Monogamists don’t think they’re “morally superior,” Tom Gualtieri. They, like everyone, have desires of the flesh. Monogamy is just better, period. For 2,000 years the success of the Christian West has been sustained by male-female monogamous marriage.
Gualtieri writes at The Weeklings:
Monogamy is not the only successful relationship choice. Opponents cite failed open relationships as proof that monogamy is the right choice, forgetting how many monogamous relationships also fail.
Seeing as how the future depends on perpetuating our values in children, monogamy is better because no other marital arrangement provides a proper, stable foundation for developing moral human beings, capable of becoming productive citizens and channeling their desires of the flesh into marriage and children.
More from the reactionary Gualtieri:
Your view of your own moral superiority is not going to make someone else’s relationship better or worse, but your judgment does degrade society and the advances we have made in civil rights. Sure, you, like Rick Santorum and She Who Must Not Be Named have a right to an opinion, no matter how ill-informed, but what the small-minded lack is the ability to recognize that their opinion can’t translate into policy when that policy means the casual subjugation of others. My moral compass points only to this: is your choice harmless to others, and does it make you happy? If so, my opinion about it would just be a cock-and-bull story about why I’m morally superior. In other words: I’m not.
Interesting how the apostles of the Left deploy this libertarian refrain on social issues, yet they cry out “no man is an island” when peddling top-down economic centralization, in which fascist or Soviet-style planning “casually subjugates” everyone.
Don’t mistake this seeming inconsistency for irony. The destroyers’ philosophy is dominated by contempt for morality, family, property—in short, the natural order of the universe. They are beholden to neither big government nor small government, but to the atomic individual, the sacrosanct sinner, defining his own rules of existence. Little invested in an eternal afterlife in Heaven, they are obsessed with empowering themselves against the worldly, elemental forces of civilization. In some cases, they preach liberation (i.e., from an ancient moral code). In other cases, they preach centralization (to inflict their utopian vision on others).
Eventually their pursuit of selfish, unfettered power will come back to haunt them, as their nihilism lends credence to their own subjugation by some nonideological, totalitarian leader, a la Stalin or Hitler, both of whom rose to power on the backs of hapless socialists.
On a side note, marriage redefinitionists say they reject polygamy, yet time after time we see morally indifferent arguments from the Left sanctioning polyamory and by extension polygamy. We are alert to their game—not that there’s anything we can do about it. We are tied to the train tracks, and the train of relativism can’t be slowed.