On a slippery slope
“She talked about some other stuff which I really don’t remember. I was too busy in my head composing a tweet, where I would quote her with some sort of clever hashtag about marriage and about how much I love her, to be paying attention to her at that moment.” – (Be Present, Propaganda)
Matt Labash’s, The Twidiocracy – The decline of Western civilization, 140 characters at a time is a must read, or should that be “mustread”? One study classified up to 40.5 per cent of tweets as “pointless babble”. The Tower of Babel is under construction again but this time around we are using hash tags for our mortar.
One contributor noted that it is “almost impossible for them to take the long view on anything”. Should we expect anything different when the paragraph mentality is further limited? In Bajan parlance, “You, da’ real long yuh, who gine read all da’?”
The results from a quick check on what is trending on Twitter worldwide included ThingsICantLiveWithout and LifeWouldBeAlotBetterIf. Gosnell isn’t trending, but everything same-sex seems to be and yet Babylon is throwing a tantrum because people of faith are weighing in. Rather than throw the toys out of the pram she should thoughtfully engage works like What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Professor Robert P. George. This book should be a prerequisite before weighing in on this issue. Ryan T. Anderson’s exchange with Piers on Piers Morgan Live is proof positive of that.
Supporters of same-sex unions deny the obvious slippery slope they have put us on. To borrow from St. Augustine, we can perhaps put this down to their “opinionative obstinacy, which prevents them from acknowledging the force of what they do see”.
In 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to legalise same-sex unions. Four years later they started down the slippery slope and started giving legal recognition to “threesomes”. The Canadians introduced same-sex marriage in 2005 and two years later the Attorney General of British Columbia was considering legalising polygamy.
The twisted logic goes something like this: If love does not have a gender, then pray tell, why should it have a number? Our “the only absolute is that there is no absolute” intellectual elites pat themselves on the back for not “discriminating”.
As they continue their quest to eliminate “discrimination” from the face of the earth, they think to themselves, “Hmm, if we are so wonderfully tolerant and open-minded then surely we can’t have any legal prohibition on the number of people in a marriage; that’s discriminatory!”
The next “barrier” to go after gender in the re-definition of marriage will be the number of partners. We will be reassured with the usual shallow nonsense. The standard line will now read, “It will be fine as long as it is two or more consenting adults. Live and let live. Who are you to judge or force your morality.”
As such, it turns out that the marriage debate is not about any particular lifestyle but the re-definition of marriage to suit every whim and fancy.
There is much more that could be said, but alas, this is the age of high speed Internet, instant messaging and short attention spans. Multiple paragraphs are a chore to write, furthermore read. If you made it this far, I will leave you with this quote from G.K. Chesterton which I think sums up our current state of affairs:
“For under the smooth legal surface of our society there are already moving very lawless things. We are always near the breaking-point when we care only for what is legal and nothing for what is lawful. Unless we have a moral principle about such delicate matters as marriage and murder, the whole world will become a welter of exceptions with no rules.”
The lawless know this better than the rest of us. Make of it what you will.
— Adrian Sobers