Though the meat of the article focuses mainly on the political question of which I could give a rat's patootie, I agree with the sentiments expressed here. Namely, "the latest demand is never the last."
Said before but worth repeating-and often, the redefining of marriage has nothing to do with civil rights and is a radical social experiment that has disastrous consequences for our society and our children as well as our religious freedoms...
From the Spectator blog:
...Over and over, we find ourselves fighting what is essentially a defensive battle against the forces of organized radicalism who insist that "social justice" requires that we grant their latest demand.
We know, however, that their latest demand is never their last demand. Grant the radicals everything they demand today, and tomorrow they will return with new demands that they insist are urgently necessary to satisfy the requirements of social justice.
When they refer to themselves as "progressives," radicals express their own basic truth: Their method of operation is always to move steadily forward, seeking a progressive series of victories, each new gain exploited to lay the groundwork for the next advance, as the opposition progressively yields terrain. Such is the remorseless aggression of radicalism that conservatives forever find themselves contemplating the latest "progressive" demand and asking, "Is this a hill worth dying on?" ...
...Some conservatives are wholly persuaded by the arguments of same-sex marriage advocates. Others, however, are merely unprincipled cowards and defeatists. Concerned about maintaining their intellectual prestige, some elitists on the Right do not wish to associate themselves with Bible-thumping evangelicals. Or, disparaging the likelihood of successful opposition, they advocate pre-emptive surrender rather than waging a fight that will put conservatism on the losing side of the issue.
Yet if the defense of traditional marriage -- an ancient and honorable institution -- is not a "hill worth dying on," what is? ...
6 comments:
As a Christian Conservative, I maintain the Faith that though we might lose all of the battles, ultimately, through Christ, we have already won the War. And what is the War over? Agency--the God-given, and God-preserved right to act, and not to be acted upon.
Thanks for your comment. It reminds me of one made in an e-mail to me when I was in Iraq. It said, to the effect, that in the end God would not ask if you won the war, for in truth the war has been won, but he will ask whether you shouldered the fight.
Contraceptive straight marriage provides the crack thru which every other perversion will eventually break out. Thus the hetero world lacks the moral foundation needed to reject 'radicalism.'
"Contraceptive straight marriage provides the crack thru which every other perversion will eventually break out."
That's tough for a Protestant like me to hear- but I think you are right. There are many evil progeny of the sexual revolution to include divorce, contraception etc. There is much work to be done.
Sorry to comment again so late, but would you consider "traditional marriage -- an ancient and honorable institution" to include easy/ serial divorce and regular contraception? Both are 20th century notions,thus hardly ancient, and whether they're honorable is at best debatable.
Which is my point. The straights want to have their own version of 'traditional' marriage and thus wind up having to allow gays their version, too.
No, I agree with you. Contraception and divorce are not part of the ancient and honorable. And you are right that many want it (forgive) both ways. I think as many people much wiser than I have pointed out, a return to "traditional" marriage requires us to look at both practices with a discerning eye.
but it may be that we have already greased the slope so much that the consequences (which we are seeing now) are inevitable.
Post a Comment