Here’s why: Their support for these “marriages” will also justify support for polygamy, polyamory, bi-sexual multiple marriages and more — and their spouses will have the option to participate in those without their consent. The woman who supports “same-sex marriage” today may regret it when her husband brings home another woman — or another man — to legally share her home and finances.
Please read this post carefully so you’ll be able to show people how the pro-gay movement can have deep and personal impacts on them. This is not a “slippery slope” fallacy, it is a logical slippery slope (or, as I like to call it, a cliff argument), where the arguments for one position automatically support another position as well. And don’t say, “That can’t happen!,” because it is already getting mainstreamed.
The consequences are huge and have already manifested themselves in many places. Their agenda has and will continue to cost people their personal liberties, religious freedom and parental rights — and those are design features, not bugs.
There is a simple reason that the gay lobby focuses mostly on the “LG” (lesbian and gay) part of the LGBTQX alphabet soup: The reasoning of the rest of the acronym is harder to sell because of the logical consequences. But if they can get the first part affirmed and codified then it will be too late to backtrack to prevent the rest from taking place. Case in point: Have you noticed how they never talk about bisexuals and their “civil rights” to be able to marry at least one person of each sex? After all, all the same arguments for gays and lesbians should apply to them.
We have such obvious and sound arguments on our side. By nature and design, one man / one woman relationships produce the next generation and only those unions can provide a mother and a father to a child. Therefore, the government has an interest in those unions, because they form the foundation of society. We don’t even have to use religious arguments, though of course God’s ideal is one man / one woman marriages and homosexual behavior is a sin. The Bible could not be more clear.
But our arguments have often been ineffective. Why? Because the foundational lie of the gay lobby works so well. They combine a lie (“Agree with us and it will cost you nothing while helping others”) with the truth (“We will relentlessly harm you if you disagree”) and that is too much for many people to withstand. They have made it very easy for people to switch sides and repeat false sound bites (they were born that way, Jesus never said anything about it, it prevents bullying, it doesn’t hurt you, they love each other, we shouldn’t ban same-sex marriage, etc.). People are really good at rationalizing lies to seek pleasure and avoid pain.
So I encourage you to try this reasoning: Ask the other person if they’d mind if their spouse (current or future) decided to maintain their relationship and marry someone else of the opposite sex — or the same sex. Would that bother them? If so, why aren’t they living consistently — even just hypothetically! — with their own worldview? If they claim it wouldn’t bother them, ask if you can use your home polygraph test on them. The other person may lie to you and pretend that they wouldn’t care, but you will have given them something to think about. Later in the post I’ll show what that conversation could look like.
The argument takes the pro-gay reasoning to its logical conclusions and shows how most people will not like the possibilities. That should help them re-think their entire argument.
It starts by demonstrating the truth that marriage is something we describe, not define. As Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason has noted, marriage has always described something that existed: A union of a man and a woman. But if people think marriage is something we get to define, then anything goes. Sure, they pretend that they just want to define it as any two adults who love each other, etc. But why pull up the drawbridge there? If you choose to define it rather than describe it, then why can’t others define it their way?
Then it points out the logical conclusions: If marriage isn’t just a union of a man and a woman, then why can’t it involve three people? Why can’t it be polygamous? Why can’t a man have a wife and a husband in two separate but simultaneous marriages? Why can’t you marry your dog? As Koukl notes, when the other person says those are silly examples, you get to agree with them! Yes, they are silly — but they are your arguments, not mine. If your position is that we can define marriage how we like, these possibilities are open for others who are more “open minded” than you are.
Here’s how that conversation might look. Remember to be nice! This doesn’t have to be combative. You aren’t trying to grind them into a fine powder, you want them to see where their worldview is taking them. Oh, and you want to work the Gospel in wherever you can.
Christian: So what do you think of this “same-sex marriage” and adoptions by gay people?
Pro-gay person: I’m all for it. Hey, they love each other and that’s what it is all about. You have a civil right to marry who you like. It doesn’t hurt me or my marriage. And the Bible never said it is wrong.
And gay people adopting is fine. Kids need love from anyone. It doesn’t have to be a male and a female.
C: Actually, the Bible couldn’t be more clear, and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people agree that it considers homosexual behavior sinful. We can come back to that if you like.
So do you think marriage is something you define or describe? I mean, is marriage a thing that exists and then we describe it, or is it just a word that we can change the definition of?
P: I think we can redefine it. It used to be that interracial marriage was forbidden.
C: But the definition was the same: A union of a man and a woman. So if you can redefine it, I assume you are OK with polygamy, polyamory (group marriage), polyandry (multiple husbands), one or more spouse of each sex, marriages to animals, etc.?
P: Oh, don’t be silly.
C: I agree that those are silly, but they are your arguments, not mine. If marriage is something you define, then who are you to say others can’t define it their way? All the same things apply: It is the same love, they were born that way, Jesus never said anything about them, etc.
P: But those things won’t happen.
C: They can and they will. The polygamy and pedophilia movements are already latching onto the gay agenda gains and using the same reasoning. ABC just ran a fluff piece on polygamy and The Atlantic is advocating for polyamory. This is how they change the culture to accept what used to be unthinkable. Who would have predicted 10-15 years ago where we’d be now with “same-sex marriage?” Who would have thought that Christian bakers could lose their businesses for not baking cakes for same-sex “weddings?”
So why are you pulling up the drawbridge on these other people who want to live out the way they were born? How do their loving relationships hurt you? If a bisexual was born that way, how can you deny him the fulfillment of marrying a man and a woman?
And who says that you can only love one person? Why can’t a man or a woman have two or more spouses of any gender?
Real feminists should hate where this is headed. Women will devote their youth to raising kids, only to have their husband be able to bring another partner into the household.
P: Well, I guess . . .
C: You are married with kids, right?
P: Yes, I’ve been married to my husband for 12 years and we have 2 kids.
C: OK, so consider this: Your husband comes home and tells you he loves you and wants to stay married to you, but he has always been attracted to men as well. And there is a man he really loves. So for him to be complete he is also going to marry him. His “husband” will live in your house with you and your kids and they will have sex together.
P: That’s ridiculous.
C: But it could happen, right? Lots of men have abandoned families for gay lovers and women have left for lesbian relationships. Episcopalian “Bishop” Gene Robinson is a Leftist hero for leaving his wife and kids for his gay lover. Why shouldn’t these guys stay married and just add on?
Again, I’m using your born that way / same love / etc. logic.
So what would you do in that situation?
P: But our vows were to “forsake all others.”
C: Uh, sorry, but are you not familiar with no-fault divorce? Wedding vows used to be like a real contract where you couldn’t unilaterally abandon your obligation. But with no-fault divorce either party can leave for any reason. So with the political clout LGBTQ people have things like this are inevitable.
P: Well, my husband would never do that.
C: Probably not, but if he had wanted to he probably wouldn’t have told you until society and your Left-leaning church decided that “same-sex marriage” was a civil right.
Again, what would you do? It is just a hypothetical based on taking your views to their logical conclusions, so please don’t be offended.
P: Well, I’d divorce him. Or I’d marry another husband!
C: And what makes you think another guy would want to be involved in that?! “Yeah, my husband married a guy that shares our bed now, so I want a second husband.”
Wouldn’t you want your husband to be happy and fulfilled and to be who he really is?
P: Not at my expense!
C: Indeed. So if you divorced him, do you realize that some Leftist judge would probably give him parental rights?
P: No way!
C: Way. Think about it: You and society have decided that it is illegal for adoption agencies to “discriminate” against gay couples. So they are “obviously” just as fit to parent your kids as a heterosexual couple. And there would be two of them — your husband and his lover — versus just one of you. And given how politically incorrect it would be to give custody to you, the judge would almost certainly side with them.
So the logical conclusion of your worldview would be you — or someone else — either living with your spouse and his new spouse (man or woman) and you would have no legal control over it.
P: I still don’t think that would happen.
C: It will, because the logic is already in place once you grant civil rights to sexual preferences — whether allegedly inborn or not.
Let’s try another example: Regular polygamy. I picked the “bisexual polygamy” first because, oddly enough, they are ahead of the regular polygamists in getting civil rights for their sexual preferences. But how can you argue against polygamy at all? At least those relationships fit the original definition of marriage — that is, one man and one woman. By nature and design they could produce children and provide a mother and a father to them. They “just” involved more than one of those relationships.
P: But polygamy is wrong! [Note: The Leftists may not even think it is wrong, but I assumed so in this case to make it harder to convince them.]
C: We agree, but you’ve already made the case for them: They love each other (“same love!”), they were born that way, etc. They can even claim that there are more parents around to love the kids. So your support of government recognition of same-sex unions unwittingly made the case for polygamy.
So here’s another hypothetical: What if your husband decides he’d like a younger wife but doesn’t want the costly divorce? He’ll be able to marry someone whether you like it or not and bring her into your house. She would share in all you have built up over the years and actually live with you. Think of the guys who dump their spouses for “trophy wives.” Polygamy may be much simpler and cheaper for them.
P: My husband would never do that!
C: But if society tells him it is OK, he might change his mind. Remember how much people are influenced by the “if it is legal then it must be moral” line of thinking. Even Planned Parenthood said this about abortion in a 1964 advertisement: “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.” Just years later half the population thought that abortion was an inalienable right and a completely moral solution. So give it a decade or two and it may seem natural for your husband to consider a younger model.
And even though the Bible clearly teaches that God’s ideal is one man / one woman marriages for life, it is a thousand times easier to twist the Bible to support polygamy than it is to support “same-sex marriage.”
And even if your husband wouldn’t do that, what about all the other women and children impacted by it?
Now don’t feel like you have to answer me now, or at all, but I encourage you to think carefully about these things and see if perhaps you should reconsider your views. If you think I’ve stated something incorrectly or illogically, please let me know. But I firmly believe that those are all logical consequences of assigning civil rights to sexual preferences. Even if gays were born that way, there are no good reasons for the government to get involved in their relationships and there are many bad things that will inevitably happen — if not to you, then to others.
And please remember what the word of God says about this:
- 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
- 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
- 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
- 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind.
God created this world and knows exactly how it works. Living in denial of that reality is always a recipe for pain. The Good News is that all sins can be forgiven through repenting and trusting in Jesus.
Conclusion: I encourage you to try this reasoning with people who hold pro-LGBTQ views. I think it is a provocative way to get them to quit spouting fallacious sound bites and to think more carefully about the logical conclusions of their views. Yes, it is an emotional argument, but one grounded in facts and logic. The Left falsely uses emotional arguments, but there is nothing wrong with use using them properly.
By the way, if you a conservative using this on a Left-leaning spouse, be sure to tell them these are hypothetical situations! You don’t want them to freak out too badly.