The old joke, that “whoever said marriage is a 50-50 proposition didn’t know the half of it,” takes on a whole new meaning in a culture flirting with “polyamory.” Within the word, “poly” means multiple, and “amor” means love. Thus, polyamory refers to multiple loves, or what has traditionally been called “open relationships.” Some polyamorous relationships involve so-called “marriage,” others do not. As opposed to polygamy, which means many spouses, polyamory is about multiple committed relationships consenting together to be part of a larger relationship.

As Sean McDowell recently noted, polyamorous relationships are not new. Examples go back to at least the Greco-Roman world. What is new is that over 50 percent of Americans under 30 believe open marriage is acceptable, and another study shows that one in nine Americans has engaged in polyamory. Also new, and consistent with the American experience, is the collection of reality shows, thought pieces and films conspiring to promote it.

Most important in the drive to normalize polyamory is the Supreme Court’s 2012 Obergefell decision. By legalizing same-sex “marriage” nationwide, the male/female distinction was treated as irrelevant for marriage, which opened the door to additional relational arrangements. In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts even questioned whether the arguments for same-sex marriage would justify “people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships.” The answer is unfortunately “yes.”

A few local governments are also mainstreaming the practice. An ordinance passed this spring by the Portland City Council prohibits discrimination based on one’s “family or relationship structure” and reduces the obstacles to receiving various city services previously reserved for monogamous couples. Other cities have passed similar resolutions. The push to normalize same-sex relationships also began with anti-discrimination laws.

And just recently, in an article in The Christian Century, David Congdon argued that “biblical and theological arguments in favor of polyamory are readily available.” As an example, Congdon cites Ephesians 5:31-32, in which Paul describes the husband and wife as pointing to Christ’s relationship to the Church, as actually referring to one church in Ephesus with multiple people. Thus, he concludes, “if Christ’s relationship to the [C]hurch is supposed to be the model for marriage, it might well be a plural marriage.”

Congdon then correctly stated that “mainline Protestants who already embrace same-sex relationships within the church don’t necessarily see Adam and Eve in Genesis or the marital analogy in Ephesians as normative templates for marriage in the first place.” Mainline liberals long ago rejected biblical teaching on marriage and sexuality. According to Congdon, this means “that Christians cannot simply assume that our faith straightforwardly supports the norm of monogamy.”

And so, Congdon encourages liberal Christians to take yet another step in normalizing behavior that historic, biblical Christianity has always considered sinful. In doing so, he not only rejects the biblical understanding of marriage and sexuality, but he also rejects what the Bible presents, and history affirms, as the fundamental institution of civilization. The very same arguments—that the Bible is not necessarily clear, that God is on the side of love, and that we should get to know people who have made these choices—were also made for same-sex “marriage” by liberal, “affirming” Christians.

Another assertion about polyamory, which was also leveled in the same-sex “marriage” debate, is that Jesus never talked about it. But Jesus did talk about marriage. In fact, He described the creation account as normative and authoritative. In Matthew 19, when asked about divorce, Jesus pointed to creation, how God made humans in His image, male and female, for one another. Quoting Genesis 2:24, that the man and woman become “one flesh,” Jesus rejected divorce.

If God’s purposes in creation, that the sexual act and procreation exist rightfully within God’s design for marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman for a lifetime, are plain enough to guide us on that issue, it’s safe to guess what Jesus would’ve said had He been asked about polyamory instead.

Paul also quoted Genesis 2:24 in his teaching on marriage in his Epistle to the Ephesians. And he wrote to Timothy that an elder must be “husband of one wife.” It’s hard to imagine he would have affirmed the moral legitimacy of a “throuple.”

In our book on same-sex marriage, Sean McDowell and I repeat three basic observations from history that summarize the case for marriage from natural law: (1) sex makes babies, (2) societies need babies to continue and (3) babies need a mom and a dad. Study after study shows that the single greatest predictor of a child’s long-term success is that they are raised in a home with a married biological mom and dad. Even beyond the inevitable relational jealousy and sexual brokenness, polyamory makes children the objects of yet another social experiment in order to cater to adult desire.

We were wrong when we said, “Oh, the kids will be fine” with happy but not married parents, or with two dads or two moms instead of their mom and dad. They won’t be fine with multiple, unrelated adults coming in and out of their lives, either.

One of the most important ways Christians must be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within them is by making the case for marriage. Even more, we must demonstrate God’s good design by living it out in our own homes. Marriage as God intended has always been one of the best gifts we can give to the wider world. In every time and place, it is the best context for sexuality and the best situation for children. God created it that way.

Source