One of the arguments used by pro-marriage supporters against the introduction of same-sex “marriage” is that it could lead to a whole raft of other marriage configurations, such as polygamy. Same-sex “marriage” supporters counter this by calling it a slippery slope argument, assuring us that there is no reason to think that redefining marriage to exclude either a man or a woman would lead to a further redefinition to include three people, or four, or even 26.

They are right on one thing. It is a slippery slope argument. But where they err is in supposing that we are saying that same-sex “marriage” is at the top of that slope. Not so. We have been hurtling down the helter-skelter for decades now and same-sex “marriage” is just the latest stop on our way back to the laws and morality of Canaan.

Polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage may well be introduced at some point, since there are no logical arguments that have been used to redefine marriage that couldn’t be applied equally well to polyamorous or sibling relationships. You know, “if two people love each other very much, blah, blah, blah,” who are you to deny them the chance to show their love and commitment? Well, “if two brothers love each other very much blah, blah, blah”, or “if three people love each other very much blah, blah, blah,” who are you to deny them the chance to show their love and commitment? Where’s your devotion to “equal” marriage guys?

But whether these things are introduced or not, they are merely a side show to the real next line of attack, which is going to be the abolition of the adultery law. Speaking on behalf of the Government in the debate on same-sex “marriage” back in 2013, Baroness Stowell, had this to say:

“In terms of the law, marriage does not require the fidelity of couples. It is open to each couple to decide for themselves on the importance of fidelity within their own relationship.”

This was an astonishing statement by any stretch of the imagination. Since marriage is a legally recognised institution, since it contains a pledge to be faithful to the other person, and since the law does still recognise adultery as grounds for divorce, her statement was on a par with saying that someone swearing in court to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” is not, in terms of the law, required to tell the truth.

The background to her comments was the fact that introducing same-sex “marriage” was bound to cause immense difficulties when it came to framing the law around the issue of adultery, since adultery is defined in law as “voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not married to each other but one or both of whom is or are married.”

So what we now have, having in our infinite wisdom decided to meddle with the subjects of marriage, is a situation where those in same-sex “marriages” cannot divorce on the grounds of adultery unless – and here is the height of anti-logic for you – their spouse has been unfaithful with a member of the opposite sex. Not only this, but a heterosexual person is not technically able to cite adultery as grounds for divorce if their spouse is unfaithful with a member of the same sex. The technical name for this is insanity, and the phrase “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” somehow seems to drip off the tongue.

Well sooner or later some human rights vulture is bound to swoop down to pick his way through the marriage carcass, arguing on behalf of a heterosexual accused of adultery with another heterosexual that they are being discriminated against, since if they had been unfaithful with someone of the same sex they could not have been divorced on grounds of adultery.

That day is fast approaching and we are being softened up for it. Take this article a few weeks ago on the BBC. It highlights the case of a woman whose husband cheated on her no less than ten times. However, “When she contacted a lawyer to obtain a divorce, she assumed there would be two grounds open to her – adultery or unreasonable behaviour. Instead, she was surprised to find adultery was not an option.

This was because her husband had sex with other men and not with a woman. In the UK, adultery can only occur between members of the opposite sex and must involve vaginal intercourse.”