Don’t you just love it when the other side makes your case for you? I sure do. The other side always seeks to shoot you down when you spill the beans about what they are up to. But when people from their own side spill the beans, that is sweet.
But still, I know I will have critics who will simply shoot the messenger here. They will ignore everything that has been said – by someone from their own side – and they will instead simply launch personal attacks on myself for daring to even draw your attention to all this.
So what am I referring to here? Group love, that’s what. It is now all the rage, and the polyamorists are so very emboldened and pleased with the way things are progressing. They especially love the fact that all the groundwork has already been prepared for them. They really don’t have to do a thing.
Indeed, the push to normalise homosexuality and legalise same-sex marriage has been just what the doctor ordered. All the arguments have been made, and all the social softening up has occurred. They can now just traipse in on the coattails of the homosexual lobby, and easily demand equal treatment.
The reason for this is quite simple: the argument for same-sex marriage is the argument for group marriage. Exactly the same. Same “logic,” same rationale, same shouts of discrimination, same sob stories – the same baloney in other words.
Once we argue that the unhealthy sex acts between two men are on a par with opposite gender sex, then the argument for any other type of sex is much easier to make. And once we destroy the fundamental nature and definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, then any similar demand will be impossible to resist.
So who is making this case? A long standing social activist and academic who for decades now has been telling us that family means anything you want it to mean. And the institution which was happy to give her a free run with all this? A leading Melbourne university, no less.
I refer to Linda Kirkman of LaTrobe University, which just recently published her case for group love. Linda and her sister Maggie have been at the cutting edge of radical social change here in Australia for quite some time now. In 1988 Linda carried Maggie’s baby as Australia’s first IVF surrogate mother.
So no real surprises here. The sexual liberationists who seek to break sexual taboos and rubbish sexual restrictions will always find new causes to champion. Group “love” is just the next logical cause to rally around. Just consider how this academic justifies all this sexual anarchy:
“The more aware and accepting of diversity in relationships the more healthy our society is.”
“Adaptability to social change makes us more resilient and healthy as a society. Discrimination and stigma based on sexual orientation or family type diminishes us.”
“I look forward to a society where any loving family, irrespective of how many people it includes or what sex they are, feels safe to be open about who they are.”
There you have it folks. Thanks so much for that. Those into paedophilia, incest, bestiality and necrophilia would all wildly concur. They too are in the wings, waiting for their demands to be heard. And their case is so nicely being made by these academics. The same appalling arguments, the same loony logic, the same foolish appeal to “rights” and “diversity” and “tolerance”.
Fortunately, there have been plenty of great intellects over the centuries who have rightly scoffed at this ludicrous notion that healthy societies can continue while allowing complete laissez faire when it comes to sexuality. Consider a few such thinkers:
Noted political philosopher J. Budziszewski, said in his important 1999 volume, The Revenge of Conscience:
“Consider just the domain of sexual practice. First we were to approve sex before marriage, then without marriage, now against marriage. First with one, then with a series, now with a crowd. First with the other sex, then with the same. First between adults, then between children, then between adults and children. As sin passes through its stages from temptation to tolerance to approval, its name is first euphemised, then avoided, then forgotten. A colleague tells me that some of his fellow scholars call child molestation ‘intergenerational intimacy’. That’s euphemism. A good- hearted editor tried to talk me out of using the term ‘sodomy’: that’s avoidance. My students don’t know the meaning of the word ‘fornication’ at all: that’s forgetfulness.”
Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin wrote in 1956, “This sex revolution is as important as the most dramatic political or economic upheaval. It is changing the lives of men and women more radically than any other revolution of our time. . . . Any considerable change in marriage behavior, any increase in sexual promiscuity and sexual relations, is pregnant with momentous consequences. A sex revolution drastically affects the lives of millions, deeply disturbs the community, and decisively influences the future of society.”
J D Unwin of Cambridge University has argued that marriage is seen as the crucial element in the development and maintenance of healthy societies: “The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilised unless it has been completely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs. Marriage as a life-long association has been an attendant circumstance of all human achievement, and its adoption has preceded all manifestations of social energy. . . . Indissoluble monogamy must be regarded as the mainspring of all social activity, a necessary condition of human development.”
Will and Ariel Durant, writing in The Lessons of History (1968) put it this way: “The sex drive in the young is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a hundred restraints if it is not to consume in chaos both the individual and the group.”
Or as G.K. Chesterton once reminded us, “A society that claims to be civilized and yet allows the sex instinct free-play is inoculating itself with a virus of corruption which sooner or later will destroy it. It is only a question of time.”
For years now I have been warning that once we legalise same-sex marriage, the next inevitable step will be polyamory, and/or group marriage. I am always decried and dismissed as a nutter for daring to state the obvious. OK, so ignore everything I have ever said on the subject. But what are we going to do about what I have cited here? And bear in mind that there are hordes of other academics and sexperts who are calling for these very things.
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2010/opinion/poly-is-the-new-gay
[1121 words]