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.
Is non-monogamy a new phenomenon?
Monogamy as the default mode of relationships is often seen as a universal and timeless practice, but in fact, it is a relatively modern construction. Throughout history, non-monogamy has been practiced in many diHerent cultures and contexts; for example, many indigenous cultures in the Americas, Africa, and Asia traditionally practiced various forms of non-monogamy. It was only with the rise of Christianity and the subsequent influence of Victorian morality that monogamy became the dominant form of relationship in Western society, with legal and cultural norms enforcing its primacy.
Ethical non-monogamy is not …
A new phenomenon. Although interest is in non-monogamy growing within Western societies, humans all around the world have been practicing nonmonogamous relationships of all types for millennia.
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-monogamy1.
The assumption here is that OPEN and other promoting polyamory are fighting against the stigma against non-monogamy created by Christians. Most people
practiced non-monogamy, and all was well until those pesky Christians came along and spoiled everyone’s fun.
Apparently, no one in OPEN has read Tom Holland’s classic work Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind. Relationships, particularly for women and children, were not a peaceful proposition before Christianity impacted sexual practices in societies around the world. Most men indeed practiced non-monogamy before Christ, leaving chaos and destruction in their wake.
In a 2020 interview entitled ‘Christianity gave women a dignity that no previous sexual dispensation had offered,’ Tom Holland relays the following to Shoaib Daniyal:
As I began the book, I was thinking, well, essentially the whole Christian sexual morality in the West has gone. But then while I was writing it, the Harvey Weinstein episode happened. And what was interesting about that, and the whole #MeToo movement, which followed it, was that nobody said, well, what’s wrong with a very powerful man sexually abusing his social inferiors. And the #MeToo movement depended on, for its effectiveness, not just on women accepting its premises, but men.
And the very question, why do people take for granted that powerful men do not have the right to use their social inferiors in a sexual manner? This is one that actually goes back to the very heart of the theme of Dominium. Because that was what the Romans took for granted. The dynamic in the Roman world was not between, as it is now, men and women. It was between those who have power, namely Roman free male citizens, and those who were subordinate to them. And essentially the Roman sexual universe was, by our lights, very brutal. It was a very Harvey Weinstein sexual arena.
A Roman man had the right to sexually use anyone who was subordinate to him, such as slaves and social inferiors. He could just use their mouths or their various orifices, as receptacles for his excess sperm. And so, the Romans had this one word “mayo” for urine and ejaculate. This is how it’s seen. And so it casts those who have to receive the Roman males’ attentions in a rather unpleasant light.
Now, Christianity radically, radically changes that. It’s there in the very earliest Christian texts: Paul’s letters. And Paul is a Jew. So, he has an idea that the binary is male and female; God creates man and women separate. So, he brings that assumption to the table. But he also brings another novel assumption, which is that Christ came and suffered death out of love for humanity.
And so, what Paul does is to say that love; all you need is love. Love is the greatest animating force. And if we want to have a sexual relationship with another human being, then it must be true to the love that Christ has shown for humanity. So, what Paul does is to say that there can be only one way, one proper way, of having a sexual relationship, and that is you have to have a marriage that is monogamous.
The Jews would have numerous wives. The Romans were monogamous, but they could dump their spouses at regular intervals. Paul says no, it has to be
monogamous. A lifelong, monogamous relationship. Something very, very odd. There’s was nothing like this before. But more than that: the reason why this matters is that Paul says that the man who marries a woman is like Christ, marrying the church. So that gives an incredible sacred potency to every man and every woman in a married relationship.
These [Romans] are householders who, until they get converted by Paul, are taking for granted that they have the right to sleep with who they like. But Paul is now saying no, you are the image of Christ. Christ doesn’t go around sexually forcing himself on the cullery maid or page boys. Yoiu can only with your wife.
And likewise, though it might seem sexist now, the woman gets to be the church and doesn’t get to be Christ. But actually, what Paul is doing is giving an incredibly potent sacred quality to the physical body of a woman. That a woman is not there to be sexually abused. She’s not there to be jumped on by a powerful male. And if that’s true of an aristocratic woman, it’s also true of the lowest humblest woman in a Roman household.
The scale of this transformation cannot be over-emphasised. And it’s something that offers to women a dignity that no previous sexual dispensation had ever given them. And over the course of the first centuries of Christianity, this understanding of sex eats like an acid through the understanding that the Romans previously had of how sex operates. And over the course of Christian history, the church imposes on believing Christians this sense that being a powerful male does not license you to have multiple wives and concubines. You have to focus on one.2
Holland goes on to note the practice of “free love” that became popular in the 1960’s is actually not a good deal for women. (As I noted in part I of this series, stating identifying as non-monogamous can also be known as EFBD - every frat boy’s dream.):
…Puritan is now a dirty word. But actually, what Puritans are about are – it’s there in the word – it’s about purity. And part of that purity is sexual purity. And it’s not just repressive.
Within a marriage, Puritan men and women have as much sexual fulfillment as you possibly want. But outside it, you have purity by respecting the bodily integrity of, you know, your servant girl. You shouldn’t go to prostitutes and things like that. And so, for centuries, this was taken for granted in America and England. And it’s really only with the 1960s that that changes.
…Something that does cut the link not just with doctrinal, but with cultural Christianity is the idea that starts to bed down in the ’60s, that love is not just
spiritual, but physical. And then therefore, “all you need is love” means that you can basically have sex with anyone you like. And this becomes something that hippies over the course of the ’70s and the ’80s, in the West again, bed down.
But it turns out, as we see now in America, that this idea that free love is a great thing, have sex any way you want, actually turns out to be better for men than for women. Because essentially, it’s license for men to sexually harass their social inferiors. And that’s what the Harvey Weinstein #MeToo thing is all about. And, in a way, the perfect illustration of this paradox, a kind of moral Mobius Strip, is that when women go on their marches to protest against sexual harassment, many of them will wear red robes and white bonnets.
This is the uniform that they’ve taken from The Handmaid’s Tale, a novel by Margaret Atwood, which then became a TV series: a dystopian satire set in a future America that’s become basically fundamentalist Christian. And it’s drawing on the model of Puritan New England. But what is it that these women are demanding?
They’re demanding that men become Puritan.
They’re demanding that they that they exercise sexual self-restraint, sexual continence, and that they respect a woman’s right to choose her own partner. And that is nothing if not the demonstration of the fact that Christianity is always going to come back. We in the West, we cannot escape it. It always returns, even if it’s not wearing an overtly Christian form.
It is wild reading an atheist noting that love between a man and a woman in a committed marriage is not repressive, but fulfilling. And yes, “free love” isn’t free – there are consequences to having sex with numerous partners, and these fall heaviest on women and children. The short-sightedness and revisionist history of those at OPEN is startling. We can learn from the past – both distant and recent – to find the boundaries for sexual intimacy the Lord has outlined for us do indeed fall in pleasant places.
The Parts are not Equal to the Whole
As a final thought, let’s not forget that co-parenting, nesting / co-habiting, sexual partnerships, asexual partnerships – all of these old practices being listed under new terms as identity categories are each aspects of a marriage, and the parts are not equal to the whole of that sacred covenant. Married couples are parents to their children, living together as friends and lovers, forsaking all others in an act of sacrificial love.
Honoring this level of commitment is a good and noble thing. Children especially need this level of stability to flourish, and there is plenty of evidence to back this up. (Again, see Them Before Us, as this book and advocacy organization highlights the dramatic benefits of opposite-sex, biologically related parents in the life of a child.)
Supporting this foundational part of society – the raising of children – is not exercising oppression against those in friendships or those who wish to have sexual partners they don’t live with, etc. That is a faulty assumption encased in a faulty perspective – stretching all the way back through the history of monogamy. People are free to make choices to separate out these aspects of marriage in their own lives, but consent is a low bar in our relationships.
Society is not obligated to pretend that compartmentalizing one’s relationships in this way should be seen as equal to marriage. People have experimented with these practices for a long time, and found loving, committed, exclusive marriages between a man and a woman to be best. The sacrifice required to say “no” to all other relationships, in the interest of supporting one other person and the children born of that relationship is worth promoting and supporting by society, including the state.
And let’s not forget - the long-term commitment between a husband and wife is a reflection of the long-term commitment the Lord wants to make with each of us. He is our Creator, Father, Redeemer, Lover and Friend. This is the commitment He offers all to those who trust in His name.
[1] https://www.open-love.org/what-is-non-monogamy
[2] https://scroll.in/article/953904/christianity-gave-women-a-dignity-that-no-previous-sexual-dispensation-had-offered-tom-holland