Brain Fertilizer

As I was reading through this post, a thought struck me. No, it didn't hurt, and I didn't strike back. Juvenile humor dispensed with, let's proceed, shall we?

Dawn objects to defenders of SSM using Britney Spears' unfortunate brush with matrimony as an example to demonstrate heterosexual marriage has already sustained damage worse than SSM could inflict.

I pretty much agree with her points, but I think the problem with the argument starts even earlier than that, with Britney Spears herself. If the battle-lines are drawn between liberal-leaning pro-SSM and conservative-leaning anti-SSM camps, then she's on their (liberal) side to begin with, not ours (conservative).

Because the gender diversity within a marriage bond was never really the issue. The disagreement is over the nature of society itself. The question is: do we have complete freedom to do whatever we want as long as it cannot be proven our actions harm anyone, or do we have a responsibility to establish and adhere to standards of conduct because the full consequences of potentially damaging behavior may not be observed until years or decades later? Or another way: do we have society only for the benefit for adults, or for children?*

Obviously, Britney Spears is not a part of a society designed to protect and nurture children and help them to achieve maturity safely. Hollywood itself is overwhelmingly aimed at adults. Don't believe me? Then why do children's shows include jokes and entendres that children cannot or should not understand? Because Hollywood knows that an adult (the one with the actual cash) will spend more money on a movie that doesn't bore adults. The entire entertainment industry is based on gathering money.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to outlaw Hollywood. I'm not trying to shame or marginalize anyone or anything for the sake of "The Children_TM", because I'm not actually advocating for new laws or programs. But I do want you to stop and think about how liberal and moderate adults want more freedom for themselves, and want to push responsibility for the protection of children off on parents. Rather than a society that is largely safe for children, with "adult"** areas clearly marked and cordoned off, many selfish adults (including the entertainment industry and most liberals) want a society in which anything goes, and parents must withdraw into their homes to try to re-establish some sort of control over what impinges and influences their children.

The Left & Moderates (through Establishment) tells us that if we don't like foul language and unnecessary sexuality, turn off the TV (knowing that most people won't). They tell us if we don't like Howard Stern, change the channel. If you don't want your children to hear curse words, you can always not curse yourself. Then they proceed to encourage situations that escalate, pushing the envelope of acceptability, which culminate in incidents like Janet Jackson's exposure and Bono's foul language and Britney's kiss of Madonna. You can't bring your family to a ballgame these days without hearing pretty much every bad word in the book. It's getting more difficult to go to any public event in large cities without seeing excessive sexuality on display (both hetero- and homo-). The pro-crudity lobby (my term, not theirs) pursues those of us who want to protect our children into every facet of our lives. Why do the the Gay Pride parades Dawn describes have more right to display in public than a nativity scene?

And when a conservative family does withdraw and homeschools their children, or to choose a private school where traditional values are easier to enforce, the Left derides them as naive and reactionary and trying to avoid the "real world". They fight to prevent vouchers and to outlaw homeschooling, mostly because they want to continue expanding funding to public schooling, sure...but making sure children are steeped in the Politically Correct liberal and atheistic ideology is a nice bonus, at the very least, if not the actual goal.

No, Britney Spears isn't a good example for Andrew Sullivan, et al, to bring up. Her marriage is a symbol of what is wrong with American society. Her marriage was the result of the same ideological force that is pushing SSM: a Godless, lawless, standardless, amoral, vapid sub-society that worships the unholy trinity of Money and Celebrity and Hedonism. The pro-SSM lobby using a Hollywood marriage as a portion of their argument is like a socialist saying the United States should be more socialist because Mao's and Stalin's ideas of Capitalism didn't work out.

Update:
Let me put it another way. I'd be willing to bet that if you broke the percentages of support for and opposition to SSM by status of marriage and parenthood, the vast majority of the people against SSM are married with kids, and the vast majority of people for SSM don't currently have any stake in the future beyond their own lives and desires. And what does that say?

*Personally, I think "civilization" and "society" are expressedly for the protection of the weak. And children are the weak. Their minds are designed to learn and assimilate. Adults can resist and seek out what they want with far more ability and effectivenss than children. Because of this, I think we should have a child-safe society. Adults will always be able to find and enjoy their adult pleasures, but I don't think those pleasures should be in the open as the default, as it seems to be now.

**this has been said before, but I'll repeat: why does "adult" usually mean the content has a pre-adolescent obession with crudity, sex, and scatalogical themes?