The debate on “gay marriage” is a misnomer. When we discuss the marriage issue we should call it what it truly is – the “LGBT Marriage Agenda.”
 
One of the core and oft missed principles that should guide our reasoning about LGBT marriage has to do with who wants to be included within the definition of marriage.
 
It is the self-identified group known as LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders). LGBTs argue that marriage is a right and they are being discriminated against when church doctrine and state laws limit marriage to one man and one woman.
 
I believe many have not carefully thought through what it means to expand the definition of marriage.
 
If you currently accept the idea that marriage is a right and not a privilege and, therefore, “Ls” and “Gs” should be able to marry, you will eventually be faced with accepting the right of the “Bs” and the “Ts” to marry. I am not sure what to say about “Ts” marrying, but I do have some thoughts about “Bs” marrying.
 
As we give serious examination to the effects of LGBT marriage, we see more clearly the proverbial slippery slope we are headed toward. For instance, in a bisexual relationship, there are at least three people, and there could be more. 
 
LGBT advocates appear to be unified in their movement acknowledging no difference between “Ls,” “Gs,” “Bs” or “Ts.” Proponents of gay and lesbian marriage say that a group of bisexuals (three or more people) should have the right to marry.
 
Based on this way of thinking, it would be discrimination to say otherwise. Bisexuals will make the same arguments that gays and lesbians have made about marriage – they are a minority who wish to love all their partners and be recognized in society as married. So acceptance of gay/lesbian marriage will move us toward the acceptance of polygamy.
 
In fact, it is happening now. In 2005, the first trio “married” in The Netherlands. According to The Brussels Journal “the union of three partners was registered and polygamy has been legalized in all but name.” The relationship consisted of a man and two bisexual women. The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals and they are now progressing into multiple partner marriages.
 
There is now a name for marriages of three people. If you Google “triad marriage,” you will find Web sites that support three-partner marriages. There is also a relatively new word for those who intimately love more than one person – “polyamory.” It is not found in Webster’s but it is defined on Web sites as loving more than one person at the same time.
 
Polyamorous relationships vary from those who are committed to each other to those who accept infidelity in their relationships. Polyamorists are following the lead of the LGBT community in pushing for their civil rights and acceptance as a normal alternative lifestyle.
 
(To learn more read Dr. Robert A.J. Gagnon’s “Why homosexual behavior is more like consensual incest and polyamory than race or gender”)

No limitations

If the marriage debate is primarily about “rights” and the gender of a partner is irrelevant, then it follows that other limitations such as the number of people, age and kinship should likewise not be restricted. If “rights” rule, where does this take us? Are we not now restricting the rights of a man who wants to marry his niece, a mother who wants to marry her son, a brother and sister who want to marry or an adult who wants to marry a very young partner? Should those restrictions be removed in order not to be discriminatory? Will our polygamy, incest and age of consent laws become a thing of the past? Isn’t incest just an old Bible rule that our progressive society can throw out? After all, aren’t we throwing out the old Bible rules about homosexual practice?

The next battleground

More Light Presbyterians (MLP) is one group pushing the gay movement within the PCUSA. MLP lists 117 member churches, about 1 percent of all congregations in the PCUSA. Michael Adee, executive director of MLP, told The Layman that his organization and its allies are preparing now to seek denominational support for same-gender marriages and other rights for LGBT Presbyterians. When asked about his view of marriage for bisexuals, Adee said MLP supports monogamous marriages even though his organization is committed to full rights for bisexuals. 
 
After a very close vote by the PCUSA presbyteries on eliminating the denomination’s sexual practice standards for ordination, the next battleground will certainly be a push for acceptance of nontraditional marriages. Make no mistake about it – the ordination of practicing, self-avowed homosexuals will eventually contribute in a major way to the acceptance of polygamy and other aberrant practices.  When the traditional institution of marriage has been decimated, other moral values will soon collapse.

Is media having second thoughts?

We often blame the liberal media for our nation’s decline in moral values. But perhaps some in the media are having second thoughts about the LGBT Marriage Agenda. Recently I was watching a cable TV news show in which they were debating gay marriage and there was a big surprise. The anchor asked those in the debate to comment on bisexuals marrying (three or more partners) and marriages of kinfolk. The silence was deafening. Here was this proponent of gay marriage prepared to debate the issue on national TV, and yet she was speechless. If you think this whole “right to marry whomever” concept through to a logical conclusion, the resulting breakdown of fundamental moral values is saddening. Just because you have consenting adults, you may not have a relationship that is good for society or within God’s commands. Jesus esteemed marriage and repeated the Genesis formula of one man wed to one woman. It is a relationship reflective of Christ’s relationship with His bride, the Church, and it should be held in honor among us all.

Traditional marriage

Rev. Thomas Wilson in his April 26 article in The Presbyterian Outlook pushes the idea that government should get out of the wedding business. It seems odd that a man of the cloth would believe that the God proclaimed institution of marriage, the foremost relationship in the establishment of a family unit that produces and nurtures children, should be cast aside by society as being unimportant.
 
Clearly our society does not agree with Rev. Wilson. Thirty states have passed amendments to their constitutions defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. 
 
Marriage is God’s idea – not an invention of culture. God instituted marriage in Genesis 2:24 soon after the creation of man and woman. Jesus stated again in Matthew 19:4-6 that marriage is designed for one man and one woman. It is time the church followed God’s Word revealed to us in clear and concise terms. For we are reminded in I Corinthians 6:9-11: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God.”
 
In Paul’s day, as stated in this passage some homosexuals became former homosexuals. (For congregational resources on this subject visit www.oneby1.org)
 
Jesus Christ has the power to break the chains of sin. The Presbyterian Lay Committee prays for all sinners (ourselves included) to surrender our lives completely to the risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the One and Only, the Alpha and the Omega. In so doing, let us hold marriage in honor among us all.
 
Stephen G. Brown is an elder at First Presbyterian Church of Haines City, Fla. He is chairman of the Board of Directors and chief executive officer of the Presbyterian Lay Committee.