Normalizing adult-child sex

So I know that the “slippery slope” type of argument is actual a logical fallacy and should not be used in convincing arguments.   However, in this case there certainly seems to be some slippery slope action going on.

Check out this article – The homosexual Left’s new crusade: Normalizing adult-child sex.

Plenty of outspoken Christians have used falsely the slippery slope argument to say that if we allow homosexual marriage, then we will start allowing pedophilia, polygamy, or other things that most people still think are evil, or at least “not good.”

However, this argument can be taken in a different way that doesn’t fall into the slippery slope fallacy.   If our country redefines marriage to mean something different than the lifelong committed sexual partnership between 1 man and 1 woman for the purpose of pleasure, happiness, and raising children, that is one thing.  But if our country does not put in place a new definition of marriage than what are we left with?

I would say that until we get a new definition of marriage that makes sense, we do in fact open the door to other changes.  This is not slippery slope, this is just common sense.  If we can’t clarify our laws, then people can use the same arguments that have been used to advocate for freedom for homosexuals, in favor of pedophilia, bestiality, prostitution, polygamy, and any other number of things.  The fact is that groups are advocating more freedom for these other things, and their arguments follow much of the same logic as the arguments for homosexual freedoms and homosexual marriage.  If we do not come up with an agreed upon definition of marriage, and at least a partial agreed upon sexual morality, then it’s going to get very hard for lawmakers to say “no” to these other groups vying for new freedoms.  How can they say “no” without being called “discriminatory?”  They can’t give in to a specific argument for homosexual marriage, and then deny that same argument for something like polygamy.  That would make no sense.

It will be interesting to see what happens in our country with all these things.  Scary stuff.  But God is in control and my hope is in him, not in some “Christian America.”  If our country goes headlong into immorality, so be it.  The Church’s light will become that much more bright in contrast.

Thoughts on this?  Or on the article?


7 comments on “Normalizing adult-child sex

  1. Ralph says:

    I have seen the discussions about mainstreaming the likes of NAMBLA and it horrifies me. But I find your inclusion of the other sexual sins interesting. I take a different approach that’s probably not the “right” answer from a Christian viewpoint, but hear me out…

    I believe the acts you mention — prostitution and polygamy specifically — that constitute private activity between consenting adults are absolutely sin as described in both OT and NT scripture. But… should they be a government concern? As with homosexuals (and drunks, and thieves, and the boastful, etc. etc. etc.) God will deal with their (our) sins in His perfect way and perfect time. My fear of excessive government intrusion into private life tends to override my concern for sinful acts becoming mainstream.

    The one place where my argument falls short is with the case of incest. I’m really not sure whether that should be explicitly prohibited by government or just left as a moral taboo. On the one hand (leaving aside pedophilia for a moment) you have consenting adults. On the other hand, if they produce children the chances of harmful genetic mutation and general pollution of the gene pool increase astronomically; in addition, even if they are both adults one may be pressedured into “consenting” as a result of the power hierarchy in families, so consent may actually be coercion.

    That’s the problem with holding a middle-of-the-road outlook; I have trouble making a firm decision when there are arguments for and against both points of view.


  2. thorin25 says:

    You bring up great points Ralph. It’s always been a tough complicated thing for Christians to try to figure out what moral things should be mandated by a secular government and what things shouldn’t be. It’s not as simple as just voting for what we believe to be morally right. For example, I would never vote to pass a law requiring people to worship Jesus, even though I think it is of paramount importance. I would never require people to go to church, etc.

    But I would vote for laws against murder, theft, etc.

    How do we figure out the more complicated immoral actions in the middle? Many Christians have talked about “natural law” being a criteria, but that is somewhat of a fuzzy subjective criteria too. Natural law would be morality that all people universally in all cultures naturally agree on. Murder and theft fit that criteria. Even a thief knows it’s wrong to steal. And maybe natural law would include prohibiting any action that harms others. (but even the definition of “harm” can get really difficult to agree on when you have people of different worldviews).

    As tricky as the notion of “natural law” is, I think it’s probably the most helpful. I would include being against incest as part of natural law, something which most or all cultures have always outlawed or tabooed. Polygamy on the other hand, would be much more difficult to classify under natural law, because many many cultures have thought it to be natural and good.

    If we don’t use the criteria of natural law, probably what makes the most sense is just outlawing things that clearly harm people physically. (you can’t say emotionally because it’s so subjective, even though a lot of our laws our leaning that way these days, you can get in trouble these days just for hurting someones feelings).

    I think our country is crazily inconsistent. It is hard for me to make sense of the fact that gay marriage is now legal, and yet polygamy is not. Polygamy has existed in countless cultures all through time and even though I think it is sinful and not a good thing, people in those cultures are used to it and think it is good. Yet homosexual marriage has not existed in any culture ever until now as far as I know. How come we allowed that first before polygamy? How come we haven’t made prostitution legal? Strange to me…. I think this goes to show how much of our lawmaking and morality is totally based on our feelings (instead of an objective authority, say the Bible). Polygamy is outlawed because it doesn’t feel as right as is doesn’t fit our American hollywood love story ideals of two people being in love. But homosexual marriage, is still just two people, so it fits that romantic ideal.


  3. Robyn P. says:

    The discussion around same-sex marriage (SSM) is very complex. I think many of the arguments miss the real question that no one wants to tackle.

    Most of the pro-SSM arguments ask that if we are a kind, loving, tolerant society, how can we discriminate by refusing the right to marry for two people in love? This can be easily extended to argue in favor of more than two people marrying or removing age restrictions. Or are we full of hatred and bigotry? This is a very powerful, emotional argument!

    Many of the anti-SSM arguments center on the morality or sinfulness of SSM using multiple Bible verses to frame their objections. These arguments are answered by the pro-SSM group with 1) Jesus never said anything against SSM so it must be okay and 2) aren’t we as Christians not supposed to judge anyone? If so, then do not judge the two loving same-sex people who wish to marry. Many Christians do believe that they should not judge anyone and therefore have no objections to SSM no matter what the Bible says.

    The focal point of the SSM issue is the “right” to marry and the definition of marriage. Who determines what marriage is and who grants the “right”? Traditionally, marriage has been a religious rite to signify its holiness. The state has incorporated marriage as a law initially mirroring the religious rite. This is done for other religious rites and practices such as holy days. For example, Christmas is a national holiday BECAUSE it mirrors the religious holy day.

    Religion has defined what marriage is and isn’t based on the belief in God. Now the state is defining what marriage is and isn’t, not aligning with religious beliefs for the most part. The state is granting the “right” to marry, not religion.

    The question being asked is “Can two members of the same sex marry?” but the question SHOULD BE restated as “Is there one true definition of marriage?” and, if so, “Who defines what marriage is?” The next question is “If the state defines what marriage is, should religions change their definition of marriage to align with the state?” or more importantly “Can the state FORCE religions to change their definition of marriage to conform with the state’s definition?”

    This problem has festered for a number of reasons. First, if a person does not believe in God, why should their government follow religious rules and rites from a God that does not exist especially when it interferes or prohibits their pursuit of happiness? Second, maybe a person believes in God, but they do not believe that God has revealed himself or set down any laws or morality in the Bible or anywhere else. Third, a person may believe in God and the revelation of the Bible, but they believe in a God who is loving and merciful and therefore there is no sin (or morals) punishable by God. Finally, a person may believe in God, the Bible, and sin, but relies only on his or her interpretation of the Bible. Their interpretation of the Bible is infallible and it allows for SSM.

    To argue against SSM, one would have to (in this order):
    1. Prove the existence of God.
    2. Prove that God reveals himself through Jesus and through the Bible.
    3. Prove that the Bible is inerrant.
    4. Prove that there is one authoritative, correct interpretation of the Bible and it isn’t each person.
    5. Show how God through Jesus and the Bible has defined marriage and doesn’t include SSM.
    6. Do all of the above in a kind, loving, non-judgmental manner.
    Kind of challenging, isn’t it? No wonder why SSM is growing so fast!

    There are huge implications for SSM in other areas as well. We see this all the time with TG issues. Is there one true definition of male or female, man or woman? Who defines what is male and female? Who defines who is a man or a woman? Is it God, religion, the state, or each individual?


  4. thorin25 says:

    I think one actually could argue against SSM without using religion at all, but that’s another story. Others have tackled that issue, and I don’t want to write an essay on that right now. I’ll just say briefly that no cultures until our modern time accepted SSM as a thing, it was nonsensical to all cultures around the world of all times and all religions. I still think it is nonsensical, but obviously many do not.

    There are a lot of Christians that are against SSM, but not worrying about it. I sometimes fit into this camp, though I would vote against it. The thought goes like this. The state’s view of marriage, before this whole SSM issue, was already different from the Christian view of marriage. Now with passing laws about SSM, the state’s view of marriage is even more different from the Christian view of marriage, but we didn’t worry about that before, so why now? It’s an interesting way to look at things. These Christians would see the real important marriage being the marriage covenant before God and his church, and what the state says about it is only important for legal matters.


  5. Ralph says:

    I’m perfectly OK with the state allowing SSM as long as the church is not required to recognize it (or required to perform the ceremony).

    My daughter happened to post on Facebook today a link to an article she read on the subject. The author echoed my own thoughts perfectly: I personally find it weird and a bit distasteful, I personally believe that God opposes it and that opposition is clearly spelled out in the Bible, but I also believe it harms no one and therefore is not an issue that needs legal intervention. The sin that those folks commit is between them and God, and is no more or less egregious than my own daily sins — pride, arrogance, selfishness, lust, occasional drunkenness, and (depending on one’s biblical view) crossdressing.

    Sometimes I think that God allowed this “thorn in my side”, as Paul said, specifically to make me a more compassionate person. Before I grew to understand the crossdressing in me, before I was even fully aware that it existed, I followed the popular hostility against homosexuals (this was in the 1970s, when it was *just* starting to become mainstream). Like pre-Damascus Paul, I thought I was doing the right thing in condemning them, mocking them, and hating them every chance i got.

    But years of wrestling with my own socially unacceptable compulsion has given me a whole new outlook on what it’s like to be different from mainstream society. I had to come to understand that God loves me despite my clear violation of Deuteronomy 22:5. I had to come to understand that what I do is no better or worse than what some gay couple does. I had to read and re-read the bible year after year until Jesus’ words on love and compassion (vs. the zero words He spoke against homosexuality (or, for that matter, crossdressing) were more than just words but a way of life.

    Would that transformation have taken place without the crossdressing as a means of putting myself in someone else’s shoes? I suppose so — I mean, God can do anything to change a person — but having to confront my own deviance made it impossible for me to dodge the question about how to respond to sin in others without bringing the exact same judgement on myself.


  6. Robyn P. says:

    thorin25, Yes, there are non-religious arguments against SSM but I didn’t want my reply to become longer than the original post…

    The state defining what marriage is or isn’t has HUGE ramifications for all religions and churches. There have been adoption services provided by various churches that have been shut down by the government because they refuse to provide adoptions to same-sex couples. Are we falling down the slippery slope already?

    Regarding the news item link in your post, the people pushing for legalizing under-age sex have for years bounced around various organizations, many of them LGBT, trying to hide their main agenda. News is made whenever their agenda is exposed and they are kicked out of these organizations because there is no support for their agenda anywhere. I think their latest push is with various transgender organizations pushing the idea that children have and know sexual or gender identities from birth and there are “transgender” children who want to change their sex. The under-age sex people have goofy logic that twists reality around so much in order to get people to think that if a child knows about and wants to change their sex or gender, then they must be capable of intimate relationships…. This makes me sick!

    We must protect our children!


  7. Damaking55 says:

    I LOVE this blog, you guys are so astute and I learn so much from both the posts as well as the comments. I don’t possess any real answers but what I do have is the experience that comes from a struggle with CD as well as BD/SM for more years than I want to believe.
    So how did I end up this way? I was molested at the age of 4, lived with nothing but females till I was 8 and then another kindly old man in the neighborhood groomed and molested me till I was 17 and here is the crazy part, I thought it was CONSENSUAL till I was in my 50’s! I finally understood that I couldn’t have consented because I didn’t even understand what was happening to me.
    So follow me here because after I was groomed and molested for some 7 years I went into the Navy where I ended up in the gay lifestyle when another gay man told me I was a Queen and belonged in the lifestyle. I was so messed up in my own head that I just went along with it, and then it was the bd/sm scene etc etc.
    I praise God for the healing that I have received through a lot of counseling and work but the thought that any child could consent to the act of sex is just patently evil and it will tear the child’s psyche as it did mine for the rest of his or her life. Yet I live in Illinois where our Governor can’t wait to sign SSM into law and now the lawyers will another stream of income LOL. I don’t believe in SSM but I don’t know how to lovingly come alongside that couple and share the fact that they are sinning. I don’t know how to let them know that I love the sinner but hate the sin. No matter what the sin is. I was saved at 8 yrs. old and I believe that God saved me because he knew the crap I would be dealing with as I grew up. I believe that there are a lot of hurting men that have made the choice to be gay because they were hurt and nobody was safe to talk to about it. I have a hard time believing that there isn’t some hurt that starts that whole ball rolling. Some ,like Ralph can contain it and don’t look at it as an addiction but for me it was and is an addiction. What I love about Ralph is that even though we may disagree on some things we can agree to disagree and leave friends. My problem is that kind of “tolerance” is not acceptable to the left and in fact they would have and did tell me to embrace what I was and what I needed to be. Thanks be to God that the Holy Spirit convicted me to understand that any sexual immorality cannot stand with a vibrant relationship with Jesus. I think the only thing that can truly change this country from the immorality that it is headed for is real revival where we no longer look at religion but relationship.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s