« Referendum in Moscow on reinstalling statue of KGB founder | Main | The Confederate Flag battle in the culture wars »

June 29, 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Taking this sort of tack could still take the wind out of the sails of the left, even on this decision. In this case you would need a savvy conservative leader.
We can only pray.


Being more a Red Tory with somewhat of a libertarian bent I've always supported gay marriage. My view is simply unless someone's actions harm others, it really isn't the state's job to decide. I don't believe the nuclear family is right for everyone so people should do what is best for them rather than be forced into something because it's supposedly the proper way. As a highly individualistic person who is terrible at responsibility I do not intend to get married or have children as I don't believe it would work out well. And I say this as a straight bachelor.

The fact is there will always be a minority who are gay and so it seems silly to discriminate against them. As for strengthening the nuclear family, I think the biggest thing undermining it is time and cost. With the cost of life being so high it's very difficult to live off one's income and likewise with many of us working long hours, we just don't have the time to raise children.

Perhaps maybe policies to make having children more affordable would help. France has done this and as such has a birth rate only slightly below replacement level. Another solution is to promote more economic development in rural areas and small towns as opposed to the largest cities since cost of living is much cheaper there and birth rates in general are highest in rural areas while lowest in the largest central urban areas.


This war ended in Canada 10 years ago. You watch too much US TV


oldwhiteguy says. monkey, you say it is not the state's job to decide yet you are more than happy to have them do just that. the state made the decision for you and the rest of us.


Dear Henry:

The war isn't over until the total fertility rate rises to replacement levels.


The correlation between gay marriage and low fertility rates is fairly weak. Iceland has gay marriage yet a rate above replacement while Russia which has very restrictive attitudes on gays has a very low birth rate. In fact of the G7 countries, Japan and Germany have the lowest birth rates and neither allow gay marriage while France and US have the highest which both do allow gay marriage.

The main reason for low birth rates is high cost of having children and lack of time. No matter what society's attitude is towards a nuclear family, if its too expensive to have children, birth rates will stay low. Likewise if both parents are working full time, it's tough to do a decent job of parenting as that requires a fairly large time commitment.

Besides the world's population is probably large enough as it is so fewer people globally is in many ways a good thing. Canada off course is the exception as we need more people but you always have immigration for that and if worried about some undesirable cultural practices showing up, you can always restrict who can come in and try to attract the most skilled and those who will best fit in.

oldwhiteguy - How is the state deciding? If you want the state to get out of marriage altogether I am fine with that, but if they are involved in marriage it should be available to both gays and straight couples.


Dear Monkey:

The fertility rate among natives is at or below replacement levels in all the countries you cite. Those that are higher than replacement level are usually from socially conservative immigrants - i.e. people who do not ascribe to the New Morality. Take France: it's fertility is high thanks to Muslim immigrants, a cohort with an attitude towards homosexuals similar to ISIS.

One of the points in my article is that gay marriage isn't some issue floating out there by itself. There is the New Morality, which is increasingly becoming the state religion in the West and where the concept of gay marriage ideologically resides. Then there is the Old Morality, where it doesn't. Or rather there are various Old Moralities, the Old Morality of the West, and the Old Morality of the Middle East (where it decidedly doesn't), and various others. What should alarm a proponent of the New Morality like yourself is that the competitor to the New Morality is increasingly not the Old Morality of New Rochelle circa the Dick van Dyke Show, but the Old Morality of Saudi Arabia and Iran. This certainly alarms me.

Of course, it could be argued that a New New Morality could be constructed where gay marriage and a sustainable total fertility rate reside comfortably side by side, but if one were to do that, then the onus falls on the proponent of this proposition to say what in general terms this moral system would look like.

Because whatever it is, it ain't what we got now.


Iceland and Ireland all have relatively low rates of immigration yet birth rates above replacement levels and both are liberal on gay marriage. In the case of France, I think Muslims being the made reason is an overexaggeration as the Muslim population there is around 7-8% of the population which while not insignificant, that would only make a minor dent. Lets remember the Muslim community is almost exclusively in the large urban centres as well as they generally tend to congregate heavily in certain neighbourhoods which is why some might falsely think they are bigger than they are. Half of the French population lives in communities with less than 100,000 people and as someone who has travelled extensively in France, most cities at 100,000 people don't have very many Muslims. It's mainly in those over 500,000 people which fewer than 1/3 of French live in.

Also as mentioned I don't believe morality is the only reason for declining fertility rate. Many people want to have more children but just cannot afford or have the time to. In a large Canadian city, it costs about $20,000 a year in expenses for each child and so I would argue the high cost is the biggest deterrent.

You will always have a minority like myself who prefer to be single as well as those who are gay but isn't life about pursuit of happiness and why should someone get married and have children if it will make them miserable. Besides it's not fair to the children either as having a parent who doesn't care ultimately creates more problems down the line.

Also as mentioned, I believe the world's population is too large and so a smaller population is beneficial and no it I am not an environmentalists but when you consider the amount we have to produce and consume, there is no way the world can support 7 billion people living at our standard of living here in Canada and I would like it if all nations could enjoy our standard of living.


Why don't we just stop issuing Marriage licenses and go with all unions being "contractual unions"?
Let marriage as a definition go back to the churches from whence it came.
We could grandfather all unions to date and then just get out of the marriage business. This would stop discrimination both ways, preserve the original meaning of marriage and allow contractual unions to flourish.
Hey, you want to get "married" go to church.


He Bmatkin:

This is a good idea. This is a good example of how we can move forward without sacrificing our principles.

The comments to this entry are closed.

e-mail address

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2008

Blogging Tories

  • Blogging Tories