Now that Pandora’s box has been opened, where does the gender identity, sexual identity and marriage destruction actually end? If 3,4,5,6 consenting adults want to make a family, why should the government “oppress” their desires? If one man has four wives and they each have two children and three of the wives decide they want a divorce, then are they all eligible for alimony, child payments, social security payments? Can they sue for his house or a share of his 401k?
For those who say this could never happen, Seattle is already opening the door for legal, state protected polyamory. Read below what this liberal city is opening the door to.
Remember that 30 years ago the idea of two gay men being married was abhorrent and illegal in all of America. Today the reprobates get an entire month of state sanctioned celebrations called Pride Month.
Tomorrow we could see the legalization of polygamy. And they will get the letter P added to LGBTQ alphabet and dance around the streets during Pride month. The child molesters are already there…working hard to get an M added to the Pride alphabet for Minor Attracted Persons.
And then the animal-sex lovers will come out of the closet and demand they get protected status too.
God will only be patient for so long…wanting all to repent. But one day, maybe soon, He will say “Enough!”
*************************
If Three, Why Not Four?
The uncomfortable question is where the limiting principle comes from.
If two consenting adults may define their relationship however they choose, advocates ask why three consenting adults should be treated differently.
But follow that reasoning one step further.
Why three?
Why not four?
Why not five?
If relationship structure itself becomes a protected characteristic, on what non-arbitrary basis does society eventually deny recognition to increasingly complicated arrangements among consenting adults?
That question becomes particularly difficult once demands move beyond discrimination protections.
Imagine three adults who consider themselves one family. If marriage law eventually changes, could all three marry? Could all three be legal parents of the same child? Would all three receive spousal benefits? What happens with inheritance, Social Security, taxes, medical decision-making or divorce?
What happens when a four-person relationship becomes a three-person relationship and assets must be divided?
These aren't arguments that Seattle's ordinance answers those questions. It doesn't.
They are questions about where the philosophy behind these changes ultimately leads.
That brings us inevitably to marriage.
The Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell decision established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It did not establish a right to plural marriage, and nothing Seattle passed this week changes that.
But the cultural argument is becoming increasingly familiar.
If consenting adults should determine the structure of their intimate relationships, why should government insist that marriage contain exactly two people?
Polyamory advocates increasingly have the language needed to make that case: equality, identity, discrimination, dignity and recognition.
Today's argument is that someone shouldn't lose an apartment because he has two romantic partners.
Tomorrow's argument could be: Why should those three people be prohibited from marrying one another?
That doesn't mean courts will accept the argument. It means the question that once sounded absurd is becoming considerably less theoretical.
When Does Society Say No?
There is a deeper philosophical problem underneath all of this.
Every civilization establishes boundaries.
Freedom has never meant that every desire must be affirmed, every behavior celebrated or every lifestyle transformed into a protected identity.
Traditional Christianity certainly doesn't operate that way.
Biblical sexual morality imposes limits: male and female, husband and wife, marriage, fidelity and sexual exclusivity. Those limits aren't based upon the premise that human beings possess no desires outside those boundaries. Christianity teaches precisely the opposite—that human desires themselves require moral restraint.
The modern sexual revolution increasingly begins with a radically different premise.
Identity is discovered through internal feelings and desires. Authenticity requires expressing them. Society is expected to affirm them. Eventually institutions are expected to accommodate them.
And when accommodation isn't enough, legal protection follows.
That progression matters far beyond Seattle.
A society can survive disagreement. It can survive people making radically different personal choices.
But something changes when society becomes increasingly unable to say that any consensual sexual desire or relationship structure can ever be objectively disordered, unhealthy or morally wrong.
Because once desire becomes identity, disagreement becomes discrimination.
Once identity becomes protected status, affirmation increasingly becomes an institutional obligation.
And once every boundary is treated as oppression, there is always another boundary waiting to fall.
Seattle hasn't legalized polygamy.
But it has given Americans another glimpse of a question our culture increasingly seems unable to answer:
If consenting adults should be free to define sex, gender, marriage and relationships entirely for themselves, what principle remains for saying there is anywhere the sexual revolution must finally stop?
https://www.prophecynewswatch.com/article.cfm?recent_news_id=10529
