People that vote conservative tend to reproduce. People who reproduce tend to vote conservative. People who live in places where the environment is favorable to reproduction tend to vote conservative, because they are apt to worry about the future. Leftist in power make the environment less favorable to reproduction, thereby making the electorate lefter, by making the electorate less worried about the long term fate of the political system.
In the long run we are all dead – but our children are not.
The major factor stopping reproduction is inability to make a valid binding and enforceable reproductive contract, a contract wherein a man agrees to be a father to all his children by a woman and only by that woman, and that woman agrees to have children by that man and only that man, or else a binding and enforceable contract wherein a woman agrees to be always sexually available to one man and only that man and a man agrees to be a father to all his children by that woman and only by that woman
Observe that the Philippines, which has traditional marriage and has cute stewardesses, is the last Christian country on earth with a reasonable fertility rate.
This could not (ugly stewardesses and stewards) and would not (PC) happen on an American airline today.
Forbidding cute stewardesses is part of, either in intention or effect, a political policy of devaluing and denigrating the traditional role of women – which necessarily has the effect of reducing the number of women performing their traditional role.
If you have easy divorce, you have a policy of treating women as men. If you have a policy of treating women as men, you cannot cry vive la différence.
A state policy of not enforcing sex differences, becomes a state policy of forcibly suppressing sex differences – which necessarily tends to end reproduction, thereby moving society leftwards.
Notice I said reproductive contract. Gay marriage is in part a sincere attempt by gays to adopt a more monogamous lifestyle but it is in part a spiteful effort to épater le bourgeois, to render marriage ridiculous, disgusting and repugnant. The latter effort has succeeded, regardless of what good intentions some gays may have. As with any new euphemism, the euphemism swiftly becomes a swear word, and has to be replaced by a new word, for which I propose “reproductive contract”.
The word “married”, like the words “gay”, “retard” and each previous euphemism, will necessarily become a curse word, is already becoming a curse word. I don’t think most people in the gay marriage movement intend that “marriage” should become a curse word, rather, they genuinely hope to adopt less self destructive lifestyle that more resembles that of heterosexuals, but they did not intend that “gay” would become a curse word either. They intended that people would continue to use the word “gay” to mean cheerful and lighthearted, but of course what they intended did not happen. Instead “gay”, like “retard”, became an astonishingly potent curse word.
And some people in the gay marriage movement do intend that “marriage” should become a curse word, and are succeeding. When the state forces everyone to use the word “marriage” for relationships that are in many cases ostentatiously and spectacularly vile, disgusting, self destructive, and perverse, everyone will swiftly come to use the word “marriage” to mean a relationship that is vile, disgusting, self destructive and perverse. Such is the fate of every euphemism, and especially every state enforced euphemism. The left, aka the state, indignantly opposed “gay” becoming a curse word, and still piously pretend it is not a curse word, but by and large the left, aka the state, is enthusiastically pushing along the transition of the word “marriage” to curse word.
Pretty soon, just as heterosexuals who are having fun are no longer “gay”, heterosexuals who have committed to be permanently together will no longer be “married”, which outcome will disappoint some gays just as much as the transition of “gay” to curse word – but will greatly please a lot of politicians.