There are more news headlines about gay marriage than gay marriages

This is according to the American Community Survey, which can’t be considered a conservative bastion by anyone anywhere.  Even with massive incentives to round up or estimate high, the ACS could only find about 500k gay and lesbian “marriages” in the United States.  The actual number of legal marriages or civil unions is around 200k, or about 4k per state for all 50 states.  The number with children is even fewer, around 100k, even though the ACS does “round up” here for all practical purposes by not separating out children acquired during the union from children brought along via a previous (heterosexual) relationship.  Even with that maximization tactic, “gaymarried with kids” is a pathetically infinitesimal number of couples.  Because gays are not even 2% of the general population.

Gay people don’t want to marry.  They are, for all statistical purposes, uninterested in being married to anyone and they are certainly not interested in lifelong monogamous marriage, as evidenced by cases in Texas where gays were whining that they took their marriages so seriously that Texas needed to let them have gay divorces.  Texas in at least one case argued that they could have an annulment rather than a divorce or stay gaymarried and work it out.  Somehow this proved Texas was a bastion of homophobia.  Funny how that works.

Surveys of gays repeatedly show that they want to cohabit or identify as married at a maximum ceiling of about 20%, with half that being more typical, and that is not necessarily monogamous (although such surveys tend to not ask about that, as it is inconvenient to the advocacy for gay marriage that gays aren’t serious about that whole “two people in wuv, just of the same sex” thing).  Gays are in fact different in their desires.  They don’t want lifelong monogamous unions with kids.  They don’t even want monogamous unions.  And they definitely don’t want kids harshing their game.

You have to consider that 100k figure in light of the total number of gays, which, being generous, tops out around 9 million in the United States.  200k gay people out of 9 million is… a statistical rounding error.  Now here is where gay marriage advocates want to jump in with some other country’s gay marriage rates, but it’s the same everywhere else, including places that have had gay marriage in place for nearly a generation.  About 5% of the civil marriages is the ceiling, not the floor when it comes to gaymarriage.  And that is initially, when the pent-up demand from narcissistic gay Boomers and Silents is flowing.  Once they’ve checked that box of approval, the rates drop to more like 2-3% of the civil marriages.

That’s the math we’re really dealing with here.  A trivial, pathetically small number of mostly Boomer and Silent gays who require official civil recognition of their sexual preferences because they remain the Me Generation.  The reality that gays donwanna marry is why it serves as such an ingenious proxy for status wars.  If gays really wanted to marry, the propaganda wouldn’t be so intense and abrasive.  It wouldn’t need to be.  That is the real difference between it and interracial marriage.  Laws were passed against interracial marriage because people were marrying and having kids together within wedlock interracially.  There were no laws passed against gay marriage because nobody was doing it and gays can’t have children together.

Advertisements

Normal dress standards can be levelling

There is a tradeoff between being a normal culture that is yay bling and being a normal culture that explicitly wants to avoid indebtedness in pursuit of bling or wants to favor less inequality rather than more on a long continuum.

This is why some cultures developed sumptuary laws and restrictions on the elegance of female dress.  Being yay bling is plenty traditional, but it comes with its own problems, and as far as Western Christian traditional cultures are concerned, a certain amount of levelling was necessary to deal with those problems, something quite lost to modern Western Christians whose dress standards are influenced by mental illness and spiritual decay.

Many conservatives think the sweatpants culture is intentional, and it was at one point, but at this point it’s mostly just crippling mental and spiritual damage rather than some conspiracy against formal wear.  It’s especially true in the canary-coalmine case of conservative Christian SAHMs.

 

 

When right wing populism goes wrong, daycare edition

Over at the Washington Examiner, someone thinks that it’s right wing and populist to have mothers of young children working outside the home.  It’s a short article, so it follows below.  I’ve bolded the most questionable bits.

 

The Obama administration, according to Katharine Stevens in the Wall Street Journal, is paving the way for more regulation of child care. This seems like a great place for conservatives to fight for the interests of the poor and working class, against overbearing government.

In other words, it’s an opportunity for free­market populism.
The administration is pushing guidelines for who can get federal grants, but Stevens — who is a fellow
research fellow of mine at the American Enterprise Institute — worries that these grant guidelines are
a “Trojan horse bearing counterproductive requirements,” on early­childhood educators and daycare
providers.

These aren’t rules governing basic health and safety standards, like drinking water, cleanliness or
broken glass. Some are micromanaging: “cot placement” for daycare. Others are about requiring
credentialing — such as requiring preschool teachers to have bachelor’s degrees.

Some level of regulation of childcare and preschool is about requiring what parents would demand.
But at a certain point, it becomes excessive.
Excessive regulation of daycare and preschool mostly hurts the poor and working class. For one
thing, it makes daycare rarer and more expensive.

Some on the Left will respond and say, “well, let’s just subsidize them more.” That doesn’t address the
other problem: curbing work opportunities for women.
More importantly, unnecessary regulation and credentialing requirements take away from many
women the best way they could make money: at-­home daycare.
You don’t want moms sticking 15 kids in a tiny basement. You don’t want home daycare locations run
by human smugglers. But excessive regulation curbs employment options — and daycare options —
for lower­-income folks.

The bold portions are the most iffy bits of this ridiculous article.  Why does anyone want the poor and working class women working outside the home?  That is, as I’ve recently noted, a way of subsidizing consumerism all by itself.  And note the obsession with “work opportunities” for women at home with their kids already, because the domestic sphere itself is, you know, not worth anything for its own sake.  It’s just a storage space for all those future cubicle warriors and retail cogs.

And this is from a super right wing media outlet!  It’s just another brick in the “free-market” wall.  It’s not right wing or conservative to keep doubling down on shoving everyone out into the artificial, inhuman modern workforce.  It’s also not populist to only support mothers if they generate income explicitly.  Can mothers earn income at home with their kids?  Sure, that’s certainly an option.  But should women be pressured into it at the expense of preserving and encouraging a real domestic sphere?  This conservative housewife would say absolutely not.  Someday, maybe, the rest of the right will too.