SLIPPERY SLOPE

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

Sydney, Australia’s Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen on homosexual marriage:

Why this push for same-sex unions to be called ‘marriage’? The change is highly symbolic, for it implies that homosexual and heterosexual sex are both morally valid and equally worthy of affirmation. Its advocates are fully aware that they are seeking the particular honour which society gives to marriage. Should we agitate about this? Emphatically yes, for the good of our community now and for the future. We now treat real marriage as one of the indispensable foundations of community. Ensuring public honour of same-sex relationships by calling them marriages is an abuse of marriage itself. It imposes, through social engineering, a newly minted concept of marriage on a community that understands it in quite another way. It would be a chaotic addition to current confusion about sexual ethics and leave the next generation even more bewildered as to what marriage is all about.

There will be other consequences that, even with our ‘live and let live’ philosophy, we will regret. If same-sex unions are declared to be marriages, there will follow a demand for equal treatment in sex education. The normalisation of homosexuality will be assumed. Children will be instructed that there are no moral or other grounds for preferring ‘heterosexual marriage’. This claim for a ‘right’ to be married could open the way for other forms, such as polygamous marriages or perhaps even marriage between immediate family members.

Jim Naughton had his usual classy reply.

[New York state Democratic] Lawmakers will not doubt be chagrined to know that Archbishop Peter Jensen, darling of the Anglican Church in North America, believes they are opening the door to polygamy and incest. Or, perhaps they are serious people and will therefore be unconcerned.

Quick question, Jim. Why is Jensen wrong?

I’m old enough to remember a time when most people in the Episcopal Organization considered homosexual activity to be a sin(most people in the Christian church still do but we’ll let that one go for now). The idea of openly-homosexual clergy was still shocking and the concept of homosexual marriage was literally inconceivable.

You know what happened. Non-Christian bishops like John Shelby Spong began ordaining homosexuals. Groups like Integrity began whining about issues of “justice” while squishop after squishop caved in. Conservative Episcopalians began leaving in droves letting the Episcopal left run the show from top to bottom.

Gene Robinson.

Why can’t all that happen again, big smacker? If I were TEO, I’d get started on the excuses theology right now because the simple fact of the matter is that the Polyamorous-American Episcopal community can use pretty all the lines the homosexuals did and they can use them right now.

Relationships marked by mutual love, support and committment? Check.

Evidence of the fruit of the Spirit in their lives? Check.

Polyamory is actually a “sexual orientation,” something the Bible writers didn’t know about? Check.

Jesus never turned anyone away? Check.

The Bible only condemns exploitative sexual activity, not the loving and committed kind we have? Check.

The Bible rarely mentions the practice? Check.

Part of the truth that Jesus said the apostles couldn’t handle then so the Holy Spirit would reveal it to them later? Check.

God has far more important priorities than who a person sleeps with? Check.

Jesus never directly condemned the practice? Check.

Nobody gets bent out of shape by someone eating pork or shellfish? Check.

Jesus’ love was and remains all-inclusive? Check.

I hope you see where I’m going with this, tough guy. And you can’t really quote the Bible at them, can you, what with them being able to scripturally shoot back at when Robbie likes to do in his off-hours.

So any TEO decision to ban polyamorous marriages will be seen the same way that most intelligent people see its enthusiasm to establish homosexual marriages. As an entirely political and culture-driven move by a completely secularized church.

If the Zeitgeist ever decides that it’s comfortable with permanent three-ways, TEO’s “spirit” will do a “new thing” and its “theology” will “evolve.” And smug Episcopal commentators will hasten to assure us all that the idea that allowing polyamorous marriages will lead to people legally marrying animals is an insulting absurdity.