Myth #1: Marriage is fundamentally a voluntary union of persons in a committed relationship

We tend to think of language as something posterior to thought. A thought comes into your mind and then you find the right words to express it. Anthropologists and neuroscientists are currently doing some fascinating work on the relationship between thought and speech and have discovered that things are a little more complicated. Speech does not merely proceed from our thoughts like a one-way street. Rather, researchers have been finding that there is also traffic flowing in the other direction: how we speak affects how we think about the world on a level that our conscious minds may never even be aware. As psychologist Lera Boroditsky put it in a Wall Street Journal article summarizing some of this research, “the structures in languages (without our knowledge or consent) shape the very thoughts we wish to express”.

There are fascinating examples of this from all over the world, but the phenomenon is just as evident close to home. In the last forty years, we’ve seen how the way people speak about unborn children (i.e., calling them “foetuses” or “lumps of tissue” instead of babies) has had an unconscious effect on how so many people think about the ethics of abortion. Or again, how we think about homosexuality has been enormously influenced by pairing homosexuality with words that already had a positive semantic range, such as gay. In David Kupelian book The Marketing of Evil, he showed that these and many other language shifts did not just happen, but arose out of a deliberate strategy for changing the way Westerners perceive certain key issues.

By introducing changes in how we speak, the media often changes how we think.

The same thing is now occurring in the debate over same-sex marriage. Almost without anyone taking notice, our society has begun to talk about marriage as a voluntary union of persons in a committed relationship, rather than a union of a man and a woman. Never before has marriage been spoken about in this way and the implications are profound. Because of how the brain works, this shift in how we talk about marriage has been attendant to a shift in how we think about marriage. Unconsciously we begin wondering: if marriage is really the union of persons in a committed and loving relationship, why shouldn’t gay people be allowed to participate in this institution?

As same-sex marriage was discussed in the public discourse of various English-speaking countries (first Canada, then Britain, and now America), it was almost universally taken for granted not simply that marriage ought to refer to the union of persons, but that the essence of marriage always has been the union of persons. As a result, less and less people, even among the Christian community, understand marriage to be intrinsically and inviolably heterosexual. Continue reading →

If there is anything defenders of gay ‘marriage’ hate, it is ‘slippery slope’ arguments. The notion that gay ‘marriage’ is objectionable because of where it could lead is an argument automatically presumed to be invalid and unworthy of serious consideration.

Not too long ago a friend and I were having a friendly debate about gay ‘marriage’ and I pointed out that as soon as gay ‘marriage’ is legalized, countless other perversions will follow in its wake. My friend looked over at me, and said with a smile, “You do know, don’t you, that it’s a fallacy to make slippery slope arguments?”

Well, I guess I never got the memo.

It is true that when defenders of traditional marriage used to warn about the dire consequences that would follow same-sex ‘marriages’, their arguments were rather speculative, sometimes wildly so. That is why I have never found it very useful to warn that same-sex ‘marriage’ will lead to people wanting to marry their bicycles or dogs.

Over the last few years, however, it has become unnecessary to make speculative slippery-slope arguments because we have already started down the slippery slope.

Gay Marriage is Just the Beginning

By surveying what has been happening in those nations that have already legalized gay ‘marriage’, we begin to get a picture of the slippery-slope the world has already started descending down. Consider only a few examples which might be easily multiplied:

• 

  After legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’, the Netherlands began giving legal recognition to ‘threesomes.’ The women Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) are both bisexual and have a sexual relationship with each other in addition to having a sexual relationship with their joint ‘husband’, the heterosexual Victor de Bruijn (46)

  On 1 April 2001, the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize same-sex ‘marriage’. Four years later, the country began giving legal recognition to ‘threesomes’.

• On 3 July 2005, Spain legalized same-sex ‘marriage’. The following year, heterosexual marriages were ‘modernized’ so that birth certificates could no longer have the names Mother and Faith, but ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B’.
•  Mexico City legalized same-sex ‘marriage’ on 21 December 2009. Two years later proposals were introduced to allow for fixed-term temporary marriages.
• Canada introduced gay ‘marriage’ on 20, July 20, 2005. Two years later the Attorney General of British Columbia considered legalizing polygamy. This has been followed by schools in Toronto promoting polygamy.

As more nations jump on the gay ‘marriage’ bandwagon, we should expect to see many other perversions introduced. Gay ‘marriage’ is just the beginning of a slippery slope towards sexual anarchy. (This does not even include the slippery slope towards totalitarianism, as gay ‘marriage’ leads to more and more freedoms being eroded. That is a different topic and one which I have addressed in my article ‘Will the Real Enemies of Liberty Please Stand up’ and ‘Gay Marriage Threatens Civil Liberties.’)

But why is this? Why does same-sex ‘marriage’ lead to these other perversions almost as night follows day? In order to properly answer this question, we must consider the logic behind same-sex ‘marriage.’

The Logic of Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

The campaign to change the definition of marriage revolves around certain principles which, once accepted, have wide ramifications in a host of other areas.

This became evident last year when the government of Britain released its consultation paper on same-sex ‘marriage.’ They continually presented the issue in terms of ‘equal access.’ In their simplistic and philosophically unsophisticated way, the issue was a straightforward question of fairness.

However, if we accept that the principle of equality means that same-sex couples should be entitled to the same rights as married couples (including the right to call their union a ‘marriage’), then in order to be logically consistent we would also have to say that a definition of marriage which includes both heterosexual and same-sex unions, yet excludes unions with animals or multiple partners, is also failing to provide equal protection under the law to someone or other. Indeed, if someone is bisexual, then in order for their sexuality to be fully expressed, their ‘marriage’ must include a minimum of at least one person from each sex. Thus, the argument that we should not discriminate based on sexual orientation, if carried to its logical conclusion, necessitates ‘threesomes’ at least.

The point is that any new definition of marriage the state may wish to impose on the public necessarily opens the door to an endless series of redefinitions in years to come. Unless the term ‘marriage’ is allowed to collapse into complete vacuity, it must include certain types of unions and exclude others. This is a point that most people accept, for most advocates of gay ‘marriage’ are still opposed to broadening the definition of marriage to include perversions such as polygamous unions, threesomes, bestiality or incestuous relationships. Nevertheless, it will become increasingly hard to argue against such exclusions once the logic behind calls for gay ‘marriage’ is accepted.

Remember, the main argument being used by the homosexual lobby is that of equal access. They are asserting that it is wrong in principle to exclude any two people from the institution of marriage if the two people love each other and desire to be married. As British MP Maria Miller said in her forward to the British government’s response to their consultation on same-sex ‘marriage’:

“Marriage is also an institution which has a history of continuous evolution…. So marriage in the 21st century is an inclusive, not exclusive, institution. It is available to all those over 16 who are prepared to make vows of life-long fidelity and commitment. Except, that is, if you happen to love someone of the same sex. This simply cannot be right.”

If Miss Miller’s logic isn’t an invitation to start down the slippery slope, then it’s hard to know what is. If marriage is to be a truly “inclusive” institution, then why choose 16 as an arbitrary age? Or again, if marriage is to be truly inclusive rather than exclusive, then is it really fair to limit marriage to a minimum of two people? If “love has no gender”, then why should it have a number? Or again, if the goal is to make marriage inclusive rather than exclusive, why are we not being consistent and calling for a removal of the ‘ban’ on brothers and sisters getting married?

Such questions, once dismissed as conservative scare-mongering, will soon be as much a part of the public debate as gay ‘marriage’ is now, for once you start down the slippery slope, it is hard to stop.

Doing the Family Thing

Another principle which is fundamental to advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ is that love creates the sufficient conditions for a marriage and a family, irrespective of gender. Essentially, it is the ethic of the Sesame Street song ‘Doing the Family Thing’:

Any group of people
Living together
And loving each other
Are doing the family thing…

It doesn’t really matter
Just who you’re living with
If there’s love you’re a family too…

A family can be
What it wants to be
‘Cause there’s all different leaves
On the family tree
And there’s all different types
Of families
Who are living together
And loving each other
Are doing the family thing
Doing the family thing
Doing the family
Doing the family thing

If love is all that makes a family, then where do you draw the line? Marcia Segelstein raised some disconcerting questions about this in her recent Salvo article, ‘Family Skewed: When the Needs of Children Are Secondary to the Desires of Adults, Guess Who Keeps Losing?’

But why stop at two? In 2007, a state superior court panel in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, ruled that a child can have three legal parents. The case involved two lesbians, both legal parents of two children who were conceived using a friend’s sperm. The panel determined that all three were liable for child support. All three were the child’s legal parents. There have been similar rulings in Canada, and this year the California legislature approved a bill allowing judges to declare more than two parents for some children there. While Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the bill, asking for time to consider all of its implications, activists have already promised to try again.

Speaking of more than two, the question of polygamy also looms. As the push for same-sex marriage continues, some legal analysts and other experts see polygamy as the next marriage battlefront. In a 2006 Newsweek article called Polygamists Unite!, one activist called polygamy “the next civil rights battle. . . . If Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy.”

From a legal point of view, it may be difficult to defend current laws against polygamy, given the success of the gay marriage movement….

Dr. Michelle Cretella, vice president of the American College of Pediatricians…describes yet another variation in the brave new world of family and parenting: the “bothies” movement. Similar to co-parenting, this configuration specifically involves a lesbian mom and a gay dad having a child together. The case of Bevan Dufty, a well-known gay rights activist, and lesbian Rebecca Goldfader made big news in San Francisco a few years ago when they decided to have a child together and share parental responsibilities. According to a story in the Bay Area Reporter, “both envision[ed] that their long-term partners would have parental roles and rights as well.” The piece went on to say that, according to the executive director of Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE), the group “has several member kids known as ‘bothies,’ meaning they have two gay dads and two gay moms. Some of those families began as four-way agreements.”

Further Reading

• Will the Real Enemies of Liberty Please Stand Up
• , ‘Family Skewed: When the Needs of Children Are Secondary to the Desires of Adults, Guess Who Keeps Losing?’
• Apples, Oranges & Gay Marriage, or the Name Game & Hidden Assumptions
• How gay ‘marriage’ became plausible

On April 21^st , an eighty-year-old Charles Colson passed from this life.

Alongside C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer, Colson will go down to history as one of the foremost apologists of the 20^th century.

The author of more than 30 books, he pursued a relentless schedule of traveling and speaking.

His Prison Fellowship Ministries helped to reach millions of prisoners with the gospel and to bring prison reform to the United States.

He built a program for training lay leaders in worldview thinking, called Centurions.

Through the Colson Center website, he sponsored and published research on how the Biblical worldview relates to everything from literature to food.

His BreakPoint radio commentaries have inspired millions of Christians to think more deeply about their faith and how it relates to current events.

He worked to bring reforms in the U.S. criminal justice system, as well as spearheading work in prisoner rehabilitation.

When Christians of the late 20^th and early 21^st century were becoming confused by postmodernism and the emergent church movement, Colson brought Biblical clarity.

In the 90’s, he teamed up with Richard John Neuhaus to spearhead ecumenical work between evangelicals and Catholics, culminating in a joint statement of faith titled, ‘Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission.’

In 2009 he was the principal writer and driving force behind another ecumenical statement, known as the Manhattan Declaration. This called on believers from the three main branches of Christendom not to comply with rules and laws permitting abortion, same-sex marriage and other matters that go against their consciences. Continue reading →

American women could be drafted into the military and forced to go into battle, according to what some lawmakers are saying.

In 1973 the United States discontinued the draft, moving to an all-volunteer military force. However, things could change if there is a showdown with Iran and the American military runs out of man-power. If there is another military draft, it is likely that the United States military would not merely be seeking man-power, but also woman-power.

This is a concern raised by Ron Paul in the last of the Republican debates. He expressed concern that, given the character of America’s wars, the government could conceivably find itself in a situation where they would have to call a draft and, given the push for equality, it is likely that a future draft would apply to women as well as men.

Already numerous politicians are arguing that women should be conscripted to military service in any future draft. For example, Senator Chris Dodd has commented, “I think if you’re going to have registration it ought to be across lines here. You don’t just ask one gender to bear the responsibility. So in my view that [drafting women into the military] would be the fair thing today.”

Former Senator Mike Gravel has argued similarly, stating, “Of course women should go into the draft if we have a draft. They should register also. What’s the difference?”

Because our society has been pushing the agenda of equality and androgyny for so long, it has become politically correct to deny that there is any difference between men and women. Hence, Senator Gravel’s comment, “What’s the difference?” However, there is a huge difference between drafting men for mandatory service and drafting women.

In our current voluntary system, the women who choose to become soldiers tend to already be those who possess the characteristics of strength and toughness. However, it would be wrong to expect all American women to put themselves in that situation, not least because this would violate the conscience of many Christian women who hold views about role differentiation.

Moreover, compulsory military service for females would also be unsafe, given that the God-given male instinct to protect women could easily lead to compromised battlefield scenarios. Given the fact that women who are captured in battle can be raped and sexually abused, common sense says that the pro-woman position is to protect them from the horrors of battle. However, this is one of those topsy turvy issues in which those who have the best interests of women in mind (and therefore to confine any future draft to males) are being accused of being anti-woman.