The question has been asked “how does same-sex ‘marriage’ hurt anyone?” It’s one of those deceptive arguments designed to emphasize personal narratives over smart public policy and facts in the marriage debate. After all, if it doesn’t “hurt” anyone else, or keep anyone from living their heterosexual life, surely it can’t be wrong.
But, as the Gospel Coalition has made clear, same sex “marriage” will in fact be harmful in a number of ways. Voddie Baucham says the current discussion on marriage “explodes that myth” that homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” is a private issue.
He goes on to say that legal decisions are generally based on principles and legal precedent, and that right now the push to redefine marriage seems to be based on an “all you need is love” principle. If that is the case, Baucham says, what about the 50 year old man and the 12 year old girl, or the man and his daughter?
He’s got a valid point. In fact, he’s not the only one talking about this “slippery slope” the Supreme Court has put us on in the redefinition of marriage. The slippery slope is one of the main concerns traditional marriage advocates have for the push to redefine marriage. And while some call it a straw man argument, evidence says it is more than legitimate.
What I’ve said, and will continue to say is that if the government redefines marriage for homosexuals it will have to redefine marriage for any other group or be guilty of the same “discrimination” it now accuses traditional marriage supporters of. Put simply, the government and homosexual advocates accuse traditional marriage supporters of being anti-gay.
So if the government doesn’t redefine marriage for polygamists, it will be called anti-polygamist. Take that argument to the end and you can see the legalization of not just polygamy but polyamory, pedophilia, bestiality, and more.
Matt K. Lewis recently wrote:
“The arguments are essentially the same. For example, Sen. Al Franken recently issued a statement saying, ‘Our country is starting to understand that it’s not about what a family looks like: it’s about their love and commitment to one another.’ Polygamists couldn’t agree more…I mean, who are we to say that two or three or even four consenting adults — who want to make a lifelong commitment to love one another — shouldn’t be allowed to do so? What’s magical about the number two?”
The logic is airtight. If you can use arguments such as love, commitment, privacy, and civil rights to justify same-sex “marriage” then they can be used to justify any other lifestyle and its accompanying relationships. But don’t take my word for it; listen to what a long-time advocate for polyamory (multiple partner relationships) has to say about redefining marriage.
“Illig [a long time polyamory advocate] believes there is indeed a ‘slippery slope’ toward legal recognition for polygamy if the court rules in favor of nationwide same-sex marriage, an argument typically invoked by anti-gay marriage advocates. ‘A favorable outcome for marriage equality is a favorable outcome for multi-partner marriage, because the opposition cannot argue lack of precedent for legalizing marriage for other forms of non-traditional relationships,’ she said.
The “slippery slope” argument for marriage isn’t all that outrageous after all. In fact, it’s what advocates of marriage redefinition want to happen. It’s not merely about granting any real or perceived rights to homosexuals, it’s about dismantling the traditional family, along with marriage, and replacing it with groups of people “committed” to one another.
Then again, perhaps advocates of marriage redefinition aren’t’ even interested in people being committed to one another. Recently, during a debate on same-sex “marriage in the UK, a government representative made this statement:
“Lady Stowell…replied for the Government: ‘In terms of the law, marriage does not require the fidelity of couples. It is open to each couple to decide for themselves on the importance of fidelity within their own relationship.’”
Well, it seems another oft-cited fear; the loss of marriage components, such as fidelity and commitment is also more than inevitable if marriage is redefined.
The disconcerting reality here is that it’s not just me, a traditional marriage advocate saying these things. These are polygamy and polyamory advocates speaking for themselves and those they represent.
If no one else was making these statements maybe the rebuttal that I’m out of line would be appropriate. Since they are the ones saying these things and I’m just repeating what they’ve already said they seem less like “straw arguments” and more like realistic consequences.
In the end advocates for marriage redefinition are assuring us that homosexuals won’t be on the only ones seeking or granted the right to their lifestyle and components of traditional marriage such as fidelity and commitment will be erased.
Perhaps we ought to now consider traditional marriage advocates’ arguments of the de-emphasis on mother’s and father’s and threats to religious freedom as more than “straw man” arguments as well.
Click HERE to support the work & ministry of IFI.
