CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

That Slope Sure Is Getting Slippery

Aug 8, 2013

I have come to realise by now that the other side does not care about facts, evidence or data – they are simply interested in pushing their agenda. So I have stopped trying to reason with them. But for the majority in the middle who are not quite where they stand on various contentious social issues, I keep working to convince them that we are in some trouble here.

I refer of course especially to the homosexual juggernaut which continues to roll on, not just crushing everything in its path, but preparing the way for even more ghastly sexual-social experiments. They have opened wide the door, and all sorts of groups are merrily following in their footsteps.

I have documented this countless times already, but new examples arise almost every day. Be it the push for incest rights, or bestiality rights, or polyamory rights, or even paedophilia rights, I have written extensively about all these cases of the slippery slope in action.

My forthcoming book will feature many dozens of examples of each. Here I wish to add three more cases of the push for polygamy/polyamory. The three cases happen to come from North America, although plenty of other places could be mentioned here.

So let me begin in the US where a law professor is simply taking the logic of homosexual marriage to its natural conclusion. He sees no reason why things like incest and polygamy should be banned, now that we have opened the door to homosexual marriage. One article puts it this way:

“In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s two recent rulings validating gay marriage, a Boston College Law School professor has come out and admitted what gay marriage adversaries have long argued: incest and polygamy are just around the bend. ‘You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages?’ asks the professor, Kent Greenfield. ‘They’re right.’

“In a piece at the website of The American Prospect, the Catholic law school prof then goes on to challenge gay marriage supporters to differentiate totally acceptable gay and lesbian marriages from various forms of communal marriage and sibling love. ‘The left is in this bind in part because our arguments for expanding the marriage right to same-sex couples have been so compelling,’ Greenfield brags proudly. ‘Marriage, we’ve said, is about defining one’s own family and consecrating a union based on love. We’ve voiced these arguments in constitutional terms, using claims arising from the doctrines of ‘fundamental rights’ and equal protection.’

“After a discussion of the famous sodomy case, Lawrence v. Texas, which waxes poetically about the ‘right to define one’s own concept of existence,’ Greenfield then pops the question: under such a legal rubric, ‘why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well?’…

“The University of Chicago grad proceeds to gut five distinctions that could stop the slippery slope from gay marriage to incest and polygamy. He then advises his comrade intellectuals to ‘fess up’ and accept these relationships openly and honestly. ‘We can admit our arguments in favor of marriage equality inexorably lead us to a broader battle in favor of allowing people to define their marriages, and their families, by their own lights,’ he concludes.”

This guy is no dummy. He is a law prof, and he knows full well that the legal sanction of homosexual relationships must inexorably proceed to legal recognition of these other relationships. That is why so many other groups have been emboldened to push for their “rights”.

Consider a Canadian polyamory group which is eager to avail itself of what their homosexual buddies have already obtained. Says one news item: “A group of polyamorists say they want the same legal status as other relationships, following the group’s first national convention in Canada. Polyamory involves intimate relationships between three or more people at the same time.

“Canada redefined marriage in 2005 and saw a major legal case involving polygamy in 2011. The Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association intervened in the case and now says it wants to see polyamorous relationships treated on the same legal footing as others.

“The Association’s director, Zoe Duff, said she would like to see ‘households where our spouses are equal under the law, and moving forward in terms of pensions, and inheritances and property division’. The group defines polyamory as having ‘more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved’. The group say they ‘live all gender combinations’, and are ‘queer-friendly’.”

And our MSM is increasingly happy to run with their stories as well. It seems almost daily we have these human interest stories of all sorts of whacky and wild sexual combos which the media is keen to portray as perfectly normal and acceptable. Consider this recent story about “My two husbands”.

It begins: “My family is very ordinary to me. We eat dinner together. We gather in the living room and watch movies. Last weekend, we went on a camping trip and sat around the campfire making s’mores, the grown-ups enjoying a few beers while my 9-year-old daughter challenged us with endless rounds of ‘would you rather?’ It all feels so wonderfully mundane that sometimes I have to remind myself that most people view us as strange at best, depraved at worst.

“I’m polyamorous, which means I believe you can love multiple partners at the same time. I’m in a relationship with my husband of nearly 17 years, and my boyfriend, with whom I celebrated my second anniversary in May. (In polyamorous lingo, our relationship is known as a ‘V’; I’m the ‘hinge’ of the V and my two partners are the vertices.) People often say our lives sound complicated, but the truth is, we’re quite harmonious. We often joke that we’d make incredibly boring subjects for reality TV.”

Yep, oh so ho-hum and matter-of-fact. At least that is what this threesome and a morally numb media wants to suggest. But wait, there’s more: “When I learned about polyamorous relationships, I knew that’s what I wanted. My husband wasn’t so sure, though. It sounded fine for other people, but just not him. And it still seemed unrealistic to me, so I never pressed the issue.

“When I returned to school to finish my bachelor’s degree in my late 20s, I became friends with a man who changed my mind about all that. He believed in polyamory, too, and we had long conversations about it together: how it could work, how it was truly possible.

“One night, I sat down with my husband and spilled everything. I told him that being polyamorous was a part of who I am, and I asked if he would at least do some research and give it serious consideration before dismissing the idea. He understood that I never would have asked this if it hadn’t been extremely important. That conversation could have ended our marriage. But instead, our journey into non-monogamy began.

“One of the biggest hurdles in non-monogamy — probably the hurdle — is jealousy. My husband was an incredibly jealous person back then, but he began to question its usefulness and purpose. Jealousy is born from a fear of losing a partner; if you believe that love and intimacy can be shared, and are not diminished by sharing, then that fear loses a lot of its power. It was liberating for my husband to step outside of the box that saw everyone else as some kind of threat.”

Yes, if we can just get rid of jealousy and other out-dated moral suasions, we can all just swing. Learn how to repress those pesky moral constraints and just get on with, well, anything. And one more thing: all this must be legalised as well:

“When my daughter talks about same-sex marriage or polyamorous relationships, she always looks perplexed and says, ‘I don’t understand why anyone is angry about people being in love and not hurting anyone.’ And I long for a world where everyone is able to see it so simply.”

Yep, and why not? If we can gut marriage of its fundamental gender requirements, then we might as well slash and burn its fundamental requirements about number as well. In the postmodern world of sexual anarchy and revolution, anything goes.

And of course if you are resistant to group marriage then you are just a bigot, narrow-minded, and intolerant. Hey, come to think of it, I sure do love my dog – and she sure does love me. Time for some real marriage equality here. Stop the unjust speciesism and let’s let our love blossom.

dailycaller.com/2013/07/19/leftist-law-professor-admits-gay-marriage-likely-to-lead-to-legalized-incest-polygamy/
www.christian.org.uk/news/polyamorists-want-legal-recognition-in-canada/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+christianinstitute+%28The+Christian+Institute%29&utm_content=FaceBook
www.salon.com/2013/08/05/my_two_husbands/

[1435 words]

14 Responses to That Slope Sure Is Getting Slippery

  • Sad and a worrying trend. I know one day paedophilia will be seen as “normal” if this keeps up.

    Jo Deller

  • Hi Bill,
    This article is great, but I couldn’t help laughing at the thought of you, your wife and the dog!
    Laugh I may, but the world is starting to get to that stage of ridiculous and call it normal – what an absolute tragedy! I cry for the broken people who don’t know the encounter of REAL love in their lives.

    Jill Hatton

  • “in those days … everyone did what was right in their own eyes.”
    Judges 21:25 (NKJV)

    “…Ninevah … who cannot discern between their right hand and their left”
    Jonah 4:11 (NKJV)

    that seems to sum it all up.

    Jeremy Hopwood
    A.C.T

  • Is it bad that I’m not the least bit shocked by this article, Bill?

    Ross McPhee

  • Thanks Ross

    As things get more and more evil, I am afraid we are all getting a bit desensitised! It is indeed, shocking, but no longer unexpected unfortunately.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • “In polyamorous lingo our relationship is known as a V.” Unfortunate choice of lingo. The V-sign is more commonly known as an insulting hand gesture made with palm facing inward, depicting a woman’s legs.

    You can’t share around sexual intimacy with others and not lose your self-respect; and if you feel no jealously or threat in such a situation then what is the point of it? It is robotic polylust. A woman cheapens herself and will become known as easy meat. As with cause and effect, the repercussions of such a life style will hit sooner or later.

    Rachel Smith, UK

  • Hi Bill

    In order to create change people need to know the truth. The Media of today are like the prophets of Israel. When they whitewash over the problems we face then the problems aren’t resolved on time.

    To cause a revolution we need to either take over the media or run in competition to it. Since the first is not likely to happen the solution is to make a new news source.

    What the homosexual movement wants is love and acceptance. While we are wiling to show love, acceptance of sin is another matter. There are three things that we need to show.

    1. How dangerous homosexual sex is and how homosexual lobby is trying to preventing people from leaving homosexuality and is being dishonest about the risks.

    2. How some homosexuals targeting kids like in the story “two dads are better than one” (thanks for showing us that) and through education (schools).

    3. The Intolerance of ex-gays and Christians. Ex-gays would need to come out of the closet.

    In order to create change we need a plan. Could you put a game plan in your next book. Maybe we could put teams together, made with doctors, counsellors, ex-gays and support people. After all Kirk and Masden had a plan to make us accept homosexuality as normal in the book “after the ball”. If we don’t have a plan, I don’t think we will succeed.

    We also need to show our enemy is not the people but power behind the homosexual movement. If someone can’t quit the first time we need to tell them not to give up. After all not everyone quits smoking the first time round.

    I hope this encourages you. Thank you for the first book.

    John McAllister

  • Where are leaders, teachers, preachers, parents as role models? One man with one wife for LIFE!

    Judith Bond

  • Hello Bill !
    Your article made me realize what a confused world we live in.
    To counter such confusion about Christian marriage, I would like to see all Christian people throughout Australia openly defy the trend towards so-called same sex “marriage” by wearing a distinctive and easily-identifiable badge or ribbon which promotes the Christian ideal.
    In addition, lets get all of Australia’s Christian churches to meet together to re-affirm and promote Christ’s teaching on marriage.

    If in doing all this we openly defy the legal and social trends currently gathering momentum in Australia, and moreover, expose ourselves to breaking the law, copping huge fines, being openly ridiculed and even going to jail, then so be it and count me in !

    John Ferwerda

  • “I don’t understand why anyone is angry about people being in love and not hurting anyone.”

    Oh the innocence of the psychologically abused young. My poor dear child, it is not about this at all.

    Graham Jose

  • I live a very sheltered life. I was in Amsterdam last week end was blown away, the homosexuals were in full party mood; flags, balloons and banners were everywhere. What disturbed me most was a giant homosexual flag hanging from a church’s belfry and covering most of the side facing the canal.

    Des Morris

  • The Netherlands was once a country of strong religious conviction but now it’s one of the most secular in Europe.

    Jo Deller

  • Sure, it can be all peachy for a while being the hinge of the V, but wait until she is the outside point of a W.
    And she certainly has the definition of jealousy wrong. Godly jealousy is concerned will the fullness of benefit to the loved person, making sure they don’t end up with second best.
    But it just typical of the selfish world we live in. The other bad thing about is that when we do experience grief because something ungodly has happened to us, we have to “suck it up”, because we can’t admit it in a world where everything goes, so we shouldn’t have a problem with it, but we do. I feel sorry for the poor husband who out of a muddled understanding of love puts up with it in order not to lose her. What a sad mess.
    For the lack of knowledge and the lack of vision my people perish.
    We need once again the witness of stable, happy and strong marriages that can withstand the tempests because of their faith in God and their faithfulness to each other. That woman’s daughter might escape the anguish of sexual abuse, I pray for her sake she will, but many others will not due to such wicked ideas, because the fruit of these things can not and has not been hidden.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  • I recall that in the early seventies a few gay activists were pushing for paedophile rights in the form of defending man-boy “love”. These were radicals and may not have been representative of the entire gay activist movement. Wouldn’t surprise me if that sort of advocacy re-emerges. As for polyamory, about twenty years ago the journal “Humanist in Canada” published an article promoting a three way homosexual-heterosexual relationship that was supposed to be “working”. I think the author was a school teacher who had not met the persons involved but took their word for it. I have seen Humanists refer to themselves as being at the cutting edge of moral progress and as favouring “rational ethics”. Yet here was an advocacy article on morals and marriage going on mere hearsay. Also in those days I came across a Humanist anthology of essays on sex and morality that had an essay dealing with an encounter between an academic couple and their dog. I kid you not. There was no mention that they surely needed a psychiatrist. The Humanist Francis Bennion wrote a book on Humanist “ëthics”. He was I believe assisted by a homosexual researcher.
    Daryl Snowden

Leave a Reply