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.
Polyamory
In the first part of this series we began examining new terminology and categories for non-monogomous relationships. Here’s a review from an article quoted in Part I:
Polyamorous people sustain multiple intimate, loving, committed relationships at the same time. These relationships can be romantic (or not), sexual (or not), long-term, or intermittent. They can involve cohabitation, marriage, and child-rearing — or none of those things. 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.”[1]
Gotta love that last paragraph. Wild how acting in a committed way leads to relational success.
The underlying principle of “relationship anarchy” is prominently featured on the OPEN website. If you’ll recall, OPEN is the “Organization for Ethical Non-Monogamy and Polyamory,” and under the heading of “Our Organizational Values” we find the following:
Anti-oppression
We believe that sexual and romantic freedom is part of the broader project to liberate humans from oppression of all types such as systemic racism and patriarchy.
Impact-oriented
We strive to produce measurable, concrete change with a focus on substantively transforming systems of power.[2]
This organization is operating from a framework of liberating people from oppression and “transforming systems of power.” They find opposition taking the form of discrimination. Here is another excerpt from the OPEN website:
Do non-monogamous individuals really face discrimination?
Almost two-thirds of non-monogamous adults reported experiencing some form of discrimination based on their non-monogamous identity or relationship style/structure (2020). Examples include family rejection, difficulty accessing supportive mental health care, housing discrimination, and workplace discrimination. Additionally, non-monogamous partnerships are denied access to a range of benefits that married spouses receive related to inheritance, immigration, parental rights, taxation, and more.[3]
The evidence linked to was a paper entitled, “Exploring Minority Stress and Resilience in a Polyamorous Sample” by Clinical Psychologists Ryan G. Witherspoon & Peter S. Theodore.[4] This work cost $39.95 to access, so I was only able to read the Abstract. From this we find the psychologists testing their hypothesis that according to the “minority stress theory,” “…stigma and discrimination will lead to negative mental health effects for polyamorous individuals.” From a sample of 1176 polyamorous American adults, they found “…CNM-related minority stress was positively related to increased psychological distress, such as higher selfreported depression and anxiety symptoms.”
Once again, we’re looking at a small sample size, relying on their self-report for evidence of discrimination and the impact, which is recorded here as “depression and anxiety symptoms.” Unfortunately, I did not read details of the questions asked in their survey, nor how they defined their terms. Notably, in their discussion of their findings in the abstract, the authors emphasized:
“expanding understanding of how anti-CNM stigma affects practitioners and improving clinical cultural competence with this unique and under-served population.”
The authors have used the weighty term “stigma,” which has come to mean, according to Miriam Webster:
"a set of negative and unfair beliefs that a society or group of people have about something.”[5]
That is a very subjective idea – is it “unfair” for society to exercise caution about these new ideas about identity and relationships? Is this actually a stigma, or the rejection of the categories and concept?
In my reading of the evidence provided by OPEN, what I could access of it, I found no concrete, verifiable examples of discrimination.
Another emphasis on the OPEN website is personal rights, including the “right to choose non-monogamy:”
Ethical non-monogamy is not…
· Prescriptive. Non-monogamous people are not out to “abolish” monogamy. However, we do challenge the assumption that monogamous relationships are the ideal, and that monogamous romantic relationships should take priority over other forms of relationships. While everyone has the right to choose monogamy, they should also have the right to choose non-monogamy![6]
Currently, adults in the US do have this freedom. Yet OPEN makes it clear they are advocating for legal benefits for those who identify as polyamorous.
Parallels to “Celibate Partnerships”
Working through the lens of identity, rather than behavior and desire, we can see how a similar train of thought underlies those looking for approval of “Celibate Partnerships,” as covered in the recent R4R summer series. (See “Bad Idea Jeans – A Paper on Celibate Partnerships, Part IV Lost the Plot” Jul 18, 2023 and “Bad Idea Jeans – A Paper on Celibate Partnerships, Part V Family Confusion” Jul 27, 2023.). The work of OPEN carries echoes of wanting others to recognize the importance of the relationship as the individuals involved define them (see “Bad Idea Jeans – A Paper on Celibate Partnerships, Part II”). “Asexuality” is often included in their lists of sexual orientations – which are the equivalent to “celibate partnerships,” otherwise known as friendships.
OPEN’s mission statement includes:
OPEN is a nonprofit organization dedicated to normalizing and empowering non-monogamous individuals, relationships, and communities. More than that, we’re a movement of people working toward a future where romantic and intimate relationships between consenting adults are accepted and protected regardless of relationship structure, gender identity, or sexual orientation.[7] [Emphasis theirs]
Attempting to use the power of the government to gain acceptance of polyamory is not a good tactic. There are obvious concerns about the instability of these relationships, about STD’s, the raising of children, and confusion regarding ownership of and responsibility for property, businesses, etc. that are valid questions to raise.
Instead of finding identity and security in Jesus, people are looking for recognition and approval of their relationships, regardless of the depth of commitment and sex of the person involved. The truth is only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can create life, and the state therefore has an interest in protecting and encouraging a mother and father’s investment in raising their children.
These new experimental relationships are a recipe for disaster in creating confusion for adults and kids, and exposing children to abusive home situations. For more on this, please review R4R’s muti-part series on Them
Before Us. (Starting with “Them Before Us – Part I – How the Biological Family Provides the Best Environment for Children to Thrive” Apr 26, 2022.)
In the next part of this series, we will see how organizations such as OPEN are quite literally writing laws to promote their ideas, gaining legal protections for polyamory in the US.
[1] https://www.mic.com/life/what-is-a-nesting-partner-the-often-misused-poly-term-explained-82705277
[2] https://www.open-love.org/mission
[3] https://www.open-love.org/what-is-non-monogamy
[4] Archives of Sexual Behavior volume 50, pages 1367–1388 (2021)
[5] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stigma
[6] https://www.open-love.org/what-is-non-monogamy
[7] https://www.open-love.org/mission