Redefine marriage, encourage polygamy

Redefine marriage and you'll encourage polygamist agendas. At least that's the view of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), and one I share.

According to the ACL, "It's important that the definition of marriage remains the union of a man and a woman" not two men or two women – and certainly not four women and one man.

Also, "It's important that marriage is not watered down to include polygamy, such as is being debated in Canada."

The uncomfortable truth: In Canada, where marriage was redefined, Muslim fundamentalists and scripture-twisting cults want their versions of "equality" too.

Consider:

Canadian multiculturalists are pushing polygamy.

It didn't take long. On July 20, 2005, Canada adopted a politically-correct and therefore divisive "gender-neutral" marriage definition. Today, polygamy is a contentious issue.

Or to quoteThe Globe and Mail Editorial: "Canada's law against polygamy should be upheld." And: "Barring polygamy remains a reasonable limit on religious freedom and a potent reminder that the law must protect the vulnerable and the equality rights and human dignity of women and children."

It's a persuasive argument but one undermined by redefining marriage in the first place. Christians warned this would happen. The result: more divisions, less unity.

Diluting marriage will strengthen inequality.

In slippery slope Canada, Queen's University law professor Beverley Baines advances the position that anti-polygamous laws encourage abuse by isolating religious communities (often code for cults) and has called for Section 293 to be struck from the Criminal Code.

In other words, if it's controversial, go soft, make allowances, and appease multiculturalists.

Alas, Baines' peculiar argument ignores what we all know: out-and-proud polygamists and male-first religions promote dysfunction. In nations where polygamy is (a) legalized or (b) overlooked, from misogynistic Saudi Arabia to the UK, women pay the price, resulting in more unequal relationships.

Paris has the right idea. In 2010, France's interior minister, Brice Hortefeux, confronted pro-polygamy immigrants because they're undermining equal rights for others. Or as The Telegraph UK reported, "Mr Hortefeux said there were 'possibilities to have nationality withdrawn in the case of polygamy, genital mutilation and serious wrongdoing.' In all cases the radical punishment would not just apply to immigrants, but also to those who have a foreign background, even if they were born in France."

The inconvenient truth is that polygamous relationships appeal to dysfunctional male-dominated cultures, and protecting sex-balanced definitions from divisive imports sends a much needed message.

Redefining marriage rewards heretics.

I'm no churchgoing Steven Sunshine, but blind Freddie can see the dangers associated with rewarding heretical Bible-based cults.

And yet, bizarre arguments (fuelled by biblical illiteracy) persist. "But Abraham, had many wives," argue multiculturalists, forgetting that Old Testament references belong to the Old Covenant. "Read on. The perfected New Testament supports opposite-sex coupling models," say literate Christians.

Moreover, even when polygamy was allowed in ancient times for nomadic tribal and population-boosting security purposes, it was never glamorized. Inconvenient fact 1,234: the OT's references to jealous sister-wives and their love rivals were never advertisements.

Shunning tradition fuels father hunger.

As a society, it's time to acknowledge that boys need fathers in their lives.

Decades ago, social conservatives were mocked by "feminists" for warning us about the dangers of expressive divorces. Today, broken marriages cost taxpayers billions and, for some reason, boys raised by single mothers are filling up our jails, and dominating street gangs.

The strange thing: media-approved feminists are beyond accountability when taxpayers deserve answers, not made-for-multiculturalism excuses. I wonder too how many gang male members from polygamous backgrounds have grown up with many mothers and one father, meaning that they've received less dad-and-son time investments too.

Australia's elite media is never wrong.

So, to conclude, then, the Australian Christian Lobby is right to stand up for what was and is the best time-honored environment for raising children, against politically-correct powers.

But it's important to remember that our elite media is never wrong, in the theological sense, meaning also that you won't hear or read many reports on Canada's marriage woes, because historical facts don't reflect well upon our campaigning journalists and reporters. Seasonal multiculturalists aren't prepared to admit that conservative Christians made valid concerns, because they prefer to take sides, over showing us all sides.