  Choreography by Jerome Robbins.  All gay.  Bernstein also turned the classic Candide into an opera.  Sondheim is perhaps the greatest composer of American musical theatre.  CompanyA Little Night Music (with the classic Send in the Clowns).  Sweeney ToddSunday in the Park with George.  And Into the Woods.  Just to name a few. 

Then there’s Elton John.  Who made the piano a bona fide rock instrument.  Some of the best music in the Seventies was his.  If you lived then you owned some or all of these albums.  Madman Across the WaterHonky ChâteauDon’t Shoot Me I’m Only the Piano Player.  Goodbye Yellow Brick RoadCaribouCaptain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy.  And how about Freddie Mercury?  Perhaps the greatest rock front-man of all time.  The talent in Queen was deep but it was Freddie that packed those stadiums.  Can anyone imagine Monty Python without Graham Chapman?  Or a Lord of the Rings without Sir Ian McKellen playing Gandalf?  We loved Lily Tomlin in Nine to Five and All of Me.  And who doesn’t love Jane Lynch in pretty much anything she’s in?  Ellen DeGeneres’ standup made you laugh.  And Liberace just made you smile.  What a sad, gray world it would be without these people in our lives.

The point is not that the LGBT community is here to entertain us.  Or to fund our politics.  It’s that they are here.  And our lives are better because of it.  We’ve grown to love some of these people.  Some before ever knowing their sexual orientation.  But when we learned that Graham Chapman was gay it didn’t stop anyone from loving Monty Python.  Or Graham Chapman.  So when the day comes when they can identify a gay gene in your unborn baby this is what we could lose.  This rich tapestry from our lives.  And that would be a shame.  Interestingly, though, it would bring the same-sex marriage and the traditional marriage groups together on one issue.  Abortion.  Or their opposition to abortion.  At least in opposition to abortions of LGBT pregnancies. 

Like I said, these are very complex and polarizing issues. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #23: “Those who seek a third party cede the election to the opposition.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 20th, 2010

THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES are often election spoilers.  Dissatisfied with the direction of their party, they leave that party to form a new party.  This, of course, will split the party they left.  Some may follow.  Most will probably not.

Third party candidates have small followings.  They typically have a single issue that pushes them to leave their party.  That single issue, though, may not be as important to those they leave behind.  And this one issue may be anathema to the opposition.  Guaranteeing very few, if any, will follow that candidate into a third party.

The Green Party, for example, is an environmental party.  Environmental issues, then, dominate their political agenda.  Environmental policies typically do not result in jobs or economic prosperity.  They will draw some people from the Democratic Party.  But only those with extreme environmental views.  They will draw no one from the Republican Party which is more associated with jobs and economic issues than environmental issues.  They, then, would have little impact on the party they oppose.  But they may have a negative impact on the party that they would have otherwise supported.

And then you have your core voters.  They have and always will vote for their party.  Populist movements rarely change the way they vote.  Populist movements may be single-issue.  They may be more of a subset of an existing political party.  Or they may be vague on details completely.  They may be many things but the paramount thing they are is popular.  And they pander to the people that are demanding something.  And whatever that is, they say they will give it to them.  Populist trends, though, don’t sway core voters.

SO WHO ARE in the two core parties?  The liberals?  And the conservatives?

Liberals are pseudo-intellectuals who want to tell others how to live.  Because they are ‘smarter’ than everyone else.  Most have never held a real job.  They inherited their money or made it big in Hollywood or in some other entertainment genre (the guilty rich), are college professors, sponged off of government (the self-proclaimed political aristocracy) or are in the mainstream media. 

Conservatives typically have jobs.

Few people agree with liberals so they have to offer special privileges in exchange for votes and political power.  They get the support of the poor because they get the poor dependent on their charity.  They get the entertainment elite by stroking their intellectual vanity.  They get the various minorities and single-issue groups by throwing a few bones to them (i.e., by buying their votes).  They get Big Business with crony capitalism.  They get the unions in exchange for anti-business legislation.  They get the young by being weak on drugs and morality.  They get a lot of women because of their abortion stance.  They get the illegal immigration community because they dangle citizenship in front of them while getting as many as they can addicted to welfare (so when they do become citizens they will become good Democrats.  Of course, with the majority of illegal immigrants in question being Hispanic, it will be interesting to see how that loyalty will play out.  A lot of Hispanics are practicing Catholics.  Will they continue to support the party that attacks their religion and religious values?  After all, they’re leaving a corrupt nation where only the ruling elite live well.  They come here for a better life for themselves and their families.  And many work hard for it.  With their religious values being a strong part of their lives.  Will the liberals tempt them with their welfare state after citizenship?  Time will tell).

Many agree with conservatives because they, too, just want to work and provide for their families.  And they would like their children’s future to be a good one.  (Again, the Hispanic question is interesting.  For they have conservative values, too.  Amnesty for illegals may be a Faustian bargain, but wouldn’t be ironic if it’s the Democrats who are selling their souls?  I mean, this large bloc of Catholics could very well vote for the religious right after citizenship.)

So liberals must appeal to their base during the primary election to get their party’s nomination.  Once they have that, they then must start lying about who they really are during the general election.  Because their views and opinions are minority views and opinions. 

The conservatives just need to be themselves.  When Ronald Reagan did just that, he won in a landslide.  Twice.

LET’S CRUNCH SOME numbers.  Some simple numbers.  Let’s say there are only 11 voters.  America is a center-right country based on honest polling.  So let’s say that 4 voters are conservative and 3 voters are liberals.  The 4 in the middle are independents and moderates.  So what happens at an election?

If all of the independents and moderates do not vote, conservatives win (4-3). 

Liberals cannot win unless some moderates and independents do vote.  So liberals must encourage the moderates and independents to vote.  And, of course, to vote for them.  While making sure their base votes (‘vote early and often’ is their mantra).  As well as some criminals.  And some dead who haven’t been purged from the election rolls.

Independents and moderates, therefore, determine elections.  And the general election is all about getting these votes.  Both sides turn down the volume on the ‘extremist’ positions they held during the primaries.  Conservatives talk about bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle.  Liberals campaign as conservatives.  (Bill Clinton ran as a new kind of Democrat with some very conservative planks in his platform.  When he won, though, he moved so far back to the left that he lost the House and Senate at the midterm elections, proving once again America is a center-right country.)

So back to our little example.  If the conservatives get 2 of the 4 independent and moderate votes, they win (6-5).  Liberals need 3 of their votes for the same winning margin.  Advantage, conservatives.

Now let’s look at a rift in the conservative party.  Two leave and form a third party.  And take 2 votes with them.  For the sake of argument, let’s say these two call themselves the Anti-Abortion Party.  It is doubtful that any liberals will leave their party to join them.  And it is doubtful that independents and moderates would make overturning a Supreme Court decision a key voting issue.  They tend to tack to a centrist course through the prevailing political winds.

So the Anti-Abortion Party candidate will only get 2 votes.  This candidate will not win.  That leaves only 9 votes in play.  Which means getting only 5 votes will win the election (less than a majority of the total 11).  All the third party candidate did was to make it easier for the liberals to win.  They only need 2 of the 4 of the independent and moderate votes.  Conservatives now need 3.  The third party took the conservative advantage (only needing 2 additional votes to win) and gave it to the liberals.

THE MORAL OF the story here is that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the opposition.  The lesser of two evils may still be evil, but it is still ‘less’ evil.  You should never lose sight of that.  If a political statement is only going to result in the greater evil, it is better to be more pragmatic than idealistic when voting in a general election. 

The energy of a third party or third party-like movements (such as the new Tea Party) should be marshaled during the primary election.  To get good candidates who can win general elections.  And who will remember that they are the people’s representative, not a member of a privileged, ruling elite.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,