Albert Mohler makes a fantastic slippery slope assertion against same gender relationships. The next thing is…polyamory! Those who oppose same-gender love assert under the presumption that a reasonable secular argument exists to which they can make appeal. After all the arguments against same gender love are not just about the Bible and Christianity, they are about the "sanctity of marriage" or "pro-family" which is the "bedrock of American civilization." Thus, if two people of the same gender can marry, why not marry a robot, dog, or three other people? After all, same gender love will inevitably lead to that too. By the way, there is absolutely no evidence that suggests a chain of causality in which same gender love predicts even polygamy much less…robots and dogs.
The slippery slope is nonsense. If one can use that assertion, then all the assertions from atheists that Jesus must be no better than a pink unicorn that saves a bunny from a wolf is just as valid a story of salvation as Jesus – esp. if you believe with all you heart, mind, and soul that pink unicorns are real. But that foolishness aside there is a far more practical and evidential basis against the slope towards polygamy, especially in the affluent West (or North as it is).
The best social control on population growth is wealth. Once people are affluent and do not need to maximize their share of the population through reproduction, and once a certain level of existential security is reached, pro-creation slows down. This is why polygamy is seen as a continual reasonable alternative in even Christian communities in poorer nations. That is, if marriage is primarily about pro-creation. In poorer societies with lower existential security, marriage is primarily about pro-creation for without more often than not male heirs, the property and social mobility of the entire clan, family, or tribe is as risk. However, in economies that are wealthier and focus on individual wealth and property rights, the game changes.
If we assert that marriage is not about pro-creation, which is absolutely true in nations that do achieve a certain threshold of wealth and existential security, then any elimination of same gender love becomes as suspect as the civil function of polygamy. The two are more likely negatively correlated with this functionalist view, than positively correlated in the stupid assertions of many on "the right." So much for that assertion. Lets take it one step deeper now.
As social networks become more diffuse, it is more difficult to maintain the same level of salience for each relationship. As families get bigger and where geographic mobility has pulled generations of families apart, the maximal level of nurture a parent or other close adult can give a child simply must go down. This becomes even more complex in polygamous relationships where essentially bureaucratic structures need to overlay the marriage relationships in order for the husband to manage three different relationships and the relationships that form between the wives. In short a hierarchy is established. While the presence of this many adults mathematically at least, benefits the proliferation of children, to some extent, it adds level of complexities and profound stresses to manage on the union of the parents themselves. It is simply not a maximal situation for the family because it adds levels of social control in order to achieve maximal nurture which is significantly reduced.
The most organic level of maximization of nurture in a familial situation is therefore with two parents and no more than two children. Even with one man and one woman, as the maximization argument goes from those against families with same gender parents, when more than two children are brought into the family, social diffusion increases exponentially and the situation is therefore no longer maximal. So much for that argument as well.
While I am not arguing against larger families, an argument for maximization of nurture as something intrinsically prohibitive of families with same gender parents, or even ambiguously gendered parents for that matter, must also include social diffusion by increasing the size of the family network. Polygamy and large families are therefore not maximal and the former even less so due to the structures of social control that must be added in order to raise the level of maximal nurture a family can provide. This social controls are unnecessary in monogamous paired relationships and these are in fact a more organic structure to maintain – regardless of gender with respect to love and nurture of children and ones partner.
This is why the argument that "same gender love" leads to state legitimated polygamy is false. Robots and dogs would just be a stupid idea. Although the film Blade Runner even offers a counter to that claim since the "replicants" are in many respects more humane than the human beings that created them, speculative human relationality cannot replace actual human relationality. Of course the bible does not clearly prohibit polygamy either, unless in perhaps the case of a bishop. While the comical anti-everything-but-the-sound-of-my-own-conviction Ken Silva is absolute in his utter rejection of homosexuality and all those who affirm it, the evidence is scarce both on his site of condemnation and in the scripture istself that polygamy is to be rejected in the same way. Curious position to take when all is so crystal clear and the progressive revelation of God among God's people is seemingly complete and without contradiction. This is a case when absolute ideological presuppositions crush the living revelation of God and distort the truth into a fanciful idol reflecting only the whims of the proud and haughty.
Related posts:
1) If all opponents can do when attempting to argue against homosexuality is argue against anything but homosexuality, they're not capable of making a convincing argument. Well, they're not capable of making an argument that is convincing to anyone with half a brain. But the slippery slope arguments do convince lots of people, unfortunately. But then 50% of all people are dumber than the average person.
In fact, the vast, vast, vast majority of polygamists, pedophiles, and participants in bestiality are heterosexuals. So, using the fundie "reasoning," straight marriage leads to polygamy, incest, and bestiality.
Now, when gay marriage is legalized, it is possible that polygamists (99% of whom will be heterosexual) will attempt to use that precedent to get polygamy legalized. So what? The fundies are free to make the case against polygamy then. It's hardly our fault that they are making a completely unrelated argument.
2) What is it with fundies and polygamy, incest and bestiality? (I note that Mohler here focuses only on polygamy and doesn't make his usual comparison to incest and bestiality like he and the other fundies usually do.) When I think of committed relationships between two loving people, I don't even for a moment picture polygamy, incest, and bestiality. Yet when the fundies think about committed loving relationships, the first thing on their minds is some sort of Caligula-esque orgy involving children and goats.
And they think we LGBT people are screwed up?!? I'd say their fixation (fetish) for polygamy, incest, and bestiality speak pretty clearly for themselves. It would be interesting to see how many articles Mohler has written on polygamy. I would not be surprised to see that he has more than a passing interest in the subject.
Funny, but not one verse of Holy Scripture . . . and from a so-called Christian . . . hmmmmm . . .
Holy God will not be mocked, remember that. We will have to answer for every idle word or thought, and I fear with this position, you will have much to answer for.
I ask you to repent before our Holy Father, fall to your knees and repent of your active promotion of that which God has proclaimed to be abomination. You are actively promotion a position in direct and clear opposition to Holy Scripture as revealed by Our Father.
I pray for your soul.
guess what, i was baptized by the holy spirit, spent the greater part of my life studying scripture in earnest, and claim that the mysteries of the trinity are quite real.
now… rather than perpetuate stupidity with ad hominem, let's talk about the argument i present and be constructive. ok?
"so-called Christian"
Now that's classy. Well played sir, well played indeed.
Dude….you are so full of yourself. Do you just love to hear yourself drone on and on? It sure seems like it.
Whatever you call yourself, if you haven't realized that you stand condemned before a holy and perfect God…that you JUSTLY deserve His full wrath, condemnation and judgement…and have not thrown yourself at the Savior's feet and repented and trusted in HIS goodness and sacrifice in YOUR place…(and this isn't just "your truth" or "my truth"…it applies to every human being on planet earth…)then you, sir, are not a Christian. Quit playing these little wordy theological games and get out there and WITNESS. On second thought, stay home and stay out of the way of those of us who want to see a harvest for the Lord come to fruition.
I'm praying for you brother.
"little wordy theological games" that are serving people by defending christians i love. god has not condemned me even though god will judge me, and you. but that is god's judgment. to say that i have not asked for forgiveness is insulting. and that sort of judgment is by what you shall be judged. you have made it a tall order for yourself.
this is part of my witness. you know nothing of me nor my character and so, this sort of ad hominem tripe is destructive to the body. i am not your brother for my brother is not one who heaps unjust condemnation upon the heads of strangers but only speaks love and truth.
"Do you just love to hear yourself drone on and on? It sure seems like it."
Gotta love the irony.
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
Romans 1:26-32
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Romans sounds like what you're promoting. Either you deny scripture or you don't. All scripture is God breathed. If you don't like it, then you have a problem with God and his authority. You try and twist the Word of God to fit your own lusts, but it doesn't work. We all have sinned, and we've all been judged in light of scripture. None of us are just and without sin. We must turn from our sin in light of the Truth and throw ourselves on God's mercy.
If you do acknowledge Jesus as Lord, I pray for you, you are in need of repentance.
thanks for judging my heart. kind of how the pharisees behaved towards jesus. as you remember jesus did not get along very well with them for this reason. but thanks for judging me anyway, as jesus also commanded you to do. or, could admit the obvious slippery slope here that has no merit on it's own.
I didn't and cannot judge you.
Christ CAME INTO the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. However, AFTER this life, those who have not chosen to obey Christ will be judged and found guilty. You can choose to take the punishment for your sins yourself, or have Christ take them for you. The choice is yours in this life. But Christ tells us himself that when he returns it will be for judgment.
I am sorry if it offends you, but we are called by Scripture to examine ourselves to see whether we are in the faith. We are also told to reprove with love brothers who go astray. Paul's letters and Jesus himself show we must call out sin in a brother if he refuses to try and deal with it. In Matt 18 Jesus even goes as far as to say that if someone refuses to repent, after numerous approaches, they should be cast out of the congregation.
Listen, if I didn't care or hated you, I'd ignore you. I can't change your mind on something like this, only God can. The slippery slope is moot to me. What you are proposing goes against scripture in and of itself. It promotes a sinful lifestyle that we are supposed to depart from when made new by Christ – 1 Cor 6.
thanks for judging my heart. kind of how the pharisees behaved towards jesus. as you remember jesus did not get along very well with them for this reason. but thanks for judging me anyway, as jesus also commanded you to do. or, could admit the obvious slippery slope here that has no merit on it's own.
I didn't and cannot judge you.
Christ CAME INTO the world not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. However, AFTER this life, those who have not chosen to obey Christ will be judged and found guilty. You can choose to take the punishment for your sins yourself, or have Christ take them for you. The choice is yours in this life. But Christ tells us himself that when he returns it will be for judgment.
I am sorry if it offends you, but we are called by Scripture to examine ourselves to see whether we are in the faith. We are also told to reprove with love brothers who go astray. Paul's letters and Jesus himself show we must call out sin in a brother if he refuses to try and deal with it. In Matt 18 Jesus even goes as far as to say that if someone refuses to repent, after numerous approaches, they should be cast out of the congregation.
Listen, if I didn't care or hated you, I'd ignore you. I can't change your mind on something like this, only God can. The slippery slope is moot to me. What you are proposing goes against scripture in and of itself. It promotes a sinful lifestyle that we are supposed to depart from when made new by Christ – 1 Cor 6.
What are you talking about, Stephen? Of COURSE you can judge Drew and his theology! In fact, according to 1 Cor. ch 5, you are REQUIRED to judge other Christians. So when Drew "calls you out" for judging him, he shows, yet again, his ignorance of and rebellion against the Word of God.
Drew, simply put, your feigned pragmatism flies in the face of the clear teachings of Scripture, as Stephen pointed out (and which you reacted against). The simplest way to prove this to you have you read the whole Bible and then to ask "would Jesus be in favor of sanctifying homosexuality?" If you can make it that far and yield yourself to God's decisions, you will see that the answer is obviously "no."
I agree wholeheartedly with Dave and Steve who pointed out some (not even all) of the scriptural reasons why homosexuality is a sin (at least in the way that society defines it). And I further agree with Steve that those who preach falsehoods must be rebuked with the truths of scripture …
But you're actually not making much of a scriptural argument here and I happen to totally agree with some of what you're saying. I'm about as conservative politically as one can get, which is, ironically enough, why I can't get my head around Christians who argue for legislating their faith. For instance, I could point to so many places in scripture that would indicate that worshiping Allah is a sin. That certainly doesn't mean that we should make it illegal to be Muslim in our country. I think the problem is that we've really intertwined and confused elements of theology and policy here that need to be untangled and clarified.
The Bible is quite clear that homosexuality is a sin. Your attempts to re-read some sort of liberal hermeneutic into the text to justify it do not make it any less of a sin and, in fact, are false teaching which I strongly suggest you reconsider. However, I agree with you that Christians should be careful not to make arguments such as the "slippery slope" one that you have tried to explain here: they have nothing to do with our theology and they are destroying our republic.