Will the Homosexual Agenda become an important issue in 2012?

[The Mikado]

Please do make this the centerpiece of the GOP platform.  Please, please do.  This isn't 2004 anymore.

Honestly, I don't think any of the major GOP candidates with the possible exception of Bachmann will even raise this issue, and will instead join with the President in pretending the issue doesn't exist (with occasional references to "I think gay marriage should be illegal, marriage is between a man and a woman," and then dropping it.)

Frankly, if the GOP wants a social issue, it's better off sticking to abortion, an issue that is not and will never go away, than gay marriage, a ship that's very much sailing.

[The Mikado]

Gallup:  "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

5/5-8/11

Should  53
Should Not  45   

Unsure  3

CNN:  "Do you think marriages between gay and lesbian couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

4/9-10/11

Should 51   
Should Not 47   
Unsure 2

ABC/Washington Post

"Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?"


3/10-13/11   

Legal 53   
Illegal 44   
Not Sure 3   



Have fun with your wedge issue, GOP.  (And, yes, the Republican candidates are all smart enough to not tackle this issue)

[The Mikado]

Turning women into artificial-insemination breeding slaves doesn't work out well for the lesbian agenda, though.   

[The Mikado]

I love this ridiculous "everyone needs to breed!  EVERYONE!"  thing that gets brought up as an argument against gay marriage.  I mean, there have been people that don't want children in every era. 

Hey, if you really feel that way, you should be passionate supporters of gay adoption and getting orphans into stable two-parent households.

[The Mikado]

[The Mikado]

What does Eugenics have do do with the gay adgenda?

Milhouse's constant statements that people have some sort of "evolutionary agenda" to have children that has to be state-supported and funded, which apparently A. mistakes evolution from a statement that beings have an innate desire to spread their genes to the next generation to some sort of bizarre "beings have a moral obligation to try to spread their genes on," as if evolutionary instinct = an actual responsibility, and B. that the State has a vested interest in encouraging a certain level of fertility and childbirth.  The level of implied social engineering in his argument is pretty appallingly eugenicist.

[The Mikado]

Of course evolutionary theory dictates that passing on genes is the fundamental purpose of life. If your morality excludes that, it isn't good morality.  

Again, you reinforce my sig.

Darwin and his successors never intended to put that tinge of moralizing into the statement that beings have the desire to pass their genes on, and, in fact, survival of the fittest presupposes that quite a few people are not said fittest and will not pass their genes on.  Survival of the fittest is supposed to be a description, not a moral judgment.  It doesn't make you "right" if you do breed or "wrong" if you don't.

[The Mikado]

Where do all these bigoted 20-year-olds live? I mean, I know I'm not necessarily representative of the average early twenty-something, but I go to a Catholic university, and even the College Republicans here are full of gays.

Go visit Catholic University, the (actually) Catholic school in town.  Or, rather, don't.  It's (hilariously) in a pretty bad area.  You'll find quite a few of them.

[The Mikado]

It's interesting that I (coming from the opposite side) came to the same conclusion as TJ: abortion is the social issue that the right can't lose in the long run, simply because a damn big share of the population literally thinks that abortion = murder.  Rather than pulling out crazy, desperate arguments like the anti-gay marriage crowd does, they can simply say that abortion kills babies.  As one of the most pro-choice people you'll ever meet, I do feel that the pro-lifers have a legitimate argument, just one that I don't buy the premise of, because I don't accept fetal "personhood."  The abortion issue is completely dependent on whether you do or don't believe in personhood pre-birth, and because there will always be disagreement on that topic, there will be disagreement on the abortion debate.

TL;DR: If the Republican Party needs a social issue, they should continue using abortion like they have for the last 30 years, as it's an issue neither side will ever decisively "win" on, rather than opposing gay marriage, a debate they will lose.

[The Mikado]

Honestly, I (as someone that's always favored lowering the birth rate lower and lower) simply don't understand population growth advocates making it the case that it's a do or die for civilization.