Friday, August 31, 2012

Vox Day loves his slippery slope: Brazilian polygamy edition

| »
Theodore Beale (aka Vox Day)
Vox Day

That really didn’t take long. Barely a day after reports broke about Brazil’s consideration of three-way unions, here comes our favorite slippery slope enthusiast, Theodore “Vox Day” Beale:

The advocates of homosexual "marriage" have been proven to be completely wrong, as the push for polygamous marriage has gotten rolling before homogamy has even been made legal in most states.


As I pointed out, correctly, once you start messing around with the nouns in "one man + one woman", you eliminate all the grounds for not messing around with the numbers too. Besides, the multiculti idiots have no choice but to support polygamy, since their precious third-worlders both practice and demand it.

Today’s lesson in logic: Some other country is thinking about maybe someday debating a change to some of their laws, which can only mean that your country is now on the brink of legalizing some behavior you personally find questionable. Mark my words. (Or, well, his.)

Of course, that’s not even mentioning the question of why polygamy is thought of as wrong or should be illegal in the first place. There’s nothing bad about polyamory in itself; easily one of the most fundamental truths in our modern society is that people have the right to love whoever they want and for any reason, regardless of what current local expectations may be. Some people simply have too much love to give (to phrase it in admittedly simplistic terms), or else may feel torn between two people they love equally; who are lawmakers or pearl-clutchers to decide who they may or may not be with?

Granted, this particular debate is more about legal recognition of unions rather than romantic attachment in and of itself, but the overall point remains the same. And as of now, the only argument anyone opposed to polyamory/polygamy has bothered to bring forward (beyond the tautological “that’s just wrong!”) is whining about how progressives are trying to “redefine” marriage, which is absurd for any number of reasons. There have been more types of legal marital unions throughout human civilization than can be counted, so that’s obviously not an issue; not a single critic has ever advanced a credible explanation as to why broadening the scope of marriage beyond “one man and one woman” would be deleterious to anyone else, anywhere, and the continued existence (if not prosperity) of the various countries (notably my own motherland) that presently allow for married same-sex couples categorically debunks any fantasy about non-heteronormative legal unions harkening the demise of society, itself.

The entire crux of a loving relationship, recognized under the law or not, is that it’s a romantic bond between two or more individuals based on mutual affection and consent. Anything else is mere details and background noise. And until the critics and haters have anything more to present than tired and profoundly irrational canards serving as thin cloaks for their bigotry, then all the rest of us can do is point and laugh as they inexorably quibble and splutter themselves out of existence.