The Future of "Marriage"? (Coming to your town?)

Hard Right ^ | September 27, 2005 | Thomas Fleming

[TradicalRC]

Three’s a Crowd Ethics 01B

It was bound to happen, but I always thought that Utah would be the place that legalized polygamy, not the Netherlands. But, as Belgian journalist Paul Belien has been pointing out, Belgium and the Netherlands are, at least so far as corruption and degeneracy are concerned, the West’s cutting-edge. His new book, A Throne in Brussels, is one of the most important political books of the past five years.

Belien’s BENELUX nightmare is coming true on schedule. Belgium and the Netherlands, which were the first countries to give marriage rights to homosexuals, will soon be enjoying one of the fruits of their culturally enriching Muslim populations: polygamy. On his excellent website, The Brussels Journal, he reports on the case of “First Trio ‘Married’ in Netherlands.” One Victor de Bruijn, has “married” two sisters in a civil service that while not quite marriage is close enough for Dutch government work. To give a sharper point to their mockery, the sisters, both practicing bisexuals, are gussied up in the traditional white lace. Victor, however, says he is “one hundred per cent heterosexual” and insists the threesome will be taking their “marriage obligations seriously.” Wait till Bianca or Mirjam introduce their pet potbellied pig.

Well, who cares? Isn’t marriage a contract between consenting adults, and after all, as we have been told by every liberal since J.S. Mill, what two people do in the privacy of their own home is none of anyone else’s business. How many errors do you spot in this argument?

[TradicalRC]

There is an old book who's title is "It Can't Happen Here". I always think of that title whenever I see some new form of social acceptance for an old form of decadence. Things always seem to follow the same pattern: some new low is accepted in the cities, or on the East and West coast or in another "more progressive" country and inevitably it gains universal acceptance. Perhaps a minority of protesters, never enough to affect the body politic, though.

So we came to approve as a society of birth control, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and now the redefinition of marriage.

Stay tuned while today's live and let live liberals become tomorrow's "But-we-didn't-mean-THIS!" extreme right wingers. Too late, you carried the torch when it was your time and well, we all know that you can't turn the clock back or get the Jinnee back into the bottle. Believe it or not, we've heard it before.

"This is not what we intended" ought to be emblazoned in latin on an official coat of arms for liberals everywhere.

[ClearCase_guy]

Marriage has been around for thousands of years. Everyone knows what it is. If we say "We can change the definition" then it opens up infinite possibilities and there is no longer any barrier to someone who says "Well, maybe this also qualifies as marriage ..."

It's like the Living Constitution. If the words on the paper mean something, then it makes sense to have a written constitution. But, if we find penumbras, and start interpreting the document with a view toward current sensibilities, then the written words contribute very little (they start getting in the way of where certain people want to go), and we might as well tear up the document and just go with what we feel at the moment.

[SunkenCiv]

---

A Throne in Brussels by Paul Belien

---

[SunkenCiv]

As long as Maury Povich and Jerry Springer are around, there will always be a market for a lack of personal integrity and personal responsibility.

Or maybe it's the other way around.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

ping

[PreviouslyA-Lurker]

I was thinking about the "sexual revolution" of the 60's & 70's just last night. I had read somewhere at sometime that the birth control pill caused or contributed heavily to the sexual revolution. But thinking about it, wouldn't there be fewer out-of-wedlock children if contraception were the driving force behind promiscuity? I think the change in morality came in a large part from recreational drugs, it changes people's perception of reality. And as you've said it is a Pandora's box.

[kipita]

One Victor de Bruijn, has “married” two sisters in a civil service that while not quite marriage is close enough for Dutch government work. To give a sharper point to their mockery, the sisters, both practicing bisexuals, are gussied up in the traditional white lace. Victor, however, says he is “one hundred per cent heterosexual” and insists the threesome will be taking their “marriage obligations seriously.”

Quite normal there.........

[Convert from ECUSA]

Really. Some 30-33 years ago, Povich was a big local news/talkshow character on the local Washington DC (WTTG) TV station. He was a typical late sixties/early seventies liberal. He never got out of that rut. I could tolerate him back then, but not now. My "moderate" Democratism died in 1978 when Jimmuh Cahhhter (a total disgrace to the South, the scalawag) started screwing over Israel; the Iranian mess a year later did me in for him and all Dems (except Zell Miller).