By Luke Moon (Twitter: @lukemoon1)
There was an interesting article in the Washington Post last week about some polyamory activists in the Unitarian-Universalist Church. It seems the folks fighting for so-called “marriage equality” would prefer the polyamorists keep quiet. The last thing the same-sex marriage advocate want is for the real marriage activists to say, “I told you so.” The article cites a group called Unitarian-Universalist for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA). This group defines polyamory as the “practice of loving and relating intimately with more than one other person at a time.” Among the goals of the UUPA is to have their relationships blessed by a minister.
Lest you simply cast this off as those dastardly Conservatives using that slippery slope fallacy again or relegate the UUPA to the crazy fringe along with the lady who married a building or the guy who is “engaged” to Twilight Sparkle from My Little Pony, there are some pretty major cultural steps that have moved UUPA from fringe status to not-so-fringe status.
The biggest cultural marker is the creation of TV shows featuring polyamorous relationships. Whether it’s HBO’s Big Love, Showtime’s Polyamory: Married and Dating, or TLC’s Sister Wives these shows are making a cultural taboo seem like a new normal. Even Portlandia jokes about it here:
This transformation is an important step because Hollywood was been one of the biggest advocates for changing people perceptions about homosexuality. Numerous LGBT activists have described how the comedy show Will & Grace opened the door for the normalization of homosexuality. LGBT allies have since gone out of their way to inject gay characters wherever they could. Modern Family, The New Normal, and even the kid’s movie Paranorman have made sure to portray the LGBT person in the most positive light.
Not to be outdone by their colleagues in Hollywood, the liberal news media has also gone out of its way to “innocently” ask questions about polyamory. In 2009, Newsweek asked if Polygamy was the next sexual revolution (because the old sexual revolution was not destructive enough of society). The article features a life and times of a Seattle “triad” made up of one woman and two men. This seemingly happy “family” figured out how to overcome the “hard-wired” tendency towards jealousy through the process called “compersion”—or learning to find personal fulfillment in the emotional and sexual satisfaction of your partner, even if you’re not the one doing the satisfying.”
A third cultural marker would be the decriminalization of polyamory in states like Utah. Two women who form a polyamorous union similar to the TLC show Sister Wives have sued the State of Utah in Federal court claiming the law against polygamy in unconstitutional. Taking the talking points honed in the early days of the “gay rights” movement, Valerie Darger told Salt Lake City’s FOX 13, “They’re talking about my life. The thing that’s different about what we’re asking for is the right to exist and the right to be left alone.” While Valerie states she is not arguing for marriage, ten years ago, neither were the LGBT activists.
Now that the polyamorists have their TV shows, their media supporter, and their high profile court case is there any reason their brand of “family” should not be recognized by the state. What about the hospital visitation rights, the spousal benefits, the tax preferences? If one father and one mother married for life is not any better for raising children than two fathers or two mothers wouldn’t three or four better?
Once marriage is simply defined as a government recognized contractual agreement between two consenting people then there is no logical reason why it could not be a contract between three people or four people. This is not a slippery slope fallacy, but actually reality in places that have adopted same-sex marriage.
The future is bleak for Western Civilization if marriage is opened to any combination imaginable and heterosexual marriage is abandoned in pursuit of more toys and career goals. Nations that have adopted same-sex marriage have all seen their total marriage rates decline. Those nations have also seen their fertility rates decline. What is at stake here in the marriage debate is more than just who gets to claim the status of married, it is the very future of our nation. Let me put this as simply as possible: Without marriage there are no children, without children there is no future.