Recently, TIME magazine published an expose on a polygamous family. Many thanks to G. Shane Morris of Colson Center’s Breakpoint in finding this. The fundamentalist Mormons were surprisingly upper-middle class in their livelihood, sweeping away the “ick factor” of compounds and underage marriages. Even more telling was the video blurb which featured the author of the article, Belinda Luscombe. Although the journalist in no way approved of such lifestyles, her conclusions regarding marriage were quite telling. You can watch it here:

Polygamy Raises Profile in America

The magazine’s editor-at-large commented on couples…erm, spouses “living plural” in “celestial marriage.” She asserted, ”I don’t think polygamy is going to have the traction that same-sex marriage has and maybe it probably shouldn’t.” Luscombe reported that monogamous cultures are more “stable” and “better educated.” In other words, means are justified purely by consequences.  ”In the end, polygamy is not the way forward, but probably what I learned in the story is that it’s not as weird as you’d think it would be.”

Oh, well, that’s a relief. I was going to be a real annoyance about fighting for monogamous marriage, but as long as polygamy doesn’t give me the willies, I’ll don’t have to worry about a thing. Heaven forbid we oppose the progressive “way forward.” For all you stodgy traditionalist types, never fear! Our progressive cultural leaders have set a firm line in the sand against non-monogamous marriage, enshrouded in those mightiest of adverbs “maybe…probably.”

Now to be less acerbic: there is no line. There is no limit. There is no nature with its natural ends. There is no “no.” There is instead an amorphous concept of “commitment.” These are the wages of progressivism. When I was at a conference, a priest offered a very important insight. Moralistic therapeutic deism, it has rightly been asserted, is the overwhelmingly popular religion of America. The only “moral” in the moralistic adjective is this: don’t be a jerk. Those seeking polygamous lifestyles are fine as long as they don’t dress funny or insult our own constantly-blunted sensibilities.

If there is no sexual standard for human beings found in nature or special revelation, one really does fall into a slippery slope. Well, more like an abyss, to be honest. LGBT activists in the church get very offended when Christians–often foreign church members–ask if these same activists think bestiality, pedophilia, polyandry, and polygamy are acceptable expressions of sexuality. The sexual revisionists throw up their hands in horrified consternation (or with an insensitivity siren a la UMC General Conference in Tampa).

But, even if the slippery slope concern is insensitive, how can it not be a concern? The individual becomes the arbiter of reality, granted that he can acquire support from the right powers-that-be. The Scriptures and human nature have been quite clear on this point of homosexuality. When we pretend they do not, we need to realize we’ve stepped off a rock onto sand.

UPDATE–If I may quote from IRD intern Julia Polese, “I would add belief in the holy sacrament of Consent to the creed of moral therapeutic deism. Without a notion of the good, there’s only a meeting of wills. And if two people (or four or eight people) turn out to have the same will, then woohoo, my Will Deity must smile upon this fortuitous happenstance.”