The Pink Economy

They say that 'gay marriage' won't affect natural marriage if it is passed, yet it is clear that already marriage as traditionally understood is no longer promoted.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, is. Already there is an imbalance in the promotion of marriage and the legislation isn't even here yet.

Marriage is not promoted in schools, but we're assured that 'same-sex marriage' will be. So, quite how marriage as an institution will be treated after 'SSM' comes in is hardly an unknown. It is a fate already known.

Clearly, what Government wants is a 'pink' workforce, not because of the sexual liberation of its workers, but so that its citizens will not concentrate on building a family, but on economic slavery. In fact, a new book, written by a feminist, called The End of Men is a boast by the authoress that the outcomes of feminism has led to successful women and a depressed sector of the population - men - who find their experience after the sexual revolution as one of depression, lack of purpose and role and disempowerment.

Still, though, for most men and most women, the result is the same. Both have the dignity of work - yes for both sexes - but also the accompanying daily grind of wage slavery too - for both sexes. The promotion of SSM is an added boon to those who seek the continued wage slavery of the whole population into an economic machine.

By opting for the promotion of gay marriage and many childless couples, more men and more women are co-opted into the 'pink' pound. But here's the thing - the economy is becoming so child unfriendly - so anti-family - that you don't even have to be homosexual or lesbian to join into this economic slavery. So long as couples are sterile in their outlook, the populace are drawn into an economic slavery in which the pursuit of wages and money becomes more important as the cost of living rises. For a couple to be open to more than one or two children requires, now, a supernatural trust and faith in Providence.

Marriage isn't just being redefined in this process as 'gay' or 'straight'. It's being redefined as simply a 'loving relationship'. What this redefinition doesn't include is the procreation of new life. Children are actually being written out of legislation. What its doing is promoting more childless couples, more men and women co-opted into this idea of the 'pink economy', more men and women encouraged into wage slavery as people reject family for money and survival.



The great victory for the architects of the sexual revolution was making women into taxpayers and consumers too, in the process destroying the vocation of motherhood so much that women were encouraged into economic slavery. It is slavery now, because now couples face economic hardship if a mother decides to stay at home and raise children. In fact, there even exists a sense of stigma - especially by the poor - if women decide to stay at home and raise children, despite the fact that it is well known that for women to 'do it all' and be superwomen chasing careers and having children is incredibly difficult.

Destroying the family was essential to economically enslaving the West. Destroying the vocation to motherhood was essential to this. Destroying marriage and replacing it with something sterile serves the interests of our economic masters all too well.

It seems to be about reshaping and redesigning what human beings are for. We were about human relationships, family, marriage and new life. Now, we are about loving relationships that don't stop us in any way from remaining - all of us - remaining as economic slaves, consuming, paying tax and contributing to what is becoming a 'pink economy'.

You have to ask the questions:

  • Why is it that whenever marriage is promoted by Government and media today, the word 'gay' appears before it? 
  • Why is the institution of marriage never promoted in schools, in the media, or in society, but 'gay marriage' is and will continue to be promoted?
  • Is there any guarantee that after SSM has been passed that we'll ever see marriage promoted without this prefix again since marriage? 
  • Is it not interesting, and should we not be suspicious, that Government seldom promotes marriage itself, but is happy to promote something that destroys its very meaning and definition? 
  • How can this not be social engineering, not just nationally, but on a global scale? 

'Gay marriage' is not just the extension of 'marriage rights' to a minority - it is a dramatic rearrangement of the entire social order, to the benefit of none but a few.

Comments

Anonymous said…
"Marriage is not promoted in schools, but we're assured that 'same-sex marriage' will be." Interesting point.

BJC
"We're assured that ___ marriage will be" It already IS ! The future is here:(