Why don't parents want to raise their children in San Francisco? I can think of a few reasons. The Associated Press blames the scarcity of children in San Francisco on economics. That's partly true. San Francisco's expensive, even for a big city. But the 800-pound gorilla that the AP dances around is that San Francisco is really gay. The AP concedes this, but injects that "gays and lesbians in the city are increasingly raising families." Maybe so, but the last I checked gay men can't get pregnant (despite the repeated efforts of some), and even Butch lesbians, who though they have mastered an impression of male truck drivers, lack their potency. If Mayor Gavin Newsom can unilaterally repeal ancient laws upholding traditional marriage, perhaps he will next attempt to repeal even older, biological laws determining how babies get made.

Cities don't allow space for large families, aren't affordable, boast high-crime rates, and offer subpar schools. Cities such as San Francisco also house a polluted moral climate. What parents want to raise their children in Gomorrah2K? This is a key reason why the city by the bay ranks last in residents under 18.

The dearth of families in cities has profound political ramifications. Three realities are significant. First: as has been observed elsewhere, American cities make up a "Blue Archipelago." Liberal values reign in cities. Without urban areas, the Democrats wouldn't be a competitive national party. Second: political socialization of most individuals takes place to great degree in childhood. Third: Parents balk at raising their children in the city. Parents who do raise families in an urban setting, for economic and other reasons, trend toward smaller families. All of this is bad news for liberals.

Those pictures are hilarious.

What's funny (and I bet this isn't noted in that AP article... don't have time to read it right now, have to go to work) is that leftist big-government-types are to blame for rising home prices. Here's an interesting Thomas Sowell column about it:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/printts20050419.shtml

It's all part of the "No homo left behind" platform. No pun intended.

Dan Flynn is right, without high population areas the Democrat party would be reduced to small-time status and this country would become monopolized by the Republican party. Not a good thing, if you ask me. Furthermore, the latest polling data shows that Republicans are getting killed with their social agenda and ignoring the everyday American citizen. Sorry... I don't buy the argument that liberals are in trouble.

I do not by any means begrudge these folks in the photos their happiness or their private behavior. However, the guys with the banner in a parade clearly do not care a fig about the children who may read it. SF does not want to restrict behaviors, and this is really just the tip of the iceberg, that are entirely inappropriate for young, or my, eyes. You cannot have this garbage and claim to be concerned about children. You should see Halloween! And many times I have heard people snidely refer to heteros as "breeders."

They are likewise too concerned for the teachers' union and not concerned about what the teachers are doin'. Their schools are a public shame. If you have any money and kids, you send them to private school.

My wife and I left SF 10 years ago when our oldest was 5 because we tired of finding, with some regularity, condoms and needles in front of our house. Our house has since tripled in value. How many young couples starting out can afford to even rent in such a place. We saw several assaults during our four-year stint there too.

Thanks, Freedom Fighter. To be clear, I didn't make the argument "that liberals are in trouble." The argument that I make is that these demographic/political trends are not good news for liberals or Democrats. There are certainly other trends that are good news for liberals and Democrats. The relative baby-boom among Red-Staters is not one of them.

Except for the recent fact that Repubican Senators just allowed themselves to get creamed, the Republican Party (such as it is) is alive and well and should be thriving for quite some time thanks to Dem stronghold cities like San Francisco.

Especially since the sodomites are not passing on their seed, they will eventually be replaced by heteros with families and with the political climate such as it is, a lot of those families will be conservative or at least moderate Dems.

Those pictures work to show how wonderful a thing all inclusive diversity can be. Everybody could enjoy a day at a parade like that.

FF - Exactly what polling data is that? The loaded question crap on Schiavo?

"Bad news for liberals"

Are there four more beautiful words in the English langauge? Okay, "Your sins are forgiven" is hard to top. But they are up there.

"since the sodomites are not passing on their seed, they will eventually be replaced by heteros"

That's what the "gay family" movement is mostly about. Pre-AIDS, we were "breeders".

Those are some hot chicks driving that red convertable!

Sea King,

Are you saying that the gay family movement is an attempt by gays to pass on their gay lineage to children so they can grow up and be gay, since gays cannot naturally have kids?

"the gay family movement"

I heard that, statistically, the probability of a child raised by gay parents being gay is no different from a child raised by straight parents.

Most rational people accept at this point that homosexuality is not a choice. No one, parent or otherwise, could ever force on me the desire to pummel a man's ass. I couldn't care less who some other person chooses to have sex with, as long as his/her partner is a consenting adult.

It's weird, but whatever -- leave these people alone. If they want to adopt children who have been abused and neglected by irresponsible heterosexual parents, let them. (On a related note, if they have the ability to translate Arabic for our nation's safety, for God's sake, let them.)

These observations raise important issues while they also beg for elaboration. I've lived in the Bay Area my entire adult life and believe I can contribute a useful perspective or two.

The Gay Pride parade pix are in one sense emblematic, yet they are in another sense an exception. OK, the parade is a fixture of the city, and the clear link between self-indulgence and STD-infection screams for sober intervention. And gay so-called culture can be provincial and shortsighted and nasty (like referring to straights as "breeders"). But the carnavalesque atmosphere is boosted by parade attendees from all over the country and world. It does not dominate the city, not even during "Gay Pride Week". If for tourism dollars alone, the parade and the campy culture it features won't go away.

Part of SF's beauty is that its famous hills divide the neighborhoods pretty cleanly from each other - about the half the city is mom-and-pop familyhoods where radical lifestyles don't have much traction, and that will never change.
SF brought you Harvey Milk, the first openly-gay elected official; it also brought you Dan White, the first assassin of an openly-gay elected official. Two sides of the same coin, as far as I'm concerned.

Then there are the outlying Bay Area cities where people sometimes move who don't want to leave the Bay Area, like Oakland, which is understood to have more lesbians than SF, and the more suburban Los Gatos, where Mark Bingham hailed from. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1555837808/qid=1117076363/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-1271130-5613421?v=glance&s=books&n=507846).

800-pound gorilla? More like a 200-pound gorilla.

As gay parenting is a fairly recent social event, I don't know for sure (as there is little science behind it), but it would seem correct to believe that the influence that two gay parents would have on a child would influence that child's sexuality.

If this is even partially true, places like SF may be without children (e.g., real families) for quite some time.

Future PHD,

While I could have been clearer, I was much more brief than I tend to be. But nothing in what I wrote suggests gay families want or will breed gay children.

I can see where you might get that in relation to what I quoted. ASDF after all does talk about "heteros". And so therefore, you might have construed that I implied that the gay family movement is about not being replaced by heteros in the physical sense. But in light of the current discussion it is not the physical replacement that we are talking about, but the political "replacement" or diffusion.

In fact, what ASDF said is totally unrelated to the political issues, taken from a purely physical basis. Heteros do not decrease liberal power in the interest of gays if they vote for expanded gay rights.

Thus, in order to respond to it, I had to construe it in the proper light that ASDF probably meant it. Unvoiced is the idea that we pass on our culture to our children and statistically they retain it and act out the political motivations there. Thus, although it is doubtful, traditional couples breed traditional children--or children that are more inclined to think, construe, and vote in a traditional manner. And it goes back to the dearth of traditional families that might want to raise their children in "The City".

See your problem arose because you didn't invest what I did. You tried to read my post in the strangest context possible (perhaps with the idea that we luddite conservatives say some strange things and folding me into that role), and I tried to read ASDF's in the most understandable.

Actually about the physical replacement, I might say that while gays will largely have straight children, it seems that traditional families are quite capable of replenishing gays. But the effect is social and political. Gay children are more likely to think if it worked for Dad and Dad2, it really isn't so bad after all. Thus the "gay family movement" promotes a cultural increase in people sympathetic to gay society.

But since ASDF never meant it in the physical sense, it seems that where I was short before, I need to spend a lot of words explaining this to you, because you have a peculiar need to thing that I need some correction of some sort.

(Just in case you take this wrong, I am more perplexed than angered.)

Jeremiah,

The "breeders" comment has nothing to do with calling names. I mention it because it speaks of the way in which gays distinguished themselves from people who were happy to marry and raise kids, which they identified with a derogatory tone.

It's not about rubbing wounded pride, it's about seeing that there was once a conception of homosexuality that had nothing to do with settling down and raising a family.

Thus, we can see that the gay family is at least new in its wide acceptance among homosexuals. Thus the move to gay-founded families is new and it is a movement.

The traditional family lifestyle was capable of not only fulfilling its adherents (although it was often degraded by progressives of all types) but creating it's own political and cultural ripple. The lifestyle of cruising and bathhouse sex could provide what was asked of it, but the impact tended to be as transient as the pleasure.

Future PHD,

I owe you an apology. You asked what I meant. I think I blurred the lines between your post and Ben L's. That was sloppy of me. My bad.

Gay children are more likely to think if it worked for Dad and Dad2, it really isn't so bad after all. Thus the "gay family movement" promotes a cultural increase in people sympathetic to gay society.

But what's wrong with that? People should definitely not be sympathetic to the culture of some gays -- promiscuous, unsafe sex, and the heavy use of so-called "party drugs". But why should decent, upstanding citizens who happen to be attracted to members of the same sex receive condemnation?

Seems like gays and lesbians paint themselves into a corner while trying to live outside the box: Do they want acceptance because they're "different" (i.e., "queer") or because they're "just like everybody else"?

I must be a moderate: I think civil unions are good, but not gay marriage, and that sexual orientation should not be a determining factor if a couple want to be parents. (And I won't argue them on this blog, except if somebody wants to.)

Ben L. : "But what's wrong with that? People should definitely not be sympathetic to the culture of some gays -- promiscuous, unsafe sex, and the heavy use of so-called "party drugs". But why should decent, upstanding citizens who happen to be attracted to members of the same sex receive condemnation?"

While I have qualms the gay movement, you're arguing with descriptive statements. Like so.

Me: "The sky is blue"

You: "And it should be pink?!?!?"

What's your point, Sea King?

I pretty much agree with what you said, Jeremiah.