Historical markers along the path of sexual perversion...

(Tim, w/thanks to James) Thinking beyond the obvious, those who have trained themselves in discernment will see where the wickedness of our culture will lead us and our children in the coming years. Seeing the mile markers that have flashed by, the trajectory before us will be clear.

First, the church embraced fornication; then it was on to divorce and sinful remarriage. Next came the weekly consumption of soft pornographic television shows in our families' living rooms, followed by the ubiquitous secret viewing of internet pornography by the church's sons and husbands.

On the other side of the sexual divide, women wanted relationships and children so we stopped blushing at the mention of artificial insemination and single parent adoption. It became perfectly respectable for women with little prospect of marriage to choose to become mothers...

Some of the children they bore themselves, but an increasing number of these fatherless little ones were purchased by women who, in our terribly modern world, had more than enough money and discipline to get what they wanted.

It wasn't all about fleshly lusts and mother-hunger, though. Words came into play, also. The deconstruction of "sex" was followed by the embracing of its replacement--what all of us now refer to as "gender." Being oh-so-gentle in our Christian witness, when haters of our Heavenly Father denounced the hard binary reality of man or woman, male or female, husband or wife which directed our attention to hard biological realities--to genitals, actually--we proved our sensitivity and compassion by tipping our hat to the new constitution.

'Sex' was out and 'gender' was in. Sex was binary and hard, while gender was a continuum and infinitely plastic, submitting to each man doing what was right in his own eyes. Everyone was free to choose the point on the continuum where he, she, or it felt most comfortable.

Cold hearted orb who rules the night,

removes the colors from our sight;

red is gray and yellow white,

but we decide which is right, and which is an illusion.

So now, we're in the middle of the gentrification of sodomy--that sin that God Almighty calls "an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Deuteronomy 22:5).

There's little question where we'll go next.

Comments

Why is everyone is quoting The Moody Blues today? Anyways...

"there's little question where we'll go next."

I would like to know your thoughts on that very question.

"I would like to know your thoughts on that very question."

In the blog posting just prior to this one ("An Apology, plus a note on comments in the black hole ...", Pr. Tim explains that he's waiting with interest for his commenters to answer that question."

Here's my go . . .

I think the next to go is binary marriage, even the same-sex variety. Same-sex marriage is getting normalized now. It's simply got to get before the Supremes, and will certainly do so after our President gets a couple more of his nominees on the Court.

By that time, the number of states which have legalized same-sex marriage will be numerous enough to force the Supreme Court to hear a case intended to draw out the Surpremes' power to homogenize the differing law in the various states.

I simply cannot conceive that they would strike down the same-sex laws. Ergo, they'll be forced to strike down the two-sex only statutes (express or implied). After all, legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't forbid any different sex couple from contracting a marriage.

At that point,the only "feature" of traditional marriage that remains is its binary structure. And, since sex has, by judicial or statutory fiat, already been taken off the table as a criterion for what a marriage is, the binary structure will be found to hang in mid-air, supported by nothing except tradition. And, not even that tradition is pervasive, as polygamy is a very old practice.

Polyandry is fairly rare in human history, but this is the 21st century, right? If polygamy gets legalized, polyandry will too, in the same legal fiat.

That's my best guess on what will follow next. I'm also going to guess that it'll go by the name "polygamy" even though that term actually means "many wives" rather than "many spouses."

Too late! I was just reading something about the courts being pressured to recognize polygamous marriages which were contracted legally elsewhere. It seems to primarily involved Muslim Immigrants.

Kamilla

Interesting. I thought it would be Americans who would petition the courts, leading (eventually) to a Supreme Court ruling (which I think is still the next step as far as American law is concerned).

But the evolution toward polygamy/polyandry might come in via a "special dispensation" made for non-Americans, or (possbly) polygamous arrangements who petition for citizenship.

Loving v. Virginia

QED

Where and when did the phrase "This country is going to hell in a handbasket" originate?

I heard this when I was a teenager, and now I'm saying it.

An unvaccinated victim of early onset of Curmudgeon Doom-and-Gloom Forecasting Disease.

What we are witnessing in the area of sexual rebellion is simlpy an aspect of tare maturation: of tares becoming more tare like. This is the historical process whereby rebellion aganst God becomes progressively more consistent with the presuppositions that animate it. Wheat is undergoing an identical process of developement in the opposite direction. This process of ever increasing epistemological self-conciousness will continue until it culminates in complete antitheisis.

If these dissentegrating forces represented the dominant cultural motive of our time America's future would indeed be bleak. I do not believe this is the case. While it is a well documented historical fact that the public acceptance of homosexuality is a prognostic indicator of a culture that is beyond renewel or revitalization, recent ballot initiatives and referendums in response to this challenge seem to indicate that we are not there yet. What drives the sodomite agenda is a dedicated minority that effectively wields the instruments of State as well as the organs of public opinion. In order to succeeed, they must go through the long slow, arduous process of capturing the culture. As must we. It is noteworthy that thirty years ago R.J. Rushdoony predicted that homosexuals would replace African Americans as objects of Liberal solicitude.

Next? Why not pedophilia? After all, even the church has started calling it "adult-child sex" instead of sexual abuse.

Future generations will ask if ordaining practicing pedophiles is wrong, and will laugh when it's suggested that women or gays shouldn't be.

It all rather makes the whole "slippery slope argument is a fallacy" discussion going on elsewhere right now look like a pathetic attempt to deny the obvious, doesn't it?

Kamilla

If folks want to deny the slippery slope argument, do they also deny the "boiling the frog slowly" argument as a fallacy too?

> First, the church embraced fornication; then it was on to divorce and sinful remarriage.

Embracing artificial birth control is in there somewhere towards the very front.

> I think the next to go is binary marriage, even the same-sex variety.

Yes, that's what Obama's regulatory czar thinks: government should not recognize marriage at all. If you can't get homosexual marriage, then dump all marriage. Everything would be a civil union.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113802

By the way, some homosexuals are calling what you refer to as binary marriage "*opposite sex* marriage" as a way to obliterate the notion of normalcy.

> I'm also going to guess that it'll go by the name "polygamy"

Oh, they'll likely invent something else trendy to call it, just like they did for sodomy.

Michael,

Two comments.

First, the Episcopal church was the first denomination to break with Christian teching on birth control and embrace it -- at Lambeth in 1930. Look how far the rest of the Protestant world has come in the 80 years following, and look where ECUSA is today.

Second, I don't like to use the term "same sex marriage" because it gives the concept some legitimacy. I prefer the term I have heard elsewhere - pseudogamy. It is pseudo-marriage, a parody of the real thing.

Kamilla

Let's say that a couple in the church is having problems conceiving, so they do the science thing and now they have kids, but there are a bunch of embryos left over.

I hadn't heard of embryos until fairly recently. My conversation went sort of like this: "You mean that they take fertilized eggs, and instead of implanting them, they freeze them for later? I didn't know they do that!"

My problem is not with the family that ends up with the babies, but with the embryo producers. They had faith enough to trust in science, but not enough faith to have the whole brood, so they are giving the embryos away. This whole thing is fraught with peril.

For reference, a slippery slope fallacy is simply where someone lays out increasingly bad consequences to an action without--and this is the important point--linking them with a common principle.

Here, there is no slippery slope fallacy because of a common uniting principle; when one leaves Biblical sexuality for "something else," well, there are all kinds of something else that become acceptable as soon as the conscience is hardened.

I'll make no predictions, but this should terrify us.

Denver Todd - I think there *is* a problem with that method. Much of this sounds like trying to get around what the Lord intends for our bodies. "I can't get pregnant the natural way? Bring on the science, instead of adoption!" I hope I am sensitive (even when knowing I can't, as a man, appreciate the difference between giving birth and adoption for a womean), but I fear whether some are asking the question to God, but hearing their own answer in response.

Bike Bubba - I appreciate that difference. I hadn't heard that about the SS Fallacy before, that is a crucial difference.

>In order to succeeed, they must go through the long slow, arduous process of capturing the culture. As must we.

Amen Don.

Hmmm... something seems to have happened to my comment. Weird. I'll try to remember what I said.

"I don't like to use the term 'same sex marriage' because it gives the concept some legitimacy."

I agree. But I prefer the word sodomy. There is no such thing as "same sex marriage" because neither two men nor two women can become "one flesh." At best, these "couples" are simply "vowing" to continue in sodomy 'til death do they part. Wedding vows are impossible because the whole thing is a farce - a sodomitic perversion of marriage. We shouldn't flatter them with the term "same sex marriage." It only encourages them.

Instead we should call sin sin and pray these deceived souls would be set free from their miserable bondage through the blood of Jesus Christ.

Stacy McDonald: "Instead we should call sin sin and pray these deceived souls would be set free from their miserable bondage through the blood of Jesus Christ."

Many folks do indeed do that. And they are reviled and hated for doing that.

There are many, many folks including liberal professing Christians who don't think same-sex behavior is a sin and who don't think that people engaging in same-sex behavior are in "miserable bondage."

Quite simply, there is a clash and a conflict. And the sooner that Bible-believing Christians realize that, and to realize that clash and conflict is actually in their own churches and denominations, then the more they'll turn to Scripture to see how Jesus and the Apostles handled clash and conflict.

"Many folks do indeed do that. And they are reviled and hated for doing that."

Yes, and we should expect it. But we still have a responsibity to perservere. (1 Peter 3:16-17) What continues to surprise me is the response that comes from professing Christians, as you point out. I'd rather deal with a heathen any day than a professing Christian who perverts God's Word and attacks the Saints for speaking the Truth. But again, we shouldn't be surprised. Jesus was attacked and slandered by the religious people of His day - those who claimed to be God's people. So we should expect it.

"Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them," (2 Timothy 3:12-14, NKJV)

Stacy McDonald: "What continues to surprise me is the response that comes from professing Christians, as you point out. I'd rather deal with a heathen any day than a professing Christian who perverts God's Word and attacks the Saints for speaking the Truth. But again, we shouldn't be surprised."

I don't think you'll continue to be surprised by the words and actions of liberal professing Christians for much longer.

The wolves are inside. Some in the pulpits and at the seminaries. The true undershepherds who names the wolves and who fights and wrestles the wolves will be reviled and persecuted for causing ungodly divisions in the Body of Christ.

False accusations, distortions, and misrepresentations will come from the so-called moderates, and even perhaps from some of the undershepherd's supporters. But the wolf-confronter must still persevere and bear the cost. Stand firm even if you're standing lonely.

> There's little question where we'll go next.

Obama's polygamy pushers

by Phyllis Schafly

[excerpts:]

"President Obama nominated for commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission a woman who signed a radical manifesto endorsing polygamy."

"Feldblum is not the only pro-polygamy Obama appointee."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114883

A tragic day for the opponents of these sexual perversions, and also in response to Don Alexander:

This Tuesday, November 3, Washington voters approved Referendum 71, nicknamed “everything but marriage”, which grants all the same legal rights and privileges as marriage to domestic same-sex partnerships.

While the state will still not grant “same-sex marriage” or legalized sodomy, this is the next step in that direction, furthering our country’s support of sexual perversions. Notably, the margin was razor thin, only being approved 51% to 49%, but approved nonetheless.

Don, these sodomites HAVE captured the culture. Granted, I live in liberal, college town Bellingham, but in the weeks leading up to the election I saw “Approve Ref. 71” signs, slogans, and support everywhere I looked. All over town, in conversations, all over Facebook. The entire time leading up to the election I saw NO “Reject 71” anywhere. It seems to me that the sodomite agenda has gained a very firm grip on our culture and is only tightening.

I think our country is on less of a “slippery slope” and is looking more like a child plunging willfully headfirst down a slip-n-slide. And what are we as Christians actively doing to counter this progression towards a wider acceptance of sexual perversions? I’m not seeing nearly as much action against it as I am seeing in support of it.

And, regarding Michael's comment, when Leviticus 18 and 22 have been jettisoned by the church, will Matthew 6:24a be enough to blunt the drive towards polygamy?

(h/t Samuel Clemens, who noted this verse to Mormons when he visited Utah as a Biblical admonition against the same)

Add new comment