The Slippery Slope (Pt. 1): Homosexuality to Polygamy
Due to the work of Peter Stokes and his merry band at Saltshakers, I became aware of a debate that is beginning regarding the “Slippery Slope!” As most are aware, Australia is in the throes of debating the issue and legitimacy of homosexual marriage. This has led some, in particular the social commentator Andrew Bolt, to question where we may end up if homosexual marriage is passed into law. Once we step upon the Slippery Slope, what will be our terminus? Typically, those who disagree with the rightly concerned come forth with the classic, hackneyed drivel and proceed to label their opponents as “scaremongers”, “panic merchants”, “the ill-informed”, and a number of less flattering terms. As I was well ‘edumacated’ in playground politics, I know that sticks and stones may do a little damage, but names are of no consequence. In point of fact, life has taught me that when your opponent must resort to name-calling, he no longer has anything legitimate to say. Thus, we must not be distracted from the question by name-calling and labelling.
Our priority must be to address the concerns raised. Will the acceptance of homosexual marriage lead to polygamy? The very real and simple answer to this specific question is: We must wait and see! The more categorical answer is: Be absolutely convinced that this change of legislation will open the door further, if not remove and discard it altogether, and allow all types of relationships to walk through! That is an absolute given. The only question is, “In what guise shall they be?”
I would like to discuss this topic and prove the point by looking at the whole concept of the Slippery Slope under three headings; Rednecks, Marriage, and Relativism.
1. Rednecks: First, let me note that I do not care for this term. I use it because it has been popularised and invokes an immediate and vivid picture in a person’s mind. Second, I am one. By the world’s standards, I am a misogynist, redneck, homophobic, right-wing, religious fundamentalist. Personally, I prefer the term “Biblical”!
Anyway, we country folk grew up accustomed to having firearms in or around our general vicinity. This was normal. No panic. No big deal. Then as the world progressed, such activities became frowned upon. The governments began to steal legitimate items owned by law abiding citizens. Naturally, some people objected. They made cogent arguments regarding the right to defend themselves and the foolishness of disarming the general populace in case our country found itself at war or being invaded. Naturally, these cogent arguments were met with solid, well–researched replies that went something along the lines of “Na na Na na na; Conspiracy theorist!” When those being robbed pointed out that there was a small Muslim country to our north that was vastly populated and who may, one day, desire to expand their living room, the replies came in the form of scorn and ridicule.
Anyway, the scorn and ridicule continued for quite a while. Today, I do not hear this scorn and ridicule. The vociferous voices have grown strangely quiet. Why is this? What changed? Did people all of a sudden come to understand that firearm ownership was legitimate? Did the government realise that it had overstepped the bounds of its legitimate power? No, nothing so heartening. What happened? Listen closely and I shall tell you a tale. ‘In the year of our Lord, 2001, Osama gave up on using a gun; for a more sinister plan in his head had begun. Fly planes in to Towers, ‘Yes! That is a plan!’ Planes into towers, reducing them to rubble, to dust, and to sand! When the dust and the smoke had settled that day, three thousand souls had been taken away. In the year of our Lord, 2002, the terrorists Paddy’s bar in Bali they blew; Killing bystanders, tourists, and folk, who had gathered for naught but a drink and a joke. In this much smaller and lesser display, still two hundred souls were taken away. In the year of our Lord, 2005, other acts of terror for which they did strive; this time in London and Bali once more, people did see the blood and the gore. Suicide bombers had mounted attacks from which sixty odd souls would never come back! Here in Australia the grief you could see, for all of these events impacted on We.’
What changed? People received what we colloquially call a reality check!” In this instance, the term “reality check” may be a misnomer. For, in essence, nothing concerning reality had changed. People had simply been woken up to the potential that had been present all along. Scorn and ridicule ceased because we were made to see that we were vulnerable. The Enlightenment view of man as the noble savage and the modern view of man as polite and always seeking his neighbour’s welfare were shattered in an instant.
Lesson One: You must look not at what was or is, but at what may be! It is to look not at reality as we know it, but at potentiality.
2. Marriage: The lesson of potentiality is clearly seen when we take marriage as an example. Marriage is given and designed by God and it is to be between a man and a woman. When we look at marriage over the last century, what we see is the Slippery Slope in operation. Slowly, but surely, marriage was redefined. Its absolute nature as God framed it was eroded and this happened in many forms. The first was the removal of God as the definer of man and marriage. I wrote recently to my local Federal Member on the issue of homosexual marriage. Her response was confusing, but enlightening. She started by saying how proud she was of the many homosexual causes that she had supported. Then came the back-flip and the statement that she did not support homosexual marriage, because marriage was traditionally between a man and a woman. What tradition? Where is the cosmic law of “traditions” written down? It is traditional only in so far as it was authored by God, designed into man, and, therefore, innately drives man in that direction. This alone explains why cultures all over the globe honour marriage.
Once the absolute had gone and marriage became a “human” tradition, the brakes were released and the slide began. Past and present did not matter. The key was potential. Having begun the slide, ‘What would be the terminus?’ Thus, divorce was modified. As marriage was no longer based upon God’s word, so the grounds for divorce also shifted from those stated in His Word to those accepted in the traditions of men. We were also introduced to “de facto” relationships. Just as society wanted “fast food” and food without substance – no sugar, fat, or taste, that is, food without consequence – so we were given mass produced marriage without substance or consequence. Last came the rewriting of vows, not based in the Covenant Law of God, strong and binding, but based in the emotions of men; weak, insipid, and transient. We no longer pledge to love for life; we pledge to hang around while we experience an emotion called ‘love’ – whatever that may be? (A change from what “I can give” to what “I can get!)
Lesson Two: We must understand history. When our forefathers changed the definition of marriage, did they believe it would ever lead to homosexual marriage? We would be fools to believe that this issue of homosexual marriage is the first to ever threaten the Biblical definition. It is not. Each of the things mentioned above laid another stepping stone in the path that brought us to this point. Homosexual marriage, if approved, will simply be one more stone leading further from God and broadening the acceptance of things once thought impossible.
3. Relativism: As we know, we live in a Postmodern word. A world without truth. A world where all is relative and there are no absolutes. Did this state of affairs simply materialise from nowhere? Not at all. There were a string of events. The Enlightenment, Rationalism, and Modernity. Stated differently, “Kill God!”, “Think without Revelation!”, and “Oops, is anybody there?” All of these regressions made our society susceptible to disease, just like a weakened immune system in a body. In the context of marriage and the Slippery Slope, let us look at one example: “The Family Law Act 1975 established the principle of no-fault divorce in Australian law. This means that a court does not consider why the marriage ended. The only ground for divorce is that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. That is, that there is no reasonable likelihood that you will get back together.” Do you see the shift? God’s word outlines fault. God demands justice even in marriage. However, the Family Law Court has a no-fault policy. A law court without justice!!?? There are no innocent parties, declared so at the bar of justice, free to marry again unmarred and unsullied. No, there are just casualties – people whose social contracts failed. The adulterer is free. There are no consequences for the wandering party. It is like a morning after pill for marriage!
Conclusion: If homosexual marriage is approved, it will certainly make polygamy more likely. However, understand well, that polygamy may well be on the cards even if homosexual marriage is rejected. The point is this: By rejecting God’s standards, we have already put in place the mechanisms to utterly destroy the concept of marriage we have all known Biblically or traditionally. The door is open. Anything is now possible. The “potentiality” for this began with the rejection of God as Supreme Law Giver!
