Ultimate Consequences of Redefining Marriage

Ultimate Consequences of Redefining Marriage by Chris Banescu
Marriage is and always will be the union of one man and one woman. Most civilizations and cultures since the beginning of human history, have defined marriage as the joining together of a man and a woman to create a family and procreate children. Marriage has been protected and defended as a foundational and critical institution of all civil societies. Western civilization in particular has always considered marriage as the natural and monogamous union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

Unfortunately, this universal understanding and natural meaning of marriage has been under constant attack by liberal and progressive elites and politicians, the state, and the courts. Marriage as the foundation of family life is under assault across all our institutions. Various “cultural changes without historical precedent have influenced an increasing number of Americans to view this fundamental institution as optional, disposable and open to redefinition. In this context of marital decline, political and ideological battles rage between those who view marriage as a transient human invention – ready for updating and revision – and those who regard marriage as natural and fundamental to humanity – essential to a flourishing civilization” (Focus on the Family, 2008). These cultural, legal, and moral battles are destroying the fundamental and plain definition of marriage and will ultimately lead to societal chaos and moral collapse.

Redefining marriage as anything the state says it is, sets the stage for the eventual destruction of traditional marriage.

Redefining marriage as anything the state says it is, sets the stage for the eventual destruction of traditional marriage. As Focus on the Family warned, “current attempts to mainstream same-sex couples and multi-partner groupings include demands to redefine marriage with these alternative forms.” Already in America “homosexual advocacy groups have succeeded in passing state laws that give same-sex couples the same access to marriage claims as heterosexual couples” and the political pressure to expand this to all states is growing.

However, these attempts to destroy the normal and natural meaning of marriage will not stop with same-sex unions. Marriage is in imminent danger of being redefined into oblivion.

Once marriage is defined as “anything the state deems ok”, then why should we expect that the correct number of persons in a marriage should be limited to just two (2)? Why not 3, 4, 5, 6, or more? Why stick with the natural and religious Judeo-Christian standard? After all, the state is no longer allowed to make reference to natural law, religious morality, or God in justifying laws. Progressivism demands that our legal system cannot show preference to any particular faith or belief system in drafting any laws. Why should polygamists and polyamorists be discriminated against?

Marriage is in imminent danger of being redefined into oblivion.

And why are we artificially limiting the expansion of the definition to polygamists? Why not extend it to family members, cousins, uncles, sisters, brothers, etc.? How can a godless state justify its moral bias against those desiring to apply the “marriage” label to their incestuous unions.

And that’s not the worst of it. Pedophiles will also demand the right to “marry” children. As I recently pointed out, some academics and pro-pedophilia groups like B4U-ACT have been openly advocating for the normalization and legalization of pedophilia. These individuals endorse the adult molestation of children, consider this sexual perversion as normal, and advocate for the declassification of pedophilia as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Referring to Judeo-Christian moral principles and values as “cultural baggage of wrongfulness” and an adult’s desire to sexually molest a child as “normative,” these predators with Ph.D.s are hell-bent on destroying key moral boundaries and critical societal norms that protect innocent children from pathological and dangerous adults.

And the slippery slope of this assault on marriage will not end there.

If marriage can mean anything, it will ultimately mean nothing!

What about those who advocate for animals to have the same rights and legal protections as humans? Why should they be discriminated against when they choose to lobby the state to expand the marriage definition to include their favorite dog, horse, monkey, or pet rat? Who are we to then say that they’re not entitled to their own “inclusive” definition? On what moral or religious basis will anyone be allowed to challenge that state law once our society is completely unmoored from its Judeo-Christian foundations and no longer draws its authority from natural law and God?

If marriage can mean anything, it will ultimately mean nothing!