Yes, that’s right. I’m not kidding. The National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher just published, in the National Review, “Is Gay Marriage Inevitable?” In it, she offers a list of eight “reasons” why she thinks it is not.
Here’s the short-form:
- If you say it often enough, you can make what you want happen. Or, not.
- Kids change their minds.
- “Progressives are often wrong about the future.”
- Kids are stupid.
Nice work, Maggie.
Now, I’ve saved the one that I find disgusting for last.
I think creating a culture of having more and more children so you can seed the world with your ideology is disgusting. Yes, I’m talking to you, Maggie, and any other religious zealots, like United Families International.
Because, once again, Maggie, you’ve shown your hand. I know you love to do that – and you know I love to catch you when you do. So here’s what you wrote today in NRO:
“Demography could be destiny.
If there is one force that directly contradicts the inevitability argument, it is that traditionalists have more children. Preventing schools and media from corrupting those children is a problem, but not necessarily an insoluable one. Religous groups are increasingly focused on the problem of how to transmit a marriage culture to the next generation (see the USCCB’s recent initiatives).”
Now, let’s all be really clear what Maggie’s saying here: Conservatives have more children so they can spread their ideology across the world.
Sound far-fetched?
Maybe. But look at what Beverly Rice, (former) President of United Families International, (a radical, extremist organization) had to say about gays and population:
“Politically-correct movements to advance destructive and seemingly un-relatedcauses such as abortion, the so-called normalization of homosexual behavior and cohabitation outside of marriage all contribute to declining birth rates.”
And now we get at the true crux of their game. When folks like Maggie Gallagher say they don’t hate homosexuals, maybe they’re being honest. But that masks their real issue – and an utterly false and ignorant one at that.
They think that homosexuals are responsible for what they perceive as a lowered birth rate in this county. Marriage equality is a huge issue for them, not because they hate us (OK, I really do think they do,) but because they, erroneously see same-sex marriage as a threat to “traditional” marriage, and thus, in their tiny little minds, less “traditional” marriages mean less babies.
And what do less babies – less American babies – mean? Less future adults to fight Islam.
And that, my friends, is what’s behind the mad, mad, mad, mad, mad world of Maggie Gallagher. Religion, and wanting to protect not the “American family,” but wanting to protect America from Islam.
Stay with me here.
See what The Nation had to say about this, two years ago:
“The real root of racial tensions in the Netherlands and France, America’s culture warriors tell anxious Europeans, isn’t ineffective methods of assimilating new citizens but, rather, decades of “antifamily” permissiveness–contraception, abortion, divorce, population control, women’s liberation and careers, “selfish” secularism and gay rights–enabling “decadent” white couples to neglect their reproductive duties. Defying the biblical command to “be fruitful and multiply,” Europeans have failed to produce the magic number of 2.1 children per couple, the estimated “replacement-level fertility” for developed nations (and a figure repeated so frequently it becomes a near incantation). The white Christian West, in this telling, is in danger of forfeiting itself through sheer lack of numbers to an onslaught of Muslim immigrants and their purportedly numerous offspring.”
All you need to do to understand is watch this:
Now, do you understand?
What’s truly pathetic is, whether or not you believe the concept of “Demographic Winter,” gays are not going to stop people from having babies. If anything, gays now want to start families, more than ever, and could actually improve the birthrate for the Maggie Gallaghers and Beverly Rices of the world.
But, their entire world is wrapped up in defeating the LGBTQ community.
Demographic winter, Maggie?
No.
But settle in for a long winter – because we’re happy to do battle with you, and anyone else, to secure our rights.
Visit the Maggie Gallagher Archives at The New Civil Rights Movement.
Read more about United Families International:
Elsewhere:
“A Profile in Conservatism: Beverly Rice, President of United Families International”
Related posts:
- Maggie Gallagher Is Afraid Gay Marriage Will Keep Her From Being A Racist And A Homophobe
- Bigotry Watch: Maggie Gallagher Thinks She’s Better Than You Because She Can Get Married And You Can’t
- Change.org Takes A Broader Look At Marriage Equality’s “Inevitability”
- Gay Marriage Ban Hobbled, Maggie Gallagher Stands To Make Even More Money
- Listen: Andrew Sullivan Vs. Maggie Gallagher At The Cato Institute
{ 6 comments }
Demographic winter? Must be the new catch-phrase for the new nazis.
Okay, let me get this straight: we need to enforce a single concept of marriage because if we don't and the population continues to fall, no one will be around to drive the trains?
Is that what I just heard?
That well-shot and cleverly scored trailer blithely ignores that the earth is already over-populated, and that our declining birthrates are most likely a biological response to that.
(Or if not that, then excess: it seems weird to make babies only to feed them Big Macs. But I digress.)
The species will survive, right winger kids, so quitcher freaky quivering. It doesn't matter if your particular genes survive, or your ideology, or your religion: we as a species will get along. And yes, it does count as "survival" even if the white people quit breeding like dogs in heat and the earth ends up being totally covered (again!) by (gasp!) brown people.
The new civil rights movement is the right of children to have and be with their father and mother. They are the weaker group that need to be protected.
There is a culture of life and a culture of death. We can see it clearly in our society.
There is no question that religious families welcome more children. The demographic winter video is someone's idea that I would not connect to most of these families that just want to be happy and love children.
I think they forget that Conservative families can have gay children. And that the divorce rate perpetuates what people already see as a failing institution. But Maggie's not doing anything to ban divorce, is she?
Should I tell Maggie that the more older brothers, the more likely a man is to be gay? Yep. It's true. Let me know if you want the reference. Isn't having a scientist ally handy?
Aside from the fact that there's something inherently creepy about cranking out more babies in an effort to outprocreate the opposition…
My parents are the products of conservative families. Both (as well as another sibling) grew up to be fairly progressive. The outcome of their union? Two progressive children, one of whom (me) happens to be gay… and, ultimately, four more people who wholeheartedly support marriage equality.
Social conservatives are not immune from producing gay offspring, nor (thank goodness) is there any guarantee their children will grow to uphold their archaic beliefs regarding the issue of equality. Sorry, Maggie.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }