Such was not my intent. I saw an opportunity to say something true about sodomite play-pretend “marriage,” and I took it. Didn’t mean it as an attack on you.
Ok, good.
___________
I don’t think it is that many on a national scale. Sodomites are only about 2% of the population, and some families have more than one, so the percentage couldn’t be much higher than that.
Here is where we diverge. There may be disgust. There may be angst, but resistance seems to be absent, here and in all the myriad ways these radicals are destroying our nation/culture. I just do not see it. Some mutterings, maybe. But spine-stiffening push back? Active resistance?
What I mostly see is people engaging only with those they know are *safe* and just shutting up and sucking up elsewhere.
___________________________________________
As a female who worked from home (I have been an artist my entire working life....50 years and counting), I don’t think it is fear of loss of salary that keeps women in the workforce. It is more likely lack of confidence in the ability to homeschool + fear of being considered an oddball. Most women my age and younger enjoy their careers, even if it is *just a job*. “Flimflammed”? I don’t know one woman my age down to those in their 40s or even 30s who were coerced, even remotely, into working. In fact, I know widows with a lot of money who continue to work because they want to stay engaged. Many males are totally bored with the idea of being married to a housewife and mommy. I have heard them so state. They prefer someone with a real life, an equal partner not solely dependent upon their salary. Even back in my youth, I recall being counseled to get a degree so as to have something to fall back on if necessary. There is no way women will willingly leave the workforce and, indeed, in today’s economy, it is a rare husband who isn’t relieved to share the economic burdens.
__________________________________________
We really do live in a post-religious world. Even the Catholics that I know could care about what some religious authority thinks of their sexual practices. Of those who say that they do, what percentage do you guess are hypocrites?
______________________________
You are correct in your later statements: cowardice is rampant. Money talks, so the entertainment moguls push what sells. Media is mostly tabloid, where not only is the slant to the lowest possible denominator, there is extra paid for *product placement* and today’s *entertainers* are definitely products. Sex of every sort is everywhere to the point of surfeit.
My prediction: it is too late. How in the world does a populace already committed to an anti-religious, amoral stance ever recant? How do cowards and the intimidated ever push back and, as you say, would anyone want them on their side if they did, given that they could revert at any moment for the slightest hint of social or other gain?
I suppose if there were to be some sort of huge catastrophe, such that any remnant was forced to live in reality without a constant nudge from the nanny media and also such that all vestige of centralized control disappeared, then, after a new Dark Age, *something* different would appear. But that is supposition and it is unlikely anything that large and widespread will even happen.
“What I mostly see is people engaging only with those they know are *safe* and just shutting up and sucking up elsewhere.”
Yes, mostly. I wonder what would happen if a leader appeared.
“Most women my age and younger enjoy their careers, even if it is *just a job*.”
If you’re an artist working from home, that seems likely. If you’re a waitress, or assembling copiers, maybe not so much.
“Flimflammed”? I don’t know one woman my age down to those in their 40s or even 30s who were coerced, even remotely, into working.”
Flim-flammed means fooled, conned, not coerced. I remember a time when husband and family were considered a far better life choice than working. The bra-burners, the women’s libbers, and their willing accomplices in the media, convinced American women to work. Now, most are stuck. Maybe not in your circles, but certainly among the great unwashed.
“In fact, I know widows with a lot of money who continue to work because they want to stay engaged.”
A widow with money, probably past her child-bearing years, is not really the person I’m talking about.
Young women of an age to anchor a family have a duty—to their families, to their unborn children, and to humanity, just as do men. Those duties are different, and both biology and human nature make women far more valuable than men.
We thought that we were so wonderful that they could ignore those duties and everything would still be fine. Well, it’s not fine.
We need to stop talking about what people want and start talking about what they have a duty to do—which turns out to be what they would have wanted to do if they hadn’t been conned by Evil’s minions on the left.
“Many males are totally bored with the idea of being married to a housewife and mommy. I have heard them so state.”
Yeah, men will say anything to get laid.
“They prefer someone with a real life, an equal partner not solely dependent upon their salary.”
I wonder if that has anything to do with the divorce rate.
No, I don’t. It does. Such women, for an encyclopedia of reasons that I am too tired to get into, make worse wives than high-school or college sweethearts who never work a day, at least until their children are grown.
“Even back in my youth, I recall being counseled to get a degree so as to have something to fall back on if necessary.”
Now here’s something that will really hack you off: having something to fall back on, while very good for individual women, is really, really bad for the nation.
“There is no way women will willingly leave the workforce”
I really hope that the majority are not so obdurate as you say.
“and, indeed, in today’s economy, it is a rare husband who isn’t relieved to share the economic burdens.”
That was one of the first things I said: government reacted to two-income families by taxing one income away, while inflation has ripped and torn at purchasing power like a rabid great white shark. (Yes, I know fish don’t get rabies.)
Lenin (I think) said, to destroy the bourgeoisie, grind them between the twin millstones of taxation and inflation. The people pulling Hussein’s strings have read their Lenin.
“We really do live in a post-religious world.”
I disagree. We live in one of many periods during which religion was on the downswing. There’s no reason to think it won’t turn around again.
“Even the Catholics that I know could care about what some religious authority thinks of their sexual practices.”
When Ronald Reagan was elected, a celebrity libtard was heard to whine, “How could he win? Nobody I know voted for him.” That said, I find it necessary to note that the Catholics you know are very bad Catholics, if we are to judge from your report.
“Of those who say that they do, what percentage do you guess are hypocrites?”
Hypocrite in its correct meaning, or in its modern usage meaning a fallible human being who stumbles?
“Sex of every sort is everywhere to the point of surfeit.”
We are sex mad.
“How in the world does a populace already committed to an anti-religious, amoral stance ever recant?”
It’s happened before. The phenomenon seems to be connected with leadership.
“How do cowards and the intimidated ever push back and, as you say, would anyone want them on their side if they did, given that they could revert at any moment for the slightest hint of social or other gain?”
As Samuel Adams wrote, “…it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds…”
Danny “killing fields” Ortega only had about 3,000 men under arms when he marched into Managua.
“it is unlikely anything that large and widespread will even happen.”
The odds are vanishingly small that it will not, in my opinion, and in full awareness that I lack perspective.