Yay for support of marriage. It’s a shame we have to qualify it as “traditional” marriage instead of just marriage. The word marriage should obviously refer to a man and a woman.
When I was responding to comments from that post, I got to thinking about the whole “tradition” thing. I mean, we have only started to use that term recently, when marriage came under attack by the gay rights activists, and all those who mistakenly thought it was a good idea to jump on that bandwagon. So because of all of that ruckus, we now have to use “traditional” marriage, to distinguish between what some refer to as homosexual “marriage,” (I use that term very loosely) and then real marriage, between one man and one woman. So I just decided to look it up, to clarify for myself exactly what we have all been referring to. Not only are we calling it “traditional,” but marriage is a tradition in and of itself. What I found was really interesting.
I came across a paper by Dr. Mark Cooray on Tradition. Here’s what he has to say:
“No more tradition’s chains shall bind us.” This is one of the fundamental ideas of socialist/progressivist thinking. If men and women are freed from tradition, the experiences of history and the family environment, they can be manipulated and used by ideological and religious leaders, eccentrics and maniacs. If tradition declines, ideologues can mould and influence individuals.
That about sums it up right there. That’s what seems to be happening, although I’m taking religious leaders out of that quote. They are trying to remove all tradition, history and the family environment from society, so they can then manipulate us. Kind of explains the gay marriage situation huh? Their agendas definitely fall into the socialist/progressivist way of thinking.