Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Joe Dallas: Same-Sex Marriage Will Bring Polygamy and “the Judgement of God”

Jim Burroway

April 6th, 2013

Joe Dallas, who heads the Exodus International-affiliated Genesis Counseling in Tustin, California, appeared  on The Steve Deace Show on Tuesday, where the topic was the growing acceptance of LGBT people in general and same-sex marriage in particular. Dallas blamed the Internet and its easy access to porn for the rise of “sexual immorality” in the culture. “Where you have high accessibility, you will have more consumer use,” Dallas told Deace (Second hour, 23:16):

Dallas: And that has not only in and of itself been a problem to have it and using porn, but it’s also a gateway to a number of other behaviors because through the Internet, people begin exploring options like hiring a prostitute or consider going to a massage parlor or hooking up anonymously with someone. And because all of that is so accessible now, we absolutely have a higher percentage of people who become literally dependent on these very hyper-stimulating experiences whether its the viewing of pornography or going to a strip club or hiring a prostitute. And that dependency absolutely disrupts many of their lives.

Of course, I certainly don’t think that everyone who is homosexual is sexually addicted and when we’re speaking about same-sex marriage I certainly don’t believe that because someone is attracted to the same sex that means they use pornography or engage in these types of behaviors. Those are really two different issues. But they both do get to the heart of on what we base as a nation our system of sexual ethics, and it seems that that base is shifting.

Beyond porn, Dallas also blamed the media — television, openly gay celebrities, etc — for increasing broader acceptance of LGBT people, and he argued that the increased visibility of LGBT people has meant that more people are “succumbing” to homosexuality. And when that increased visibility is combined with a forty-year movement, “a movement which has built for decades without as much public awareness as we have now, now that momentum has reached a critical mass.” At this point, Deace asked, “where does this end”? (31:11):

Deace: Joe, I wrote a piece for USA Today over the weekend asking, why not polygamy then? Why not polyamory? Why not everything? Why just draw the line here. We’ve got stories at CNN about six year old boys demanding that they’re actually girls and they are transgendered, they get to use the girls’ bathroom, and so we change all of social policy at a public school for a six year old. And where does this end ultimately? What happens to the individuals here that are struggling with their sexuality when we allow public policy to essentially say, “do whatever you want.” What ultimately will be the price they will pay?

Dallas: The individuals will be given a green light to express their desires as they see fit. Some will claim to find deep fulfillment in that, some will form relationships that they report as being very healthy and satisfying, others will find that their lives take directions that they didn’t expect and they’ll be deeply disappointed.

There’s really two ways I look at this: one is theologically and one is socially. Socially I think it will be one more step down the ladder towards a much lower standard of human behavior. Theologically, I think it will be a green light to engage in behaviors that bring the judgment of God. So either one looks pretty dismal to me.

I think that ultimately, this is just as you said: It’s not going to end just at homosexuality. I can’t think of too many logical arguments you can make polygamy if you are in favor of revising our norms to include homosexuality. And in fact, as you know Steve, I believe they call it the polyamorous movement is riding the coat tails of the push for same-sex marriage. And no doubt, if we legitimize same-sex marriage, we will see the legitimization of polygamy as well.

Alan Chambers began changing Exodus International’s direction more than a year ago by acknowledging that “the majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation.” He repudiated the particular from of conversion therapy known as “reparative therapy,” he swiftly responded with a statement opposing criminalization soon after a board member spoke in Jamaica in support of its anti-gay laws (that board member quickly resigned),  he condemned the Family Research Council for honoring a pastor who called gays “worse than maggots” and that God had an “urban renewal plan for Sodom and Gomorrah,” and declined to oppose a California law that bans sexual orientation change efforts for minors. More generally, Exodus has refused to take political positions on hot-button topics, with Chambers recently posting videos saying that Exodus no longer has an official position on same-sex marriage, and encouraging students to cooperate with rather than confront gay-straight alliances in the schools.

Those changes within Exodus has prompted other prominent ex-gay leaders to publicly denounce Exodus’ change in direction, and a number of ministries have left the organization. Many of those ministries have joined up to form a rival organization called the Restored Hope Network. Dallas was a founding member of RHN and was a no-show at Exodus International’s annual conference in St. Paul, MN in 2012 (his wife was there to present a couple of workshops), but he retained his ties to Exodus in an attempt to be a member in good standing with both groups. But with this week’s statements on Deace’s radio program, I don’t see how Dallas’s continued association with Exodus is tenable.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

PLAINTOM
April 6th, 2013 | LINK

He needs to get a new shtick.

Boo
April 6th, 2013 | LINK

“The individuals will be given a green light to express their desires as they see fit. Some will claim to find deep fulfillment in that, some will form relationships that they report as being very healthy and satisfying, others will find that their lives take directions that they didn’t expect and they’ll be deeply disappointed.”

Um… isn’t that kind of how it always has been?

Hyhybt
April 6th, 2013 | LINK

“…people begin exploring options like hiring a prostitute or consider going to a massage parlor or hooking up anonymously with someone.”—A curious list. I wonder why “going to a massage parlor” is on there? If the massage parlor is a cover for prostitution, then listing it after “hiring a prostitute” is redundant. If it’s not, then why would going there be immoral?

CPT_Doom
April 6th, 2013 | LINK

I would love for someone to ask, when the polygamy argument is dragged out, “what is stopping polygamy now?” Certainly the gender roles of marriage are, if anything, stronger in Mormon-style polygamy than in “traditional marriage.” Therefore the gender rules can’t be the rationale for limiting the number of parties in the marriage contract.

JohnAGJ
April 6th, 2013 | LINK

Wait, what’s so unbiblical about polygamy? I seem to recall quite a number of leading figures in the Bible who had more than one spouse, some even more than one concubine. I’ve yet to see anything in the Bible prohibiting such marital arrangements, and Lord knows according to this crowd we have to have marriage be in accordance with the Bible so what’s the problem?

jerry
April 6th, 2013 | LINK

When marriage equality becomes nationwide Joe and all of his ilk will have to find other ways to keep from finding honest labor to support their lazy butts.
The problem for them is that they are probably not qualified to do any honest labor.

Ben In Oakland
April 6th, 2013 | LINK

So, heterosexuals behaving badly means that more heterosexual will be behaving badly, and it’s all the gays fault, because if it weren’t, we might actually have to look at our own behaviour?

does that pretty much sum it up?

Priya Lynn
April 6th, 2013 | LINK

CPT_Doom said “I would love for someone to ask, when the polygamy argument is dragged out, “what is stopping polygamy now?””.

That’s more or less what I say. “Because we don’t allow gays to marry” is not a justification for banning polygamy. If you don’t have any reason other than “Because we ban gay marriage” to justify banning polygamy then you’ve never had a justification to ban it. If you have a justification for banning polygamy that doesn’t rely on the idea of banning gay marriage then that works just as well after gays are allowed to marry as it did before.

Gays and lesbians don’t have a dog in the polygamous marriage race, whether or not polygamy is banned is irrelevant to whether or not same sex marriage should be banned. Gays and lesbians are not obligated to make a case for or against allowing polygamous marriage, if religious conservatives want to oppose polygamy they need to come up with their own reasons to do so.

Zeldamina
April 6th, 2013 | LINK

Yes, I’ve always felt the polygamy argument was an irrelevant derail, but hadn’t been able to articulate so concisely why that is the case. Thank you!

David in the O.C.
April 6th, 2013 | LINK

I left this snarky post on Steve Deace’s web page:

Generally speaking, I don’t take advice on human sexuality from a self-loathing closeted gay man that’s pretending to live a “straight lifestyle”.

Pornography has nothing to do with the social acceptance of gay people in society. Sexual orientation is not a behavior or a choice, so viewing porn would have no impact on that aspect of a person’s identity. If a straight man were to watch endless hours of male gay porn, I seriously doubt that he’d suddenly find men sexually attractive. The opposite would most likely occur, since he is innately attracted to women.

As for polygamy, it has nothing to do with same-sex relationships. 95% of the populous can marry the person of their choosing. The other 5% can’t. We are only addressing those 5% that are being discriminated against. Polygamy was banned in our country in 1899. Even the Mormon church isn’t interested in re-legalizing polygamous marriages.

Neil
April 6th, 2013 | LINK

The individuals will be given a green light to express their desires as they see fit. Some will claim to find deep fulfillment in that, some will form relationships that they report as being very healthy and satisfying, others will find that their lives take directions that they didn’t expect and they’ll be deeply disappointed.

Ah yes, because Dallas knows our own mind better than we do. Or, at least, some of us. Vaguely, those people out there, the mythical “accidental” gays who didn’t plan on being homosexual but this permissive society let them experiment and then they became trapped in a “gay lifestyle”.

See, Dallas cares. Unfortunately, he doesn’t care much about reality enough for his caring to have any meaning.

Lord_Byron
April 6th, 2013 | LINK

And, what, exactly is wrong with polyamory?

Richard Rush
April 6th, 2013 | LINK

The frequent slippery-slope argument focusing on horrors such as polygamy, polyamory, bestiality, and man/car marriages are promulgated because the SSM-phobes have no legitimate arguments against same-sex marriage, so they are forced to change the subject to something else that people will find real scary. It’s a scam designed to be persuasive to gullible people in the same way that “every child deserves a mom and a dad” is.

Regan DuCasse
April 6th, 2013 | LINK

What cracks me up about how the anti gay deflect to polygamy or ‘redefinition’, they act like none of that EVER happened before and we have NOTHING to go on. No historical precedents or examples. Not even of marriage equality and their real outcomes elsewhere in cultures similar to our own.
Polygamy, has specific and negative social and familial outcomes. VERY negative. That’s not a matter of personal opinion but societal result.
And polygamists NEVER had to wait for gay people to make their stand, they’ve ALWAYS had the ability to take their case to court and argue for themselves. The reason they haven’t won, is precisely because of serious problems with polygamous situations.
The same for incest as well. It’s not because it’s different because people don’t accept it, it’s because of negative results.

No matter how much they strain logic, and rationale, there IS nothing anyone can point to for not accepting gay couples marrying someone who shares their same sexual orientation. Nothing that’s unexpected or not already accepted.
History, is moving FORWARD with marriage and no more discrimination with gay people.
All the rest, is a march backward, when people were barely evolved from caves and domesticated animals. Clannish, disorganized and barbaric.

Priya Lynn
April 6th, 2013 | LINK

Lord_Byron, do you know any people in a polyamorous relationship that’s been working well for a long time?

Christopher™
April 7th, 2013 | LINK

Joe Dallas is full of crap for so many reasons, I don’t know where to begin.

If you hear his entire testimony, you’ll discover that he was having promiscuous sex with both women and men at the same time. He wasn’t gay; he was a bisexual sex addict, who just decided to calm down and commit to a woman. He was never gay.

And let me get this straight: if marriage equality becomes the law of the land in the United States, God is going to judge this country with some non-specific-but-clearly-truly-awful actions. However, marriage equality has become the law of the land in numerous countries, some for several years now, and nothing cataclysmic has happened to them. (Especially Canada, because we all know how godless they are up there.) Joe also is claiming that God will judge an entire country for the actions of a few, which is Old Testament theology and clearly unbiblical, since we are in the age of grace now, if you actually believe what the Bible (and Jesus) said. Judgement isn’t supposed to happen again until the End of Days.

Joe is essentially saying that God only cares about the actions of Christians in the United States (since only we can trigger God’s wrath), and claims that God will send judgement prior to the supposed End that he and other Christians like him are supposed to be eagerly anticipating. So, basically, Joe is spiritually arrogant, biblically illiterate and worried about an event he’s supposedly looking forward to?

What a tool.

Timothy Kincaid
April 7th, 2013 | LINK

Priya Lynn,

I one time found myself on a road trip with two men who had been together for 30 years. They told me that for the first 20 years there was a third (but he was the oldest and had passed on).

It’s not for me. My only efforts in that direction resulted in disaster. The couple I got involved with broke up and I learned enough to not repeat that mistake. And I’ve seen few who can make three work.

And I know that legal complexities are tough enough with two so I don’t favor polygamous marriage. But I guess for those rare souls who make it work, I’ll leave that up to them. It’s another of those areas that I realize that my life experience can’t dictate someone else’s happiness.

Timothy Kincaid
April 7th, 2013 | LINK

I don’t think Joe was talking about God’s judgement on a nation. I think he was talking about individuals.

Lord_Byron
April 7th, 2013 | LINK

@Priya Lynn

Actually, I do. I know at least two polyamorous relationships that have been going on for the past decade. It is definitely not for everyone just like not everyone wants an open relationship, but they have made it work.

Donny D.
April 7th, 2013 | LINK

Christopher™ wrote,

Joe Dallas is full of crap for so many reasons, I don’t know where to begin.

If you hear his entire testimony, you’ll discover that he was having promiscuous sex with both women and men at the same time. He wasn’t gay; he was a bisexual sex addict, who just decided to calm down and commit to a woman. He was never gay.

Just because Dallas isn’t exclusively homosexual doesn’t mean that he isn’t homosexual. We aren’t “the gay community” anymore, or “the gay and lesbian community”. We’re the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) community. And if Joe Dallas could be honest about himself, he would be one of us.

Priya Lynn
April 7th, 2013 | LINK

Timothy and Lord_Byron, did any of those groups of people all want to be married to each other?

Hyhybt
April 7th, 2013 | LINK

So… why does my earlier comment say “awaiting moderation?” I’ve never had that happen before on this site, and while the post was more of a side comment than directly on topic, it *is* about the article posted and not the least bit offensive that I can tell.

Jim Burroway
April 7th, 2013 | LINK

Occasionally the anti-spam software kicks in and holds a comment in moderation automatically if it is unsure whether a comment is spam or not. The software is pretty accurate — it throws away on average a spam comment every two minutes, so you can imagine how worthless comments would be if we didn’t have it. A it is, about three or four span comments per day still manage to get through the filter, while a few legit comments get flagged for us to review. For whatever reason, Hyhybt’s comment got flagged. I don’t know why. I released it from the moderation queue.

Timothy Kincaid
April 7th, 2013 | LINK

Priya Lynn,

I have no idea. This was probably a decade or more ago

Lord_Byron
April 7th, 2013 | LINK

Priya, from what I knew they weren’t that interested in getting married. Never directly asked either of the polyamorous couples

Hyhybt
April 7th, 2013 | LINK

Thanks. I wouldn’t have said anything, but some sites will leave them like that for weeks.

Ezam
April 8th, 2013 | LINK

Maybe Dallas’ afraid that legalizing gay marriage will tempt him to divorce his wife and marry a man.

Chris McCoy
April 8th, 2013 | LINK

Priya Lynn said:

Do you know any people in a polyamorous relationship that’s been working well for a long time?

I have been in a closed polyamorous relationship for 17 years. There are 3 of us, we are all ‘married’ to each other, and would probably do so legally if that option were available.
My partners were in a poly triad with another guy who left before they met me. We dated for about a year before we made it official.
Most of the arguments against poly that I see are against polygamy – one man who is married to multiple women, who are not usually married to each other, and the husband has all the power. Most of the issues with that setup do not really apply to polyamorous relationships, where all members are equally invested.

Priya Lynn
April 8th, 2013 | LINK

Chris do you see a way marriages like yours can be allowed while the abusive polygamous marriages can be outlawed?

Chris McCoy
April 8th, 2013 | LINK

Priya Lynn said:

Chris do you see a way marriages like yours can be allowed while the abusive polygamous marriages can be outlawed?

Abuse is not specific to polygamy, or necessarily caused by it.

The abuse in polygamous relationships (really in any relationship) stems from disproportionate power. In abusive relationships, the abused person is not an equal member of that relationship.

In the US, the cultures that participate in polygamy are stereotypically masculine dominated where young women are married off to older men as soon as they come of age, in ways that I would argue make ‘consent’ highly suspect. Of course you consent when you are brought up to believe this is how it is supposed to happen. And societal/peer pressure for young people to do what is expected should not be dismissed.

Since polygamy is illegal, poly relationships are kept hidden in the dark, which makes abused people less likely to report abuse, or seek help, for fear of bringing an illegal situation to light. Who would report abuse, if reporting just means you yourself get arrested?

Making poly legal and visible would go a long way to clearing up much of the abuse.

Priya Lynn
April 8th, 2013 | LINK

I don’t know Chris…I’ll think about it.

mike
April 9th, 2013 | LINK

If you think about asking Joe Dallas about his comments on his blog, forget it. He only publishes comments he agrees with. What a wuss.

Hyhybt
April 10th, 2013 | LINK

So long as, however you may choose to arrange things internally, *legally* all parties are married to one another and on equal footing, and so long as laws relating to marriage which assume only two parties are updated to account for the possibility of more before any such weddings take place, why not?

(For example, the law says that if you are incapacitated, your spouse makes medical decisions for you. Suppose your two spouses disagree? Does the whole bunch have to marry and separate at once, or can three people marry a fourth and then later divorce into two pairs? What about inherited benefits? If a business doesn’t charge its employees (or gives them a discount) to cover a spouse, how many do they have to cover? That sort of thing.)

shaed
April 11th, 2013 | LINK

@Hyhybt
The medical decision one wouldn’t be more complicated than parents disagreeing about an incapacitated dependent’s medical treatment.

Hyhybt
April 11th, 2013 | LINK

Perhaps not. Still, it’s not whether something would be difficult, but that it be set out and defined in advance. None of which, of course, comes up in the case of expanding two-party marriage to same-sex couples.

Priya Lynn
April 11th, 2013 | LINK

Saed said “The medical decision one wouldn’t be more complicated than parents disagreeing about an incapacitated dependent’s medical treatment.”.

It would if there was more than three people in the relationship. Plus even in the case of parents disagreeing about an incpacitated dependent’s medical treatment there’s nothing saying that wouldn’t be complicated and difficult.

Robert
April 11th, 2013 | LINK

Hyhybt-

If the issue of medical decisions is of concern, that is easily rectified in how one draws up the Medical Directives. In most places there are forms that describe what you want done and don’t want done if you are incapacitated, the Medical POA is built around these choices.

My husband and I have a Medical Directive that states what things we want done if in a bad situation and what we dont. They are legaly binding here in CA. The Doctor has one on file as well as my husband, and it spells out what I would have done and what he would have a right to decide. These Medical Provisions are set so he only has to make the choices about when and where to pull the plug or deny certain services I do not want. It would not be difficult to set these forms with one person having the final say, but having all your wishes laid out as well. You also add the second or third individual to the forms to make the choices if the other can not or will not.

Priya Lynn
April 11th, 2013 | LINK

Robert, no one is going to be able to anticipate all the situations that might arise and put them in a medical directive so there will still be situations where the next of kin is asked to make medical decisions and that will be a big problem if two or more husbands and/or wives disagree.

Stephen
April 20th, 2013 | LINK

Homosexuals always say “sexual orientation is not a choice”; and that’s true; however, engaging in homosexuality is indeed a choice. People are born with all kinds of proclivities, but there must be restraint according to God’s commands. Now, one can chose to ignore God’s commands, but the end-price is a hefty one. All of us will reap what we sow — good or bad. For the disobedient, that should send chills up your spine. It’s a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Romans 1: [26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
[27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Richard Rush
April 20th, 2013 | LINK

“. . . the end-price is a hefty one. All of us will reap what we sow — good or bad. For the disobedient, that should send chills up your spine.”

No chills here, Stephen. I feel uncertain about lots of things, but one of the things I feel very certain about is that God does not exist. If you really want to be persuasive you should search for some genuine evidence that God exists instead of citing passages from a cobbled-together book of ancient mythology.

Priya Lynn
April 20th, 2013 | LINK

Stephen, you need a reason to justly ask people to refrain from gayness, you don’t have one. Ignoring your god is 100% consequence free. Go ahead and live in fear of your imaginary friend if you want to but I won’t be joining you.

StraightGrandmother
April 21st, 2013 | LINK

Let me lay out my polygamy, polyamourus marriage argument. I will try and keep it as short as possible but it takes a while so pls be patient.
Dr. Nancy cott testified at the Prop 8 Trial that the State’s Interest in regulating Civil Marriage is to form stable households headed by two persons in Civil Marriage for the State to more easily govern. The United States filed an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court in the Prop 8 Case and said in the section beginning page 25 #1 and this quote from page 26,”THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE ACCORDINGLY FOUND THAT CIVIL MARRIAGE, INTER ALIA, ENHANCES PUBLIC ORDER BY ORGANIZING INDIVIDUALS INTO STABLE AND COHESIVE
HOUSEHOLDS; ASSIGNS INDIVIDUALS TO CARE FOR ONE ANOTHER AND THEREBY LIMITS THE PUBLIC’S LIABILITY TO CARE FOR THE VULNERABLE; FACILITATES THE ACCUMULATION, MANAGEMENT, AND TRANSMISSION OF PROPERTY; AND ENABLES INDIVIDUALS TO INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY THROUGH THE DIVISION OF HOUSEHOLD
AND OTHER LABOR.”

It enhances public order, or as Dr. Cott said, makes it easier for the State to govern. Poly marriages make it harder not easier for the State to govern. The State wold have no interest in establishing poly marriages as how would it ration out benefits? Social Security for example. One man in a marriage of 3 men works and supports the other two men. He pays into Social Security all his life and then dies. How does Social Security pay surviving spouse benefits. Do each of the surviving spousesget a full ration of their deceseased spouses Social Security benefits? On man pays in two men are paid out, that is not a winning economic policy. Well what would you do, cut the surviving spouses Social Security benefits in half and each man gets half? But that is not enough for anybody to live on, therefore the men have to get on the public dole in order to survive.

Poly marriages indeed make it much much harder for the State’s to govern and I am only giving you one example. The full brief by the government can be found at the link below.

http://38.106.4.56/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=1130

Two men or two women getting married fulfills the States interest in regulating Civil Marriage, stable households are created, no laws need to change, the only thing that changes is that sexual minorities when they step up the City Hall, they now are issued a Civil Marriage License.

Ben in Oakland
April 21st, 2013 | LINK

Stephen, if you’re going to quote your book, have the courtesy to understand it first

Please try to understand the significance of the word wherefore before you presume to preach to people who know your book better than you do.

Or at least, try to deal with your own issues before you try to make them ours.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.