On to the next target: polygamy!
I recall being mocked for pointing out the obvious: as soon as the goal of same-sex marriage was achieved, "progressives" would move on to group marriage. The logic of this was obvious all along,
and yet I was told I was being absurd when I pointed this out. Well, a major web outlet like Slate is now running pieces arguing:
"While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families....
"The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too...
"And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice... [Apparently the only invalid choice one can make today is to choose to believe that not all choices are equally good!]
"So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet."
Over course, the progressive project can never, ever be "done." Its goal is to create heaven on earth, and since the goal can't ever be achieved, or ever, really, even be approached, every "victory" will always be met with yet another "we're not done yet": human life is not yet perfect, so some other, existing social arrangement must be altered according to the current progressive ideology. (It is only recently that progressive ideology exalted "choice": one hundred years ago, the altering of society would have been done on the name of "the social good," and any absolute right of individual choice would have been ridiculed as a reason for a piece of legislation.)
Now, as I have said before, I don't pretend to know whether same-sex marriage is a good idea or not. There are certainly good arguments for it. But belief in the childish cult of progress does not provide one.
and yet I was told I was being absurd when I pointed this out. Well, a major web outlet like Slate is now running pieces arguing:
"While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families....
"The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too...
"And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice... [Apparently the only invalid choice one can make today is to choose to believe that not all choices are equally good!]
"So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet."
Over course, the progressive project can never, ever be "done." Its goal is to create heaven on earth, and since the goal can't ever be achieved, or ever, really, even be approached, every "victory" will always be met with yet another "we're not done yet": human life is not yet perfect, so some other, existing social arrangement must be altered according to the current progressive ideology. (It is only recently that progressive ideology exalted "choice": one hundred years ago, the altering of society would have been done on the name of "the social good," and any absolute right of individual choice would have been ridiculed as a reason for a piece of legislation.)
Now, as I have said before, I don't pretend to know whether same-sex marriage is a good idea or not. There are certainly good arguments for it. But belief in the childish cult of progress does not provide one.
Are you sure these are progressives and not conservative antagonists or conservative petulants? I have heard there is less opposition to this than I would have believed but would hesitate calling this progressive, just as I would calling for a return to segregation conservative.
ReplyDeleteLord, did you follow the link above? Do you believe that lady is a plant?
ReplyDeleteHave you looked at the comments on it? Quite the conservative petulants in favor. She may believe it, and an editor may have selected it for its discussion possibilities or just as traffic bait, but how seriously should be believe a throwback to the 19th century or 6th or 1st bc is progressive?
DeleteLord is regulation to guarantee fair wages a profressive venture? Greater income equality?
DeleteI'm struggling to understand what YOUR position is, Mr. Callahan. Are you against polygamy? Do you think the State should raid anyone who practices it, and lock them up? If not, what is your gripe?
ReplyDelete0e390f92-3b6d-11e0-8fd8-000f20980440, I'm struggling to understand how anyone can be so dull-witted that they can't see the difference between:
Delete1) If some group of more than two men and women live and sleep together, the "State" should raid them and lock them up; and
2) Perhaps the State ought not to issue licenses making such arrangements officially approved.
I swear that you and I agree on the most bizarre things.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt is my opinion that this simply means that Progressives are once again playing catch-up to libertarians while trying to claim they were in the forefront the whole time.
ReplyDeleteAyn, I'm afraid you haven't quite gotten it yet: Libertarianism just IS one variety of progressivism.
Delete... and we also disagree on the most bizarre things.
DeleteWell, it certainly would be progress if polygamists were no longer persecuted against. But, what's so great about marriage anyway, even traditional marriage? It has its plusses but it has a hell of a lot of minuses.
ReplyDelete"persecuted against"
DeletePersecuted against? What the hell does that mean?
"But, what's so great about marriage anyway, even traditional marriage?"
Ummmm... it was the basis for Western Civilization?
"It has its plusses but it has a hell of a lot of minuses."
Divorced, hey?
But thanks for expressing clearly the progressive instinct in these matters, Nic.