Polygamy In The Netherlands

[Mike]

Heh, tell that to PETA!

I don't agree with the multiple person marriages(3 or more.) I love my wife and could never share her with anyone or share my love for her with another woman. It is just not possible for me. Sure I think two girls and a guy in bed sounds pretty hot, but really I don't think I could do it if ever put in that situation. You get to many jealousy issues and next thing you know someone gets stabbed. It'd probably be me anyways. Then the ladies would swear off men and marry each other.

I'd have to agree with Mike on that point...Monogamy, whether gay or straight is fine; Polygamy is a mockery of that trust and bond that marriage is meant to be.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Dante Myserium

I'd have to agree with Mike on that point...Monogamy, whether gay or straight is fine; Polygamy is a mockery of that trust and bond that marriage is meant to be.

How is polygamy any more a mockery of marriage than homosexual marriages are?

[Storm]

I don't think it's right. If people want to do that, then fine, thats their choice.

The thing is if you love someone its ment to be personal, having deep feelings for eachother that you both express. Making eachother feel special and happy. Helping eachother through the ups and downs of life. Giving eachother love and affection, the kind that no-one else could give. How you can be like this in a polygamic relationship is beyond me. How can you feel good and loved if there is someone else that your partner is giving his/her love too. It's not what love is about.

Homosexual marriges are fine. Though I personally don't understand how a man can be attracted to another man, and a woman to another woman, it is still love, and homosexuals can love in the same way as heterosexuals.

Thank you, Valentine. I agree; marriage is not about RELIGION. It's about LOVE.

Polygamy is essentially just legalised adultery...though I'm not sure that ever wasn't legal.

It's opening doors to ways for people to have affairs, which lead to jealousy, which leads to homicides. (that may be a little overboard, but you catch my drift.)

[Sasquatch]

Wow. That's quite a stretch.

First off, marriages are about religion. Just like they always have been. Homosexuals have their civil unions, just like everybody else -- but the only difference between a civil union and a marriage is the religion.

And as for polygamy being "legalized adultery" (which usually isn't illegal, and where it is, it's usually only illegal for women) -- it seems that it would ease any problems with affairs, as the "new girlfriend" (or "new boyfriend") would soon become the next wife/husband instead of a mistress.

[Jin]

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

but the only difference between a civil union and a marriage is the religion.

That's not true at all. In many, many countries/regions civil unions do not give the participants the same rights as a marrige would have.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Jintatsu

That's not true at all. In many, many countries/regions civil unions do not give the participants the same rights as a marrige would have.

I'm speaking of America, as that's where some of the largest pushes for homosexual marriage "rights" are currently. Though I disagree with any homosexual couple getting the same treatment as a normal couple, I don't see how the government has a right to forbid civil unions -- but marriages are more than just civil union rights, and they should be kept to what coincides with the religion.

Mark my words though, it won't be long at all before this polygamy stuff comes to America, and then after that will come pushes for marriages of younger and younger girls and boys, or marriages between family members, or marriages between people and animals. What some consider "acceptable" now was considered outrageous twenty years ago, you take what you consider outrageous now and picture that in another twenty years. It's pretty damn sick.

[Jin]

I'm speaking of America

I'm fairly certain that America is one of those countries, especially in the south.

Mark my words though, it won't be long at all before this polygamy stuff comes to America, and then after that will come pushes for marriages of younger and younger girls and boys, or marriages between family members, or marriages between people and animals. What some consider "acceptable" now was considered outrageous twenty years ago, you take what you consider outrageous now and picture that in another twenty years. It's pretty damn sick.

The fact that you care about who or what other people marry makes me laugh. Find a hobby.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Jintatsu

I'm fairly certain that America is one of those countries, especially in the south.

Not that I'm aware of, and I've done a reasonable amount of research into this subject. And please, don't talk about the South when you're ignorant of it. It's way too often somebody'll say something like "that sounds like something the South would do", as pertaining to being intolerant of homosexuals, minorities, women, whatever. Believe it or not, Bible-wielding snake charmers do not control everything below the Mason-Dixon Line.

The fact that you care about who or what other people marry makes me laugh. Find a hobby.

I care about our society, and the constant downward spiral it's been in for decades. The more "acceptance" and "tolerance" is spewed by the Politically Correct crowd, the more rejection and intolerance are aimed at those of us that do have morals. Just look at the ACLU and their war against Christianity to figure that out. There's a reason it's called the Anti-Christian Litigation Union (or Athiests, Communists, and Liars, Unscrupulous), by the way. You want to live in a country that says it's alright to do whatever you want, go ahead, but look at how much of a s***hole those countries are before you make any decisions.

[Jin]

Not that I'm aware of, and I've done a reasonable amount of research into this subject. And please, don't talk about the South when you're ignorant of it. It's way too often somebody'll say something like "that sounds like something the South would do", as pertaining to being intolerant of homosexuals, minorities, women, whatever. Believe it or not, Bible-wielding snake charmers do not control everything below the Mason-Dixon Line.

Well they didn't ban Broke Back Mountain from theaters in North Virginia. Anyways though, civil unions differ from state to state, or so I've been led to believe. If it's not, that's fine, it doesn't change anything.

I care about our society, and the constant downward spiral it's been in for decades. The more "acceptance" and "tolerance" is spewed by the Politically Correct crowd, the more rejection and intolerance are aimed at those of us that do have morals. Just look at the ACLU and their war against Christianity to figure that out. There's a reason it's called the Anti-Christian Litigation Union (or Athiests, Communists, and Liars, Unscrupulous), by the way. You want to live in a country that says it's alright to do whatever you want, go ahead, but look at how much of a s***hole those countries are before you make any decisions.

And what of people who disagree with your morals (which are certainly not set in stone)?

And you are foolishly clumping positive freedom together with negative freedom. Positive freedoms are things in which you don't have a negative effect on anyone (ie marrying more than one person). Negative freedoms are just the opposite (ie shooting someone in the face without thier permission).

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Jintatsu

Well they didn't ban Broke Back Mountain from theaters in North Virginia.

There's a North Virginia? Or a South Virginia? We must not be talking about the same country then, buddy.

Anyways though, civil unions differ from state to state, or so I've been led to believe. If it's not, that's fine, it doesn't change anything.

They do, but most are very similar, if not the same as, marriage benefits. And there's a push now, since the push for homosexual "rights" has been on, to put civil unions on an equal status as marriage, so homosexuals will be happy with their civil union status, though I highly doubt they will anyway.

And what of people who disagree with your morals (which are certainly not set in stone)?

My morals aren't set in stone? As for those who disagree with my morals -- I'm fine with that, as long as they don't try to force their lack of morals on me. Morals may not be required to run a country, but ethics certainly are, and some things are just unethical.

And you are foolishly clumping positive freedom together with negative freedom. Positive freedoms are things in which you don't have a negative effect on anyone (ie marrying more than one person). Negative freedoms are just the opposite (ie shooting someone in the face without thier permission).

That depends on which way you look at it. (...wait... So shooting somebody in the face with their permission is legal now?) So "positive freedoms" are things that don't have a negative effect on anyone -- so slaughtering animals in brutal ways, that's a "positive freedom", right? Having sex with a ten-year old is a "positive freedom" as long as it's consensual, right? Counterfeiting money, that's a "positive freedom"? Stealing from people that can afford it? If you look at it as "as long as it doesn't hurt other people", when does it become "as long as it doesn't hurt me"? Look around at all the countries that say "as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else", and then look at what they consider to be people that are important enough to matter when they're hurt.