Comments on: Learning from History, Margin Creep.

By: Zen

Zen — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:43:50 +0000

For emphasis sake, the series at Real Intent on Gay marriage is very worth studying. I know it shows up in the sidebar, if you look in the right place, but it shouldn’t be missed. I am more and more beginning to see, that we don’t really understand gender and marriage doctrine well enough to really defend it well.

http://realintent.org/gay-marriage-and-proposition-8-part-1/

By: John Mansfield

John Mansfield — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 02:35:10 +0000

Regarding Kolkata, I saw that name on the cover of a National Geographic a couple years ago. My reaction was puzzlement. Then I sounded it out, understood the joke, and became part of the in crowd.

By: Adam Greenwood

Adam Greenwood — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:05:32 +0000

I keep wondering what kind of creep a margin creep is.

By: Bertie

Bertie — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:04:06 +0000

“… renaming Calcutta as Kolkata …”

You say tomayto, I say tomato, what?

By: John Mansfield

John Mansfield — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:51:01 +0000

To some degree finding something that moral conservatives couldn’t compromise on and would then be cast out of public spaces for has been the point. Homosexuality is just the handy hammer that’s working with half of America these days. It’s like renaming Calcutta as Kolkata to show who’s with the times and who isn’t, except with something that matters.

By: Bookslinger

Bookslinger — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:25:17 +0000

“This isn’t so much a defense of traditional marriage as a defense of the right to argue for traditional marriage without being blacklisted.”

It’s interesting how the Tolerance Brigade is so intolerant.

By: Adam G.

Adam G. — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:22:30 +0000

That, Vader,may be the comment of the decade.

By: Vader

Vader — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:02:27 +0000

“It is endlessly fascinating to me (I may have mentioned) that during the Victorian era, we were polygamists and during the modern promiscuous era, we are strict faithful monogamists.”

The lesson being, I think, that we adopt the sexual mores God commands, and not those the world accepts. A lesson so important that God put us through the polygamy experience to drive it home.

By: Vader

Vader — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:54:33 +0000

This isn’t so much a defense of traditional marriage as a defense of the right to argue for traditional marriage without being blacklisted.

Still a very valuable thing. But it’s sad that any such defense is needed.

By: Zen

Zen — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:37:11 +0000

I loved this when I read it ages ago. It is still the strongest defense of traditional marriage that I have read. However, while I expect mission creep, the question remains, what form will this mission creep take?

I expect to see every kind of gobbledygook combination of genders and numbers to be called a marriage. It is endlessly fascinating to me (I may have mentioned) that during the Victorian era, we were polygamists and during the modern promiscuous era, we are strict faithful monogamists.

Also, an effect of mission creep I expect to see is marriage becoming irrelevant and looked down on. After all, the Gay Marriage debate hinges on the idea that marriage has already been ruined be heterosexuals. And honestly, there is a bit of truth here.

And the unspoken idea here, is that marriage is about peoples passions – not the institution and certainly not children.

It will also continue to mainstream promiscuity in modern society, but I suspect we are close to the saturation point as it is. We might even see more obsession with sex, but less of the actual sex. An increasing hunger with a decreasing satisfaction, as Screwtape might put it.

The concept of Gender itself will continue to take a beating and will fall into some disrepute, except when it is useful.

What am I missing?