I recieved one of the larger political shocks of my life today when I opened up my town's weekly newspaper. My(former after graduation) high school physics teacher, whom I had thought was a liberal, has endorsed the GOP-endorsed local state senate candidate. Not only did he do that, but he revealed himself to be against gay marriage and supportive of sex for procreation.
Read the letter below. I put one edit in [] for clarity, given the quirks of naming our state legislatures. If anyone's worried about copyright issues about reprinting the whole thing (since it's long) don't worry. I know the editor, I work with his son, and he's fine with me using anything from the paper.
To the Editor:
Contraceptive technology has allowed us to separate sex from childbearing - and the media has taken this idea and run with it. Now yhou can turn on your television and laugh along with your "Friends" as they joke about sex without consequences. You can watch unwed couples engage in "recreational sex" in movies rated PG on up. You can read about sex scandals in the tabloids at the supermarket or see it in ads or read sexual innuendo on t-shirts worn by kids at the mall. In less than a minute, you could put this article down and, if you have the internet in your home, have pornographic images displayed on your hom computer. All in good fun. Right?
Do the math
Follow me on this one will you? For any population to remain stable, there must be 2.1 births per woman (on average). This will ensure that the mother and father will be replaced when they die (the additional .1 is to buffer the effects of child mortality). Furthermore, if you have one million births in 2006 you cannot expect to have two million people entering the workforce in 2026. Do the math.
The depopulation of Europe
Europe has embraced the selfish mentality that sys we can have sex without the "unpleasant side effect" of pregnancy. They have embraced homosexual marriage and have all but abandoned their Christian roots. As Ed Vitagliano points out in an American Family Association publication, by 2050 Europe will see its population drop from 728 million (in 2000) to 600 million (or less). By the end of the century, they may see their population at just over 200 million if current trends continue. In that same article, it is made clear that having fewer people can be detrimental to an economy. It means less creativity. It means less energy. Fewer laborers and fewer buyers are in and of themselves a problem but, further, spell out trouble for a vital government and nation as there are ultimately fewer and fewer taxpayers. There are indeed consequences to our actions. Similarly, our nation's people need to discipline themselves with regard to this notion of sex without consequences. It's a myth.
What can we do?
We can do something. We can be mindful to what the media tries to jam down our throats. We can teach our childrin that the biological purpose of sex is for procreation. We can vote for people who will uphold traditional family values so as to keep America strong for the long term. [State]Senator Steve Murphy is, in fact, opposed to the Defense of Marriage Constitutional Amendment. He voted to block this bill from even reaching the floor. One might say Mr. Murphy is more concerned with the short-term benefits of raising the sense of self-worth of a small number of constituents at the expense of the long-term security of this state and nation. Steve Wilson, on the other hand, looks for long-term solutions to problems. Steve Wilson strongly supports the Defense of Marriage Constitutional Amendment. I urge you to get off the fence on this issue. Vote Wilson for Minnesota Senate September 12 and November 7th.
There are a couple concepts that perhaps misled me into thinking he was a liberal. The first is he actually wants to educate our children about sex and that it can cause pregnancy, as opposed to the Republicans who don't want kids to know about sex, but want to keep them from having it.
The second, it seems he actually wants people to be having more sex to avoid the depopulation of the world.
He also looks like a thinner Garrison Keillor and has a Saturday Evening Post cover with GK on it hanging up in his classroom.
I'm trying to come up with a way to respond. Unfortunately the candidate he's endorsing doesn't have a website that I can find, so I can't logically defeat his over-all positions.
I'm at a loss as to how to write my reply, since I still hold this teacher in high regard. He's a good teacher regardless of his politics, and I don't want to attack him personally or sound like the 'crazy moonbat' we're portrayed as. Any advice would be appreciated.