Charles Porterfield Krauth, a 19th century theologian, said heresy always proceeds in three stages:
-weakness/asking for toleration
-growing strength/asking for for equal rights
-institutional control/suppression of orthodoxy.
That's the pattern followed over and over by anyone who wants to take over a culture. You start out just asking for people to not be so mean and end up being mean, all too often. The only time the final stage does not happen is when you make a deliberate, conscious, and continuous effort to fight for liberty instead of dominance. It is the story of every revolution, which is why almost all of them end in misery.
Ace's main point is that, having won, the next step is to eliminate any religious objections (and marriages) that deny homosexual "marriage." They swear that's not the goal but its obvious from the start that's what will take place, and what, then, happens to religious freedom in America? Another commenter
"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr."
-Francis Cardinal George, 2010.
Is that really so unthinkable with the path of modern culture? I think he's being excessively pessimistic, but there are many on the left who'd celebrate such an outcome.
Why, though, do homosexuals and activists want to push this so hard? Twenty years ago, gay groups mocked marriage as an institution, despised the idea of gay marriage, and the general culture thought it was ridiculous. In ten years, suddenly it became a pressing, desperate human rights struggle, a fight for liberty and social justice.
This has never, ever been about marriage. Almost no homosexuals ever "marry" even in places where its considered legal, and few even care or want such a thing. Homosexuality has from the very first instance of human activity been about pleasure and sexual gratification, not relationship. Marriage doesn't bring either one of those things - in fact it can lessen both.
No, what this is about and has always been about is two separate concepts working side by side.
First, there's the effort to demolish every traditional and Judeo-Christian influence and tattered remains of foundation in western society. Some do this on purpose, some do it without understanding what or why they do it, but that is the goal: remove that influence and build a new society free of these old, judgmental, tyrannical constructs in favor of new judgmental, tyrannical constructs.
But the second is the more prevalent and the most common one from homosexuals. Basically it goes like this: being gay makes you feel like a weird outsider and feel guilty because you desire what everyone around you thinks is repulsive at the very least. In order to fix these feelings of estrangement and guilt, some gays are loudly demanding everyone stop saying they're weird, normalize their behavior - no matter how strange - in society, and shun anyone who dares disagree with this agenda.
There's a scene in BlackAdder II (episode "Bells") that illustrates this well and, appropriately enough, deals with Edmund being concerned that he's turning gay. He goes to visit a Wise Old Woman to find out a solution and here's how it goes:
WOMAN: Very well then. Three other paths are open to you. Three cunning plans to cure thy ailment.
EDMUND: Oh good.
WOMAN: The first is simple. Kill Bob!
WOMAN: Then try the second. Kill your self!
EDMUND: No. And the third?
WOMAN: The third is to ensure that no one else ever knows.
EDMUND: Ha, that sounds more like it. How?
WOMAN: Kill everybody in the whole world. Ah, ha, ha ...
The homosexual agenda is an attempt to fix what's inside by making everyone else act differently. Change everybody in the whole world!
and you'll feel better. Except what's inside is what causes these feelings, not everyone else around you. They aren't going to change no matter how accepting the world acts and how the structure of the planet is altered.
And that's what this law in New York State is about. The thing is, how far does this law go? What would prevent two female room mates from getting married, or two brothers? If they want the tax and legal benefits, why not? What is the philosophical and legal argument to prevent this?
You cannot argue incest and breeding, because two men or two women are not going to have children. If you argue that it must be about love, then you've introduced an alien and unprecedented concept into the legal definition and exercise of marriage, something never before even hinted at. If you argue that they are only doing so because of the legal benefits... that's the entire argument of homosexual marriage to begin with
All you're left with is the argument of societal building blocks, of the core of culture and the future of a people. And that's the entire argument against
homosexual "marriage." The idea of a married couple being the very foundation of culture and society is the fundamental argument against
homosexual "marriage" let alone open and accepted behavior.
The fact that a married couple creates stability, a continuing influence on a culture, and is the foundation for passing on traditions, patterns, and shared morés of a culture is the basis for the secular argument against homosexual "marriage." The fact that homosexual marriage cannot
produce children, only borrow them from others, makes this an even more pressing and significant issue.
And since the left - particularly the activist left such as people pressing this issue - are utterly opposed to the concept of passing on culture's traditions and values, they cannot argue against roommate weddings, or even weddings of sister and brothers, since nothing compels them to breed.
This isn't a slippery slope argument, it is an inevitable consequence argument, and every legal decision since the dawn of law
requires analysis to see what will likely result and come next from the decision. If you argue that ruling that its okay for Bob to shoot Bill, then you have to consider what the consequences of that decision is, how people are likely to use and abuse it, and what the legal consequences of that decision will be. You cannot simply dismiss that fact by yelling "slippery slope" like you're in an Oprah show and she passed you the mic.
And this doesn't even touch on other issues like age differences and species differences, or multiple marriages.
Ultimately, this push for homosexual "marriage" will win, and spread by legal mandate and the "full faith and credit" act to every state in the union. There's simply nothing anyone can do to stop it at this point, because culture has been rammed to this point and the legal system is designed in such a way as to be taken advantage of in this manner.
The problem is, the people who "win" this victory today won't be around to see the damage it does generations into the future, and even if they were, they'd deny it could possibly have been their fault anyway.