View Single Post
Old October 25th, 2005 #19
lawrence dennis
lawrence dennis's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rocky Mountains
Posts: 1,265
lawrence dennis
Default Polygamy given legal sanction in Netherlands

Original source on 'Civil Union' of trio:

Redefining Marriage, Netherlands Style
Posted by Steve at October 4, 2005 10:00 AM -- Being proven right all the time is admittedly a heavy burden to bear, but, it's not unusual for us conservatives to have to bear it -- and it's happened again in the case of redefining marriage. Witness this from the Brussels Journal:
The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name. Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.

“I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both,” Victor said. He had previously been married to Bianca. Two and a half years ago they met Mirjam Geven through an internet chatbox. Eight weeks later Mirjam deserted her husband and came to live with Victor and Bianca. After Mirjam’s divorce the threesome decided to marry.
Yes you read it right: Two women and a man were "married" the other day in the Netherlands. But, it's cool says the blushing groom, because the women are bi:
Asked by journalists to tell the secret of their peculiar relationship, Victor explained that there is no jealousy between them. “But this is because Mirjam and Bianca are bisexual. I think that with two heterosexual women it would be more difficult.” Victor stressed, however, that he is “a one hundred per cent heterosexual” and that a fourth person will not be allowed into the “marriage.” They want to take their marriage obligations seriously: “to be honest and open with each other and not philander.”
So Victor says a fourth person will not be allowed into the marriage. How do his "wives" feel about this? What happens if they meet the right person to make it a foursome in some Internet "chatbox"? What if Victor's "wives" take a notion that they'd like some more man action in the "relationship"? Or maybe some more woman action? If everyone has an equal vote in this "marriage" perhaps ole' Vic will be faced with sharing his bed with another guy (or girl) of their choosing. Here are a couple more questions thrown in for good measure: Which of the duo of "wives" in this relationship has greater standing? Would it be Bianca, who was married to Victor for 2 1/2 years before they decided to become a threesome? What if this "union" produces kids? Who's the mom and what does the kid call the other "wife" in the relationship? What legal standing does each of the three parents have? Aside from the obvious moral and legal issues, the problems with this whole situation are never-ending. But the problems for this "threesome" pale in comparison to the implications and problems for society as a whole.

Now that the ménage a trois has been codified by a civil union in Europe, what's next? How long will it be before a foursome in the Netherlands decides that they deserve to have their relationship recognized as legal? Two men and two women? Three men and one woman? Three women and one man? Four men? Four women? A woman a man and two sheep? Don't laugh; stranger things could certainly happen.

Rogue judges have started us down the slippery slope over here on this side of the pond. Seventy percent of Massachusetts residents oppose gay marriage and yet gay marriage is the law in Massachusetts. Vermont has legalized civil unions between same sex couples. Canada recently legalized gay marriage and the rational lawmakers there have opined that this will lead to the legalization of polygamy in short order. As says, this isn't a joke:
The development would seem like a joke and a mere oddity if it were not for the fact that it was precisely this that was warned about in legislatures in Canada and the US from those opposed to the legal demolition of marriage. When the same-sex “marriage” bill was being debated in Canada’s Parliament, Liberal MP Tom Wappel warned that the next logical step was the legalization of polygamy. “Those who argue in favour of polygamy will say, ‘How can we end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in marriage but continue to permit discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs in marriage?’” said Wappel.
This argument is exactly correct and it's just the next little slide down the slippery slope of the "anything goes" approach to marriage. If you think it can't happen here, that's probably exactly what they thought a couple decades ago in Europe. Marriage between one man and one woman isn't just some arbitrary construct us conservatives decided to force on society for the hell of it. There are a lot of good legal and moral reasons for it as this case proves conclusively.

How is the faithful city become an harlot! It was full of judgment: righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water. Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards.

Xian WN!

"The Jew can only be understood if it is known what he strives for: ... the destruction of the world.... [it is] the tragedy of Lucifer."

Holy-Hoax Exposed, Hollow-Cost Examined, How Low Cost? (toons)