Polygamy in the Netherlands

Looks like polygamy is ok now in the Netherlands:

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.



The Brussels Journal

People who say that legalized gay marriage isn't a slippery slope to stuff like this should take note of this story.

A slippery slope to three adults living happily ever after?

Nope, I see noooo problem there.

They're all consenting adults.

People who say that legalized gay marriage isn't a slippery slope to stuff like this should take note of this story.

Take note of what?
People living there lives how they want to ?
DJ what gives you or anyone else the right to tell people how they should run there lives?

Originally posted by xpert11

People who say that legalized gay marriage isn't a slippery slope to stuff like this should take note of this story.

Take note of what?
People living there lives how they want to ?
DJ what gives you or anyone else the right to tell people how they should run there lives?

I would like to know as well...

If these three adults are happy together, who are we to say they can't live their life like this?

Should we play God and begin to Judge these people or allow him [if he exists] to do it instead?

If you do not have all the answers, do not judge them as though you do.

There's a big difference between allowing them to live together and having this arrangement endorsed by the state and giving them all special privileges as being all married to each other.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
There's a big difference between allowing them to live together and having this arrangement endorsed by the state and giving them all special privileges as being all married to each other.

Yes we know...

But if they are happy together, who are the state to stop them from being married?

Why should they not be?

The state simply has no interest in recognizing such nontraditional marriages, like it does with traditional marriages (to promote healthy families and raise children in the best possible situation).

Neither society nor private corporations should be required to pay benefits or give any special status to spouses in these types of marriages.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The state simply has no interest in recognizing such nontraditional marriages, like it does with traditional marriages (to promote healthy families and raise children in the best possible situation).

Neither society nor private corporations should be required to pay benefits or give any special status to spouses in these types of marriages.

Children are raised in healthy 'non-traditional' situations all around the world.

Part of me wonders why preserving the heterosexual sanctity of a 50% divorce rate is such a big deal....

But I suppose my real question is, exactly why shouldn't a spouse of any marriage be given the same status and rights to that of a "traditional" spouse?

Who is it hurting, exactly?

hmm...three adults....okay....one women, two husbands...anyone have any objections here. and since they are both married to her, well, they are both responsible for any children she may bring into the world, since hey, it would be too costly to do dna test on every polygamous married to determine which would be the father. and well, I think for the most part, the courts hold the husband responsible for any babies his wife may have, regardless of who the real father is....just or unjust, that's what I believe they have decided to do.
so, one wife, two husbands, any objectors?

Originally posted by dawnstar
and since they are both married to her, well, they are both responsible for any children she may bring into the world, since hey, it would be too costly to do dna test on every polygamous married to determine which would be the father.

DNA testing isn't expensive these days. Testing kits cost as little as $250. Hardly prohibitive for your average non-custodial parent (or the court system - remember, in a battle between two "potential" fathers, you only need one test really) to prove their point.

and well, I think for the most part, the courts hold the husband responsible for any babies his wife may have, regardless of who the real father is...

See above.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The state simply has no interest in recognizing such nontraditional marriages, like it does with traditional marriages (to promote healthy families and raise children in the best possible situation).

And?

I don't see any proof that the 'Nuclear Family' or the 'Extended Nuclear Family' is the best option. I would love to see such proof.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Neither society nor private corporations should be required to pay benefits or give any special status to spouses in these types of marriages.

Why should they not?

Because you think that one type is better than another? Why should those three people be punished if they are all happy together when normal [Nuclear] marriages have abuse members who get the privalegs?

I'd love to hear why some think unconventional marital arrangements are so threatening.

The thing is that they are always likely to be less than the norm when compared to conventional marriage or 'common law' marriage (long term living together).

Why should the partners involved or their children be denied the same rights to ownership, inheritance or pension coverage as married couples?

Since when was this type of equality a 'special status'?

I don't know about anyone else but I suspect I am not alone in choosing to get married for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with the legal status and rights that came into being following the marriage.

.......and I do not consider the 'worth' of my being married as having anything to do with what 'rights' and 'status' anyone else has in their 'civil unions/marriages' either.
The very idea strikes me as deeply weird, utterly loopy and twisted.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I'd love to hear why some think unconventional marital arrangements are so threatening.

So would I...

It has nearly been a week and it looks as though nobody can show us why we are all sinners and will ruin society and our children...drats.

I gave you the only one I could think of, if a man can marry two wives, well then, a women should also have the right to marry two husbands. since marriage (government regulation of it), was mainly to ascertain the pedigree of the children, thus the ability to determine who is reponsible for providing for children, well, one women having two husbands might complicate matters for them a little....only one I can think of though.

Let's go for 1:

I propose that one of you single people should propose . . . . to yourself.

Then tell the IRS why you are filing "jointly."

And why stop at humans? people should be able to marry their pets too.

Heck why shouldn't they be able to marry mathematical functions, shade of gray, heck why shouldn't they be able to marry ghosts????


Because for marriage to mean anything, it needs to have parameters. This is just one more attack on the traditional family. Which is hardly surprising at ATS/BTS, in its role of leading the vanguard against people who actually work and pay taxes and raise families.

oh well, it's not like I care or anything. There won't be enough left of this tinkertoy society left in 5 years to divide up in a divorce settlement.

Basically, it is stuff like this that keeps the right wing authoritarians in business. Gives them a chance to point out what a bunch of clowns the social liberals are. So keep it up. You're only entrenching the GOP in power.

dr_strangecraft, can you proove that it harms society by these actions?

AS for animals, etc, they can't answer for themselves like an adult human can.

Originally posted by Odium
dr_strangecraft, can you proove that it harms society by these actions?

Of course not.

Societal critique is not like deriving a proof of euclid's 43rd proposition. Namely because I'm real sure that you won't accept any of my axia. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care for yours either.

As a matter of fact, I'm not really sure why I bother posting any more. It's the same old stuff, going round and round in circles. If you post that potassium cyanide is poisonnous, someone will come on here and post against you.

Actually, someone did that. I mentioned that you shouldn't handle liquid mercury without a fume hood, and some posters came out of the woodwork to call me a fascist.

Yeah. nevermind.

dr_strangecraft, if these people are happy and not harming anyone what right do we have to stop them from being together and happy?

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
This is just one more attack on the traditional family.

- I keep hearing this rhetoric but I've yet to hear anyone back it up with any rational explaination.

Whether 2 men, 2 women (or, hell if it comes to it, your idea of a person and a goat, themselves or a piece of math......are you really worried a few minor tax-breaks and some inheritance law will make beastiality attractive and gather vast numbers of devotees? - cos that's how this arguement reads to me....and I think it is nuts, personally speaking) live happily together seems to me to have nothing to do with the (majority of) millions/billions of 'conventional families' out there.
How is that diversity a threat of any kind to what is, let's face it, the overwhelming majority?

In fact my own view would be that the "traditional family" is well and truely on it's last legs and thoroughly 'poked' the day all those petty - but nevertheless significant - little legal and commercial 'advantages' that the "traditional family" currently enjoys become the main reason for any sane people bothering to marry and have a family.

Ensuring the children or partners of an unconventional families are legally and commercially treated the same way as with those in or of a conventional married partnership/family doesn't seem like any kind of "attack" to me.

How is being equal (in the legal and commercial aspects of life) any kind of "attack"?


[edit on 12-10-2005 by sminkeypinkey]