From Dr. Timothy J. Dailey.
“A Man and His Horse
In what some call a denial of a basic civil right, a man has been told he may not marry his long-term companion. Although his situation is unique, the logic of his argument is remarkably similar to that employed by advocates of homosexual marriage.
The man claims that the essential elements of marriage–love and commitment–are indeed present: “She’s gorgeous. She’s sweet. She’s loving. I’m very proud of her. … Deep down, way down, I’d love to have children with her.”1
Why is the state of , as well as the federal government, displaying such heartlessness in denying the holy bonds of wedlock to this man and his would-be “wife”?
It seems the state of is not prepared to indulge a man who waxes eloquent about his love for a 22-year-old mare named Pixel.
The Threat to Marriage
The man and homosexual “marriage” proponents categorically reject the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Instead, the sole criterion for marriage becomes the presence of “love” and “mutual commitment.” But once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex–even non-human “partners.”
To those who object to comparing gay marriage to widely-rejected sexual preferences, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very suggestion that two men or two women could “marry” was itself greeted with scorn.
Of course, media stories on same-sex marriage rarely address the fact that redefining marriage logically leads to the man and his mare. Instead, media reports typically focus instead on homosexual couples who resemble the stereotypical ideal of a married couple. Ignored in such reports is social science research indicating that such idealized “families” are utterly atypical among homosexuals.
In this pamphlet we will show the following:
1. Gay marriage threatens the institutions of marriage and the family.
2. Same-sex relationships are not the equivalent of traditional marriage
3. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue
4. Americans overwhelmingly reject gay marriage
5. Gay marriage is not a moral alternative to traditional marriage.
6. Homosexuality is rightly viewed as unnatural.
The “Polyamory” Movement
“Sean has a wife. He also has a girlfriend. His girlfriend has another boyfriend. That boyfriend is dating Sean’s wife.” Description of “polyamory” relationship2
The movement to redefine marriage has found full expression in what is variously called “polyfidelity” or “polyamory,” which seeks to replace traditional marriage with a bewildering array of sexual combinations between various groups of individuals.
“Polyamory” is derived from Greek and Latin roots, and is loosely translated “many loves.” Polyamorists reject the “myth” of monogamy and claim to practice “harmonious love and intimacy between multiple poly partners.”3 Kurtz describes the “bewildering variety of sexual combinations. There are triads of one woman and two men; heterosexual group marriages; groups in which some or all members are bisexual; lesbian groups, and so forth.”4
The polyamory movement took its inspiration from Robert Heinlein’s 1961 sci-fi novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, in which sexual possessiveness (as in marital exclusivity) is portrayed as an evil leading to societal ills such as murder and war. The book helped spawn a number of ill-fated sexual communes, such as ‘s Kerista community, in which members had sexual relations with each other according to a rotating schedule.
The Kerista commune collapsed in 1992, but the polyamory movement has taken hold in academia where, according to First Things, its proponents “are now so influential, if not dominant, in the academic field of marriage and family law.” Scholars enamored with polyamory argue in favor of “a social revolution that would replace traditional marriage and family law.”5
Kurtz concurs that the “gradual transition from gay marriage to state-sanctioned polyamory, and the eventual abolition of marriage itself, is now the most influential paradigm within academic family law.” One prominent advocate of polyamory, David Chambers, professor of law at the , argues: “By ceasing to conceive of marriage as a partnership composed of one person of each sex, the state may become more receptive to units of three or more.”6
The Frat House Concept of “Family”
This radical definition of marriage gives rise to bizarre conceptions of family that include virtually any relationship or social group. In 1990, a task force on family policy led by lesbian activist Roberta Achtenberg defined the family as a “unit of interdependent and interacting persons, related together over time by strong social and emotional bonds and/or by ties of marriage, birth, and adoption.”7
The “frat house with revolving bedroom doors” concept of marriage and the family poses dangers to children.
Polyamory advocates pay scant attention to the dangers posed to children being raised according to this “frat house with revolving bedroom doors” concept of marriage and the family. Yet, this nebulous, free-for-all model of the family looms ahead for our society unless a bulwark is created in the form of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage.
The slippery slope leading to the destruction of marriage as we know it draws ever closer with the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to compel the state legislature to grant homosexual sex partners the legal status of married people. This decision has emboldened public officials in various localities to grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples, igniting a national debate on the question: What is marriage–and where do we draw the limits on who can marry?
Same-Sex Relationships are not the Equivalent of Marriage
A growing body of research indicates that in key respects homosexual and lesbian relationships are radically different than married couples.”
To read more click here.