I don’t know exactly how long I’ve been saying this, but I know it’s been a few years. I wasn’t alone in declaring this truth, but I was among the minority willing to state it publicly. I was ridiculed and mocked for even suggesting such an idea. But now it seems those of us that did declare this dark result of marriage redefinition were right after all.

I’m talking about the fact that redefining marriage will lead to acceptance and legalization of polygamy, incest, and pedophilia.

The problem is that mental health professionals are ignoring the effects of graphic sexuality on children. With the advancement of technology and the readily available amount of pornography, kids are “growing up” at ever younger ages. But the long-term effects on the brain from exposure to explicit sexual images at young ages are still being discovered.

So what appears to be a “sexual orientation” that cannot be changed through therapy may in fact simply be an effect of years of exposure to certain kinds of sexually explicit images.

Nevertheless, mental health professionals are increasingly calling for pedophilia to be classified as a sexual orientation and given positive affirmation in society. Such a notion violates the moral sensibilities of most, yet we see comments from psychologists like this:

“Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, ‘Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.’”

Also emerging are honest comments from law professors like this one:

“You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages?…They’re right.”

The scary part here is not that they are making these statements. The scary part is that they are admitting that the consequences of marriage redefinition that we’ve all feared are a reality that is becoming more inevitable. Look, the bottom line is that if the government redefines marriage for one group, it absolutely must redefine it for another, and another. If it doesn’t continue to redefine it for every group demanding their rights, the government will be guilty of the same discrimination it now accuses traditional marriage supporters of.

The law professor is right. All the arguments used by homosexual advocates to push for marriage redefinition are arbitrary and can be applied to any other group. If the argument of “love” is used, well, polygamists love one another. If the argument of happiness, equality, and government benefits are used, they can be just as easily applied to pedophiles, polyamorists, and incestuous relationships.

The trend toward recognizing pedophilia is moving so quickly that even books about teachers engaging in sexual relationships with their students are not taboo to write. Not long ago such a book would have been reviled for its morally outrageous content. Not today. Today such a book is just a reflection of our society where every week another teacher or three is arrested for sexual activity with a student. Is it any wonder more parents are turning to home schooling their kids?

Ryan T. Anderson makes a statement in a recent article that helps put this argument in perspective. He wrote:

“Equality demands that we treat in the same ways things that are the same. But a same-sex relationship is fundamentally different from a marriage. No same-sex union can produce a child. And no same-sex relationship can provide a child with a mother and a father. While respecting everyone’s civil rights, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage between a man and a woman as the ideal institution for procreative love, childbearing, and child-rearing. Recognizing that we are all created equal doesn’t challenge this historical understanding.”

Here’s where this ties into the discussion. If same-sex relationships can’t produce a child then they are less credible than polygamous, polyamorous, and even incestuous and pedophilia relationships; considering most of them can produce a child. So if we decide to recognize a relationship that can’t even bear children what is stopping our society from recognizing relationships that can bear children?

But most people recognize that marriage is not solely about child-bearing and raising; though that is a major component. It is also about the protection of the children born to a husband and wife. This protection includes protection from sexual abuse, from mental and emotional harm, and from poverty. All this can be achieved in the union of one man and one woman.

So this reality we’re speeding towards can be avoided if we will recognize that what is best for children is to be born and raised by biological parents in a home with just one mother and father. It might be difficult for some to hear this, yet every other scenario carries complications that require far too much government intervention and remove personal and parental rights. Then again, perhaps that’s the end game of all this.

 Three Important Upcoming Events:

–>  September 14th – IFI’s 3rd Annual Fun. Run. Walk in Joliet 
(Click HERE for more info)

–> October 4th — IFI’s Fall Banquet with Dr. Benjamin Carson in Northlake 
(Click HERE for more info)

–> October 23rd — IFI’s Defend Marriage Lobby Day in Springfield  
(Click HERE for more info)