Marriage Redefinition is Just the Beginning
 
Marriage Redefinition is Just the Beginning
03.27.13

Written by Nathan Cherry

It is stunning to talk with people that believe same-sex “marriage” is the “end of the line” in the fight to redefine marriage. Unsuspecting, or perhaps naïve, is the best way to describe such a mentality. To believe that homosexual activists would simply seek to redefine marriage to include their lifestyle, while ignoring all other “alternative lifestyles” is simply absurd. The reality is that same-sex “marriage” is just another step in the process to erase the boundaries of what constitutes marriage and family.

If you recall, the very first step was the legal recognition and acceptance of same-sex civil unions. We were told it had to do with taxes and benefits, nothing more, and that it was the “end of the line” for same-sex couples. But no sooner were civil unions legalized in several states and homosexual advocates began screaming “that’s not good enough, or fair enough.” And a push for the next step was put into place – same-sex “marriage.”

Are we really so foolish as to believe this is the end? Do you truly believe homosexual advocates and liberal politicians will stop at redefining marriage? Of course not! If the government redefines marriage for homosexuals it will have to continue redefining marriage for other groups or be guilty of the same discrimination for which it now accuses traditional marriage supporters. And we all know the government doesn’t want to be guilty of discrimination.

To further prove that same-sex “marriage “ is not the end of redefining marriage, Boris Dittrich recently admitted that group marriage, also called polyamory, is the next step. A recent article reports:

“Boris Dittrich, the homosexual activist called the ‘father’ of the political movement in favor of Dutch gay ‘marriage’, has admitted that group marriages of three or more people is the next inevitable logical step in the dismantling of the western world’s traditional marriage laws…the carefully laid-out plan that established first public acceptance, legal civil partnerships, which in turn led inevitably to changing the definition of marriage. The redefinition of marriage, he said, has led to discussions of allowing group marriages of three or more persons.”

Interestingly, polyamorists in Australia have formed a lobby group not just to lobby for their right to group marriage, but to tell the world that same-sex “marriage” won’t lead to further redefinition of marriage. According to altmedia.net:

“With increasing attention brought to polyamorous relationships by members of the Liberal Party, a formalised Polyamory Action Lobby (PAL) has been founded to combat the image of poly people as relationship bogeymen. A spokesperson for the Sydney-based PAL said fear of differently structured relationships should not be used as a weapon to deny monogamous same-sex couples legal recognition.”

The irony and blatant inaccuracies are astounding. Common sense dictates that if marriage is redefined for one group it must logically be redefined for all groups. Otherwise the groups that marriage was not redefined for can legitimately claim discrimination and favoritism against the government. The government will seek to create “equality” for all groups and will then push to further redefine marriage to accommodate all groups.

So the logical question we need to be asking is “where does it stop?” At what point do we as a society say no more redefining marriage? The problem with the question is that the only answer leads to “discrimination” and “inequality” for groups for which society refuses to redefine marriage.

For example, if we continue to redefine marriage and decide polyamorous relationships are somehow legitimate and worthy of societal acceptance, we can be sure polygamists, pedophiles, and those engaging in bestiality and incest will demand rights. Will we accommodate them? If we don’t, aren’t we then discriminating against these groups? Isn’t non-discrimination the basis for redefining marriage for homosexuals?

And just in case you thought there is no way a person engaging in incest and bestiality would ever admit it, much less demand legal recognition for their deviant sexual practices; consider a recent article at TheBlaze.com about a “sex weekend” workshop at Yale:

“A ‘Sex Weekend’ workshop at Yale University Saturday apparently encouraged an open discussion of incest, bestiality, prostitution, and consensual pain during intercourse.Event director Giuliana Berry ’14 told Campus Reform in an interview on Monday that the workshop was brought to campus to teach students not to automatically judge people who may have engaged in these sorts of activities, but rather to respond with ‘understanding’ and ‘compassion.’”

Somehow I doubt the compassion and understanding sought by Yale involves understanding that these people have a sexual sickness and compassionately helping them seek counseling. But this is how those seeking to destroy marriage and family work. They first seek “compassion” and “understanding” – as they did with homosexuals – then they move to broad societal acceptance and finally legalization.

Same-sex “marriage” is not the end of this redefinition plan, it’s just the beginning. The end is a society that openly embraces every kind of immoral perversion as normal while punishing anyone who would dare object. The end is families made up of any random group of people regardless of what is best for children. The end is at the bottom where we can’t possibly fall any lower.


Nathan Cherry is the chief editor and blogger for the Engage Family Minute blog, the official blog of the FPCWV. He serves also as the Regional Development Coordinator as a liaison to the pastor’s of West Virginia. He is a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-religious freedom conservative. He is also a husband, father, pastor, author, musician, and follower of Jesus Christ.

IFI Featured Video
Citizens Taking a Stand Against IL School’s Bathroom Policies