I’ve made this statement countless times and will continue to repeat it: If the government redefines marriage for homosexuals it will have to continue redefining marriage for other groups or be guilty of the same discrimination it now accuses traditional marriage supporters of.

Come to terms with the reality of its truth. The government cannot simply redefine marriage one time for homosexuals and then say, “There, now everyone’s happy.” Polygamists and polyamory advocates will be the first to stand up and say, “No, we’re not happy at all.” They will then begin an even greater push – because they are already pushing to some degree – for their relationships to be legally recognized.

On what ground would the government then have to deny them the right to “marry” and gain legal status? The moral ground? Please, they will have surrendered that ground along with the traditional definition of marriage. Besides, what would possibly be the basis for the government’s “moral ground”? If the definition of marriage is not inherently and morally tied to the traditional one man one woman definition, what possible moral objection could be raised against other “alternative lifestyles,” and “loving couples who just want to get married”?

None.

I am often criticized for even suggesting that polygamy and polyamory advocates are seeking legal recognition and that the government will indeed continue to redefine marriage. People respond with weak arguments about homosexuals being “born gay” while polygamy is a choice. Really? That’s your go-to response. How long do you think it will be before the APA decides monogamy “isn’t natural” and polygamy and polyamory are more suited to human behavior? The culture being created by GLSEN and Planned Parenthood through public school “sex-education” courses encourages a casual sex no strings attached philosophy. What do you think the natural result of this philosophy is?

Then there’s the lame argument that the government won’t continue to redefine marriage for polygamists and polyamorists because there is not public support for such a redefinition like there is for homosexuals. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so absurd. Does anyone remember wide public support for homosexual marriage twenty years ago? I seem to recall a nearly unified Congress passing DOMA because of overwhelming public support. Do I really need to amend my statement with an asterisk at the end stating “*in twenty or thirty years”?

Does it matter if marriage is further reduced and redefined now or twenty years from now? The damage will still be the same as we see the family weakened and the structure of our society collapse for lack of strong homes and families. Mona Charen replies to this argument with “That’s amusing.” She goes on to correct the error, stating:

“But, in point of fact, what does it prove? Merely that public opinion has changed. Twenty years ago, you’d have been hard-pressed to find a mother endorsing same-sex marriage for her child. Twenty years from now, it’s possible that some number of mothers will come to believe that if multiple partners are what is required for their child, that’s what they should have.”

Only a naïve individual with little attention to recent events could honestly say there is not currently a push to further reduce and redefine marriage to include polygamists and polyamorists. Here’s what a man involved in a “poly” relationship recently told CNN in an interview:

“We’re trying to promote the fact that everyone has a right to develop a relationship structure that works for them…We want to promote the idea that any relationship is valid as long as it is a choice made by consenting adults. In this regard, and as in most things, promoting public acceptance is the first step.”

“Everyone has a right to develop a relationship structure that works for them…” Really? So a structure that involves one night stands, flings, multiple partners, as long as that “works for me” it should be given the thumbs up by society? Is that the kind of “family” we want to model for our kids?

“Any relationship is valid as long as it is a choice made by consenting adults.” I see. So we are no longer a society that sees marriage as a sacred union for the benefit of children. Children don’t need a mother and father, as long as they have two or three “moms” and several “dads.” Why have any marriage structure at all? If all kids need is a plethora of concerned adults why not abolish the marriage structure entirely and shuttle kids off to boarding schools where any number of well-meaning adults will oversee their upbringing. This way the adults can play and have all the fun they want without those bothersome kids getting in the way.

Again Mona Charen hits the nail on the head:

“The great problem we face as a culture is not that many gays and lesbians will marry and raise families. It’s that in agreeing that children are okay without their fathers or mothers, we’ve undercut the ideal that society should do everything possible to support — the male/female married couple who raise the children they create. If two mothers are just as good for kids, then why not raise a child without a father? That is how marriage — already shaky — is further undermined.”

Critics can scoff all they want. The reality is that the government will not stop redefining marriage until there is nothing left. We will be a society decimated from the inside out by our own obsession with self-indulgence. If the meaning of marriage as one man and one woman is stripped we can be sure the definition of marriage will be hollow and empty.