Choice: In Marriage Too

It didn’t take all that long for the slope to slip to this:

Legalize Polygamy: No I’m Not Kidding:

“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. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom.

And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.”
[Emphsis added]

You just have to love the Left’s euphemistic term, “Choice”, originally as a substitute for the more accurate term, “kill your progeny”. The concept of “Choice” works for all sorts of other things too, when taken to its Reductio Ad Absurdum conclusion. A woman can “choose” all sorts of things with her private body and her private emotional state and her private whatever. So in terms of fairness, so can a man (well, maybe not white men). But if a woman wants to marry her cat, her hamster, all her first cousins, and all her neighbors on both sides of the street… that’s her damn choice.

"All marriages deserve access to the support and resources they need to build happy, healthy lives, regardless of how many partners are involved. Arguments about whether a woman’s consensual sexual and romantic choices are “healthy” should have no bearing on the legal process. And while polygamy remains illegal, women who choose this lifestyle don’t have access to the protections and benefits that legal marriage provides."

And that settles it. Or does it? Here’s the money quote:

“The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. 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.”
[Emphasis added]

Yes, all of a sudden the definition of marriage is definitely plastic. In fact, marriage should be extended to a person who wants to marry herself. And maybe her mother. And daughter. (But not her father, if he is white). Definitely plastic, which means that the definition has no meaning at all, since a definition which has no differentiation is no longer a definition. And how can pedophiles be discriminated against if there is no differentiation in the definition of marriage? Fair is fair. If there is to be no discrimination in the definition of marriage, then you cannot draw lines which discriminate, just not against you and your damn choice. That's - you know this - intolerant.