Gary W. Summers
When secular humanists began redefining the word “family,” they did so with one goal in mind, and that was to allow for two adults of the same gender to be able to adopt children (since they obviously cannot have any of their own). It took a few years, but sure enough, the Supreme Court decided that two homosexuals can be married and granted family status. When that occurred, many of us predicted that it would not be long until polygamy would be sanctioned because once the definition for a “family” begins to be altered, there is no stopping point. In other words, when it ceases being one male and one female, plus children born to them or adopted, then almost every combination becomes a consideration—not just the ludicrous formation of two of the same gender.
The time has come already—in Canada. According to a post by Ken Ham of “Answers in Genesis,” that nation has just recognized two men and one woman as the parents of one child on the infant’s birth certificate. Although they are not legally married, they are still in a “relationship” together. Sadly, no one needed to be a prophet to see this action coming. How did “homosexual marriages” come to be? Homosexuals complained that they had no legal status; so homosexual “unions” were allowed, but eventually that did not suffice; nothing would do but to have legitimate “marriages.” The process is simply repeating itself. Those in “polyamorous” (many loves) relationships will whine that they have no legal standing, and eventually polygamy will become legal, just as predicted.
The judge who wrote the decision said, “Society is continually changing, and family structures are changing along with it.” Really? Does not this imply that society is the final arbiter of what is right and wrong—and that there is no objective moral standard? So, if drug cartels take over Canada and force through a law that drug dealers cannot be incarcerated, will that be alright? What if the powers that be decided that too much money is wasted on prolonging the lives of their elderly citizens? Will they open “Moving On” centers to hasten departures of seniors? What if the culture desires that solution?
While the judge said that his law was in the best interest of the child, such is clearly not the case. Only one of the men is the father, and the child is inheriting his genic code. Also, this will be a roadblock to genealogical research—especially if a court decides to outlaw a DNA test to find out who the biological father is. How many generations will it take—how many centuries must roll by—how many people must suffer from subjectivism before mankind realizes that God knew what He was doing when He designed the family (Judg. 21:25)?