Debra Baty
The slippery slope fallacy is an argument that claims an initial event or action will trigger a series of other events and lead to an extreme or undesirable outcome. The slippery slope fallacy anticipates this chain of events without offering any evidence to substantiate the claim.[1]
We’re past the “fallacy” mark when it comes to sexual orientation ideology. Equating sexual desires, temptations, and behaviors to a permanent part of personhood is leading to rather dark and confusing places in society, sorry to say. Here we’ll review yet more evidence to substantiate this claim.
Polycules
In August the TV show called “Riverdale” featured a surprise as it released the final episode – the four lead characters (Archie, Jughead, Betty, and Veronica – yes, based off of the old comic book series) ended up in a polyamorous relationship, also known as a “polycule.” A Dec. 2022 article entitled, “What’s a polycule? An expert on polyamory explains this relationship”[2] explains:
This truth in Proverbs is important enough that Solomon repeats the exact verbiage in chapter 14 & 16. Clearly, this is a truth worth driving home… there are countless ways men, women and young people make foolish and destructive decisions based upon what seems right in the moment.
This faulty thinking can be traced all the way back to Adam and Eve’s original disobedience to God in the Garden of Eden. Even there, before sin saturated nearly every aspect of humanity, a decision was made. A decision based not on what God clearly stated, but on what “seemed right” regardless of what God said.
Naturally, the world doesn’t care about God’s laws. Many don’t even believe in the reality of a personal God who created all things, let alone a God who gave His life to redeem hopelessly fallen humanity. The real issue isn’t the perspective of the unchurched and non-believers. Rather, the far greater concern is so many are living according to “a way that seems right” to them, even as professed Christ-followers.
The examples are endless, but certainly compromise made in the inordinate pursuit of: pleasure, comfort, money, careers, retirement planning, following feelings, personal happiness, sex, and identity are a few of the many ways we set ourselves on a path leading toward death because we reject God’s way for what feels right to us.
As our understanding of and value for God’s laws diminish, we functionally consider ourselves to be more enlightened and “nicer” than God. So we make compromises for ourselves and others that often seem small at the time, frequently giving way to cumulative or major sudden life-choices that are a total departure from God’s intention and outside of His protective boundaries.
When this happens, we engage in the same distorted thinking and reasoning as Eve. We observe the “fruit” before us (whatever that might be). Satan, the world, and our own flesh reason that “it” seems good (Genesis 3:6) and we depart the narrow path of life for the wide path of destruction and death. Sadly, in our deluded condition we often influence others to join us on this path that promises wisdom, fun, and freedom, but actually leads to bondage.
Setting aside the many areas we as purported Christ-followers and regular church-attendeee ignore the lordship of Christ in our lives and abandon The Narrow Way, this particular blog post is addressing one primary area: cohabitation.
In 2019 Pew Research reported that 58% of white evangelicals approved of cohabitation if the couple intended to get married.
According an article at www.probe.org/cohabitation “Cohabitation, as a lifestyle, is on the rise. Consider the significant growth in cohabitation rates in the last few decades. In 1960 and 1970, about a half million were living together. But by 1980 that number was 1.5 million. By 1990 the number was nearly three million. And by 2000 the number was almost five million.
Researchers estimate that today as many as 50% of Americans cohabit at one time or another prior to marriage. The stereotype of two young, childless people living together is not completely accurate; currently, some 40% of cohabiting relationships involve children.”
I have a friend who regularly attends church, participates in Bible-studies, and highly values connecting with other Christians for support and mutual encouragement. She gave her all to an abusive first marriage, doing everything she knew to walk out her commitment and vows. When she discovered that her husband was committing adultery repeatedly she separated from him for a significant amount of time. With his apparent repentance and commitment to work on their marriage, supported by positive actions on his part over time, she returned home in hopes of participating in the much needed growth and development of a far better marriage.
Unfortunately, he did not have the same level of commitment, and as bad as the first 10 years of their marriage was, the years that followed were far worse, including more adultery. Eventually, she left the marriage and divorced her husband. She was devastated, to say the least, and needed time and counseling.
Eventually, without any intention of pursuing a relationship she became friends with a Christian guy, which led to a romantic connection. This brought about a dilemma. My friend had been so emotionally and mentally abused and violated, she was totally afraid of the prospect of ever marrying again. She also didn’t want to put her kids or herself through another failed marriage. She and her boyfriend wound up crossing sexual boundary lines. After that behavior continued for months, it didn’t seem like a big deal for him to move in, with the idea that it wouldn’t be long before they would “tie the knot”.
It’s been 4 or 5 years. They attend church together and seemingly have a life and family together, but with no actual commitment. Her boyfriend wants to get married, but there are still so many areas of unprocessed pain and fear it’s just been easier for my friend to stay where she’s at – living a life of cohabitation, disconnecting from God and her own conscience in this area and ignoring the impact her behavior is having on her now adult children, who are great young men and women, but care nothing for Christianity. Her witness for Christ and her inner peace have been compromised.
In most cases though, cohabitation isn’t about unresolved or avoided trauma from a previous marriage. It’s simply convenient; a way to save money, a way to “test drive” the guy or girl before saying “I do”. But this is a complete disregard for the institution of covenant marriage originated by God.
At www.crosswalk.com an article entitled, “Cohabitation and divorce - - is there a correlation?” stated the following: A 2010 "meta-analysis" looked at 26 peer-reviewed, published studies that followed various couples over time. This analysis found that marrieds who had cohabiting pasts were more likely to face divorce, and that "noncohabitors seem to have more confidence in the future of their relationship, and have less accepting attitudes toward divorce.
Hebrews 13:4 is frank and clear, “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators [those who have sex before marriage] and adulterers [those who have sex with someone other than their spouse after marriage] God will judge.”
A few years ago a friend confided in me that he was completely baffled by his 12-step program leader. He had been part of a popular Christian recovery program in a local church for more than a year, working out his own substance abuse issues. He had recently learned that his leader was living with his girlfriend, but according to the leader they weren’t having sex.
While it is possible (though highly unlikely) they were not having sex, is that all that matters in whether or not couples are cohabitating? Aside from the fact that sexual sin is far more likely when we are living and sleeping under the same roof, how does this impact those who look to us as a shepherd or mentor? Either this will generate mistrust (as it should), undermine the leader’s character, or it may embolden others to live out the same practice, usually without any effective boundaries to guard against sexual sin.
1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 says “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every appearance of evil”. Avoiding or delaying marriage and cohabitating instead may seem like wisdom, but it’s definitely not godly wisdom.
Staying on the narrow path with God and trusting His many commands to avoid sexual immorality are both good and for our flourishing, leads toward fulfillment, joy, and life. Let’s choose life, rather than momentary pleasure accompanied by severe long-term consequences.
The slippery slope fallacy is an argument that claims an initial event or action will trigger a series of other events and lead to an extreme or undesirable outcome. The slippery slope fallacy anticipates this chain of events without offering any evidence to substantiate the claim.[1]
We’re past the “fallacy” mark when it comes to sexual orientation ideology. Equating sexual desires, temptations, and behaviors to a permanent part of personhood is leading to rather dark and confusing places in society, sorry to say. Here we’ll review yet more evidence to substantiate this claim.
Polycules
In August the TV show called “Riverdale” featured a surprise as it released the final episode – the four lead characters (Archie, Jughead, Betty, and Veronica – yes, based off of the old comic book series) ended up in a polyamorous relationship, also known as a “polycule.” A Dec. 2022 article entitled, “What’s a polycule? An expert on polyamory explains this relationship”[2] explains:
These relationship networks are known as “polycules” or “constellations,” and they can be complex and interconnected. The word polycule is a blending of “polyamory” and “molecule,” reflecting relationship configurations that often resemble the chemical structure of molecules.
When you click the link in the quote, you’ll find multiple relationships interconnected under the following terms: “solo poly,” “co-parenting,[3]” “cohabitating,” “nesting partners,” “sexual partnership,” “asexual/nonsexual partnership,” “long distance relationship,” “monogamous,” “mono-poly relationship,” and “former partners.” It is a confusing jumble, with some combinations that are hard to understand. (I.e. - A “long-distance relationship” maintained with a “former partner.” Doesn’t that simply mean you’re still in touch with someone you used to be more involved with?)
The main illustrated mix of relationships in the “polycule” involves 21 people:
Illustration by Tikva Wolf[4]
Another confusing example is where some long-distance relationships are also listed with a separate designation as “nesting partners.” When I looked up what the difference was, there were a variety of meanings for these terms. (As people are currently making this up.[5]) One source claimed the term “nesting partner:”
“…is often used to replace the term primary partner, while still describing a higher level of entanglement, in order to avoid hierarchical language.”[6]
What is “avoiding hierarchical language” referring to? Here’s an explanation from another source:
Part of the appeal of polyamory is the ability to choose which elements are part of your partnership, rather than defaulting to the “relationship escalator.”
“The relationship escalator is where you’re dating, get serious, become exclusive, live together, get married, and have children,” Labriola says. “Somewhere along the line, you merge finances.” Many polyamorous people, in her experience, want to jump off the relationship escalator and not assume any steps are necessary to have a committed relationship. But that doesn’t mean poly people don’t want any of the trappings of a traditional domestic partnership — which is where nesting partners come in.
The concept of poly people living with one or more of their partners isn’t new, by any means, but that time five or six years ago when Labriola started hearing the actual term “nesting partner” coincided with the rising popularity of “relationship anarchy.”
While some polyamorous people refer to their long-term, committed partners as “primary partners,” relationship anarchists reject the hierarchy implicit in a model that characterizes relationships as primary and secondary. By referring to a live-in partner as a nesting partner instead, polyamorous people deconstruct that hierarchy. “Amongst young 20- to 40-year-olds doing polyamory, the idea of hierarchy seems to be a dirty word,” Labriola says.
For her part, Labriola thinks the term “nesting partner” obfuscates what actually is the primary relationship. “If you’re living with someone for 20 years and share finances and a home, you make decisions based on that relationship more than any other,” she says. “[I find that] those relationships are much more likely to succeed long-term.”[7]
So, using the term “nesting” instead of “primary” supposedly deconstructs the relationship hierarchy. Yet, the counselor sought out by the author[8] pointed out that changing the word doesn’t change the degree of attention and focus required in a relationship involving more shared responsibilities.
What is clear is we’re being asked – no, we’re expected – to accept these as defining aspects of personhood. “Asexual,” polyamorous” and the like are being taken as varieties of sexual orientation, and therefore deserving of the rights bestowed upon those who identify as gay or lesbian. “Ambiamorous” is an additional term is being used to cover all the bases in this view of personhood:
“A person is ambiamorous if they are comfortable being in a monogamous or polyamorous relationship,” Yau says. “This is not to be confused with someone who is happy to date multiple people casually until they pick their favorite for a monogamous relationship — that's just regular dating.”[9]
How can you tell the difference? It’s up to however a person feels and then sees themselves at the time. Completely subjective.
Response to Riverdale
What was striking about the Riverdale episode was learning about a polyamorous activist organization, newly minted in 2022, called OPEN or the “Organization for Ethical Non-Monogamy and Polyamory.” Their response to the relationship between the main characters on the show was posted on social media soon after it aired:
Our full statement: It's tempting to celebrate every portrayal of non-monogamy in popular media. After all, non-monogamous families and relationships are underrepresented and often misunderstood in our culture and the media, despite representing about 5% of American adults.[10]
That said, it's frustrating that Riverdale used its characters' non-monogamous relationship as a "shocking twist" rather than engaging with an authentic portrayal of non-monogamy as simply being part of people's identities.
We didn't see or hear anything about why these characters practice non-monogamy, what it means for them, the substance of their relationship agreements and communication practices, or any of the other underlying motivations and work that makes relationships of any type function.[11]
“…rather than engaging with an authentic portrayal of non-monogamy as simply being part of people’s identities.” Identifying as non-monogamous - otherwise known as EFBD (every frat boy’s dream – I’m coining the acronym) is another round of “this desire is just who I am,” taken to its logical, and devastating, conclusion. No doubt there is meaning and substance behind all of these relationships, just as there is meaning and substance behind all human emotion. Just what that meaning is, however, is something we need to stop and think about. (We’ll return to this train of thought later in this series.)
The Blessings of Commitment
How common is this new identity trend? On a recent podcast with Benjamin Boyce, fellow podcaster Leslie Elliott noted seeing many people using “ENM,” (Ethical Non-Monogomy) on dating apps. She stated they are “…telling you they’re happily married, but looking for some side action.”[12] Later, Elliott remarked that people are “missing something if they’re looking for that shallow of a relationship.” And “there is a societal cost” to these relationships.
Sadly, those experimenting with these new ways of identifying themselves are being robbed of the beauty, substance, and benefits of a lifelong, exclusive commitment to one person in marriage.
Much has been written elsewhere about how legalizing no-fault divorce started our society down this slide, which is rapidly accelerating into a freefall. In the wake of that decision commitment in marriage has been undermined. In the 2015 Obergefell decision the sex of the individuals involved no longer mattered. And now the number of persons involved in these relationships is being expanded, swept up into the mis-categorization of sexuality as identity.
We’ll continue to explore these ideas in the next part of this series.
[1] https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/slippery-slopefallacy/#:~:
text=The%20slippery%20slope%20fallacy%20is,evidence%20to%20substantiate%20the%20claim.
[2] https://www.news24.com/life/relationships/love/relationship/whats-a-polycule-an-expert-on-polyamoryexplains-
this-relationship-20221201
[3] Inclusion of multiple co-parenting partners reveals how kids may find themselves in the midst of a bewildering web.
[4] https://www.tikvawolf.com/
[5] For an example of differing definitions of terms, see this
thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/polyamory/comments/9gdzrn/please_stop_using_nesting_partner_when_you_
really/
[6] https://www.bustle.com/wellness/poly-relationship-terms-metamour-nesting-partner
[7] https://www.mic.com/life/what-is-a-nesting-partner-the-often-misused-poly-term-explained-82705277
[8] Ibid. “Kathy Labriola, a California-based counselor specializing in non-traditional relationships[8] and
author of The Jealousy Workbook: Exercises and Insights for Managing Open Relationships”
[9] https://www.bustle.com/wellness/poly-relationship-terms-metamour-nesting-partner
[10] This figure came from two US Census studies of single adults including 3,905; and 4,813 single adults. “…participants report[ed] engaging in CNM [consentual non-monogomy] at some point in their lifetime.” There was no verification of the consent of their non-monogomy.
[11] https://twitter.com/openloveorg/status/1695844848828613002
[12] approx. 11 min. in.