First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands
From the desk of Paul Belien on Mon, 2005-09-26 23:08

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.
Victor: “A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage.”
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.”
Update:
Dutch Minister Not to Prevent Polygamy 1 November 2005
The War against Marriage and Men 19 December 2005
Aids, doughnuts (sic) and proverbs
Submitted by Bob Doney on Sun, 2005-10-02 21:22.
Very interesting, if a little obscure in parts. I don't approve of your American spelling of "donuts", but we can leave that for another day.
However, you seem to be blissfully unaware that HIV/AIDS is most commonly spread by sex between men and women.
Bob Doney 1882:4938 "He that quoteth from the Bible all the time is in danger of being thought a bit of a religious nut."
In the Name of (guess who)
Bob Doney (formerly known when a child as "Donut")
that's the thing
Submitted by telder1 on Mon, 2005-10-03 01:21.
about Truth: He truncates the non-creating speech of emotional opportunity. And that is why He is hated.
HIV and AIDs began in the homosexual / bisexual community and spread from there as bisexual partners passed it on to promiscuous heterosexuals.
What new disease should we wait for next while we fight the one they have already given the world? And why in any way should they be paid to be a lab to come up with another one? Here is yet another homosexual who seems to have come up with a new strain of drug resistant HIV as of June 2005. Some notes from that page:
"CT practices multiple partner unprotected anal-receptive/anal-insertive intercourse with his male partner of >10yrs at multiple venues and occasionally uses crystal methamphetamine."
and
? Patient Zero (CT) is a 52 year-old Caucasian MSM from Connecticut, HIV+ 10/93, who began AZT monotherapy in 1995 with CD4 95, followed by AZT/SQV-hgc, prior to beginning HAART in 1997.
and
Past history includes rectal condyloma, syphilis, and CA-MRSA from 2002-2004, and multiple metabolic complications.
So: He already had AIDs, already had had syhilis, was on medicine paid for by someone else to stay alive and yet has come up with a whole new strain of drug resistant HIV while on crystal meth induced bouts of anal sex. And that's not going on everywhere in the world any homosexual community is accepted?
Am I against his soul, Bob? Do I hope he burns in hell? Absolutely not. But neither do I in any way wish him to be paid to hang around so his flesh can contaminate as many as he can say he 'loves' by infecting them with not only a deadly disease, but one his own body has manufactured to do away with any benefits of medicine. Not only that, but neither do I wish him to be legally protected to do so under the lie of "homosexual / bisexual marriage".
Something we don't find in nature is an intelligently placed ignorance in order to make strategic use of it. You seem to be blissfully unaware (as I googled that reference in less than five minutes) that homosexuals and bisexuals are famously promiscuous, even going so far as to say 'they can't help it' and wanting Viagra to help them not help it. Keeping one's eye trained on such pictures as are at the top of the page doesn't change that.
No. It is plain, Bob that homosexual / bisexual marriage is a deception to at all cost divert the attention away from the reality of what the great evil of homosexuality / bisexuality is doing to the overall populace (non-creation of children and introduction of terrible, incurable disease) while holding forth thoughts of the warmth of 'relationships' beyond sex.
If those who are under such tyranny as non-creating speech do not hear the Word of God and are not non-metaphorically born again in Jesus Christ, they will indeed
burn in the lake of fire.
So while some consider it the better part of etiquette to say nothing so that the sellers of emotional opportunity and homosexuals and their apologists 'get what is coming to them' on an eternal scale, God through me, even according to the false emotional etiquette of 'free' will of 'doing emotion correctly', much less according to whatever model you have of it, is Love in speaking His Word to you. While it is never too late until death to hear and be born again in Jesus Christ, death is not a friend and gets no seat at the table of civilzation.
1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
I am sorry, but HIVS were
Submitted by goenitz (not verified) on Fri, 2005-11-18 00:22.
I am sorry, but HIVS were actually products of the blood of various animals. Certain tribes consumed the animals after inproper cleaning procedure. Furthermore, lesbians have less chance of getting AIDS than straight people >_>
Furthermore, without marriage, homosexuals will be limited to promiscuos sex WHETHER OR NOT THEY DESIRE NON-ADULTUROUS SEX. I assure you that if we allowed same sex marriage, the AIDS rate among both gay and straight people would plummet.
The point
Submitted by Bob Doney on Mon, 2005-10-03 09:15.
You conveniently ignore the point of my last posting - no, not the one about the spelling of "doughnuts" - the one where I said that most HIV/AIDS is spread by heterosexual sex.
It's also a bit rich to blame "homosexuals who are famously promiscuous", and then deny them the legality of a contractual and social relationship, i.e. marriage, which implies that two of them want to spend their lives together.
By the way, where do I get this incorruptible seed that Peter is boning on about? Will my local garden centre stock it? I would imagine I could get it mail order from the Netherlands - they seem pretty switched on about breeding.
Bob Doney
But that is the point:
Submitted by telder1 on Mon, 2005-10-03 18:51.
"they want to spend their lives together". That's the very point of evil. That they got 'together' at all IS the evil.
But everyone already understood that point way back when homosexuality first got started in the modern age.
Trying to make out homosexuals should stay together as demonstration of ( a very general emotional positive...as hopefully by them confusing pleasure with love) is like those who love tyranny saying nuclear weapons and terrorist should get together to 'see what happens' --and then get married.
You have become enamored of a lie of entertainment and so hardened to the Truth of the destruction that homosexuality wreaks that you only see evil when it is not around.
But the homosexuality / bisexuality is not simply a talking point, something about which to attempt eloquence. Homosexuals were first and foremost victims of non-creating speech trying to be eloquent ( and famous for their peculiarity of speech, their inside jokes, the speech and heart in common among them) --then came the physics of death therein. They did not see the serpent when it bit them and killed them, its poison being that it forced them to have pleasure in their own destruction. The eloquence they loved was their undoing and the stretching of their lies to all around them.
Like so many, you have been stripped of understanding that men and women demonstrate love in pro-creation and in caring for what is created beyond mere birth. They demonstrate love far beyond pleasure.
Pleasure is not love.
Love does not spread a disease as much as possible so as to not convict those with it initially of deviancy. Pleasure does and doesn't care. Love does not continue to do so over and over, coming up with ever more deadly strains of disease as recreation that others must pay for with cash and lives. Pleasure does and doesn't care.
It is plain, Bob, that you know all these things, and like all homosexuals and their apologists are drunk on your own non-creating speech. No amount of seeing first-hand death for others by what they are supporting is enough to persuade them that they are deceived. They already know the truth and their fundamental answer is as all homosexuals and their apologists, as all slaves of anit-Christ/non-creating speech:
"So what? I'm going to do it anyway."
At that point, homosexuals and their apologists join the ranks of Hitler, Stalin, Nebuchadnezzar, serial murders and terrorists who, knowing the evil they do can only see the emotional opportunity of their own non-creating speech ahead and so go forward, listening to Mozart and killing all around them while crying tears as if to make it even; as if the mere appearence of 'doing' some emotional etiquette properly made them good and not evil.
So it becomes clear it is not an information problem. No amount of calm explanation or shock will change them. They will simply keep on justifiying what they do as best as anti-Christ can through them as they walk in a sea of blood they cause. It is a spiritual problem.
Homosexuals and their apologist are in need of being born again in Jesus Christ by hearing the Word of God, the very seed given to you in the course of this conversation.
The root of your incredulity and unbelief in Jesus Christ is that you, like the Pharisees have until now known only non-creating speech. You grew up in a speech that can't create anything. All your 'logic' and false knowledge is built on a supposed closed box universe, where nothing is created but only changed because your speech is fundamentally powerless. You are deceived you know perfectly well what words can and cannot do and that outright new creation just isn't what words are for.
But God is His Word, separate and distinct from non-creating speech. He doesn't 'use language' to inform you what you ought to do or be. He cannot be bought or sold, not for emotion or cash. He is Love and hates the sin of homosexuality. His Speaking is the doing of genuine, non-metaphorical new creation in Jesus Christ.
So the question is not: what will you 'do' (or stop doing) next to please God ...or not. You don't have free will, irrespective that some may think God an emotional imbecile because He doesn't make emotional sense to them. The question is simply what have you heard? To hear Him is to be born again. His Word is the seed you seek and that you cannot buy.
John 6:28,29 They said therefore to him, What should we do that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom *he* has sent.
2 Corinthians 13:3-5 Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, (who is not weak towards you, but is powerful among you, for if indeed he has been crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God's power; for indeed *we* are weak in him, but we shall live with him by God's power towards you,) examine your own selves if ye be in the faith; prove your own selves: do ye not recognise yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you, unless indeed ye be reprobates?
All of them were told, Bob, explicitly to their face: Hitler, Nebuchadnezzar, Stalin--all the homosexuals through whom anti-Christ spreads himself as their speech and disease. And where are they now, having preferred the speech they grew up in, in order that they appeared logical and sensual before certain men and women?
Zechariah 1:5,6 Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, do they live for ever? But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not overtake your fathers? And they turned and said, Like as Jehovah of hosts thought to do unto us, according to our ways and according to our doings, so hath he dealt with us.
and yet again:
Psalm 103:10-12 He hath not dealt with us according to our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. For as the heavens are high above the earth, so great is his loving-kindness toward them that fear him. As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
2 Corinthians 5:17 So if any one be in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold all things have become new:
In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
Missing the point
Submitted by Bob Doney on Mon, 2005-10-03 21:36.
The root of your incredulity and unbelief in Jesus Christ is that you, like the Pharisees have until now known only non-creating speech. You grew up in a speech that can't create anything. All your 'logic' and false knowledge is built on a supposed closed box universe, where nothing is created but only changed because your speech is fundamentally powerless. You are deceived you know perfectly well what words can and cannot do and that outright new creation just isn't what words are for.
Hmmmm. So you're not keen on homosexuals then!
I'm not clear why you think you are able to comment on my beliefs about Jesus Christ, logic, epistemiology, cosmology and all the rest. I don't recall telling you what they are. It may be that you are jumping to some pretty hasty conclusions.
Bob Doney
Good call. Appeal to Tradition Fallacy
Submitted by Utilitarian. (not verified) on Fri, 2005-09-30 02:44.
You are completely correct in your assertion. The argument, "marriage always was X, therefore it always should be X" is a logically fallacious argument. Don't let anyone bullshit you, becaues that line of logic is called "appeal to tradition." It's always invalid. Always--just like appeal to emotions, appeal to popularity etc.
It's even better when the
Submitted by Emily (not verified) on Fri, 2005-09-30 20:18.
It's even better when the tradition they are pointing to never existed the way that they claim.
I must have missed
Submitted by Krist (not verified) on Wed, 2005-09-28 14:40.
I must have missed something. When did marriage become something exclusivly reserved for religious people? Have all these people that married without a religious service imagined things?
i must have missed
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2005-10-02 03:03.
you are very adept. yes, you did miss something.
Yeah you missed the third,
Submitted by Rich (not verified) on Thu, 2005-09-29 23:10.
Yeah you missed the third, fourth and fifth word of the first sentence.
"supposed to be"
Reference to Gay Marriage in Civil Unions
Submitted by Flemish American (not verified) on Wed, 2005-09-28 18:58.
Ming & Krist,
I'll give you both a bit of credit. First, Ming is right to say I went off the topic by bringing homosexuality into the issue. However, to ignore the tie to gay marriage when issues about civil unions is being discussed is like making spaghetti without the noodles.
My point about having their values forced on others, and this includes the polygamist relationship of the story, is based on the simple fact that many Christians and, might I note, many non-believers as well, consider the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman to be much more sacred than the joke being made of it today and we are offended by the idea of gay marriage and civil unions that recognise multi-partners. Thus, their efforts to have these unions recognized are infringing on our beliefs. If they want to go ahead with these relationships that is their business, but to make marriage an issue in it is attacking my own faith.
In your case Krist, I will forgive you for ignoring milleniums of history. Of course marriage is historically based on religious beliefs. It is laughable of you to say otherwise.
Myopic
Submitted by Jan (not verified) on Sun, 2005-10-02 01:07.
The “Flemish American” states, “ many … we are offended by the idea of gay marriage and civil unions that recognize multi-partners. Thus, their efforts to have these unions recognized are infringing on our beliefs.”
I am so completely appalled by the lack of logic in this. By this reasoning anyone who does not believe and act like you do is infringing on your beliefs. Is it infringing on your beliefs for Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, or Wikans to call their philosophies “religions”?
Since you like analogies so much, let’s consider football. Is it infringing on the world’s beliefs for Americans to call their sport football? Most people in the world refer to football, they are speaking of the game Americans call “soccer”. In fact football referred to that game long before the American game existed.
In fact, what Americans call football can trace its roots back to rugby, and rugby back to soccer. They all get called football, and they all classify as a sport. But I suppose that you think calling “soccer”, “football” is infringing on your beliefs as well.
Calling poker or gulf a sport and showing them on ESPN is offensive to many as well, but that doesn’t mean it’s infringing on anyone’s beliefs.
To infringe on someone’s beliefs is to keep them from having or practicing those beliefs. No one is suggesting to keep those who believe in heterosexual mono-partnering from doing anything, or having whatever beliefs they want. You are even free to teach your children that homosexuality and multi-partnering are wrong.
Just like I am free to teach my children that bigotry and suppression of freedoms is wrong.
Unnecessary Clarifications
Submitted by Flemish American (not verified) on Sat, 2005-10-01 10:51.
Thank you for those responding to my original statement. As is expected in blogland, I can see much of what I said has been twisted for your own purposes, as is your prerogative.
While I felt I was clear, I will try to put my thoughts into simple sentences. I'm curious to see where this will take us.
1. Marriage is a religious institution.
2. Civil unions are legal "back-doors" to make historically unconventional relationships like a marriage. This includes homosexual relationships as well as a heterosexual couple living out of wedlock and, in this case, a polygamist relationship.
3. Trying to force the legal institutions to recognise these unconventional relationships as marriage seriously undermines the deep meaning of the tradition and is being done more to antagonize traditionalists rather than out of actual, legal need.
Thus, I conclude that they are forcing their own set of values on me and consider myself completely justified in defending the institution as it was intended to be...the joining of one man and one woman.
religion as a social development tool
Submitted by spark (not verified) on Fri, 2005-09-30 15:50.
What if monotheist religion came at some point to help patriarchal societies develop ?
What if all your beliefs work socially the same way those 'poor indians' , guiding their society rules and avoiding genetic deviance ?
What if your traditions are a tool, to mold society, a tool created by others, or by society itself, and you're just a pawn ?
"My point about having their
Submitted by V (not verified) on Fri, 2005-09-30 13:39.
"My point about having their values forced on others, and this includes the polygamist relationship of the story, is based on the simple fact that many Christians and, might I note, many non-believers as well, consider the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman to be much more sacred than the joke being made of it today and we are offended by the idea of gay marriage and civil unions that recognise multi-partners."
Aren't you enforcing your beliefs on non-religious people here? Not everyone is a christian and not all non-christians share the same views.
"Of course marriage is historically based on religious beliefs."
It can't be denied that christian beliefs play an important part in what Dutch people consider 'marriage', but this is a part of their culture. It's in no way 'nature'. Other cultures can have different interpretations of the word 'marriage'.
Christians are upset because
Submitted by Emily (not verified) on Fri, 2005-09-30 20:18.
Christians are upset because of multiple-person marriage? Are you joking?
Go back and read it again. For your own sake, for the sake of the argument you are trying to make, go back and read it again.
The "tradition" of one man and one woman is a myth and is as modern as modernity gets.
how do you possibly "infringe" on beliefs???
Submitted by Arrow (not verified) on Thu, 2005-09-29 23:04.
we are offended by the idea of gay marriage and civil unions that recognise multi-partners. Thus, their efforts to have these unions recognized are infringing on our beliefs.
Infringing on beliefs? How does one do that? If you can't handle having your beliefs challenged, can't handle seeing contradictions of your beliefs and that means you can't believe what you did any more, that's your problem, not anyone else's. It's not a "right" to have everyone else conform to your beliefs. If you want that you need to go live with Amish people or some other closed-society.
Well, actually...
Submitted by Karena (not verified) on Thu, 2005-09-29 21:12.
"In your case Krist, I will forgive you for ignoring milleniums of history."
Um, first of all, technically it's *millenia* not milleniums. :\ At least according to proper pluralization of Latin nouns. But I'm just being picky.
"Of course marriage is historically based on religious beliefs."
Well, just whose beliefs are you referring to? The word marriage actually comes from the Latin words maritare and maritus. If you consider the rigidity of the Roman marriage systems, and often the lack of love, do you really want to compare so-called "ideal" marriages to that? Because that is the basis. Otherwise you must look elsewhere in the world where there is a rich variety of legal, social, and religious relationships between people.
and then some...
Submitted by Ming (not verified) on Sun, 2005-10-09 01:22.
Karena wrote: "Um, first of all, technically it's *millenia* not milleniums. :\ At least according to proper pluralization of Latin nouns. But I'm just being picky."
Not only are you being picky, you are also very wrong. Both forms are correct in the Queen's English, as any dictionary will tell you. And if you insist on commenting on other people's spelling skills, make sure that you don't make silly mistakes, such as spelling "millenniums" or "millennia" with only one "n"...
Well, the fact is you should
Submitted by ZaMM (not verified) on Thu, 2005-09-29 09:53.
Well, the fact is you should bother about the "sanctity" of YOUR OWN marriage. Isn't that enough for you? :D
I don't need "sanctity", I just pay taxes and expect society to treat me righteously. And I promise I won't mess with your marriage, dear.
Huh?
Submitted by Ming (not verified) on Wed, 2005-09-28 00:19.
How the hell did gays suddenly get mixed up in this farce you people are creating here? Is this what you people call an "intellectual" discussion? Why don't you all mind your own bloody business and let people get on with their lives the way THEY see fit? "It is not my place to judge" you say? Well, then don't! And please, PLEASE explain to me HOW on god's green earth gays are "forcing their values" on you? What ARE "their values" anyway?
because....
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2005-10-01 08:48.
this legal union of one man with two bisexual women was made possible by the gay rights lobbyists who insisted that they needed gay marriage.
Nearly everything they claim to want through changing the only definition of marriage the world has ever had is also available through forming a legal partnership, a corporation.
Gay Agenda
Submitted by Narcis Brasov (not verified) on Fri, 2005-09-30 07:54.
Gays are indeed forcing their values, by demanding to participate in an institution reserved by nature and common sense for one man and one woman. It's like the athlete who says, "I want to play football, but I'll play it with a bat." Well, you have the right to play it, but don't call it "football." That would indeed be forcing one's values (that bats are equally fine in football as not) on the game. Likewise, gays have the right their relationships, but don't call it "marriage." When they insist on invading an institution and watering it down to where it no longer means a commitment between one man and one woman, but a "loving relationship" between any number of people of any gender, that is nothing less than cramming their values down our throats.
gay agenda
Submitted by Anonymous lou MFEMFEM (not verified) on Sun, 2005-10-02 02:55.
i wholly agree with your assessment to the gays trying to cram their agenda on an institution called marriage, in which is all about a union between a woman and a man; and i might add a hetersexual woman and man.
When they insist on invading
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2005-09-30 19:40.
When they insist on invading an institution and watering it down to where it no longer means a commitment between one man and one woman...
It has not meant that since the first divorce.
I PITY THE FOOL!
Submitted by HECTOR DUARTE (not verified) on Tue, 2005-09-27 20:01.
Does this poor bastard know what he's getting himself into? I doubt it. He better have a place to hide during *that time of the month* in that household! And does he know how many times he's gonna hear *why did you leave the toilet seat up?*. What about sexual relations? No... wait... I get it....
That being said as soon as I can get Mandy Moore and Charlize Theron to agree we'll all be going to the Netherlands to legalize our union.
Holebilabelouba!
Submitted by John Fleming (not verified) on Tue, 2005-09-27 16:22.
My wife wants to marry my sister who wants also to stay married with my brother in law who has a homosexual relationship with my brother who lives with two teenagers from a first marriage with a kangooroo!!!
It that is what they want, why not?
Submitted by Krist (not verified) on Tue, 2005-09-27 08:17.
Isn't it time the authorities got out of the business of officially sanctioning what people do in their private lives altogether? A union between any number of people, in any combination of sexes and/or sexual orientations ought to be permitted, as long as all members enter it voluntarily. Contract freedom should here too exist, and the gouvernement has no business dictating which types of contracts are acceptable, which types of contract will get the official seal of approval, and which types will not.
(BTW, noticed which adds google added to the item? :-)
That would be all well and
Submitted by Greg (not verified) on Sat, 2005-10-01 11:07.
That would be all well and fine if it was kept private.
The proplem is that once these unions are recognized there are numerous benefits and entitlements that their partner('s) become eligable for.These benefits were granted as incentives for people to form family units as opposed to women simply having kids out of wedlock. If it wasn't due to the governmental benefits granted married couples this would be a non-issue. But where do we draw the line?
All I can see is greedy people who are willing to open the door to nasty divorce hearings down the road in exchange for a few benefits now.
Final thought...
It really doesn't matter what man has to say about it.
If GOD doesn't recognise it as a marriage it's not a marriage.
Hear! Hear!
Submitted by Ming (not verified) on Tue, 2005-09-27 08:25.
I fully agree with you! I think it is simply beautiful that these people have found each other and I hope that they will find happiness and prosperity!
extrapolation
Submitted by dof (not verified) on Tue, 2005-09-27 11:12.
Then again, there are also good reasons against.
What if a commune of seventeen with children splits up, are we going to give all 16 co-parents visitation rights?
What happens when a group
Submitted by Krist (not verified) on Tue, 2005-09-27 12:42.
What happens when a group splits up is up to the group. If they're smart they will have made the necessary provisions in their contract beforehand.
When a "group" splits up, it
Submitted by dof (not verified) on Tue, 2005-09-27 12:54.
When a "group" splits up, it is because they have disagreements. Common sense dictates that those disagreements may extend to what will happen to the kids.
Clearly, nothing precludes all 17 members of an ex-commune claiming and enforcing co-parent rights.
Sure. Ugly things could
Submitted by Krist (not verified) on Tue, 2005-09-27 14:09.
Sure. Ugly things could happen. But it is a law of nature that no matter what, ugly things always will happen somewhere. That should not keep us from acting on principle. In this case the principle that I want upheld is that what consenting adults do in their own time and place is their business.
If it really got ugly a judge could always step in and enforce the divorce clauses in the contract the commune members had with each other, or absent such clauses, give co-parenting right to natural parents. That ought to be easy, as there can't be more than two natural parents for each child...
duh
Submitted by dof (not verified) on Tue, 2005-09-27 15:03.
"That ought to be easy, as there can't be more than two natural parents for each child"
Only in your ideal world.
What if the parentage can not be established, because the father is one of two identical twins, both member of the commune, who had both "access" at the time of conception?
What if the child is adopted to start with? Or is it your position that these people should not qualify for adoption?
How many parents?
Submitted by Bob Doney on Tue, 2005-09-27 15:00.
That ought to be easy, as there can't be more than two natural parents for each child...
I think the biotechnologists are about to prove you wrong on this one, Krist!
By the way, you don't want any limitations on the contractual rights of consenting adults. What about the children? What are their rights?
Bob Doney
you all seem to miss on
Submitted by Krist (not verified) on Wed, 2005-09-28 14:52.
you all seem to miss on important point. Ofcourse, allowing people to decide for themselves under what domestic arrangements they want to live will cause problems. Some of them may not be trivial to solve. But that is not a reason not to allow people the freedom to live under domestic arrangements of their choice.
The alternative, allowing only certain domestic arrangements via gouvernement fiat also causes problems. Some of which are also not trivial to solve.
Nothing humans endeavor will be perfect. No arrangement is problem proof. That something might lead to problems is not in itself a sufficient reason to disallow it.
The position that people ought to be free to live the way they choose to, is one I support on principle. Because I want to be able to live the way I want to I support other peoples' right to do so too. And I reject the idea that just because it could cause problems is enough reason to limit freedom in this case.
I take similar positions on other issues. I support the right of people to possess firearms for example, even though this undeniable leads to problems at times too.
Krist
Discriiminatory
Submitted by yupie on Tue, 2005-09-27 07:43.
No doubt, the behaviour of the man violates any non-discrimination laws which would happen to exist in the Netherlands. He refuses more members in this union, at least partly because of their sexual preferences.
No doubt, soon more laws will have to be added to make it possible for courts to overrule any refused membership in this kind of unions.
One two three
Submitted by Bob Doney on Mon, 2005-09-26 23:33.
There's always one, isn't there, who takes the piss and spoils it for everyone else.
Bob Doney