I have come to realise by now that the other side does not care about facts, evidence or data – they are simply interested in pushing their agenda. So I have stopped trying to reason with them. But for the majority in the middle who are not quite where they stand on various contentious social issues, I keep working to convince them that we are in some trouble here.
I refer of course especially to the homosexual juggernaut which continues to roll on, not just crushing everything in its path, but preparing the way for even more ghastly sexual-social experiments. They have opened wide the door, and all sorts of groups are merrily following in their footsteps.
I have documented this countless times already, but new examples arise almost every day. Be it the push for incest rights, or bestiality rights, or polyamory rights, or even paedophilia rights, I have written extensively about all these cases of the slippery slope in action.
My forthcoming book will feature many dozens of examples of each. Here I wish to add three more cases of the push for polygamy/polyamory. The three cases happen to come from North America, although plenty of other places could be mentioned here.
So let me begin in the US where a law professor is simply taking the logic of homosexual marriage to its natural conclusion. He sees no reason why things like incest and polygamy should be banned, now that we have opened the door to homosexual marriage. One article puts it this way:
“In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s two recent rulings validating gay marriage, a Boston College Law School professor has come out and admitted what gay marriage adversaries have long argued: incest and polygamy are just around the bend. ‘You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages?’ asks the professor, Kent Greenfield. ‘They’re right.’
“In a piece at the website of The American Prospect, the Catholic law school prof then goes on to challenge gay marriage supporters to differentiate totally acceptable gay and lesbian marriages from various forms of communal marriage and sibling love. ‘The left is in this bind in part because our arguments for expanding the marriage right to same-sex couples have been so compelling,’ Greenfield brags proudly. ‘Marriage, we’ve said, is about defining one’s own family and consecrating a union based on love. We’ve voiced these arguments in constitutional terms, using claims arising from the doctrines of ‘fundamental rights’ and equal protection.’
“After a discussion of the famous sodomy case, Lawrence v. Texas, which waxes poetically about the ‘right to define one’s own concept of existence,’ Greenfield then pops the question: under such a legal rubric, ‘why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well?’…
“The University of Chicago grad proceeds to gut five distinctions that could stop the slippery slope from gay marriage to incest and polygamy. He then advises his comrade intellectuals to ‘fess up’ and accept these relationships openly and honestly. ‘We can admit our arguments in favor of marriage equality inexorably lead us to a broader battle in favor of allowing people to define their marriages, and their families, by their own lights,’ he concludes.”
This guy is no dummy. He is a law prof, and he knows full well that the legal sanction of homosexual relationships must inexorably proceed to legal recognition of these other relationships. That is why so many other groups have been emboldened to push for their “rights”.
Consider a Canadian polyamory group which is eager to avail itself of what their homosexual buddies have already obtained. Says one news item: “A group of polyamorists say they want the same legal status as other relationships, following the group’s first national convention in Canada. Polyamory involves intimate relationships between three or more people at the same time.
“Canada redefined marriage in 2005 and saw a major legal case involving polygamy in 2011. The Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association intervened in the case and now says it wants to see polyamorous relationships treated on the same legal footing as others.
“The Association’s director, Zoe Duff, said she would like to see ‘households where our spouses are equal under the law, and moving forward in terms of pensions, and inheritances and property division’. The group defines polyamory as having ‘more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved’. The group say they ‘live all gender combinations’, and are ‘queer-friendly’.”
And our MSM is increasingly happy to run with their stories as well. It seems almost daily we have these human interest stories of all sorts of whacky and wild sexual combos which the media is keen to portray as perfectly normal and acceptable. Consider this recent story about “My two husbands”.
It begins: “My family is very ordinary to me. We eat dinner together. We gather in the living room and watch movies. Last weekend, we went on a camping trip and sat around the campfire making s’mores, the grown-ups enjoying a few beers while my 9-year-old daughter challenged us with endless rounds of ‘would you rather?’ It all feels so wonderfully mundane that sometimes I have to remind myself that most people view us as strange at best, depraved at worst.
“I’m polyamorous, which means I believe you can love multiple partners at the same time. I’m in a relationship with my husband of nearly 17 years, and my boyfriend, with whom I celebrated my second anniversary in May. (In polyamorous lingo, our relationship is known as a ‘V’; I’m the ‘hinge’ of the V and my two partners are the vertices.) People often say our lives sound complicated, but the truth is, we’re quite harmonious. We often joke that we’d make incredibly boring subjects for reality TV.”
Yep, oh so ho-hum and matter-of-fact. At least that is what this threesome and a morally numb media wants to suggest. But wait, there’s more: “When I learned about polyamorous relationships, I knew that’s what I wanted. My husband wasn’t so sure, though. It sounded fine for other people, but just not him. And it still seemed unrealistic to me, so I never pressed the issue.
“When I returned to school to finish my bachelor’s degree in my late 20s, I became friends with a man who changed my mind about all that. He believed in polyamory, too, and we had long conversations about it together: how it could work, how it was truly possible.
“One night, I sat down with my husband and spilled everything. I told him that being polyamorous was a part of who I am, and I asked if he would at least do some research and give it serious consideration before dismissing the idea. He understood that I never would have asked this if it hadn’t been extremely important. That conversation could have ended our marriage. But instead, our journey into non-monogamy began.
“One of the biggest hurdles in non-monogamy — probably the hurdle — is jealousy. My husband was an incredibly jealous person back then, but he began to question its usefulness and purpose. Jealousy is born from a fear of losing a partner; if you believe that love and intimacy can be shared, and are not diminished by sharing, then that fear loses a lot of its power. It was liberating for my husband to step outside of the box that saw everyone else as some kind of threat.”
Yes, if we can just get rid of jealousy and other out-dated moral suasions, we can all just swing. Learn how to repress those pesky moral constraints and just get on with, well, anything. And one more thing: all this must be legalised as well:
“When my daughter talks about same-sex marriage or polyamorous relationships, she always looks perplexed and says, ‘I don’t understand why anyone is angry about people being in love and not hurting anyone.’ And I long for a world where everyone is able to see it so simply.”
Yep, and why not? If we can gut marriage of its fundamental gender requirements, then we might as well slash and burn its fundamental requirements about number as well. In the postmodern world of sexual anarchy and revolution, anything goes.
And of course if you are resistant to group marriage then you are just a bigot, narrow-minded, and intolerant. Hey, come to think of it, I sure do love my dog – and she sure does love me. Time for some real marriage equality here. Stop the unjust speciesism and let’s let our love blossom.