When LGBT activist, and U.S State Department guest speaker, Masha Gessen was asked about the issue of marriage, she did not mince words. The activist made it clear that she believes homosexuals should have the right to marry, that’s not really shocking, or new. But it’s what she said after that that is notable and revealing.

Gessen further clarified that she doesn’t believe marriage should exist at all. Here’s her comment:

“I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.”

Why does this matter? Does it matter at all? Don’t be absurd, of course it matters.

At one time sexuality was held within the moral confines of one man one woman marriage. This doesn’t mean that every person adhered to this confine, but it was nonetheless an established, accepted norm for sexual activity. Furthermore, those who abandoned these boundaries were viewed as guilty of…immorality. So the moral boundary of sexual activity carried with it a price for anyone that chose to treat across the boundary.

But a major goal of the LGBT movement and progressive ideology is to eliminate all such boundaries. If sexual boundaries can be eliminated then the sky is the limit in determining what behavior is acceptable. To this end the “hook-up” culture was created and normalized among American youth. The effectiveness is obvious.

By removing the moral boundaries to sexual activity it was easier to create case for marriage redefinition. Whereas once upon a time a central argument to traditional marriage was sexual expression, activists seeking to redefine marriage dismiss such arguments in light of an “everyone’s doing it” culture.

This worked in their favor to further encourage marriage redefinition because if everyone’s having casual sex and it’s “no big deal”, and marriage is not necessary for sexual expression, then what’s the point in refusing to allow anyone to be married? The end game is to eliminate any boundaries associated with sexual activity in order to reduce it to civil right status so that no one can be denied anything that is related to their sexuality.

Where does such an ideology lead?

Inevitably it will lead to normalizing alternate forms of sexual expression that have previously been considered taboo, wrong, or immoral.

Already we’ve watched as homosexuality has been trumpeted from every tower and height in society as normal. Every time a prominent person announces to the world that he or she is gay they are lauded as “courageous,” or “brave.” This confuses me because if, as LGBT activists say, sexuality is inherent and biological, how is it courageous or brave to express it? But I digress.

As many traditional marriage supporters warned, with the normalization of homosexuality comes the normalization of polygamy, polyamory, and more. Those warning went unheeded or even ridiculed by progressive activists that cared more about their socio-political agenda than the actual foundations of our society. Now they are forced to admit that our warnings were correct as polygamists and polyamorists begin seeking legal protection for their “sexual orientation” and preference.

The natural spiral downward leads to dark corners of human behavior that are hard to think about and grotesque to realize are reality. If homosexuality, polygamy, and polyamory are normalized then what will soon follow is the normalization of pedophilia.

If two men can determine to have sex together, and two women with one man, or three men and two women, then why can’t an adult and a child?

The clever deceptiveness of removing the moral boundaries to sexual activity is that it removes all the boundaries, all the morality, and all the guidelines. If one alternate form of sexuality and sexual expression can be justified there becomes no solid ground against refusing to recognize and legalize them all.

If you are unconvinced that efforts to normalize pedophilia are currently taking place, consider remarks made at an event held at The University of Cambridge last year called “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis.” The title of the event should be enough to disturb anyone. Nonetheless the content is worse. One comment is highly disturbing:

“Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males. At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Apparently I am not a normal male.

To think that some people believe being sexually aroused by children is normal and healthy is beyond disturbing; it’s enough to make any parent buy a gun and install ADT at their house. Unfortunately there is a growing movement to encourage everyone to affirm and support this “sexual orientation” as normal.

This is the natural outgrowth of the sexual revolution that led to the normalization of homosexuality. The goal was never to seek “equal rights” for gays. The goal was to remove any and all moral boundaries to sexual activity in order to pave the way for the acceptance of all sexual activity.

Many warnings were given regarding the normalization of homosexuality and redefining marriage. Whether the general public ignored those warnings or never heard them is still in question. Let’s hope the warnings continue.