For years, pro-marriage advocates argued that redefining marriage would be a slippery slope that would lead to the acceptance of other behavioral and societal deviations.  “Bigots! Homophobes! Fearmongers!” their opponents screamed in chorus, dismissing the concerns without so much as a rational conversation.

Today, those concerns seem quasi-prophetic.

“Once marriage is unhinged from the biological roots that have been there for a millennium, marriage isn’t redefined, it is undefined,” said David Fowler, president of FACT, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage. “Any relationship that people want to have and call a marriage will be entitled to become a marriage.”

Fowler was right — this ‘undefinition’ has given birth to a plethora of calls for tolerance, acceptance, and equality for other groups — even groups whose activity has always been seen as a perversion and danger to society.  And who is leading this charge?  Progressive media.

Marriage, for thousands of years, was defined as a relationship between one man and one woman.  That definition has recently been changed to mean a relationship between two consenting adults, irregardless of gender.  But why stop there?  I mean, if we are really for equality, we can’t leave anyone out.  Let’s at least be consistent in our logic.

The Huffington Post recently wrote about a campaign that has been launched to remove the “stigma” associated with polyamorous relationships, and to normalize those intimate, consenting, marital relationships involving more than two people. In fact, HuffPo has devoted an entire section of their website to the exploration, promotion, and acceptance of polyamory.

But the Huffington Post is right.  If society is really into equality, and if the ‘love is love’ mantra is really the cornerstone of international public policy as it relates to marriage and intimacy, what reason would any court have to block polygamous relationships from becoming the next law-of-the-land?  Why can a woman not marry her cat, or her grandson, or a man marry his computer, or himself?  If they’re in love, and consent is achieved by all parties, what’s wrong with it?

Progressive media is absolutely obsessed with driving societal change, regardless of how damaging it is. Meanwhile, everyone else is too afraid to speak up on issues of sexuality because they don’t want to be put on the eternal bigot blacklist.

Take this article from Salon.com, imploring people not to judge pedophiles too harshly because they can’t control their feelings about wanting to be intimate with children. As if some sort of congratulations are in order for those ‘heroes’ who resist their sexually deviant urges, Salon is now promoting tolerance for individuals who desire to have intercourse with children.  Keep in mind that Salon.com is read by over 322 million people per year.  

Are we so afraid to speak up that we can’t just call out evil when we see it?

The London Times ran this article from an anonymous female ‘academic’ who says that having intercourse with your biological brother shouldn’t be illegal, or even looked down upon.  While essentially calling us to ignore the biological realities of sexual relationships between close family members, the London Times borrows the same talking point that pro-gay rights activists have used for decades now: if it’s love, who are you to judge?

By calling us ignorant and bigoted, the sexual revolutions warriors in the progressive media have almost entirely avoided answering tough questions about the realities they’d prefer not exist.  By definition, they are being both ignorant and bigoted.

In 1975, an overwhelming 75 percent of the U.S. population felt that homosexuality was always wrong, and in 1988, 89 percent of Americans still opposed same-sex marriage.  But it took less than 20 years for Americans to turn 180 degrees and radically change opinions on those issues.

This dramatic and quick change was driven by the premise that it is both improper and illegal to deny people what they desire if their motivation is love.

Perhaps not many people in our society today would openly admit openness to the normalization and legalization of pedophilia, incest, or marriage to inanimate objects.  But advocates for those lifestyles are using the same arguments to make their case that the gay rights movement has made for decades:

a.) You can’t discriminate against me because my sexual preference doesn’t conform to an accepted societal norm;

b.) I was born with this preference, making it therefore unchangeable;

c.) To deny me that which I desire is a violation of my human rights.

People need to stop accepting these as legitimate and valid excuses.  Otherwise, we’ll meet back here in 2035 to have a talk about how it became legal for pedophiles to take children home with them to enjoy some hedonistic pleasure.

The U.S. Supreme Court made a major mistake.  By demonstrating to the public that it retains the authority to change historically significant institutions with the issuance of a legal opinion, it broadcasted to the public that it retains the authority to change that definition again.

Enter, fifty other sexual interest groups wanting their behaviors normalized and accepted.

Through it all, the progressive media is promoting the very deviancies the gay lobby said would never enter the discussion, and they’re doing it openly.  And it all started with the ‘un-defining’ of marriage.

If feelings of love — now the basis for all legitimate relationships — are truly just ingrained biological programs involving no choice or discernment, then marriage no longer exists and we should all move on.

Zachary Freeman is the Director of Communications for the Family Policy Institute of Washington, and is the publisher of TheCollegeConservative.com.  Share your thoughts on Twitter with @ZacharyGFreeman.