Sunday, September 05, 2004

The times, they are a-changin'

Captain Holly read this insightful editorial this morning that identified the growing demographic divide in the Culture War. To put it simply, it points out the increasingly-recognized fact that Religious Conservatives are having more children; Secular Liberals are having less.

Captain Holly has recognized this for some time. As any biologist will tell you, any specie that fails to reproduce will soon be replaced by one that does. I personally think that much of this demographic shift has been due to the practice of elective abortion; in effect, the pro-choicers have killed the next generation of pro-choice women, and the political effect is becoming more obvious, as even John Kerry tries to portray himself as nominally pro-life.

But it also affects other aspects of the political debate. In general, the more conservative one is, the more children one will have, and vice versa (whether conservatives have more children or having children makes one conservative is not clear). While being raised in a church-going, conservative home does not automatically turn one into a Republican, it does make it more likely, as people tend to mirror the views and values of their parents. And if only conservatives are having children, well, you do the math.

Let us consider this view when it comes to the issue of gay marriage. Surveys show that young people are more open to the idea, while older persons are more opposed (interestingly, that was the same result of polls on abortion taken after Roe v. Wade in 1972). Yet considering that the most fervent supporters of gay marriage (homosexuals) are the least likely population to reproduce and their opponents (conservative Christians) are the most, what do you think surveys will show in 20 years?

Captain and Mrs. Holly have three kids, with one on the way. Andrew Sullivan and his boyfriend have a beagle. Right now, the Holly votes against gay marriage are cancelled by the Sullivan/boyfriend votes for it.

But consider the how the total changes over the next 20 years. By the 2008 election, the "anti" votes in the Holly household will outnumber the Sullivan "pro" votes by a margin of 3-2. By 2016, we will outnumber them by a margin of 4-2. By 2020, 5-2, and by 2024, 6-2 (assuming that Sullivan lives that long; after all, he is HIV+).

In short, gay marriage isn't going to get any more popular over the next 20 years. Not only are the opponents of gay marriage reproducing faster than it's supporters, but even those who come to the US to live are dead-set against it. Let's see, which immigrant group is the most supportive of gay marriage? Arab Muslims? Latino Catholics? African Anglicans? In a decade or so, it will be obvious that the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision was the high-water mark for gay marriage, not the beginning of a new era.

Advocates of gay marriage and abortion are about to be overwhelmed by a demographic tidal wave. And ironically, it's mostly their own fault. While they partied to sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll, their less-hip conservative opponents stayed home and had kids.

The geeks have indeed inherited the earth.


At 3:12 PM, Blogger The Great El-ahrairah said...

Oh sure, you Nazi! Nice dig about him being HIV+. I'm sure you are probably really broken up about that. Boo-hoo! And how can you be sure that your off-spring will follow in your nazi, minority-oppressing, goose-stepping footsteps?

Anyway, look to the liberals to try to find some way to rig the elections so that their lack of off-spring will not prevent them from ruining the country. Mr. Steyn's last article about homosexual/polygamist marriage in Canada generated some comments as to how the Canadian Supreme Court will find some "nuanced" way to allow homosexual marriage and at the same time, not allow polygamist marriage. Other comments state that there should be no problem for Martin to stack the court in his favor seeing how Canada is a less-free country than the US.


Post a Comment

<< Home