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

Wait a minute, you’re telling me that an unrestrained/undisciplined sexuality doesn’t always result in freedom and individuality and haaaaaappiness? Who knew? From the Telegraph:

Children and the culture of pornography: ‘Boys will ask you every day until you say yes’

The death of 13-year-old Chevonea Kendall-Bryan has driven the debate on the sexualisation of the young to fever pitch, but what will we do about it?

There is a storm coming. I can feel it as I stand on a street corner in south London, thinking about my daughters. Lily and Rose are both 11 years old. One is crazy about dogs, the other loves owls.

They are at that tender age when the hormones have begun to stir, and they could be stomping around the room like furious teenagers one minute but snuggling up for a cuddle the next.

The girls are fast approaching 13, the age that Chevonea Kendall-Bryan was when she leaned out of one of the windows on the fourth floor of a block of flats on this street. A boy she knew was down here on the ground, but this was not Romeo and Juliet. Far from it.

Of course when the government begins to draft our daughters for combat roles—and that day will certainly come—the children and grandchildren of the egalitarian elite will be the ones to get deferrals. Most of the men and women championing a woman’s right to choose combat have never served in the military and would certainly not want their own daughters to join the infantry. They are concerned only with choice and equality in the pristine abstract, rather than in the bloody, concrete world of warfare. What they favor is an equality in which our daughters get to join our sons in marching off to war. –First Things blog

And:

I am not aware of any comparable crusade to create gender-integrated football teams. At least America knows what’s really important. –National Review online

I couldn’t help but notice that one of the top stories on the inauguration today at a popular American news website was this:

Here’s the thing. HARDLY ANYBODY appreciates or sympathizes with Westboro Baptist Church’s ideology or methods. The fact that they are even called a “Church” or “Baptist” is very sad and not even accurate. But, unfortunately, this handful of people is there grabbing the headlines. The trouble is that it’s so easy for the less thoughtful or discerning (or intellectually honest) people to lump all religious types in with Westboro. It reminds me of David Klinghoffer’s blog post titled Why Richard Dawkins is Angry where he tweaks the old saying: If the members of Westboro Baptist Church didn’t exist, Richard Dawkins would have to invent them.

Yes, the entire case against the contemporary Christian religion, a faith of 2 billion self-described believers worldwide, is allowed to rest on the actions of a single tiny group of nuts, reviled by everyone else in their faith if they are known at all and comprising just 40 members in total. This is the kind of evidence that Dawkins thinks we should find compelling.

“The increasingly pervasive stereotype of gender neutrality often relies on bogus science combined with fanciful anthropology, both of which assert that there is no necessary connection between our gender identity (i.e., being feminine or masculine, together with many of the things this can entail within a given cultural context) and the fixities of our biological sex. This idea is enshrined in countless sociology, anthropology, and women’s studies courses at colleges and universities, where students are regularly taught that there is no necessary relation between one’s biological sex and one’s gender.”

From Unmaking a Difference Is Gender Neutrality the New Stereotype? by Robin Phillips