I finally got around to reading the Rod Dreher dreck and, wow. Wow. What passes for intellectualism among Republicans these days is just, wow.

Consider, at one point the author quotes favorably the hysterical warnings of societal collapse's from a 1947 author worried about family "moral decay."

Then our guy says: "He wrote this in 1947. Zimmerman missed the Baby Boom coming, but otherwise, he was right on target."
WUT?

How you gonna quote a guy warning about declining birth rates, and then just wave away "HE MISSED THE BABY BOOM." Talk about: Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln.

But you have to read through to the end (don't actually do that), the UPDATE Dreher added after criticism to get to the real funny.

His entire argument rests on a stat that 30% of women id as LGBTQ. Dreher extrapolates NO BABIES EVER. Readers point out "b' is doing a lot of work

Our guys waves it away: "This is probably true, but it doesn’t really change much. I’m not sure how many men would want to partner with a woman whose sexual desires are so unstable."

AMAZE!

A: bisexuals do not have "unstable" desires. The hell is wrong with this guy?
But B:...

He just lazily changes the premise of HIS OWN ARGUMENT. He goes from "30% of women are not interested in having sex with men." And when that is shown to be DEMONSTRABLY untrue, he rolls to "uhh, actually, MEN would not be interested in having sex with bi-women."

Aside from the fact that this claim too is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. It actively works AGASINT his point about moral decay. IF a large percentage of women are interested in more fluid expressions of sexuality, then...

FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY, ROD, men should ALSO embrace more fluid expressions SO THAT THEY MIGHT ATTRACT these available women and make babies with them! It would be MEN stuck in TRADITIONAL definitions, who were not adapting FOR THE SPECIES.

Man. Even pointing out the OBVIOUS FLAWS in his argument accepts demonstrably false and stupid premises I do not agree with. What an actual piece of crap article. How is this guy a public intellectual? How is THIS what conservatives consider smart?
/fin