|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: First Gay marriage, then Polygamy (its happening!) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
After all the idiotic rightwing garbage going on in the Netherlands I finally get a chance to smile about something. I've spoken before about the fact that Netherlands has quite a flexible system for marital arrangements, well they (and belgium) have legally recognized a polygamous union...
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. Heheheh. I might note for all the so called "logic experts" on legal problems, this proves not only that I was right (you can look up the legal stuff on how contracts work in dutch articles), but we now have an example of a western society that has it in case history. The key was simply no numerical restriction, thus the contracts work like any other contract (aka business contracts). Intriguingly at dutch sites I found out that this was not actually the first case. It is at the very least the second case, though this may be the first case of one guy and more than one woman which is what made it "newsworthy". Okay is this the beginning of a slippery slope that people must fear, or a liberation that people should be celebrating? This message has been edited by holmes, 10-02-2005 08:40 AM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Hey, I'll celebrate. Hooray for people being free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Heh. Better tell Pat Robertson ...
This is where I say (again, have said, etc) that "marriage" should be a religious issue and defined by the church(es) in question. That secular society, especially government institutions, should not have any laws based on this concept as it discriminates for no secular purpose. The mormon fundies should be happy with this eh? As should the Muslim, and Jewish traditions that have multiple wives. Slippery slope? Not unless you can suddenly contract between adults and children of minor age or animals ... And then we also get into the non compos mentis issue eh? There is nothing wrong with contracts between consenting adults. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Ah, but there should be no "minors" according to some.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I'm a little confused here. Is the premise that gay marriage leads to polygamy, because as I understand it gay marriage is not legal in Utah.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I'm a little confused here. Is the premise that gay marriage leads to polygamy, because as I understand it gay marriage is not legal in Utah. That is in fact a premise heard from conservatives against gay marriage, or even gay sexual rights. I see the point you are trying to make with Utah, but it doesn't really work in this case. They are not claiming that first a person is gay and then polygamous, but rather there are gays and there are polygamists, and once you have legal backing for gay marriage there will be no logical reason to block polygamy... and so that will also become legal. It only works as an argument if someone fears polygamy. Of course some proponents of gay marriage end up trying to argue that there is no logical equivalence between the two, and twist themselves in knots using to use the same logic the antigay marriage activists used against them. I was kind of having a laugh at both sides on that one. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Slippery slope? Not unless you can suddenly contract between adults and children of minor age or animals ... Animals I get, minors I do not. As it stands right now even where gay marriage is illegal, minors are able to be married. I think the main sticking issue (if we are discussing minors) is removal of the consent of parents. That would not be helped by this kind of case. If it is just about lowering the age of marriage below current levels in some particular state/nation, the polygamy thing could act as a sort of signpost on the slope. The idea that children are the equivalent of animals or the insane, is a bit extreme, and not necessary to justify parental control. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
If you look carefully at my posts regarding gay marriage, you will find that I have always supported polygamy as long as the contract is between consenting adults.
Yes, this is a slippery slope, but it is a slippery slope for the better. To criticize this is like criticizing that since we have given blacks the right to vote that now we must give the arabs and the asians the right to vote as well. This message has been edited by Jacen, 10-02-2005 02:08 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bkelly Inactive Member |
I find there is no problem with polygamy, polyandry, or homosexual marraige.
If two men and one woman, or two women and one man wish to live their lives as a social unit, why is that bad? Just one for example, in our moden society, two can work while one stays home to take care of the children. There are many other reasons and possibilities. There is no crime and there is no victim. What is the problem? Regarding homosexual couples, if any two people find comfort, companionship, joy in their relationship, why do I have any business in paying any attention what-so-ever to what goes on in the privacy of their home. If they wish to contribute to each others medical care, each others retirement funds, or any other endeavor, how am I harmed? I am not. (I do draw a line with emotional and physical mistreatment, even when both parties appear to participate on a voluntary basis) "Marriages" of one male and one female break up with all sorts of legal problems. Why should partnerships of any other form be more or less problematic? (Yes there are more poeple involved, but the same is true with large families, corporations, etc.) The time has long since arrived for self righteous bible thumpers and manipulative governments to stop trying to push their assumed moralities on the private lives of citizens. To address a few replies, the problems with children and beasts have probably existed since the beginnings of humanity are not in the same class as the OP. That side issue should be dropped from this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Of course some proponents of gay marriage end up trying to argue that there is no logical equivalence between the two Well there frankly isn't. Gay marriage is a union of two individuals, polygamy is more than two. Polygamy has as much (or more) in common with straight marriage than gay marriage. But the bigger issue is the if then nature of the argument. "IF gays can marry, then Polygamists can marry". So? As long as we're not talking about minors, or people forced into contracts against their will, who cares. What Frank does in his house over the next hill is none of my business as long as he's not hurting anyone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The idea that children are the equivalent of animals or the insane, I didn't necessitate equivalence, these were just other "examples" from the extremists of the slippery slope issue. The interesting issue is that using a contract issue as the basis that kids can be better protected (but not necessarily -- parents used to sell kids into slavery, so approving a contract where the parents benefit while the child loses would not be much better). Of course there have also been wills where the entire estate has been left to some pet or other, and the legal difference between this and a {contract partnership} with legal inheritance is pretty minor. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Marriage isn't just a contract between two individuals. The state is also an implicit partner to the contract, because of rights that are due to a spouse in various laws. This has been the basis for some of the legal arguments about gay marriage (in Mass. for example).
When you go to polygamy, this becomes much more of a problem. Are the spousal rights divided between multiple spouses? Or are they replicated so that each gets full rights?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: That's true for all contracts. But there is a problem that the majority of our laws concerning inheritance, power to make decisions for an incapacitated partner, and child welfare are written with the idea of one male/one female partnership in mind. Now, it seems like a pretty trivial change to make it apply to a one person/one person partnership; polygamy would require some more drastic rewriting of the laws, although perhaps no more than it has taken to change to one male/one female from one superior male/one inferior female.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Well there frankly isn't. Gay marriage is a union of two individuals, polygamy is more than two. ??? And that shows there is no logical equivalence how? I thought this event pretty well sealed this kind of argument once and for all. What am I missing?
Polygamy has as much (or more) in common with straight marriage than gay marriage. This is correct from a historical and multicultural perspective of marriage.
As long as we're not talking about minors, I really didn't expect this would be brought up, and I would rather not deal with it. But I have to point out that marrying "minors" may be a slippery slope issue in some quarters, but not the same way as gays and polygamy and marrying animals. That's the usual line. The fact is that minors can get married, even in the US. It is all on a state by state and nation by nation basis. Up until recently the only totally banned marriages have been gay (the world), polygamy (western nations), incest (primary, pretty much the world), and animals (all western and I believe the world). holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I didn't necessitate equivalence, these were just other "examples" from the extremists of the slippery slope issue. My mistake, I thought you were suggesting that minors and animals were along the same lines as (driving us toward) issues of the mentally incapacitated.
The interesting issue is that using a contract issue as the basis that kids can be better protected (but not necessarily -- parents used to sell kids into slavery, so approving a contract where the parents benefit while the child loses would not be much better). In a way this would also touch on (but let's not here) the fact that liberals are generally against child rights for sex or marriage, yet feel they are competent and should have sole discretion with regard to birth control and abortion. So sex and relationships no, but consequences of such things... yes. This message has been edited by holmes, 10-02-2005 03:25 PM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024