Last week I posted Sodom Redivivus 1. There I pointed out that homosexual marriage is impossible because marriage by definition is a relationship between a man and woman. For homosexuals to gain acceptance of same sex marriage, they must redefine marriage, but redefining terms does nothing to change the nature of a thing. Those who redefine marriage only engage in verbal shell games. But sanctioning homosexuality and homosexual marriage also starts us down a slippery slope of sexual perversion many ignore or fail to consider.
For years Christians have warned of the effects of whittling away traditional sexual mores in the name of freedom and “rights.” We warned that pornography, “shacking up,” no fault divorce, abortion, and other social phenomenon are all interconnected, and will lead toward greater and more severe social problems. We were dismissed as prudes and reactionaries. As predicted, legitimizing the old taboos led to skyrocketing crime rates, drop out rates, divorce rates, child abuse rates, out of wedlock birth rates, poverty rates, and STD rates. We didn’t argue from pure pragmatism. The new morality is not bad because it leads to bad results. Rather, the bad results occurred because the new morality is bad.
We now warn that if homosexuals are given the right to “marry,” this will lead to unprecedented sexual license. We also warn if we redefine marriage to include same sex couples, there is no logical reason to forbid marriage to any other group who demands it. If we say homosexual sex is acceptable, and homosexuals even have the right to marry, what’s to keep us from legitimizing polygamy, pedophilia, incest, or “zoophilia,” (sex with animals, aka bestiality), and legitimizing marriage in those relationships too?
I’ve advanced this argument and been rejected as intolerant and bigoted. “How dare you compare homosexuality to zoophilia? How can you compare a homosexual relationship to Jerry Sandusky’s activities?” The problem with that retort is obvious. Not only do they seek to put the inquirer on the defensive with loaded and ill defined terms like “intolerance,” “bigotry,” and “homophobia,” they address the wrong question. The question is not “Why am I making the comparison between homosexuality and zoophilia, pedophilia, and other sexual perversions?” The question is “What will we say to zoophiles and pedophiles who make the comparison?”
Such comparisons are indeed being made. In a July 20, 2011 New York Times essay, Attorney Jonathan Turley argues that since the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional laws criminalizing homosexuality, then there is no reason to forbid polygamy.
Zoophiles in the U.S. and Germany justify bestiality employing the same arguments homosexuals use to justify sodomy and homosexual marriage. In the articles “love,” “rights,” “discrimination,” “mutual consent,” “we can’t help who we are,” etc., are all stated or implied. This adds a whole new dimension to bringing home the boyfriend or girlfriend “to meet the parents.”
The Swiss legislature recently introduced legislation to decriminalize consensual incest. Attorney Matthew Galluzo cites the Swiss move to defend his client, Columbia political science professor David Epstein, who is charged with having a consensual incestuous affair with his 24 year old daughter. Furthermore he argues if homosexuality is acceptable, why not incest?
In January of this year, The Guardian (UK) posted an article, citing rising sympathy for pedophilia among researchers in Canada and the UK who use the same arguments offered by – well, you get the picture.*
I didn’t do any research to see if anyone was clamoring for the right to necrophilia, but if I were a betting man I’d bet $10,000 that somewhere a Phd. in psychology…
All this shows that slippery slopes, though not logically necessary are often practically inevitable. There is no logical reason to prohibit polygamy, bestiality, incest and pedophilia once we legitimize any other aberrant sexual behavior and redefine marriage to accommodate it. And this does not stop with redefining marriage, but will inevitably lead to redefining other terms, and sanctioning a Pandora’s box of odd social relationships. If one marries his Collie, then a dog is now a “wife.” Will it be murder if he kills it? Will it be murder if it kills him? If he catches his Collie consummating a relationship with the neighbors Black Lab, can he divorce it for “infidelity?” If the Collie has the Black Lab’s puppies, can the Black Lab be forced to pay child support? If the man has children from a previous marriage, will the Collie get custody should he die?
You may be thinking, “Don’t be stupid,” or “None of this will ever happen.” That’s what was said to those in my parents and grandparents day who warned against legitimizing homosexuality. Now our society not only sanctions homosexuality, but passes laws providing for homosexual marriage, and vilifies as “haters” and “homophobes” those who stand in opposition. Support for incest, bestiality, and pedophilia is in the same place now that support for homosexuality was in the 1960’s. Why is it unthinkable that we will one day sanction them? Besides, in the Massachusetts school system, students can now announce what sex they identify with (on very broad and ill defined criteria) so that a boy can simply say he is a girl, and vice versa.** The school system must respect that self identification. A woman choosing to abort her child is within her rights, but should she be attacked on the way to the abortion clinic resulting in the death of the unborn, the assailant can be charged with murder. Can a society so confused and schizophrenic in its thinking be expected to not descend down the above slippery slope, no matter how farfetched?
Personally I think those who claim my reasoning is ludicrous actually agree with me, but cannot admit it publicly. What would happen to their cause if they did? To get what they want, they must put a happy face on their condition and deny any negative ramifications of their position. How much gasoline would an oil company sell if it admitted their fuel lowers mileage, destroys engine parts, emits twice the pollution, and causes cancer? To sell any product or idea, the salesman must convince us his product is good, and/or that prohibiting his product is evil. Thus the debate is framed as “loving” homosexuals being denied their “rights” by “bigots.”
Furthermore, the push by homosexuals for marriage equality is in reality a rebellion against God. When God made man in His image, He made them “male and female” and instituted the marriage bond. Thus the male female complimentarian relationship is one aspect of the imago dei (to affirm that would be death to the entire homosexual case for same sex marriage). Thus homosexuality and homosexual marriage are attacks on God’s image in man.
The journey down the above mentioned slippery slope would further attack that image. Zoophilia for example lowers man to the status of animals, denying man’s special status as the pinnacle of creation, and undermining the dominion aspect of the imago dei. Naturalism lowers man’s ontological status to the level of animal; zoophiles take that to its practical conclusion.
What is unthinkable now becomes plausible tomorrow; what is plausible tomorrow becomes acceptable the next day; what becomes acceptable the next day becomes a “right” the day after that; what becomes a right the day after that is legally protected the next day. Thus in the not so far off future, should a Jerry Sandusky want to marry your 12 year old son, he may very well be “celebrated” for pursuing “love” and “rights.” And the guy calling a kangaroo his wife will be legally protected from “hate” and “zoophobia.” Perhaps we should think about this a little before we legitimize homosexual “marriage.”
________________________
* In this article, researchers debate the rightness or wrongness of pedophilia based on pragmatic concerns. Essentially the argument is “Is pedophilia wrong if there is no research to show it has lasting detrimental effects?”
** Read carefully the criteria for determining the validity of one’s claim of gender identity under “Understanding Gender Identity,” pp. 3-5. The language is so vague and the loopholes so large, one could drive a bus full of lawyers through them. For all practical purposes, one could change their sexual “identity” virtually any time for virtually any reason.
