Let's consider the following piece from The Guardian, and make applications to and draw implications for New Zealand, and for the West as a whole.
Firstly, the link to the article (it is not unexpected, but jarringly unbelievable nonetheless):
Patrick Barkham'Why three in a bed isn't a crowd' - the polyamorous trio
The Guardian, Saturday 20 April 2013
The first observation to make is, "Behold the madness of the Gentiles."
Secondly, we assert that this madness is now implicitly endorsed and encouraged throughout virtually all the West. This past week the New Zealand parliament overwhelmingly voted in favour of homosexual "marriage". The predominant justification was that it was wrong to deny a couple's love for one another. That love was not only genuine, but sacred. It had to be sacralised in a "marriage" recognized in law, otherwise that love would be discriminated against and denied. So ran the line. The Gentiles and more than a few ignorant and poorly taught Christians in the parliament went along with the emotive pablum.
How would these parliamentarians respond to the three people profiled above, in their loving polyamorous relationship? Note that the individuals in question want their relationship to be sacralised in marriage. If any one of those ignorant parliamentarians were put to the question and asked, Why oughtn't these three peoples' relationship be recognised as marriage? the answer doubtless would come back, "Because marriage is a relationship between two people." And were we to ask, "Why ought that be so?" they would have no answer. They, if they were honest and rational and non-hypocritical, would have to concede that by their lights there can be no objection to the relationship of these three being recognised as marriage. Any such objection would be discriminatory, prejudicial, and harmful.
Thirdly, this madness is not just implicitly endorsed, it is where we are actively heading in the West. The arguments have already been made, the principles already enunciated and agreed. It's just that our pollies are either too dumb to see it or too sly to acknowledge it. Most of them are not dumb. It is far more likely that most of them are sly. They self-consciously know where this is going to go and they relish it--relish the revolution, the madness, the nihilism of it all. They are amidst a "flood of debauchery".
When one of Britain's most celebrated newspapers carries an article profiling and implicitly promoting such madness the softening-up process is well underway. "Expand your minds, people. Push those tolerance barriers out a bit further. Sure these people are not like you. But they love each other. They have rights. They deserve their crack at self-fulfilment and happiness."
Behold the madness of the Gentiles. Behold first their surprise that Christians will not go along, then their malignity toward us. But at such times the Lord is always near.
Secondly, we assert that this madness is now implicitly endorsed and encouraged throughout virtually all the West. This past week the New Zealand parliament overwhelmingly voted in favour of homosexual "marriage". The predominant justification was that it was wrong to deny a couple's love for one another. That love was not only genuine, but sacred. It had to be sacralised in a "marriage" recognized in law, otherwise that love would be discriminated against and denied. So ran the line. The Gentiles and more than a few ignorant and poorly taught Christians in the parliament went along with the emotive pablum.
How would these parliamentarians respond to the three people profiled above, in their loving polyamorous relationship? Note that the individuals in question want their relationship to be sacralised in marriage. If any one of those ignorant parliamentarians were put to the question and asked, Why oughtn't these three peoples' relationship be recognised as marriage? the answer doubtless would come back, "Because marriage is a relationship between two people." And were we to ask, "Why ought that be so?" they would have no answer. They, if they were honest and rational and non-hypocritical, would have to concede that by their lights there can be no objection to the relationship of these three being recognised as marriage. Any such objection would be discriminatory, prejudicial, and harmful.
Thirdly, this madness is not just implicitly endorsed, it is where we are actively heading in the West. The arguments have already been made, the principles already enunciated and agreed. It's just that our pollies are either too dumb to see it or too sly to acknowledge it. Most of them are not dumb. It is far more likely that most of them are sly. They self-consciously know where this is going to go and they relish it--relish the revolution, the madness, the nihilism of it all. They are amidst a "flood of debauchery".
When one of Britain's most celebrated newspapers carries an article profiling and implicitly promoting such madness the softening-up process is well underway. "Expand your minds, people. Push those tolerance barriers out a bit further. Sure these people are not like you. But they love each other. They have rights. They deserve their crack at self-fulfilment and happiness."
For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry. With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you; but they will give account to him who is ready the judge the living and the dead. (I Peter 4: 3-5)
Behold the madness of the Gentiles. Behold first their surprise that Christians will not go along, then their malignity toward us. But at such times the Lord is always near.
No comments:
Post a Comment