No sooner had I written a piece documenting the slippery slope involving same-sex marriage, than the usual deluge of hate mail began to pour in. Of course most of it can only go straight into the bin. All these guys seem able to do is shoot the messenger. They certainly cannot refute the evidence.
All my material is fully documented in my new book for those really interested in getting all the references. So my piece was built on fact, evidence and plenty of quotes. But that means nothing to the activists. They simply hate it when anyone dares to challenge them, and the hatred bursts forth as soon as they open their mouths, or hop on their keyboards. So much for love, tolerance and acceptance.
One of the most obvious and well-documented cases of the slippery slope in action here is the homosexual-polyamory connection. As I have documented time and time again, the “arguments” used to justify same-sex marriage are the exact same ones used to justify polyamory (group love and marriage).
Yesterday it was legalisation of de facto relationships. Today it is legalisation of same-sex relationships. Tomorrow it will be the legalisation of group love relationships. All three are based on the same premise: heterosexual marriage does not matter at all; all that matters is if “love” somehow exists.
If three people love each other, how dare anyone deny them their rights to marry? How can we be so intolerant and bigoted to discriminate against loving groups? As long as any combination of people has “love” then surely they have a right to official government recognition and benefits.
Of course the homosexual activists know full well that the polyamorists are simply taking their own case for SSM to its very logical conclusion. Sure, they will pour the vilest and most noxious abuse on anyone who dares to raise this issue, but they in fact know that this is exactly the case.
So much so that they recently had a big bun fight over allowing the polyamorists to join their big sleaze parade. Organiser of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras did not want a float by the polyamorists. They had to come up with a cheap excuse to not allow them in, as they are now feeling the heat of public scrutiny.
So they claimed that the polyamorists have nothing to do with the homosexual community. But of course they do. They have everything to do with it. A group of people in “love” means more than two people. That means you will have at least two men or two women in the combination.
Thus this group love of course entails homosexual relations as well. Unless they are bringing in a third party – perhaps dingoes or something – they only have two genders to draw from as they celebrate their threesomes or foursomes or 76-somes.
As one homosexual site said, there were “worries from other groups such as Polyamory Australia, who, before an eventual back down from organisers, were initially only granted entry to participate as a ‘supporter’ group as they were not considered part of the queer community.”
Indeed, the event organisers are obviously getting jittery here, and have had to knock back other groups as well. The same article states: “Sydney Mardi Gras has rejected claims of ‘censorship’ by followers of the Raëlian movement after the Parade Committee objected to a proposed banner containing religious and spiritual symbols which the organisation said was ‘not respectful’ towards other community groups.
“The banner read ‘Homophobia is criminal bible bulls**t’ and featured several symbols of major Abrahamic faiths including a cross, the Star of David and a crescent, representing Christianity, Judaism and Islam respectively.”
But back to the polyamorists. After their initial banning, they made a stink and eventually were allowed to join in. Here in part is what a media release from Polyamory Australia states:
“Mardi Gras initially only allowed the poly group to participate as a ‘supporter’ entry, with a less prominent position and restrictions on displayed slogans. A Mardi Gras contact told one of the poly entry organisers that they were not an LGBTIQ group, and compared them to ‘a bowling club’. Other long-time parade participants received similar correspondence, including sex worker activist group Scarlet Alliance.
“Polyamorist social media erupted in a furore over the initial decision. For many polyamorists, it was particularly offensive because the parade’s slogan is ‘infinite love for all’, and the logo is a pair of hearts arranged to form an infinity symbol—polyamorous groups worldwide have used similar symbology for decades.
“Although the Sydney poly community is divided about whether polyamory is queer per se, most of last year’s poly float participants identify as LGBTIQ. Even poly heterosexuals believe they have issues in common with LGBTIQ people. As one Facebook comment put it: ‘when I had relatives threatening to punch me recently for my orientation, it wasn’t for being L, G, B, T, or I, it was for being poly’.”
Hey there you go folks: “infinite love for all”. Wow, that is so inclusive and so, well, loving, and so positive. Yes, why have any barriers whatsoever? Are you keen on your pet cat? Hey, no probs – go for it. Do you have an erotic attraction to your bookcases? I am sure we can find someone who will perform the ceremony for you.
Have you got the hots for your Nintendo? Well, go for it man! The sky’s the limit. Indeed, we have already had actual cases of all this. People have already married their pets. One woman has even married a wall. So this is not some future possibility – it is happening right now.
No wonder the event organisers were a bit squeamish about allowing these guys in. They are already having to deal with an image problem here, and this will just compound matters. But plenty of these folks nonetheless see no problem whatsoever about polyamory, and they see it as a quite logical extension of ‘queer theory’ and ‘queer politics’.
Consider what one homosexual activist has written about what it means to be ‘queer’: “There are a lot of things that it clearly does include. These are people who identify as polysexual, asexual, genderqueer, sex workers and practitioners of BDSM and polyamory – even if they are ‘heterosexual’. They are part of the queer community because they also reject the dominant heteronormative and patriarchal paradigms and seek community to build their own desired relationships.”
He continues: “So firstly, any assertion that the Polyamory group does not fall under the LGBTIQ acronym is false. Secondly, not all the people in the group are heterosexual and we should be celebrating our diversity as a LGBTIQ group and this includes non-monogamous relationship structures. Thirdly, this group has applied for a float to express their sexuality – it seems to me that they self-identify as being part of the LGBTIQ community.”
He concludes this way: “I am disappointed by this trend towards what has been dubbed ‘homoconservatism’ within our community. The attempts to reinforce and normalise monogamous same-sex relationships as being the only acceptable form of partnership is a growing trend. Perhaps it’s an unintended consequence of the prevalence of the marriage campaign. The formally disenfranchised gay white men wanting to get their share of ‘normality’ and privilege by oppressing others.
“If the tone of this article is harsh, it’s because I expect better treatment of others in our community. While Mardi Gras did back down and allow the polyamory float to enter the parade, their initial refusal to include polyamory as a LGBTIQ group is troubling. Given the recent dropping of ‘Gay and Lesbian’ from the name of the event, and the controversy surrounding that decision, I have serious doubts over the legitimacy of the parade as a political act. I also am concerned for the future of our community as a whole. Will the marriage campaign further divide our community and split it between the privileged few who have the rights to live life as they choose and those who don’t? It’s really time for some more active queer radicalisation against the tides of growing conservatism. We can do better.”
There you have it folks: straight out of the horse’s mouth. So stop shooting me already. I am only the messenger. If you don’t like what this guy is saying, attack him, not me. But as I fully document in my book, the connection between the homosexual lobby and the polyamory lobby is a strong, logical and an ongoing connection.
Plenty of other activists have admitted the same. So the home truth here is quite clear: a vote for same-sex marriage is a vote for group marriage. To support one is to support the other. There can be no denying that the slippery slope is clearly in action here.