The New York Times recently ran an op-ed about the potential for polygamy to be legalized. Since the Supreme Court’s decision was ultimately about a “right to marry,” the author argues it would be difficult to exclude [gender-neutral] “plural marriage,” from being legalized. He doesn’t explicitly come out for or against it in this particular article, nor does he on the issue of gay marriage. What he does write in his conclusion, however, lets you know pretty clearly what he thinks about traditional norms and the building blocks of civilization:
As we witness more experiments with non-nuclear families, our views about plural marriage might change as well. As Justice Kennedy put it, “The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times.” So the real force of the polygamy question is a lesson in humility. We should not assume that our judges have all the answers. And we should not assume we have them either. Instead we should recognize that once we abandon the rigid constraints of history, we cannot be sure that we know where the future will take us.
So other than literally admitting to the slippery slope being real, and it always is when it comes to deregulation of human social behavior, we apparently should be humbled by the changes being made in our society. O great and merciful Dildolech, please enrich us with a future unbound by the stability and time preference of heterosexual monogamy. The author’s repetitive reasoning for why we need to be open to expanded definitions of marriage is essentially that; why would we oppose something we aren’t certain about? In the future people might have different attitudes than now, and we wouldn’t want to be wrong. Be on the Right Side of History™. There’s no risk involved in undermining the foundations of our society. What better way to signal than to out-progress people yet to be born?
[T]he lesson of the same-sex marriage case is that we should not be too wedded to historical assumptions. It was not that long ago that many people held vicious stereotypes about same-sex relationships that led them to wrongly assume that gay people were unfit for marriage. We should not make the same mistake in assuming we know what plural marriages in the future would be like.
Well, I still assume they’re unfit for marriage, since, you know, marriage is between a man and a woman and exists as an institution to promote stable reproduction. But since everyone now has a right to marriage despite not being capable of fulfilling its requirements, who cares? So yes, in all likelihood plural marriage is probably next, since not allowing it infringes upon one’s right to get married as a person. And then bestiality or pedophilia or object marriage or something else based around the right to pursue pleasure and recognition from others will follow. You know, our definition of legal personhood has evolved too, as has the concept of animal rights. It wasn’t long ago that black people couldn’t file lawsuits and animals were treated as pure property. So under our current “civil rights” bubble, what alternative lifestyle wouldn’t be progressive?
Which leads to something of my main idea in this meandering rant; the author is right. Once you get rid of restrictions, anything and everything they limited is possible. But that’s not inherently good or desirable. Just as Diversity is Our Greatest Strength™, the belief in progress and anti-meaning is just something widely accepted as good a priori. It’s not good by itself; it’s good because of social signaling and our society being in an advanced state of decay where decline is interpreted as progress and chaos as order. White leftists from nuclear families having a religious belief in LGBT rights and multiculturalism is fundamentally backward.
But trying to draw a line between the tiers of progressiveness is where things get interesting, particularly in the NYT comments section. Most proponents of gay marriage like to downplay the idea of plural marriage, since their opponents like it so much as a counter-example and they know they can’t properly defend one without defending the other. After all, both deconstruct hetrosexual monogamy on the principle of “love wins” and a “right to marry.” They arbitrarily draw a line in defense. That will never happen. That’s not what we’re advocating for. Sure. But the implications have already been unleashed by the Supreme Court’s decision, which they hail as a victory. So they’re enablers whether they want to be or not. Of course, a few people, chiefly immature women, will actually defend plural relationships and polyamory, since it maximizes the volume of attention they get. And they tend to have a preference for bisexual pluralism—I really hope I’m not coining any new words here since I’m just trying to make sense of dysfunctional behavior—where there are multiple men and women rather than a harem of women for one man. And on top of that they tend to not have children either; I wonder why. Maybe because the institution of marriage is meant to enforce heterosexual monogamy for social stability and reproduction as opposed to validating your sexual urges. A standard fuckparty is not a loving relationship and environment to raise children in. I am totally okay with these people not breeding, however.
But while we’re on the topic of not-so-slippery slopes, marriage and societal norms, how long ago was it that interracial marriages were unrecognized or illegal in most of the United States? People jumping to say plural marriage won’t be enabled by gay marriage are forgetting that interracial marriage enabled gay marriage. There are substantial rifts between the black community and the LGBT community, of course, and one of them had to wait another fifty years after the “civil rights movement” to get the “right to marriage.” But those have been overcome, largely because black opinions on gay marriage are irrelevant in an advocacy movement dominated by white women. People arguing that plural marriage, pedophilia, and bestiality are slippery slope are forgetting that one amendment to the definition of marriage has lead to new ones. But hey, “we should not be too wedded to historical assumptions,” right? First they scrapped race, then biological sex; what’s next I wonder.