From Angry in the Great White North, news about legalized polygamy 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 Biance (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.
Angry poses the question: is this really a polygamous relationship, legally, or just a case of a bigamist being tolerated by the State?
The difference is important, since as a bigamist, the only legal relationship is between the man and each wife. The wives have no legal relationship to each other, or to each other’s children.
In that legal void lurks all sorts of problems.
If Canada starts to tolerate bigamists as a way of allowing polygamy through the back door, it won’t be long before the legal problems with that approach forces these people to demand formal recognition and new laws to cover their “lifestyle”.
Angry has more analysis.
Now watch as Canada yells “Yippeeee!” as it careens down the slippery slope.
Right now we have men and women taking multiple sexual partners, but without any sort of commitment. At least with legalized polygamy, the state is establishing a framework where polygamous partners can contract with one another and form committed relationships.
Which is worse?
Why do they need the government to establish and enforce their commitment? People who are “taking multiple sexual partners, but without any sort of commitment” will continue to do so, even with legalized polygamy.
New title on the Ontario civil wedding document:
The state now pronounces (fill in blank with person or species of your choice as “Partner “A”) AND…
(partner B)
AND
(partner C)
AND
(partner D)
AND
(partner E)
AND
(partner F)
Etc.
In legal wedlock. May the lord have mercy on your souls in the event of a divorce settlement.
Please use otherside of document if more than 26 registarants in this union and use numeric listing.
“Why do they need the government to establish and enforce their commitment?”
I dunno — go ask the gay folks who pushed for legalizing SSM that. 😉
We have legal polygamy here, in beautiful Bountiful BC. Since nobody has been charged with having 27 wives and 144 kids, presumably it’s not illegal. Libs don’t want to touch it. Now, they’ve got the support of those role models of liberalism, and our new idols, Belgium and the Netherlands.
Until people re-buy into the notion that the “raison d’etre” for marriage is the raising of children, western nations will continue the slide down the slippery slope. Also, people must also accept that the best balanced environment for raising children is a one man/one woman household.
But then they’d have to agree that situations like single parent/same sex/polygamist families can’t achieve the same kind of balanced upbringing. What are the chances?
Before our government starts to emphasize and support the advantages inherent in traditional families (and therefore traditional marriage)the chances of Canada not following the Netherlands on the road to societal oblivion are zero.
Your opinion please: Should I just let this drift by or should I risk going off topic in the interest of bringing up something, uh, good?
Is Warren Kinsella coming around?
Is he betrying the Libranos camp?
http://www.freethought.ca/archive/000570.php
Be careful, this is a Harper Hate domain. ‘3s TG
Polygamy makes eminent good sense-this should pave the way for King Mswati of Swaziland to park a couple of dozen of his child brides in THIS country, ( giving him more time to spend his CDN Foreign Aid on another fleet of BMWs- he really wanted that fleet of Bombardiere jets, (paid for with a CIDA loan)- but the press got wind of that and quietly nixed it. Bwahahaha!
As for Warren Kinsella saying nice things about Stephen Harper- he is hoping that we won’t dig too deeply into the services he rendered for Cruton. (Watch how many more of these weasels change sides, the closer we get to the next election.)
Cruton, Oh yeah…. That’s just a lame way of covering up that I can’t recall or never knew in the first place. I need a Kinsella / Cruton thumbnail.
Kinella’s on thin ice with me. He’s just too crafty… Makes me very nervous.
Would you go to a site called Kiddiekink?
I would never go to a site like that on purpose.
After all, every move you make is permanently recorded and archived at several places in the net.
What are your thoughts on this??
What is that? Explain..msxml.excite.co….
It’s alphabetical…. Find it?
http://Warrenkinsella.com/stats/ref_200404.html
Was that an accident? I sure hope so! 73s TG
Bigamy/Polygamy is already legal in Canada – that guy in Bountiful (BC) has not yet been charged with anything. As long as he is free from the law so is everyone else.
Also Angry went to far with his post – the paternity test – come on – what mother doesn’t know her children. Fathers may not know for sure which kids belong to them but mothers KNOW.
“Come on – what mother doesn’t know her children.”
But what if both claim the same child? What if the fight is over inheritance, with the patriarch dead? What if the split in the proceeds is by ratio of children?
The fight doesn’t even have to be over inheritance. Imagine:
“You may be his/her biological mother, but I love him/her far more than you ever could!”
The claim by one partner to love a child more than the other does or ever could, therefore attempting to establish a superior moral claim to the caretaking of the child, is seen quite regularly in family law proceedings. (It’s usually, but not always, the woman making the claim…)
If nothing else, the coming years will be filled with great entertainment. I’m laying in an extra supply of popcorn, just in case. 😉
I am for polygamous marriage, as long as:
a)everyone in the relationship agrees to it, and
b) no one is hurt by it.
Beyond that, it is none of my business.
Ahh, John Murney, you have so perfectly encapsulated the very thought process that is flushing our once-great country further and further down the toilet.
Polygamy will never come to Canada.
The origin of same-sex marriage in Canada is different than the Netherlands. Here, it has it’s roots in radical feminism and the eradication of gender. This is why the government never wanted a real debate and always avoided the polygamy question.
Polygamists still by nature agree with gender differences.
Polygamy is not one more notch down the slippery slope. It is a step up from same-sex marriage.
SSM with it’s belief that marriage is about nothing but property rights and tax laws and that all genders are interchangeable is the absolute bottom of the slope.
We can’t get any lower than this.
Nevertheless it will be interesting to see how any Charter challenge plays out.
Here in genderless Kitsilano in Vancouver, the ladies are all VERY ANGRY at men – always and for any reason. Very difficult to enjoy a mellow merlot when the air around you is rancid with rancor toward men. I predict that polygamy among the ladies in Kits would be welcome. That would explain the line up of men at the bar every night.
As to mothers knowingthe father….maybe.
I know for a fact that the NY state family services database can accomodate twins born of different fathers. (of different race, though that just seems like icing on that cake)
Ask THAT mother who the fathers were. Go on!
The funny thing is that I recall at least 2 or 3 even less likely options that were allowed for, and there was even an e-form in case the database needed something wierder.
These weren’t theoretical cases either.
Cheers, Fred
There could also be Polyandry:
(Greek: poly many, andros man) in which a female forms a stable sexual union with more than one male.
The way I see it, based on observations of how the SSM experiment got so quickly, flip-floppingly, forcibly started w/o need by the state, my quick point is this:
There’s really nothing standing in the way of bigamy, polygamy, multipartner civil unions or any other social contractural arrangement, no matter how strange and unneeded-by-society, except the Canadian electorate.
We, the people, can place a strong net just below where we are now on the “slippery slope” to put a stop to this wild, drunken ride towards whatever lies at the bottom. All we have to do is replace the current ruling regime with a common-sense, no-nonsense one that’s committed to only doing its job as ordered to by the common people. Just the core responsibilities, please. No more buzzed-up messing around to no constructive end.
http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com
Next up: ‘INCEST'(tm) “The new family game everybody can play”.
>>>>> “abuse of young people” ????? Pederasty?
The Cornwall Public Inquiry
The Cornwall Public Inquiry was established by the Government of Ontario on April 14, 2005, under the Public Inquiries Act. The mandate of the Commission is to inquire into and report on the events surrounding allegations of abuse of young people in Cornwall by examining the response of the justice system and other public institutions to the allegations. The Commission will make recommendations to improve the response in similar circumstances. As well, the Commission will inquire into and report on processes, services and programs that will encourage community healing and reconciliation in Cornwall.
The Commissioner, Justice G. Normand Glaude, was appointed by Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant in April 2005.
In keeping with Commissioner Glaude’s commitment to provide the public with current information throughout the Inquiry, regularly updated information will be posted on this website. When hearings begin, the website will feature live webcasts of the Inquiry. Inquiry updates can be found throughout the website, with the most current information being under the categories What’s New? and Commission Updates. Interested individuals may also access Commission Updates by contacting the Commission office to receive them by mail.>>> more
http://www.cornwallinquiry.ca/en/index.html
I think I,ll stick my head in the sand and pretend that everything is just wonderful and we live in such a great country
If you go to Angry’s site and read my comment about polygamy you will see, re: the legalisation of polygamy that that ship has all but sailed.
If I understand the reasoning of the cases that imposed gay marriage – and don’t be fooled, that’s actually an ENORMOUS “if” – then the status of being legally marriage is so essential to human dignity that the state must regard as legally married absolutely anyone who wants to view themselves as married, whether they’re actually married or not.
Since the parties to a plural marriage actually are married, it follows that such marriages are already legal.
Er…just so we’re clear, where does that slippery slope lead? I ask because Canada’s certainly got a pretty sound history on women’s rights.
First Trio “Married” in The Netherlands
Posted by bahblahbah
On 09/28/2005 5:18:08 PM PDT � 61 replies � 568+ views
The Brussels Journal ^ | 2005-09-27 | Paul Belien
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..>>>>>> freerepublic.com
What a scam.
Let’s not waste any time. Who’s entitled to his pension & benefits upon his demise?