They were wrong. We were simply pointing out the logical implications of their position.
The magnificent R. L. Dabney (1820-1898) understood better than any in his day the consequences of ideas. He lived in a day of rapid social change that seems almost tame by comparison with what's going on today. In his essay, Women's Rights Women, he wrote,
In our day, innovations march with so rapid a stride that they quite take away one's breath. The fantastical project of yesterday, which was mentioned only to be ridiculed, is to-day the audacious reform, and will be to-morrow the accomplished fact.Speaking of the usual conservative reaction to "fantastical" social projects, he says,
This is the party [conservatives] which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will to-morrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom.We have seen this very scenario play itself out with respect to the "fantastical project" of normalizing sexual deviancy. Sodomites argued that whatever two consenting adults did behind closed doors should be legal. At first conservatives balked. Eventually they acquiesced. "Well, as long as you keep it to yourself." And one by one states repealed laws against sodomy. Those that didn't had them overturned by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).
Then the homos wanted to "come out." They didn't want to keep their deviancy secret. They wanted social acceptance. If their lifestyle wasn't illegal, they argued, no one should be able to discriminate against them. And so morally conscientious landlords and business owners now face prosecution if they refuse to rent to or hire a homosexual. The "right" of one man to be perverse trumps the right of another to be a faithful Christian.
As usual, after initial resistance, conservatives caved. Actually, they did more than just cave. As Dabney said, "the resisted novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted principles of conservatism." Conservatives have embraced the notion that all discrimination is wrong, regardless of the basis for the discrimination. "Well, of course, people shouldn't discriminate!" As if moral discrimination is the same thing as racial discrimination; as if skin color and behavior belong to the same category. Sheesh!
After achieving the "right" to come out and not be discriminated against in employment or housing on the basis of sexual orientation (instead, Christian landlords and employers are now discriminated against because it's never a question of discrimination versus no discrimination, but always a question of who does the discriminating and on what basis), they demanded even more. They must be given the right to marry. Conservatives raised a protest. But many were willing to compromise with civil unions or domestic partnerships, which essentially have all the legal implications of marriage without the name. Homos were still not satisfied. If there is any difference at all, even if only the name, it is unfair, unequal, unjust!
Most conservatives are still opposed to homosexual marriage. But just wait, once it is a fait accompli, as is rapidly happening (same sex unions are now legal in six states: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont.), it will become one of their cherished notions. "How can we deny two people who love each other the right to marry? It's one thing to be personally opposed to it, but that doesn't mean we should legally prevent it."
But...and here's the point of this post...this reasoning necessarily leads to the normalizing of other forms of sexual deviancy, forms that would cause the average person to gasp with horror. Critics have been pointing this out for years, but those on the other side have said we were exaggerating, that we were trying to scare people so they wouldn't be favorable to legalizing and normalizing same sex relationships.
For a number of years we have pointed out that nothing prevents the same reasoning from being used to justify pedophilia. The advocates of homosexuality objected. Strenuously. Even our friends thought our objections were overblown. But they weren't. Here's is the evidence.
A group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals say it's time to change the way society views individuals who have physical attractions to children.
The organization, which calls itself B4U-Act, is lobbying for changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, the guideline of standards on mental health that's put together by the American Psychiatric Association...
B4U-Act said that 38 individuals attended a symposium in Baltimore last week, including researchers from Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University and the universities of Illinois and Louisville... [T]he speakers in attendance concluded that "minor-attracted" individuals are largely misunderstood and should not be criminalized even as their actions should be discouraged. (Read more here)This is the first step: decriminalization. But, you say, they concluded the actions of "minor-attracted" individuals should be discouraged. Yes they did. But once pedophilia passes from the category of "illegal" to the category of "legal but discouraged," the argument will be, "If it's legal, why should it be discouraged, especially if the adult and minor truly love each other and if both give their consent?" The progression is inevitable. The conclusion is contained in the premises.
This is what happens when a culture abandons God. "And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done" (Rom. 1:28). G. K. Chesteron once said, "When a man does not believe in God, the danger is not that he will believe in nothing, but that he will believe in anything." We are witnessing the dire consequences of our banishment of God from government working themselves out before our eyes.