Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 5:39 PM
25 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, kjsimons, PaulK, Taq (5 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,242 Year: 5,279/19,786 Month: 1,401/873 Week: 297/460 Day: 49/64 Hour: 0/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234567Next
Author Topic:   First Gay marriage, then Polygamy (its happening!)
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 94 (248121)
10-02-2005 8:38 AM


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)
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 10-02-2005 9:16 AM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2005 10:15 AM Silent H has responded
 Message 5 by Nuggin, posted 10-02-2005 10:51 AM Silent H has responded
 Message 8 by Lammy, posted 10-02-2005 2:07 PM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 9 by bkelly, posted 10-02-2005 2:12 PM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 77 by Epiphany7, posted 10-20-2005 4:23 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 94 (248126)
10-02-2005 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
10-02-2005 8:38 AM


Hey, I'll celebrate. Hooray for people being free!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 10-02-2005 8:38 AM Silent H has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 3 of 94 (248147)
10-02-2005 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
10-02-2005 8:38 AM


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.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 10-02-2005 8:38 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 10-02-2005 10:24 AM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 10-02-2005 1:22 PM RAZD has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 4 of 94 (248148)
10-02-2005 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
10-02-2005 10:15 AM


quote:
There is nothing wrong with contracts between consenting adults.

Ah, but there should be no "minors" according to some.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2005 10:15 AM RAZD has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 5 of 94 (248151)
10-02-2005 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
10-02-2005 8:38 AM


Cause and Effect?
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 10-02-2005 8:38 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 10-02-2005 1:13 PM Nuggin has responded
 Message 19 by gene90, posted 10-02-2005 3:53 PM Nuggin has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 6 of 94 (248192)
10-02-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Nuggin
10-02-2005 10:51 AM


Re: Cause and Effect?
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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Nuggin, posted 10-02-2005 10:51 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Nuggin, posted 10-02-2005 2:21 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 7 of 94 (248193)
10-02-2005 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
10-02-2005 10:15 AM


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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2005 10:15 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2005 2:29 PM Silent H has responded

    
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3607
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 8 of 94 (248204)
10-02-2005 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
10-02-2005 8:38 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 10-02-2005 8:38 AM Silent H has not yet responded

    
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 94 (248206)
10-02-2005 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
10-02-2005 8:38 AM


what's the problem
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 10-02-2005 8:38 AM Silent H has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-02-2005 7:52 PM bkelly has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 10 of 94 (248210)
10-02-2005 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Silent H
10-02-2005 1:13 PM


Re: Cause and Effect?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 10-02-2005 1:13 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 10-02-2005 3:19 PM Nuggin has responded
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2005 3:43 PM Nuggin has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 11 of 94 (248214)
10-02-2005 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Silent H
10-02-2005 1:22 PM


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.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 10-02-2005 1:22 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 10-02-2005 3:25 PM RAZD has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 12 of 94 (248222)
10-02-2005 2:40 PM


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?


Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 10-02-2005 2:51 PM nwr has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6532
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 13 of 94 (248229)
10-02-2005 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by nwr
10-02-2005 2:40 PM


quote:
The state is also an implicit partner to the contract....

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nwr, posted 10-02-2005 2:40 PM nwr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 10-02-2005 3:34 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 14 of 94 (248244)
10-02-2005 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Nuggin
10-02-2005 2:21 PM


Re: Cause and Effect?
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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Nuggin, posted 10-02-2005 2:21 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Nuggin, posted 10-02-2005 10:18 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 15 of 94 (248251)
10-02-2005 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
10-02-2005 2:29 PM


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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2005 2:29 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2005 3:44 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
1
234567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019