The Anti-Diversity Agenda

While many gay rights advocates consider themselves champions of diversity, there are elements of anti-diversity to gay marriage.  One is biological.  The emerging science of behavioral epigenetics asserts that environment determines, in part, the psychology and behavior of future generations.  In other words, what you are biologically is determined, in part, by the events and experiences of your father’s and grandmother’s life.  Environment imprints our forefathers and foremothers, activating some of our genes and deemphasizing others.  This imprint from environment is passed to one’s progeny biologically.  Notably, children raised in same-sex marriages are reared by a single sex.  They lack the heterogeneous influence of both--very different--sexes in parenting.  Their parents are homogeneous—not just physically--but psychologically and behaviorally.  Confrontations, conciliations, and compromises between gender heterogeneous, independent individuals are not observed by these children at home.  This homogeneity of behavior and psychology at home, this lack of diversity in their environment will be expressed epigenetically in them.  Their children and grandchildren will inherit it.  It may be amplified in their future relationships—homogenizing the psychology and behavior of their children and grandchildren.

For good or ill, homogeneity will induce conformity and collectivism—perhaps unconsciously enforced by epigenetics.  And conformity and collectivism has risks.  Under this prospective regime, the individual might be as discernable to the human eye as is a seal lying supine amid a sea of barking sames.  Such colonies might be attuned in the collective to some dangers but will they be alert to the dangers of conformity and collectivism?  Or, will homogeneity eliminate the discernment and discrimination that defined and preserved our species?  Also, will compromises between truly heterogeneous ideas and individuals become impossible?  Or, will divergent psychology and behavior, bifurcated by identity and reinforced by epigenetics, irreconcilably divide and ultimately destroy society?  Without more time and information, to the general satisfaction, we mortals can’t say for certain.  But while we retain the consciousness and discretion to discern the risks inherent in the homogeneity of homosexual unions, before diversity is pared and paired away epigenetically—shouldn’t we exercise caution, investigate the effects of homogeneous pairing across generations, and openly debate the merits and demerits of what is a draconian, unprecedented, unpopular, and unscientific shift in social policy?

It is unfortunate that this reasoned thesis might incense some.  They may accuse the author of ‘hate speech’—denounce him as a ‘hater’—because he advocates caution, discretion, study, debate, and time.  They may seek to censor or silence him as they have others.  Or, levy new economic and social sanctions against him for his opinions.  And they may succeed—if so nefarious a thing can be termed success.

Remarkably, anti-diversity in the form of censorship has flourished in America:  opposition to gay marriage has not really had a hearing recent years in any mass media outlet—including outlets as avowedly conservative as Fox News (ie. consider the Craig James firing).  The silencing of dissent about gay marriage in America coincides with America’s plunge in terms of relative press freedom:  Reporters Without Borders has demoted the United States in its international press freedom index from a ranking of number 17 in 2002, the first year the index was produced, to number 46 in 2014—to a position between its new peers, Romania and Haiti.  Perhaps the censorship of opposition to gay marriage in America arose much as it has emerged in Italy:  the Italian press, which reports from an overwhelmingly Catholic country, has recently been enjoined by a European decree to portray total societal acceptance of and to gag all opposition to homosexual relations and unions.  For a reporter to contradict such censorious edicts from supranational sovereigns may be to sacrifice one’s standing and career in media—such edicts may be enough to cow content providers.  Apparently, one of the risks of the homogeneity of homosexual unions is not just manifest but is, in fact, realized—conformity in the form of coercive political correctness already chills free speech and stamps out diversity of opinion in the American and international media.

Moreover, an incapacity for compromise appears already in America in the scorched earth strategies of those who promote, as a minority, homogenous marriages.  For example, many of these partisans refuse to buy the products (ie. chicken at Chick-Fil-A) of their political opposition.  For example, observe how the promotion and continued employment of Mozilla’s eminently qualified co-founder, the creator of JavaScript, from Chief Technology Officer to Chief Executive Officer was contemporaneously undermined by Mozilla employees and a Mozilla-affiliated company, OK Cupid, because he made a contribution to support Proposition 8.  Observe the contemporaneous departures by members of the Mozilla Board after he was promoted.  Apparently, he was rejected as unfit to lead not because he once opposed gay marriage (even Harry Reid and Barack Obama did this) but because he would not renounce his beliefs and affirm gay marriage. 

An un-diverse incapacity for compromise also appears in federal workplace policies promulgated by the Justice Department—the arm of the executive charged with establishing justice in America.  While the Constitution provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any public Trust under the United States”, the Attorney General has promulgated workplace policies that assay one’s affirmation of alternative lifestyles.  To comply, managers: “DON’T judge or remain silent….. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval”; “Attend LBGT events sponsored by DOJ Pride”; “display a symbol” (ie. a DOJ Pride sticker).  The persons promulgating these policies are not content to censor others, they require a pledge of allegiance to LGBT lifestyles.  For many, this is unconscionable.  It would require a renunciation of their faith—as a test of their compliance with unconstitutional workplace policy.

An incapacity for compromise advances in our courts.  Observe how judges have, by fiat, recently overturned statutes and amendments defining marriage in many states—including conservative states—contrary to the popular will.  In rejecting the popular will, the judiciary does not appear to be deliberative—but desperate, inflammatory, and uncompromising. 

For example, consider how Wisconsin and Indiana were given a pre-verdict bench whipping by "conservative" Illinois judge Richard Posner as they sought to defend their populist constitution and laws.  He interrupted their arguments early and often to lecture them and to observe:  "You don't have any empirical or even conjectural basis for your law.....funny."  Does Mr. Posner have any empirical or even conjectural basis against the laws--is that why he is altogether dismissing populist laws--at the risk of inflaming the majorities (ie. 3.3 million Wisconsin voters) who passed the laws on some basis whether empirical or conjectural?  In his book "Reflections on Judging" Mr. Posner observes:   "in many cases judges can't have any confidence in the soundness of their decisions if they do not have empirical data concerning the likely consequences of deciding the case one way or another" (never mind the rule of law) but apparently Mr. Posner will make this decision based on conjecture only and needs no empirical data--because empirical data about same sex marriage is virtually non-existent.  Same sex households only made their debut in U.S. Census Bureau data in 2010 (in the American Community Survey estimates)--representing 1% of the population.  Questions such as those that follow about same sex households cannot be answered empirically with data.  What is the duration of a typical same-sex union?  What fraction of the $250,000 cost to rear a child is incurred by a same-sex household?  If it is much lower than the fraction incurred by an average household, does this economic disadvantage deter other Americans from child-bearing?  What is the typical level of educational attainment, crime rate, divorce and separation rate, suicide rate, unemployment rate, median income, savings rate, and tax rate among same-sex households and among households comprised of children raised by same-sex households?  At present, these questions cannot be answered with data.  Even if Mr. Posner, the most cited legal scholar in America, omits to consider whether law or justice will be coherent without the Judeo-Christian moral objectivity of America's founders, without empirical data to support "the soundness of (his) decision"--which data does not exist--Mr. Posner's opinion, to redefine marriage by overturning populist laws, must be based solely and hypocritically on conjecture.  It must be arbitrary and make laws arbitrary.
 

If heterogeneous speech and acts continue to be repressed in America by an uncompromising, censorious, anti-diversity minority, we might anticipate at any day now the establishment of that most homogeneous regime of all, totalitarianism--a regime in which all expression and all thought yield--a regime which sacrifices humanity and humans--to homogenous ideology.

This trend leaves many of us wondering, what is the paradigm of this anti-diversity minority?  We recognize that censorship and political persecution—even censorship and persecution of ‘bigots’--is un-American.  Alarm about this trend is increased by observing that one of the declared goals of the Communist party (in 1963) was to “present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as ‘normal, natural, and healthy’”—a goal this censorious minority supports.  We recall it was communism and its isms like Stalinism and Maoism which dictated that some individuals, identities, and ideas were dispensable, and so, dispensed of them.  We remain incredulous that this is their ideal only because once speech is subdued, once folks are just factors, can these fellow Americans really expect not to be an eventual offering on their own anti-diversity altar?

For more on this topic, see the post entitled "Abraham Lincoln, Conspiracy Theorist".