Replies

Good read, just a couple comments:

First point:

Goodman prates about "social change" as though:

a) It's inevitable, so lie back and enjoy it,
(kind of like the advice they used to give women who were about to be raped)

b) It's inevitable, so it must be akin to the sun rising in the east and setting in the west; one is psychotic to protest,
(soon we may have re-education or forced therapy for "homophobes")

c) It's "progress" just like two o'clock follows one o'clock; therefore what happens "later" is better than what happened earlier,
("Gay" activists love terms like "turning back the clock")

d) It's part of social evolution. Since humans used to be apes, and humans are smarter and more advanced than apes, therefore, since previously being "gay" wasn't considered good or accepted, that was bad. But now, being more evolved, people know that "gay is good". Whatever happens is good, because it's in the future of what is now past. Those who have studied philosophy and know the proper terminology can point out the fallacy in this thinking better than I can.

The concept that "all (leftist) social change is good, inevitable, and the future is a nice, bright, socialist utopia" is a sick fantasy.

Second point:

Homosexuals are not 5% of the population; various studies claim figures anywhere between 1.5% and 2.5%.

Homosexuals are not 5% of the population; various studies claim figures anywhere between 1.5% and 2.5%.

Jeremiah, what an enjoyable post! Needless to say, I agree with your analysis.

WRT the above figure estimating the gay population: I think your number is correct (though gay activists will tell you they are 10% of the population and rising). What I had in mind was an estimate of people in our society who sympathize with the gay position and believe, as you say, that “all (leftist) social change is good, inevitable, and the future is a nice, bright, socialist utopia.” My number includes elite academics gay or straight, and their allies in elite journalism and the mass media. These are the folks who shape and communicate what we are told is “respectable” public opinion on all social and political questions.

And of course I agree with you, theirs is “a sick fantasy.” The point is 95% of Americans in all probability haven’t got the least interest in going to live in some utopian brave new world: They like the world they live in just fine, thank you. The real question is whether a Court can force them to live in some twisted, narcissistic pipe dream.

The gay lobby is self-consciously, explicitly challenging the accepted norms in long customary usage of American civil society and Western civilization in general. Their strategic problem is they are a teensy tail on a giant dog. And the dog doesn’t want gay marriage. The gay lobby doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting gay marriage out of a representative legislature and knows it. That’s why it always runs to the courts. With a “civil rights” pleading.

Their Massachusetts strategy was brilliant and seems to have worked. Look for that model to be repeated elsewhere, going forward.

Thanks for your great post, Jeremiah.