The Trouble With Throuples is That Throuples Are Troublesome Things
Let me make a statement I have been making for several years:
If the government redefines marriage for homosexuals ti was necessarily have to continue redefining marriage for any other group or be guilty of the same “discrimination” it now accuses traditional marriage supporters of.
Try as they may to deny it, every advocate of marriage redefinition knows intuitively that if the arguments currently winning the day to legalize same-sex “marriage” are successful, they will also be successful for polygamists, polyamorists, and even pedophiles and bestiality advocates.
Ask yourself when is the last time you heard a same-sex “marriage” advocate standing up for the rights of polygamists and polyamorists? If their goal is based on “love” and “equality” then surely they would desire the same love and equality for every other minority group hiding in the shadows, right?
But you won’t see these groups standing together or hosting town hall meetings on bus tours across the states. Why? Simply because if every day America knew that redefining marriage for one group meant doing so for every other group the wheels of the political machine churning in favor of homosexuals would come to a screeching halt.
The truth is that though people might be able to accept homosexual behavior and even legalizing same-sex “marriage,” this campaign was never about LGBT rights or equality. The campaign currently under way is about destroying the gender binary and sexual complimentarity that has governed our society since it was founded. Increasingly was can see efforts to blur gender lines, examples such as Facebook’s 50-something gender choices, schools allowing students to choose what gender they want to be, and transgender people being given more rights are proof that gender and sexuality are under attack.
But when you’re in a war you don’t broadcast your strategy to the enemy. The enemy, supporters of traditional gender roles and sexuality, are being told that gay people just want the same rights to love and live that are afforded everyone else. While heart strings are being tugged by emotional narrative people forget that homosexuals have never been denied the freedom to love and live. People also forget that originally gay people simply wanted the decriminalization of homosexuality, and legal civil unions. No one talked about marriage or any of that “traditional” stuff because that was too old-fashioned for the forward thinking, progressive group. Nope, they just want to love and live and have their relationship legally recognized.
So people that were opposed to homosexual behavior gave in, and granted legal recognition of homosexual civil unions. After all, they were assured no one would be harmed or affected by such actions; and certainly no religious freedoms or conscience protections would be harmed.
Now we know the truth.
Now we know that this is a campaign to undermine and fundamentally alter one of our society’s most foundational beliefs: sexual complimentarity as the basis for one man one woman marriage resulting in procreation for the purpose of continuing the human race.
Consider a thought by highly respected professor and intellectual giant Robert P. George of Princeton:
“The story of a female throuple in Massachusetts (with a baby on the way) provides further confirmation, as if any were needed, of the proposition that ‘ideas have consequences.’ Once one has abandoned belief in marriage as a conjugal bond (with its central structuring norm of sexual complementarity) in favor of a concept of ‘marriage’ as a form of sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership (“love makes a family”), then what possible principle could be identified for a norm ‘restricting’ marriage to two-person partnerships, as opposed to polyamorous sexual ensembles of three or more persons?”
Yes, that’s the same thing I said to open this article, but Dr. George makes it sound so much…smarter!
The truth of the statement is undeniable. If we redefine marriage once we have to continue redefining it. If the arguments used by homosexuals as a rationale for same-sex “marriage” win the debate then there will be no logical argument preventing the further redefinition of marriage. What moral, logical, or reasonable argument could be offered to prevent polygamy or polyamory or “throuples” from being legally recognized if marriage is redefined for homosexuals?
It takes only a moment to realize all the arguments currently being used by homosexuals could just as easily be used by any other group to secure further marriage redefinition. Then what do we have? A society where the term marriage is essentially meaningless because the meaning has been expanded so broadly.
Mollie Hemingway reminded us of Vaclav Havel’s landmark essay in which he said “The post-totalitarian system demands conformity, uniformity, and discipline.” This is where we’re at as a society, as evidenced by what happened to Brenden Eich, Crystal Dixon, Elane Photography, and others. Hemingway noted:
“We also have a system that is demanding conformity, uniformity and discipline — it’s not just about marriage law, to be honest. It’s really about something much bigger — crushing the belief that the sexes are distinct in deep and meaningful ways that contribute to human flourishing. Obviously marriage law plays a role here — recent court rulings have asserted that the sexes are interchangeable when it comes to marriage. That’s only possible if they’re not distinct in deep and meaningful ways. But the push to change marriage laws is just one part of a larger project to change our understanding of sexual distinctions.”
The unvarnished truth is that this is much bigger than marriage laws and unfortunately too many people don’t realize that fact. The arguments have been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator – love, equality – which is a tool in the socialist, liberal, communist war chest to bring about totalitarian rule. When arguments for changing centuries of law and practice center around the lowest common denominators it is evident that the wrong questions are being asked and there is hidden danger being deliberately concealed. (Ryan T. Anderson answers some of the most frequently asked questions regarding marriage redefinition here.)
What I’m trying to underscore here is that this discussion and cultural battle is about more than equality and love. The discussion taking place in secret, the discussion driving this cultural battle, is about removing our cultural and biological understanding of gender and sexuality. People are being reduced to their lowest uniform value: worker, producer, reproducer, etc. The understanding of just how inherently valuable and intricate we are as people is disappearing in the wake of the battle to redefine marriage, redefine sexuality, and redefine gender. (This is how abortion advocates can justify sex-selective abortions and abortion for disabled children, as well as euthanasia for those who are no longer “productive” members of society.)
It’s time to change the discussion. It’s time to start talking about how valuable the distinctions between sexes really are. Politically correctness be damned we are uniquely created to be different as male and female and that difference and distinction should be celebrated, not shamed and erased. If the conversation doesn’t change soon there is a very real possibility that what makes us great as male and female will be lost in the wake of petty cultural battles. Once that happens, it really will be “A Brave New World.”