“Nothing will change” they told us. “Everything will remain the same” they insisted. “Legalising homosexual marriage will impact none of us” they promised. Baloney. It changes everything, just as I and others predicted. Indeed, we knew this was all part of a massive slippery slope that has no end.
Anything goes with the militant sexual tsunami engulfing the West. And now the push is on big time for polyamory – group love and group marriage. They want to both legalise it and fully normalise it. They already have all their key slogans:
“Love is love is love”
“Love has no limits”
“Love shared is love multiplied”
“Glamorous and polyamorous”
“Poly as hell and feelin’ swell”
“Too magnificent to be monogamous”
“Monogamy does not have a monopoly on love”
And of course we now even have a polyamory pride flag. Hmm, where have we seen all this before? Sound familiar? And leave it to groups like the APA to lead the way here in pushing all this. Check out this shocking report:
The American Psychological Association has established a task force on “consensual non-monogamy,” an effort they say is necessary in order to reduce “stigma” on persons who practice polyamory. “Finding love and/or sexual intimacy is a central part of most people’s life experience. However, the ability to engage in desired intimacy without social and medical stigmatization is not a liberty for all. This task force seeks to address the needs of people who practice consensual non-monogamy, including their intersecting marginalized identities,” the website for the task force of the APA’s Division 44 explains. The work of the task force, which is led by psychology Ph.D.’s who are based in California universities, promotes “awareness and inclusivity about consensual non-monogamy and diverse expressions of intimate relationships.”
Or as Cathy Ruse has put it, “Adulterers: The New Protected Sexual Minority”. She writes:
Just when you thought the American Psychological Association couldn’t get any more psychologically unbalanced, along comes their next task force. It’s for what they call “consensual non-monogamy.” The “Consensual Non-Monogamy Task Force” promotes the rights of people who engage in “diverse expressions of intimate relationships.” Like open relationships, swinging and “relationship anarchy.” Relationship anarchy is not defined. It sounds like a Moral Majority pejorative, circa 1981. But it is the APA’s phrase, and they like it. “Swinging” used to mean swapping spouses for the night. No one under 30 will remember that. Presumably these sex practices are psychologically healthy. The task force has deemed them to be “ethical.”
Hmm, didn’t some folks try to alert us to these developments long ago? Did no one see this coming? Actually, there were some folks seeking to spell out for us just what was coming. I and others have been warning about this for many years now. Fifteen years ago for example I was sounding the alarm about the promotion of poly perversion:
The very same arguments used for legalising same-sex marriage could be used to argue for any number of other sexual combinations. If marriage is no longer one man and one woman for life, then any number of alternatives seem to be possible. If homosexuals can argue that a loving committed relationship should qualify one for the institution of marriage, then other equally binding and loving unions should be recognised. What about a bisexual who really does love both a man and a woman, simultaneously? Can this threesome qualify? … The truth is, all boundaries are smashed when we redefine marriage.
And this is what I wrote about the matter eight years ago in my book Strained Relations:
In fact, polyamory (group marriage) has become a new cause, championed by both grassroots groups and academic supporters. A quick search of the Web will reveal just how popular the idea of polyamory is becoming. Family law reformers for example are increasingly promoting this new sexual cause.
And it is remarkable how the polyamory and polygamy advocates are simply latching on to and extending the very arguments made by advocates of same-sex marriage. They are rightly saying that if same-sex marriage is legalised, then certainly group marriage must be legalised as well.
They appeal to the very same arguments, logic, and past court decisions used by the homosexual activists. A brief look at their websites makes this quite clear. As just one example of many, a website called Pro-Polygamy has these words flashed across its home page: “Freely-consenting, adult, non-abusive, marriage-committed POLYGAMY is the next civil rights battle”.
In fact, as one commentator has noted, the “case for polygamy is in some ways stronger than the case for same-sex marriage”. She explains: “In contrast to same-sex marriage, there is historical and cultural precedent for it. Unlike same-sex marriage, polygamy provides a father and a mother (and then some) for children.”
Consider for example the “Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness”. The President of this group, Jasmine Walston, made this connection quite clear in 2004: “We’re where the gay rights movement was 30 years ago.” She sees the struggle for polyamory rights to be the logical extension of the homosexual rights struggle.
And the case for polyamory is being argued for all over the place, with plenty of academics, organisations and universities rushing to champion the cause. Indeed, you know it is becoming something of substance when a mainstream magazine like Newsweek devotes a major story to it.
Consider how one Australian university academic makes the case for polyamory in an article entitled, “Poly is the new gay”. She makes it clear that just as society has welcomed homosexuality and same-sex marriage, it is now time to welcome polyamory. This is how she puts it: “The more aware and accepting of diversity in relationships the more healthy our society is. . . . 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.”
And I was not alone in seeking to wake up a sleeping culture and a sleeping church. But clearly most of our warnings fell on deaf ears. We were mocked and vilified and laughed at – not only by the sexual revolutionaries, but even by many in the church. “You are just fear-mongering.” “This will never happen.” “You are just so negative and alarmist.”
Well, one does not want to always keep saying, “We told you so,” but, um, we told you so. We pleaded for years, hoping folks would wake up to the bottomless pit of the radical sexual revolution. Most folks ignored us, condemned us, or got angry at us.
Now it may be too late to turn things around. But hey, love is love!